Is Adversary Evaluation Worth a Second Look?

Abstract

The adversary evaluation model emerged in a context that favored democratic debate. It was successfully used in a variety of sectors following its inception, but it was abandoned once neo-liberal thinking and goal achievement approaches became dominant. It is time to give it a second chance. The judicial evaluation model (JEM) relies on human testimony, rules of evidence, cross examination and principled deliberation. These features contribute to evaluation independence, a characteristic that is sorely needed in today’s fractured social environment. JEM promotes civil interaction among groups committed to different ideologies. It encourages tolerance and respects pluralism by combining professional authority with direct citizen participation and neutral facilitation. Competently designed and managed, it resists capture by vested interests and it holds promise as an instrument of progressive evaluation focused on the public interest. Since it is demanding and time consuming, it is especially relevant for large, controversial and complex interventions.