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

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Evaluation Paradoxes: Responding to Tensions between Stability and Change in Social Investment Evaluation
Language: English
Authors: Kettil Nordesjö (ORCID 0000-0003-3565-6563)
Source: American Journal of Evaluation. 2024 45(4):519-535.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Logical Thinking, Philosophy, Evaluation, Social Capital, Reliability, Change, Local Government, School Funds, Evaluators, Administrators, Employees, Decision Making, Costs, Outcomes of Education, Organization, Foreign Countries, Municipalities, Community Problems, Governance, Attitudes, Educational Change
Geographic Terms: Sweden
DOI: 10.1177/10982140231185741
ISSN: 1098-2140
1557-0878
Abstract: 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.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1452347
Database: ERIC
Be the first to leave a comment!
You must be logged in first