Jabot Françoise, Turgeon Jean, Carbonnel Léopold
Département Sciences humaines, sociales et des comportements de santé, Ecole des hautes études en santé publique, Avenue du Pr Léon Bernard, 35043 Rennes, France.
Eval Program Plann. 2011 Aug;34(3):196-205. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.02.011. Epub 2011 Mar 4.
For more than a decade now, evaluation has developed considerably in France, thanks in particular to the Société Française de l'Évaluation, whose charter sets out a number of principles designed to guide the work of evaluators. This article examines how the evaluation process surrounding a regional public health plan (referred to as PRSP)--itself being a new instrument for regional planning in France--accords with one of these principles, which specifies that evaluation must be framed according to "a three-fold logic involving public management, democracy and scientific debate." Our analysis shows that while this evaluation was driven primarily by managerial concerns (i.e., assessing the capacity of the plan to structure health policy in a region), it also provided an Opportunity for restoring dialogue with a range of actors by opening up a space of cooperation and consultation. In addition, in order to ensure the legitimacy of the evaluation's conclusions, the knowledge produced by the evaluators had to rest on an irreproachable methodology. This example illustrates how evaluation, in the French tradition, is a process that strives to reconcile the viewpoints and expectations of managers, scientists and the general public; it is also a process that brings out lines of tension and areas of complementariness between these three logics.
十多年来，评估在法国有了长足发展，这尤其要归功于法国评估协会，其章程规定了一些旨在指导评估人员工作的原则。本文探讨围绕一项区域公共卫生计划（称为PRSP，它本身是法国区域规划的一种新工具）的评估过程如何符合这些原则之一，该原则明确规定评估必须依据“涉及公共管理、民主和科学辩论的三重逻辑”来构建。我们的分析表明，虽然此次评估主要受管理方面的考量驱动（即评估该计划构建一个地区卫生政策的能力），但它也通过开辟合作与协商空间，为恢复与一系列行为体的对话提供了契机。此外，为确保评估结论的合法性，评估人员所产生的知识必须基于无可指责的方法。这个例子说明，在法国传统中，评估是一个努力调和管理者、科学家和公众的观点与期望的过程；它也是一个揭示这三种逻辑之间的紧张关系和互补领域的过程。
