Evaluation Paradoxes: Responding to Tensions Between Stability and Change in Social Investment Evaluation

The relationship between stability and change is a central paradox of administration that pervades all forms of organizing. Evaluation is not unfamiliar with paradoxical objectives and roles, which can result in tensions for evaluators and stakeholders. In this article, paradoxes between stability and change in the implementation of evaluation, and responses to them, are investigated through the case of social investment funds in Swedish local government. From interviews with staff, managers, and evaluators, findings show how responses to four main paradoxes give priority to top-down summative evaluation that produces instrumental knowledge on outcomes and costs for decision makers. The responses show that the concept of social investment fund evaluation is elastic to contain paradoxes and address different audiences. Also, paradoxes within the structure of the organization develop into paradoxes concerning the roles and goals of evaluation, raising the question of whether individual actors can deal with paradoxes.