ABSTRACT
Evaluation is often thought to be the process by which we form judgements about the value of things like guidance. Considered in this way, it is easy enough to identify examples of ‘pseudo-evaluation’ (Suchman, 1972): the ‘eyewash’ of favourable but superficial description, and the ‘whitewash’ which obscures faults; the empty ritual, means of postponing decisions, or way of justifying decisions that have already been taken. Evaluation is tangled up in the macro-politics of national resource allocation and the micro-politics of organisational preferment. For this reason it may be done in outright bad faith, although the reality may more often be that the evaluator is led to bias the outcome without being fully conscious of what is happening. Here, we are concerned with the attempt to do it in good faith and the techniques we can use to minimise the possibility of self-deceit. We shall first consider the scope of evaluation, before looking at the way in which process and outcome evaluation respectively are done and the methodological difficulties they encounter. We shall then go on briefly to consider the connection of evaluation to the task of quality assurance in guidance, and conclude by considering the ways in which practitioners can use it.
