Are Some Countries More Prone to Pressure Evaluators Than Others? Comparing Findings From the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Switzerland

Abstract

Pressure on evaluators has been investigated recently by surveys in the USA, the UK, Germany, and Switzerland. This study compares the results of those studies regarding pressure on evaluators in different countries. The findings suggest that independence of evaluations does not exist for many respondents. Moreover, the person who commissioned the evaluator for evaluation is identified by all studies as the primary influencing stakeholder in the evaluation process. In terms of differences, Germany seems to be more prone to pressure on evaluators. However, German evaluators do not show stronger tendencies to surrender to pressure than the other countries' respondents. We suggest that this pattern may be explained by the strong state tradition in Germany as opposed to the U.S. and Switzerland, in conjunction with evaluators' profession-based, principled resistance to such pressure.

Policy research under pressure: the case of the Ministry of Justice in the Netherlands

“…5 This means that some lessons from the WODC case may also apply to university researchers (commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security). Finally, the findings from the WODC case echo important findings from previous case studies in the US, the UK, Germany and Switzerland (see, e.g., Pleger et al, 2017). This suggests that some of the general lessons from the WODC case may also be relevant outside the Netherlands.…”

“…In this study, only 17% of the respondents said they had experienced no pressure from government officials throughout the evaluation process. Based on these studies from the US and the UKplus two other similar studies from Germany (Stockmann et al, 2011) and Switzerland (Pleger & Sager, 2016) -Pleger et al (2017) conclude that 'independence of evaluations does not exist for many respondents' and that 'pressure to misrepresent findings is common in evaluation' (Pleger et al, 2017, p. 321).…”

Explaining the political use of evaluation in international organizations

“…The results indicate what percentage of all statements on political evaluation use (made by all interviewees) were directed either to the interests of the member states or the IPA findings therefore remain generic, we expect nonetheless that the dynamics theorized and described in this paper should have substantive implications, both for actual evaluation research and reports (see for instance the results by van Voorst and Mastenbroek 2019) and for policy decisions (see also the substantive evidence about pressure on evaluators; (cf. Pleger et al 2017). Whereas other research designs are necessary to answer detailed questions about policy outcomes, the empirical merit of this paper is in-depth insights from main evaluation stakeholders, particularly evaluation unit experts.…”

“…This essentially follows a functionalist logic, where policy-makers seek effectiveness and efficiency, evaluation being one of the measures they take. Yet, in the political reality of public organizations, evaluation finds itself caught between stakeholder struggles for interests and power (Azzam 2010;Bjornholt and Larsen 2014;Morris and Clark 2013;Pleger et al 2017;Taylor and Balloch 2005;Wildavsky 1972;Weiss 1998). For instance, evaluation results may be helpful in justifying actors' bargaining positions on policy decisions: "Whenever an evaluation affects the future allocation of resources and, hence, a change in power relationships, it is a political activity" (Wergin 1976, p. 76).…”

An Analysis of Evaluation Methods Implemented in Studies Published in the Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education from 1994 to 2018: A 25 Year Review

“…Many researchers involved with the Association of International Agricultural and Extension Education (AIAEE) have utilized various evaluation methods. Published evaluation studies focused on approaches such as participatory evaluation (Chouinard, 2013), influences such as pressure on evaluators (Pleger, Sager, Morris, Meyer, & Stockmann, 2017), and settings such as in developing countries (Hansen, Klejnstrup, & Andersen, 2013) can facilitate the design of effective evaluations. As the discipline prepares to celebrate 25 years of knowledge dissemination for the Journal of International Agricultural Extension Education, it is appropriate that we analyze our evaluation methods for published articles during that time.…”