Evaluation utilization is discussed in this article from an argumentative perspective. Rather than regarding evaluative information as indisputable knowledge, it is viewed as a collection of arguments, which can be debated, accepted and disputed. Approaching from this perspective, evaluations consist of different kinds of statements, which become matters of individual interpretation, collective argumentation and decision making in interactional contexts. Subsequently, a general framework for studying argumentation in evaluation will be proposed. The argumentative nature of evaluation utilization is then illustrated with empirical material from evaluations of government agencies in Finland. The article concludes by discussing the implications of the evaluation context for argumentation: two dimensions, the degree of pressure for change and the relation between conflict and consensus, seem to profoundly affect the role evaluations play within the management environment of the agencies.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 77 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.