IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v69y2018icp166-172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Betterment, undermining, support and distortion: A heuristic model for the analysis of pressure on evaluators

Author

Listed:
  • Pleger, Lyn
  • Sager, Fritz

Abstract

Evaluations can only serve as a neutral evidence base for policy decision-making as long as they have not been altered along non-scientific criteria. Studies show that evaluators are repeatedly put under pressure to deliver results in line with given expectations. The study of pressure and influence to misrepresent findings is hence an important research strand for the development of evaluation praxis. A conceptual challenge in the area of evaluation ethics research is the fact that pressure can be not only negative, but also positive. We develop a heuristic model of influence on evaluations that does justice to this ambivalence of influence: the BUSD-model (betterment, undermining, support, distortion). The model is based on the distinction of two dimensions, namely ‘explicitness of pressure’ and ‘direction of influence’. We demonstrate how the model can be applied to understand pressure and offer a practical tool to distinguish positive from negative influence in the form of three so-called differentiators (awareness, accordance, intention). The differentiators comprise a practical component by assisting evaluators who are confronted with influence.

Suggested Citation

  • Pleger, Lyn & Sager, Fritz, 2018. "Betterment, undermining, support and distortion: A heuristic model for the analysis of pressure on evaluators," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 166-172.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:69:y:2018:i:c:p:166-172
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.09.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718916301276
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.09.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Morris & Robin Cohn, 1993. "Program Evaluators and Ethical Challenges," Evaluation Review, , vol. 17(6), pages 621-642, December.
    2. McKillip, Jack & Garberg, Roger, 1986. "Demands of the joint committee's standards for educational evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 325-333, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:69:y:2018:i:c:p:166-172. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.