Finally got up to the bookcase to see if I could help with the difficulties
of cost-benefit analysis. In reality this is only one way to capture
information. When the purity of research is not possible, then the less
stringent but valuable evaluation methodology can be used.
Some authors note that although some cost-benefit analysis cannot capture
monetary values of the various things to be considered, the possibilities can
be *weighted*. This again returns the situation to potentially inherent
discrepancies in how different groups weight different things. One author
discusses the full range of areas to be covered in a full cost-benefit
analysis to include costs and benefits of direct/quantifiable,
indirect/nonquantifiable, and potential/unexpected possibilities.
My research text tries to balance some of the "hard" and "soft" science
considerations that have been bounced around. Cost analysis is labeled as an
objectives based method of evaluation- to look at the relationship of costs
and benefits, or the relationship between costs and benefits in achieving an
outcome. So are evaluators "co-opted" by the objectives and who can be most
objective in setting the values. Indeed sometimes the analysis itself is
rushed into, and the values/assumptions that bound an evaluation are
sometimes more difficult to establish to the satisfaction of all the
stakeholders.
In some cases, a "risk analysis" or "needs assessment" can be more
appropriate form of evaluation. The discrepancies between existing
conditions and desired status are evaluated, but again, inherently the
"values" can be different. In keeping with Nick's collaborative thoughts I
like the thought of "responsive evaluation" where the concerns and issues of
the stakeholders are addressed through an evaluative process. There are some
successful things being pioneered in education (and it sounds like Nick's
example of innercity computer centers) starting to come together in these
areas.
Interestingly, I forgot about this next section of reading in evaluation.
The "Quasi-Legal Models of Evaluation". The Adversary Evaluation sounds much
like debate- providing bothe the positive and negative judgments. The
Judicial or Expert based evaluations would be fairly self explanatory.
Many topics we tend to discuss in the theory of cost-benefit, however in
reality they more reflect other methods of living room debate..... which
interestingly enough differs from the Judicial/Expert type methodology used
by our government.
Value is one heck of a tricky thing to capture in many ways.
Dee
