Deliberative Democratic Evaluation

Inclusion

The first principle of deliberative democratic evaluation is the inclusion of all relevant interests in the [Page 105]study. It would not be right for evaluators to provide evaluations to only the most powerful or sell them to the highest bidders, thus biasing the evaluation toward some particular interests. It would also not be right to let sponsors revise findings so they could delete parts they did not like or enhance findings with self-serving additions. These are conditions of use that evaluators should not condone.

The basic tenet of democracy is that all legitimate, relevant interests should be included in decisions that affect those interests. This principle separates democracy from other forms of government. When only a few people decide social policy, then an aristocracy, plutocracy, or technocracy exists, depending on whether talent, money, or expertise is the source of authority. Evaluation in democratic societies should be explicitly democratic, and evaluative expertise has an important role to play.

Evaluation studies should aspire to accurate representations of states of affairs, not rhetorical devices for furthering the interests of some over others. The interests of all stakeholders are central, and the interests of all relevant parties should be considered. If relevant interests are not included, we have a biased evaluation in which some voices have been excluded.

Among the main threats to democratic decisions are those of power imbalances. Power imbalances are endemic, and it is easy to see how they can distort evaluations. The powerful may dominate the discussions, or those without power may not be represented. There must be some minimal balance and equality of power for proper deliberation to occur in democracies, and this is true in evaluations as well. Evaluators should design evaluations so that relevant interests are represented and so that there is some balance of power among them, which sometimes may mean representing the interests of those who have been excluded in the discussions, as those interests are most likely to be overlooked. Deliberation should be based on discussion of merits, not on the social status or political power of participants.

Of course, determining and weighing interests is complex. Not all interests have the same moral force. Interests attached to genuine needs are morally weightier. An interest might be defined as anything conducive to the achievement of an agent's wants, needs, or purposes. A need is anything (contingently or absolutely) necessary to the survival or well-being of an agent, whether the agent currently possesses it or not. Satisfaction of a need, in contrast to fulfillment of a want or purpose or desire, cannot ever per se make an individual or group worse off. Needs are associated with a level of urgency or importance not possessed by wants or market preferences. Hence, needs take precedence over mere wants.

...