Rationality to Ritual

The Multiple Roles of Evaluation in Governmental Processes
Part of the Evaluation in Education and Human Services book series (EEHS, volume 6)


There is a growing disillusion with social science evaluation and the role it has played in the conduct of massive social programs (Speizman, 1974; Horowitz & Katz, 1975;Orlans, 1971; Williams & Evans, 1969; Cohen, 1975). In retrospect, it appears that the social science evaluations of the past decade were undertaken with impossibly high ambitions and relied upon restrictive assumptions concerning the functions that evaluation serves in governmental processes.


Decisionistic Model Program Goal Head Start Social Program Brookings Institution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alkin, Marvin C. “Evaluation Theory Development.” Evaluation Comment 2 ( 1969), 2–7.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, Thurman W. The Symbols of Government. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935.Google Scholar
  3. Berke, Iris, Elaine French, Susan Heck, Michael Kirst and Stephen Weiner. The Impact of State Mandated Evaluation Procedures Upon the Educational Programs of Local School Districts in California. Report submitted to the California State Board of Education, Stanford University, 1976.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, D.T., and A. Erlebacher. “How Regression Artifacts in Quasi-Experimental Evaluations Can Mistakenly Make Compensatory Education Look Harmful.” In: J. Helmuth (ed.), Compensatory Education: A National Debate. Vol. III: The Disadvant-aged Child. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1970, 185–210.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, David. “The Value of Social Experiments.” In: Alice M. Rivlin and P. Michael Timpane (eds.), Planned Variation in Education: Should We Give Up or Try Harder? Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1975, 147–76.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, David and M. Garet. “Reforming Educational Policy with Applied Social Research.” Harvard Educational Review 45 (1975), 17–43.Google Scholar
  7. Cyert, Richard M. and James G. March. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963.Google Scholar
  8. Downs, Anthony. “The Issue-attention Cycle and Improving Our Environment.” Unpublished. Chicago: Real Estate Research Corporation, 1971.Google Scholar
  9. Ellul, Jacques. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Knopf, 1965.Google Scholar
  10. Elmore, Richard F. “The Politics and Administration of an Educational Experiment: The Case of Follow Through.” Special Qualifying Paper. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Graduate School of Education, 1972.Google Scholar
  11. Elmore, Richard F. “Design of the Follow Through Experiment.” In: Alice M. Rivlin and P. Michael Timpane (eds.), Planned Variation in Education: Should We Give Up or Try Harder? Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1975, 23–46.Google Scholar
  12. Floden, Margret B. (Buchmann). “Some Remarks on Social Experimentation.” Unpublished paper. Stanford University, 1974.Google Scholar
  13. Gilbert, John P., Richard J. Light, and Frederick Mosteller. “Assessing Social Innovations: An Empirical Base for Policy.” In: Carl A. Bennett and Arthur A. Lumsdaine (eds.), Evaluation and Experiment. San Francisco: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. Gramlich, Edward M. and Patricia P. Koshel. Educational Performance Contracting: An Evaluation of an Experiment. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1975.Google Scholar
  15. Hitch, Charles, J. Decision making for Defense. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  16. Horowitz, Irving Louis and James Everett Katz. Social Science and Public Policy in the United States. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975.Google Scholar
  17. March, James and Herbert Simon. Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958.Google Scholar
  18. McLaughlin, Milbrey W. Evaluation and Reform. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1975.Google Scholar
  19. Orlans, Harold. “The Political Uses of Social Research.” American Academy of Political and Social Scientists 394 ( 1971 ), 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Popham, W. James. Educational Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1975.Google Scholar
  21. Provus, Malcolm M. Discrepancy Evaluation. Berkeley: McCutchan, 1971.Google Scholar
  22. Riecken, H.W. and R.F. Boruch (eds.). Social Experimentation. New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  23. Rivlin, Alice M. Systematic Thinking for Social Action. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1971.Google Scholar
  24. Rivlin, Alice M. and P. Michael Timpane. Planned Variation in Education: Should We Give Up or Try Harder? Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1975.Google Scholar
  25. Schultze, Charles L. The Politics and Economics of Public Spending. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1968.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, Eugene R. and Ralph W. Tyler. Appraising and Recording Educational Progress. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1942.Google Scholar
  27. Speizman, William. “Evaluation: An Evaluation from a Sociological Perspective.” In: C. Wayne Gordon (ed.), Uses of the Sociology of Education. Seventy-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974, 192–210.Google Scholar
  28. Stake, R.E. “The Countenance of Educational Evaluation.” Teachers’ College Record 68 (1967), 523–40.Google Scholar
  29. Steinbruner, John D. The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  30. Stufflebeam, Daniel L. et al. Educational Evaluation and Decision Making. Ithaca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock, 1971.Google Scholar
  31. Truman, David B. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Knopf, 1951.Google Scholar
  32. Williams, Walter and John Evans. “The Politics of Evaluation: The Case of Head Start.” The American Academy of Political and Social Science Annals. 385 ( 1969), 118–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing 1983

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations