As our language of evaluation changes, so do the metaphors we use to describe our work. In this chaptel; the author discusses how examining metaphors in lan- guage of individuals and groups offers insight into how peopleframe and resolve problems.

Beyond the Literal: Metaphors and Why They Matter Alexis Karninshy

In their book, Foundations of Program Evaluation, Shadish, Cook, and Levi- ton (1991) assert that evaluation theory’s purpose is “to specify feasible practices that evaluators can use to construct knowledge of the value of social programs that can be used to ameliorate the social problems to which programs are relevant” (p. 36). This purpose has been interpreted in many ways over evaluation’s thirty-plus-year his tory from conventional readings in which evaluators used their expertise to provide scientific knowledge to decision makers (Campbell’s experimenting society, for example) to eman- cipatory versions in which evaluators actively promote change for the most disenfranchised of society (for example: Mertens, 1999; Whitmore, 1999). As the fields perspectives on what evaluation is and can be have prolifer- ated, so has the language we use to talk about our work.

Multiple sources have contributed to the construction of our language of evaluation. Many commonplace concepts have been brought to the field by individuals trained in other areas or disciplines (Cook, 1997; Weiss, 1998). Some of our earliest language €or how to do our work-experiments and later quasi-experiments-reflect the evaluators’ psychology background (Cook, 1997). Other terms have been borrowed from fields such education, sociology, political theory, and organizational development. Still other lan- guage is created specifically for evaluation; the concept stakeholder quickly comes to mind. In my experience, the language individual evaluators use- whether brought, borrowed, or created-frames how they think about and practice their work. I believe that our laizguage of evaluation as a field shapes a wider evaluation agenda, defining the issues we consider and the solutions that we seek.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVAIIIATION, 110. 80, Silminer 2000 Q Josacy-lhss 69

BEYOND THE LITERAL: METAPHORS AND WHY THEY MATTER 79

frames, in turn, structure how individuals make sense of issues facing them, setting both a problem and its (obvious) solution.

In structuring problems, metaphors work to highlight some features and obscure others. In our own evaluation field, the metaphors of good knowledge have highlighted methods, politics, and morality-but rarely do evaluation approaches emphasize all of these aspects simultaneously In the MIX the art metaphor drew attention to individual-group tensions while the garden metaphor brought into focus the importance of context. What one metaphor obscures, another can reveal.

Metaphors are used consciously and in-use unconsciously. Evaluator know the importance of examining metaphors stakeholders use to describe their experiences. I wonder, though, how often evaluators explore the metaphors in-use unconsciously. These metaphors tend to be deeply embed- ded into the structure of language and are not always immediately obvious in the actual words people use. As we deconstruct qualitative data and reconfigure it (the sin qua non of most approaches to qualitative data analy- sis), do we inadvertently dismantle significant metaphorical frames-frames that I’ve argued powerfully influence how we perceive and later act on prob- lems? What’s gained from examining these in-use metaphors? I’ve suggested two benefits: stimulating critical reflection and thinking about problems in new ways.

Metaphors are powerful. But making use of them has its own set of challenges. Although MIXers and I spent a day critically reflecting on their metaphors of community building, I believe that it happened too late in the group’s process to have sustainable impact on how individuals approached their community building activities. Time and timing are important.

Metaphors also can raise as many questions as they do answers. Metaphors are flexible. That’s why I think they’re powerful. Others less com- fortable with ambiguity may find metaphors troublesome to say the least. All that said, I believe that metaphor is a provocative concept for evaluation. To conclude, let me return to the “stakeholder” question that I introduced earlier. Are there frames other than “interests,” “stakes,” “competing val- ues”? My sense is, yes, we could find better metaphors in this case. Perhaps something that gives form to a more healthy kind of pluralism-not har- monious necessarily but not “fractured” (House, 1993) either.

References Black, M. “More About Melaphor.” In A. Ortony (ed.), Mefuphor urzd Thought. (2nd ed.)

Kew York: Cambridge University Press, 1993, Cook, T. D. “Lessons Learned in Evaluation over the Past 25 Years.” In E. Chelimsky

and W. R. Shadish (eds.), Evaluation_fov the 2Ist Century: A Handbook. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1997.

Greene, J. C. “Three Views on the Nature and Role of Knowledge in Social Science.” In E. G. Guba (ed.), Paradigm Dialog. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1990.

House: E. R. “How We Think About Evaluation.” In E. R. House (ed.), New Directions in Educational Evaluation. Philadelphia: Falmer Press, 1986.

80 HOW AND WHY LANGUAGE MATTERS IN EVALUATION

House, E. R. Professional Evaluation: Social and Political Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CaIif.: Sage, 1993.

Kaminsky, A. “Myth, Meaning, Multiplicity, and Metaphor.” In T. A. Abma (ed.), Telling Tales: On Evaluation and Narrative. Advances in Program Evaluation, no. 6. Stamford, Conn.: JAI Press, 1999.

Kuhn, T. S . Structure of ScienliJic Revolutions. (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Mertens, D. M. “Inclusive Evaluation: Implications of Transformative Theory for Eval- uation.” ArnericanJournal of Evaluation, 1999,20 (l), 1-14.

Phillips, D. C. “Validity in Qualitative Research: Why the Worry About Warrant Will Not Wane.” Education and Urban Society, 1987,20 (l), 9-24.

Schon, D. A. “Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problein-Setting in Social Policy.” In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. (2nd ed.) New York: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1993.

Schwandt, T. A. “The Landscape of Values in Evaluation: Charted Terrain and Unex- plored Territory.” In D. J . Rog (ed.), Progress and Future Directions in Evaluation: Per- spectives on Theory, Practice, and Methods. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 76. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Leviton, L. C. Foundations ofProgram Evaluation: The- ories of Practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1991.

Shulha, L. M., and Cousins, J . B. “Evaluation Use: Theory, Research, and Practice Since 1986.” Evaluation Practice, 1997, 18 (31, 195-208.

Weiss, C. “IIave We Learned Anything New About the Use of Evaluation?” American Journal of Evaluation, 1998, 19 (11, 21-34.

Whitmore, E. (ed.). Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation. New Direc- tions for Evaluation, no. 80. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.