@article{ref1,
title="Conflict versus consensus models in policy evaluation and implementation",
journal="Evaluation and program planning",
year="1993",
author="Palumbo, Dennis J. and Hallett, Michael A.",
volume="16",
number="1",
pages="11-23",
abstract="Evaluators serve many masters whose interests do not always coincide. Traditional evaluation approaches, such as evaluability assessment and utilization-focused evaluation, assume that a consensus can be reached among &quot;key policymakers, managers, and staff&quot; about what goals should guide a program and about how well it is being implemented and what impact it is having. However, the two evaluations that are described in this paper show that this consensus model is inappropriate in many cases because there is not a single &quot;reality&quot; about programs. There are often multiple realities that are socially constructed by different stakeholders, and these realities often are in conflict. The two evaluations that are described are juvenile programs (one public and one private) for females, and a home arrest program using electronic monitoring. In the first, implementors disagreed about whether control and security should receive priority or treatment and rehabilitation. In the second, some policy formulators stressed lowering costs of corrections, others stressed public safety, and still others emphasized diverting offenders from prison. Also, different implementors gave priority to various goals, such as control and discipline, intermediate punishment and increasing options for corrections, and treatment and rehabilitation. Given these multiple and conflicting interpretations, a constructionist approach to evaluation is much more appropriate than a traditional, positivist consensus model.<p />",
language="",
issn="0149-7189",
doi="10.1016/0149-7189(93)90033-5",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(93)90033-5"
}