The Utility of the Knowledge Use System in a Higher Education Evaluation Setting

Abstract

This study uses the Knowledge Use System (KUS) that was developed by Barabba and Zaltman in 1991 to delineate decisionmaker variables and characteristics that may thwart utilization of evaluation results. The KUS was originally developed as a tool enabling corporate market reseatch to overcome "obstacles to implementation." The KUS is a process used to point out decisionmaker biases, preconceived notions and other decisionmaker variables. It facilitates discussion and consensus building about important evaluation issues that, if not recognized, might diminish utilization. The results of this study suggest that the KUS is successfully adaptable to higher education contexts. Its use during evaluation appears to improve the quality of the evaluation and the implementation of results.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alkin, M. , J. Burry , and J. Ruskus. 1984. The administrator's role in evaluation use. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 251 515, November.

Argyris, C. , R. Putnam , and D.M. Smith. 1985. Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Batabba, V.P. , and G. Zaltman. 1991. Hearing the voice of the market: Competitive advantage through creative use of market information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Brown, R.D. , D.L. Newman , and L.S. Rivers. 1986. A decision making context model for enhancing evaluation utilization. In Evaluation studies review annual, vol. 11, 224-30. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Chelimsky, E. 1987. What have we learned about the politics of program evaluation ? Evaluation Practice 8 (1): 5-21.

Cooley, W. , and W. Bickel. 1986. Decision oriented educational research. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Cousins, J.B. , and K.A. Leithwood. 1986. Current empirical research evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research 5-6 (3): 331-64.

Edwards, W. , M. Guttentag , and K. Snapper. 1975. Adedson-theotetic approach to evaluation research. In Handbook of evaluation research, vol. 1. Edited by E. L. Struening and M. Guttentag , 139-89. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Etzioni, A. 1967. Mixed scanning: A third approach to decision making. Public Administration Review (December): 385-92.

10.

Guba, E.G. , and D.L. Stufflebeam . 1970. The process of stimulating, aiding and abetting insightful action. Monograph Series in Reading Education 1:2-36.

11.

Lorenzen, G.L. , and L.A. Braskamp. 1978. Comparative influence of political, cost/benefit, and statistical information on administrative decision making . Evaluation and Program Planning 1:235-38.

12.

Moody, P.E. 1983. Decision making: Proven methods for better decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill.

13.

Newell, A. , and H.A. Simon. 1972. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

14.

Patton, M.Q. 1987. Utilization focused evaluation. 2d ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

15.

—. 1988. The evaluator's responsibility of utilization. Evaluation Practice 9(2): 5-30.

16.

Simon, H.A. 1987. Administrative behavior. 2d ed. New York: Free Press.

17.

Taylor, W. 1984. Behavioral decision making. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

18.

Wise, Robert I. 1978. What we know about the decisionmaker and decision settings . Paper read at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March, Toronto, Canada.

19.

Worthen, B.R. , and J.R. Sanders. 1987. Educational evaluation alternative approaches and practical guides. New York: Longman.