AES 2015 International Evaluation Conference

Julian Thomas (Urbis), Claire Grealy (Urbis), Linda Kurti (Urbis)

Evaluation is commonly distinguished from research through its focus on improvement of the subject program, while research seeks to test a theory or hypothesis. Where research seeks to be value-free, evaluators apply evaluative judgement to developing findings and recommendations from the empirical data. 

Making evaluative judgements about program outcomes is known to be an inherently values-laden exercise, yet conscious examination of the values influencing program and evaluation design is not always evident. The values held by those designing programs and commissioning evaluations continue to poorly articulated, while  influencing the definition of program outcomes, how success is conceptualised, and which forms of evidence are given greater credence. 

Similarly, evaluation practitioners bring their own values to bear on the development of evaluative questions and methods, the interpretation of data and the generation of findings and recommendations. 

Differences in value frames can lead to the misalignment of expectations and potentially to conflict - both within programs implementation and within evaluative work. This paper builds on the premise that better-practice evaluation requires that evaluators make core to evaluation design the explicit interrogation of values.

Two contrasting approaches to conceptualising value in evaluation are examined as case studies. These include an exploration of the role of Public Value in the evaluation of government programs, and the application of the Social Return on Investment approach. Each of these cases draws on a different value paradigm.

This paper is intended to provoke reflection among evaluation practitioners and commissioners, providing insights into innovative and cross-disciplinary thinking to tell the 'value story' through evaluation.