Metaphor

Evaluators acknowledge the importance of the language embedded in evaluation practice and the power of language in conveying meaning about the social complexities found in evaluations. By examining the implicit language in evaluation practices, metaphors can reveal the power of language in shaping the realities communicated through evaluation reporting. Illuminating the metaphoric language in evaluations can serve an educative function.

“Metaphor is, at its simplest, a way of proceeding from the known to the unknown. It is a way of cognition in which the identifying qualities of one thing are transferred in an instantaneous, almost unconscious, flash of insight to some other thing that is, by remoteness or complexity, unknown to us” (Nisbet, 1969, p. 4). Metaphors are pervasive in our communication. They are a fundamental structure in our everyday thoughts and actions. “Metaphors draw attention to the mental tools we use in representation” (Radnofsky, 1996, p.387). We represent our world symbolically through the selection of these word images. Often unconscious, metaphors can be considered linguistic tricksters. If we systematically link our metaphorical expressions to metaphorical constructs, we can understand the unconscious nature of activities.

Bringing to the surface the terminology embedded in the evaluations of programs helps us to think about the programs and the evaluations independently of what they are supposed to be. Ernest House has written about how evaluations can metaphorically represent social service delivery as industrial production. “Program elements are defined as time, costs, procedures, or product. A monitoring evaluation is an assessment of whether the program conforms to the design and reaches the target” (House, 1986, p. 34).

The language, symbols, metaphors, and images projected in evaluative representations are shaped by and will shape thinking about evaluands. If evaluators seek to become better in practice and to make better the world in which they live, then it is useful to look with a critical lens at the levels of meaning projected in evaluative representations. For example, if evaluators talk about inputs and outcomes and units and measurements and then juxtapose that with language found in programs (e.g., recipients, contracts, specialists, treatments), a picture devoid of personable images can be created. What that means to the people represented in evaluation reports is that they can become unconsciously objectified in ways that may serve to create or maintain a devalued social status, such as a commodity, to the program and evaluation industries.

Metaphors shape language and language shapes discourse. Looking at the metaphors embedded in evaluative representations can assist evaluators in thinking and communicating differently about evaluation practice. Critical reflection about the metaphoric language in evaluation practice creates the potential to think more broadly about the function of evaluation in our society. Making conscious the meanings of metaphors in evaluation practice can help to promote a larger agenda for the greater social good.