Chapter 5: The Value of Clear Thinking About Evaluation Theory: The Example of Use and influence

When contemplating the question, “How can evaluation use lead to better decision-making in society?” evaluators may well stumble on the word use. Use is a term frequently discussed in evaluation circles and one that the field used (no pun intended) to take for granted as well researched and widely understood. Scholars and practitioners alike have read the evaluation literature that discusses use and cites use research as if it is a given, somewhat akin to gravity. They also appear to have mostly accepted its successor, influence, as an improvement on the initial term. Like most in the field, we too accepted use and influence as viable theoretical concepts until a brilliant colleague in our department challenged our assumptions around theory in the field. At our urging, Richard Dean (Dick) Nunneley, Jr., who died tragically in 2010 at the age of 56, made repeated forays into the evaluation literature, and each time he left chagrined. “How can a field hope to move forward when its theory is so poorly argued?” he would ask us with his characteristic Oklahoma twang. Nunneley patiently led us through the explanation that much of what we accepted as “theory” in evaluation was not viable theory at all, using the writing on use/influence to show us the problems in our field’s theoretical development and discourse. The pragmatic promise of creating an improved society through the use of evaluation processes and findings would never come to fruition with this status quo, he reminded us on more than one occasion.