Evaluations are an opportunity for stakeholders and evaluators to create dialogue over the processes, decisions, and methods used in a program to generate a specific outcome- in order words, work with the organization to ensure those desires are met. However, what role does language play in how we conceptualize the purpose of an evaluation? This role of language is the dilemma that I want to dissect briefly throughout the rest of this position statement. I will be referencing Kirkhart’s article titled, “Reconceptualizing Evaluation Use: An Integrated Theory of Influence”, Saunder’s article, “The use and usability of evaluation outputs: A social practice approach”, and Shulha and Cousins article, Evaluation Use: Theory, Research, and Practice Since 1986” in hopes of arguing the importance of effective word choice when describing what it is exactly we are doing as evaluators. I agree with Kirkhat when she argues that by using the word “use”, in evaluation theories we are limiting the purpose of an evaluation, especially if we see the purpose of an evaluation as means of achieving positive change for the organization. Kirkhart recommends that the word “influence” be used as opposed to “use” or “utilization” as it is “broader”, less” linear and unidimensional” and implies the ability of something to produce effects – essentially our goal of evaluators (Kirkhart, 2000). However, I take this argument further and posit that the dilemma lies in what we think our role is. Since language plays such a great role in the process of evaluations, and we are advocating for the use of “influence” as the appropriate terminology when evaluating programs (looking at sources, intentions and implementation of activities), we need to realize that we are then looking at the program from the eyes of multiple stakeholders, not just from our eyes.  By working with multiple perspectives, we are essentially not only building the opportunity for open dialogue between all stakeholders and evaluators, but we are facilitating collaboration. Additionally, our job also is not to lose focus on what exactly needs to be improved upon in the program, and in what part of the evaluation it comes into play (the process, or the outcome). There’s no dilemma in this right? Wrong. If we, the evaluators are looking at the whole picture, and not just focusing on a typical linear model of evaluation such as:

​

​

 

Intervention-determinants-outcome

​

 

then we need to first begin with shifting our mindset around the purpose of evaluations before we choose  appropriate terminology to actually begin to evaluate the program, because quite frankly, if we don’t understand our role, then how we can evaluate properly? We need to begin with realizing that our role is not “unidimensional”; it is not simply to report on the “use of an evaluation output” but our role is to provide knowledge on the usability-how the program is designed to create change (Saunders, 2012). Thus, evaluations need to be seen as a “knowledge resource” for the organization/program to implement positive change, not just another piece of information we throw in the back of our memories; theory needs to be translated into practice! If we recognize the influential power of evaluations, then we will easily be able to swap the word “use” for “influence”, however if at first, we ourselves, the evaluators, are not clear on what our roles are, how can we be effective?

 

​

​

​

 Sources:

​

Kirkhart, K. E. (2000). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. In V. Caracelli and H. Preskill (Eds.), The expanding scope of evaluation use. New Directions for Evaluation, 88 (pp.5-23). San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.

​

Saunders, M. (2012). The use and usability of evaluation outputs: A social practical approach. Evaluation, 18(4), 421-436

​

Shulha, L., & Cousins, B. (1997). Evaluation use: Theory, research and practice since 1986. Evaluation Practice, 18, 195-208.