Evaluation Utilization as Argumentation Experiences from a Metaevalution Study on Agency- Level Evaluations in Finland

In this paper, an argumentative view on evaluation utilization is being presented. Rather than regarding evaluation information as undisputable knowledge it is viewed as collection of arguments, which can be debated, accepted and disputed. Evaluations consist of three kinds of statements: claims of fact, summative value judgements and formative action recommendations. These claims become objects of individual interpretation, collective argumentation and decision-making in interactional contexts. The argumentative nature of evaluation utilization is illustrated with examples taken from a meta-evaluation study conducted at University of Helsinki. Evaluations of 12 governmental agencies representing different policy sectors and different kinds of evaluation designs were selected for an analysis. The results of the study indicate that in most cases the evaluations have generated concrete actions in agencies under focus and/or within the supervising departments. The explanatory factors for different degrees and types of utilization and subsequently for different roles of evaluations are located in the overall context of the agencies under focus. Two contextual dimensions seem to have had profound effects on the argumentation concerning evaluation results: the degree of pressure for change and the relation between conflict and consensus