IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Cybernetics: A possible solution for the "knowledge gap" between "external" and "internal" in evaluation processes

Listed author(s):
  • Levin-Rozalis, Miri
Registered author(s):

    This paper addresses the issue of the knowledge gap between evaluators and the entity being evaluated: the dilemma of the knowledge of professional evaluators vs. the in-depth knowledge of the evaluated subjects. In order to optimize evaluative outcomes, the author suggests an approach based on ideas borrowed from the science of cybernetics as a method of evaluation--one that enables in-depth perception of the evaluated field without jeopardizing a rigorous study or the evaluator's professionalism. The paper focuses on the main concepts that deal with this dilemma - showing how cybernetics combines the different bodies of knowledge of the different stakeholders, including the professional evaluator, resulting in a coherent body of knowledge created mainly by those internal to the process, owned by them, and relevant to all - those who are internal and those who are external and their different purposes.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Evaluation and Program Planning.

    Volume (Year): 33 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 4 (November)
    Pages: 333-342

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:4:p:333-342
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Ross Williams, 2006. "Introduction to the Policy Forum," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 39(4), pages 409-411, December.
    2. Parkinson, Sarah, 2009. "Power and perceptions in participatory monitoring and evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 229-237, August.
    3. Nikolay Nenovsky & S. Statev, 2006. "Introduction," Post-Print halshs-00260898, HAL.
    4. M. Ruth & K. Donaghy & P. Kirshen, 2006. "Introduction," Chapters,in: Regional Climate Change and Variability, chapter 1 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Sonnichsen, Richard C., 1988. "Advocacy evaluation: A model for internal evaluation offices," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 141-148, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:4:p:333-342. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.