94
E. Albaek
University of Aarhus, Denmark
0 Blackwell Publishers Ltd and Flireningrn Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare 1998.
Published by Blnckwell Publishcrs, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 IJF. UK and 3.50 Malden Street, Malden M A 02148, USA
0 Blackwell Publishers lard and Foreningen Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare 1998
95
Albaek
96
0 Blackwell Publishers Ltd and Wreningen Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare 199R
lessons learned
The history of evaluation has increased our awareness
of the many stakeholders divergent substantial
interests (for example, psychologists and doctors
often have quite different theoretical and professional
approaches to the treatment of mental patients) as well
as of institutional interests (budget maximizing and
turf protection). Different stakeholders will have
different knowledge interests, among other reasons
because the way the public sector is structured and
functions is not legitimized by one but by several and
often conflicting govern an ce pr i n c i p le s : the
Q Blackwell Publishers Ltd and Foreningen Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare 1998
97
AIbaek
parliamentary chain of governance, professionalism,
corporatism, local government, market logic, and
users right to participate in the governance of
institutions that have an impact on their lives. This
means that evaluation stakeholders will have some
knowledge interests in common, but at the same time
they will have knowledge interests which are specific
to them and sometimes in conflict with others
knowledge interests (Albaek, 1996). Some evaluation
designs and methods are better suited to accommodate
some stakeholders information needs that others.
This is one of the reasons that so many different
meanings are attached to, and so many bitter battles
are fought over, the concept of evaluation that it is
sometimes hard to figure out that it is one and the
same phenomenon. Still, there is no one-to-one
correspondence between evaluation theory, design
and method on the one hand and stakeholders
knowledge interests on the other. For instance,
empowerment evaluation may be legitimized both
from a public choice (sympathy with consumer
preferences) and a participatory democratic point of
view (users right to form their own lives). And the
strategically most conscious top-down control
evaluation would negotiate a constructed agreement
with implementing agencies on acceptable evaluation
standards in order to reduce the latters post-evaluation
room of critical maneuvering.
The bottom line - as seen by a political scientist - is
this: only in the best of all worlds can everybody be
satisfied. But we do not live in that world. And we
never will. Therefore we have to take politics seriously
- in evaluation theory and in practice.
Refecences
Albaek E (1995). Policy evaluation: design and utilization. In:
Rist RC, ed. Policy Evaluation: Linking Theory to Practice.
Aldershot, Edward Elgar.
Albrek E (1996). Why all this evaluation? Theoretical notes and
empirical observations on the functions and growth of
evaluation with Denmark as illustrative case. Canadian
Journal of Program Evaluation, 1 l(2): 1-34.
Alber J (1988). Is there a crisis of the welfare state? Crossnational evidence from Europe, North America, and Japan.
European Sociological Review 4(3): 18 1-207.
Bryk AS, ed. ( 1 983). Stakeholder-based evaluation. San
98
8 Blackwell Publishers Ltd and Fiireningen Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare 1998