Assessment of effect – other potential perspectives

So far only the traditional rational/instrumental view on the assessment of effects has been established. When evaluations are exposed to assessment, other perspectives may, however, also be established – perspectives which to a much greater extent challenge our perception of what evaluations are good for and what function they fulfil. Some of these perspectives are presented in the following.

A political perspective

Since national evaluations are established to pass controlling information to the authorities among other things, and from a controlling perspective, you may, however, claim that the effects of an evaluation should be linked ‘back’ to this starting point instead. Instead of asking the question whether the evaluations have contributed to changes at the institutions, the question should be phrased as to what extent the evaluations have had effects at the political level. Will politicians use the output from the evaluations? Are politicians satisfied with how the evaluations operate as a control instrument?

A typical finding in national evaluations is that they often to a limited extent are ‘applied’ by the authorities that commission them (see e.g. Sandberg et al 2002). This does not mean that the evaluations cannot affect this perspective too. The policy is, as in many other fields, exposed to increased ‘control’ and a ‘good’ effect in such a perspective would for example be that politicians obtained credit and positive feedback from various players at the evaluation institutes in general (the fact that you try to ‘measure’ quality may, in a political perspective, indicate that you try to ‘do something’ for the quality). In Denmark it is possible to suggest that

this is a view for example that the political authorities adopted when EVA was established in 1998/99 (UFK 1998).

In this perspective the variable effect is thus attributed to what extent the evaluations

contribute to support the control ideology of the political authorities, and how the evaluations make current policies in education legitimate.

A market perspective

An alternative perspective to the effects of the evaluations is to consider the evaluations a form of ‘user information’ – the purpose of which is ultimately to offer the students the best

conditions for learning as possible, and to pass the information to the parents about where their child should study, or to inform potential employers about the candidates they should take on the payroll. In such a perspective the effects should rather be measured in relation to the existing ‘educational market’. As mentioned above it is difficult to find studies that show that national evaluations are of direct importance to the students’ output from their learning (Stensaker 2003). Likewise, it is difficult to find studies that show that evaluations (especially those rating institutions) are important for the students' choice of institution. In the light of the increased use of ‘the market metaphor’ in the educational sector it is, however, highly probable that this perspective will become increasingly more important in the coming years.

In this perspective the variable effect will be attributed to the concept of relevance to a much larger extent, and how the evaluations contribute to the strengthening of the educational programme’s relevance to various ‘users/consumers’ within this sector. In the effect studies conducted in Denmark, this perspective is only taken into account to a limited extent although the design of evaluations in Denmark has integrated such thinking in the form of the user surveys that are regularly conducted.

A post-modern perspective

It is also possible to establish an ironic – we can call it post-modern – perspective as to how the effects of the evaluation business in Denmark can be assessed. If your starting point is more recent (newly institutionalised) organisational thinking, the most important effect of the evaluations is not that the students, the politicians or the establishments are satisfied with the evaluations, but that EVA is considered an important institute by other players in education, something that can ensure that EVA will survive in the long run.

When EVA was established in the mid-90s and had to justify its existence to the players within the sector, this line of thinking – tied with its own importance and survival – was relatively clear. In the self evaluation report that was formulated in 1998 it was not least emphasised how important it was that the evaluations appeared as ‘reliable’ (EVA 1998: 25), an indication that the institute at that time clearly emphasised how important it was that the design of the evaluations was considered serious and impeccable. That EVA in its methods applies a large number of data sources is not necessary just an expression of the wish to prepare the best evaluations possible, but may also be interpreted as a need to acquire a good profile so you become an establishment that the Danish educational system cannot do without.

Some important effects in such a perspective would be attributed to others’ perception of EVA's importance to ensure and improve the quality of higher education in Denmark. In order to achieve such effects you should not underestimate the need to prepare ‘extensive’

evaluation reports, establish thorough and systematic routines on how to conduct an evaluation and be careful that no players be ‘forgotten’ in the evaluation process. Although EVA is now a permanent body, it will sooner or later be confronted with the question of ‘cost-benefit’ of conducting evaluations - i.e. whether the costs of evaluations are in excess of the benefits. This perspective might be ironical, but it may easily become a regular one in the future.

What is the use of all these perspectives?

The purpose behind the illustration of alternative perspectives as to what evaluations are ‘good’

for and to identify how effects are changing since you attribute the purpose of the evaluation to various interests, is first and foremost to show that the simplified target-means thinking that are often used to describe evaluations and studies of the effects thereof should be abandoned, and instead use the effect studies to a more random analysis of the context of which the evaluations form part. As the Danish researcher in evaluations Dahler-Larsen (2000:167) so strikingly indicated, evaluations help ‘constitute reality’ – and effect studies of the same evaluations often have the same impact.

Moreover, it can be argued that there are plenty of reasons to challenge such ‘constituted reality’. If the effects of various forms of evaluations should be studied again in the time to come, the use of many of the perspectives could increase the benefit from such studies:

Much more discussion and reflection on the evaluations and their objectives could be generated to a larger extent. The institutions have clearly experienced that there is more discussion and reflection on their business after the evaluations were conducted,

something that has contributed to starting off new change processes. Maybe time is ripe to stimulate more discussion and reflection in the evaluation processes too? Evaluation can be seen as a form of systematic dialogue between society and the educational sector that might become even more open to the political skills arena. An effect can attract more attention and involvement in these processes for various players.

You may contribute much more to (further) develop EVA as a ‘learning organisation’

where even more motivation, development orientation and reflection practice with the staff can become the final result. Like Askling et al (1998) indicated in a former

assessment of EVA, the challenge to the organisation has not traditionally been attributed to ‘technical operation’ competencies, but the need to add wider competencies than you have time for in busy everyday life. Since follow-up is not for EVA to perform by definition, though EVA has in indirect responsibility thereof (since improvement is part of the purpose behind the evaluations) - the effect studies can be used to assist the establishment in their follow-ups (what are the circumstances that improve/hamper follow-ups on evaluations?).

You may also benefit from taking various perspectives if you have an ambition to be on the cutting edge of the trends in society and to further develop evaluations used as a controlling instrument in more general terms. Not least is it highly probable that the demands for insight, openness, legitimacy and ‘market orientation’ will be strengthened in the coming years, and that the demands will also affect what are considered ‘good’

evaluations. If the evaluations are not changed in line with society’s view of value, they may easily become outdated control processes. You may claim that some control measures have just become ‘obsolete’ because they possess features which society no longer consider relevant (see e.g. Stensaker 1998).

5.4 Conclusion

Like Askling et al (1998) have emphasised before, EVA as an organisation finds itself in

between academic subjects and politics – where stakeholders from both worlds make demands for the business that EVA runs. The challenge for EVA – both before, now and in the time to come – is to identify and develop its business in ways that will please both worlds. This means that not only should the evaluation business be conducted in a ‘balanced way’ – but the effects of the evaluations should also include such balance.

5.5 References

Askling, B., Nordskov Nielsen, L., & Stensaker, B. (1998) Mellom fag og politikk. En granskning av Evalueringscenteret og det danske evalueringssystemet for høyere utdanning.

Undervisningsministeriet, København.

Dahler-Larsen, P. (2000) Den rituelle reflektion – om evaluering i organisationer. Odense Universitetsforlag, Odense.

Evalueringscenteret (1998) Selvevalueringsrapport. København.

Jeliazkova, M. & Westerheijden, D.F. (2001) A next generation of quality assurance models. On phases, levels and circles in policy development. Paper presented at the CHER-conference in Dijon, 2-4 September.

Massy, W.F. (1999) Energizing Quality Work: Higher Education Quality Evaluation in Sweden and Denmark. National Center for postsecondary Improvement, Stanford University, Stanford.

PLS-Consult (1998) Undersøkelse af effekterne af uddannelsesevalueringer. København.

Sandberg, N., Stensaker, B. & Aamodt, P.O. (2002) Evaluation in policy implementation: an insider report. Public Sector Management, 15(1), pp. 44-54.

Stensaker, B. (1998) Culture and fashion in reform implementation: perceptions and

adaptations of management reforms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 20(2), pp. 129-138.

Stensaker, B. (2003) Trance, transparency and transformation: the effect of external quality monitoring on higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 9(2), pp. 151-159.

UFK (1998) Kvalitet og ansvar. Fremtidens kvalitetsoppgaver indenfor de videregående uddannelser. Undervisningsministeriet, København.

Appendix A