Chapter 4: Persuasive Language, Responsive Design: A Framework for Interculturally Responsive Evaluation

The authors of scientific reports and similar papers often think that if they merely report certain experiments, mention certain facts, or enunciate a certain number of truths, this is enough of itself to automatically arouse the interest of their hearers or readers. This attitude rests on the illusion, widespread in certain rationalistic and scientific circles, that facts speak for themselves and make such an indelible imprint on any human mind that the latter is forced to give its adherence regardless of its inclination. (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyeca, 1969)

Regardless of strategy, purpose, or who is involved, evaluations are done to support decision making. Whether a decision to continue or terminate a program or activity, determine quality or merit in current practice, alter program design and implementation, or simply confirm and support the way the object is perceived, evaluation supports action that is facilitated by a better understanding of the object of the evaluation (evaluand). Sometimes the evaluation seeks to impact decisions to be made by program participants and staff; more often the intended decision-making groups are sponsors or others external to day-to-day program operations. Despite evaluator recognition of a responsibility to serve the interests of decision-makers and other stakeholders, the field has yet to develop a corresponding sense of responsibility for how the design of the evaluation and communication of findings, issues, and recommendations unequally empower various stakeholder groups and may completely disenfranchise others. This differential impact comes both from the manner in which evidence is identified and collected, as well as results communicated. The operating assumption implicit in evaluation practice is that through use of scientifically tinged methodology, evaluations stand on their own merit as useful tools to decision-makers regardless of which stakeholder groups are involved. With this “scientific” orientation and faith in the universal appeal of rigorous methodology, evaluation succumbs to the double fallacy that facts speak for themselves, and they speak with equal clarity, utility, credibility, and urgency to all who encounter them. From this perspective an inability to find meaning in evaluation outcomes is often assumed to be the result of a problem within the stakeholder group, rather than acknowledged as an issue for the evaluation.