IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v73y2019icp88-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is evaluation obsolete in a post-truth world?

Author

Listed:
  • Picciotto, Robert

Abstract

The contemporary post-truth phenomenon is characterised by denial of facts and tolerance of politicians’ lies. It has enhanced the appeal of authoritarian and nationalist leaders as a populist reaction to policy failures. While emerging market countries hugely benefited from globalization, the hourly wages of working people in high-income countries have stagnated while inequality has surged, and environmental stresses have escalated. Post-truth dispositions are distorting decision making in the public sphere and they have increased public distrust of knowledge professionals. This is likely to aggravate the very problems that gave rise to the post-truth phenomenon. Evaluation can help reverse the trends that underlie voters’ anxieties, amplification of tribal prejudices and appeals to national pride through sound advice, transparency and public education. This will require new evaluation policy directions. Evaluation internationalization, diversification, democratization and professionalization will have to take place simultaneously.

Suggested Citation

  • Picciotto, Robert, 2019. "Is evaluation obsolete in a post-truth world?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 88-96.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:73:y:2019:i:c:p:88-96
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.12.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971891830329X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.12.006?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. Pedro Olinto & Jaime Saavedra, 2012. "An Overview of Global Income Inequality Trends," World Bank - Inequality in Focus, The World Bank, vol. 1(1), pages 1-4, April.
    2. Otker-Robe, Inci & Podpiera, Anca Maria, 2013. "The social impact of financial crises: evidence from the global financial crisis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6703, The World Bank.
    3. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Picciotto, Robert, 2021. "Evaluation as a social practice: Disenchantment, rationalities and ethics," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Kooli, Chokri, 2019. "Governing and managing higher education institutions: The quality audit contributions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    3. Karolina Nowak, 2020. "The state of truth in the context of globalization," Ekonomia i Prawo, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 19(1), pages 85-97, March.

    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.
    1. Benjamin Johnson & Tianze Sun & Daniel Stjepanović & Giang Vu & Gary C. K. Chan, 2023. "“Buy High, Sell Low”: A Qualitative Study of Cryptocurrency Traders Who Experience Harm," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Lifshitz, Chen Chana, 2017. "Fostering employability among youth at-risk in a multi-cultural context: Insights from a pilot intervention program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 20-34.
    3. LaVelle, John M. & Davies, Randall, 2021. "Seeking consensus: Defining foundational concepts for a graduate level introductory program evaluation course," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. Yasuyuki Sawada, 2017. "Disasters, Household Decisions, and Insurance Mechanisms: A Review of Evidence and a Case Study from a Developing Country in Asia," Asian Economic Policy Review, Japan Center for Economic Research, vol. 12(1), pages 18-40, January.
    5. Melz, Heidi & Fromknecht, Anne E. & Masters, Loren D. & Richards, Tammy & Sun, Jing, 2023. "Incorporating multiple data sources to assess changes in organizational capacity in child welfare systems," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. Wingate, Lori A. & Smith, Nick L. & Perk, Emma, 2018. "The project vita: A dynamic knowledge management tool," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 22-27.
    7. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    8. Moreno-Maldonado, C. & Jiménez-Iglesias, A. & Camacho, I. & Rivera, F. & Moreno, C. & Matos, M.G., 2020. "Factors associated with life satisfaction of adolescents living with employed and unemployed parents in Spain and Portugal: A person focused approach," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    9. Arbour, Ghislain, 2020. "Teaching programme evaluation: A problem of knowledge," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    10. Jan Činčera & Grzegorz Mikusiński & Bohuslav Binka & Luis Calafate & Cristina Calheiros & Alexandra Cardoso & Marcus Hedblom & Michael Jones & Alex Koutsouris & Clara Vasconcelos & Katarzyna Iwińska, 2019. "Managing Diversity: The Challenges of Inter-University Cooperation in Sustainability Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    11. Daigneault, Pierre-Marc, 2014. "Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 171-181.
    12. Jacques Fontanel, 2017. "La globalisation économique, un rapport de forces entre Etats et intérêts privés producteur d’inégalités, de conflits et de guerres économiques," Working Papers hal-02179483, HAL.
    13. Kupiec, Tomasz, 2022. "Does evaluation quality matter? Quantitative analysis of the use of evaluation findings in the field of cohesion policy in Poland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    14. Gullickson, Amy M. & King, Jean A. & LaVelle, John M. & Clinton, Janet M., 2019. "The current state of evaluator education: A situation analysis and call to action," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 20-30.
    15. Harman, Elena & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "Incorporating public values into evaluative criteria: Using crowdsourcing to identify criteria and standards," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-82.
    16. Pleasant, Andrew & O’Leary, Catina & Carmona, Richard H., 2020. "Using formative research to tailor a community intervention focused on the prevention of chronic disease," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    17. Bean, Corliss N. & Kendellen, Kelsey & Halsall, Tanya & Forneris, Tanya, 2015. "Putting program evaluation into practice: Enhancing the Girls Just Wanna Have Fun program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 31-40.
    18. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    19. Bundi, Pirmin, 2018. "Parliamentarians’ strategies for policy evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 130-138.
    20. Ozeki, Satoshi & Coryn, Chris L.S. & Schröter, Daniela C., 2019. "Evaluation logic in practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-1.

    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:73:y:2019:i:c:p:88-96. 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.