2.3 Conceptual Clarifications
In the following, we are concerned with reflected evaluations (as opposed to ad hoc,
spontaneous evaluations) or well-considered reflective value-judgements (grounding). In the first approximation, “evaluation” is understood as the attempt to gain a
well-founded evaluation statement. In general, evaluations are carried out in order to
establish or determine the (relative) goodness, value, quality, virtue, correctness or
similar of the object of evaluation or the evaluandum (see Reinmuth for evaluation
components in this volume). An evaluation should provide correctly substantiated,
checkable and (at best) acceptable evaluation statements. Before the functions and
roles of value systems in evaluations are clarified, a distinction is made between
evaluation functions, reasons for and purposes of evaluation, and types of evaluations. In the literature, evaluations are assigned various functions (Döring and Bortz
2016; Lumer 1990; von der Pfordten 1993; Scriven 1999). One central function of
evaluation is to express the evaluation result of a speaker and to show with
evaluative reasoning that the value judgement is acceptable (and might be shared).
In practice, an evaluation should fulfil different evaluation functions (e.g. cognitive,
learning and dialogue, optimisation, decision-making and legitimisation functions)
(Döring and Bortz 2016). Making claims for axiological validity supposes that
values can be shared. Grounding values provides chances of values being shared.
Various reasons for evaluation can be identified, which can, for example, be
institutionalised in professional areas: It can belong to certain professions, social
roles or functions that one should or may judge, evaluate, value, examine, monitor,
control, assess, grade, criticize, praise, appreciate, estimate, etc. These different
evaluation contexts are accordingly associated with different expectations and specifications. Evaluations are often partial actions of action sequences—they are embedded in further action sequences and often provide premises in argumentations. If one
would like to acquire a bicycle, then one will judge a suitable offer comparably and
will justify on the basis of an evaluation statement the decision that this bicycle is to
be bought. Professionals have expertise in valuing artefacts in economic terms,
such as cars or real estates. Such assessment of economic value is independent
from any preference of the professional.
As the evaluation motives can be diverse, different evaluation purposes can be
pursued with evaluations. As was already mentioned, evaluation actions can be
partial actions of further action sequences, which pursue in each case certain
purposes. The specific purpose of (systematic) evaluations, to justify in particular
evaluation propositions, emphasized above, is embedded accordingly into further
sequences, whose purposes can be referred also in this wider sense to evaluations.
Embedded into further action sequences evaluations serve the action orientation,
coordination, guidance and justification and the improvement of operational
sequences, objects, devices etc.
Different types of evaluations can be distinguished. The corresponding classifications can be based on the occasions for evaluations, the methods used, the ways in
which the results are formulated, the openness to adaptations, etc. It is to be
134
K. Ott and K. C. Reinmuth
In the following, we are concerned with reflected evaluations (as opposed to ad hoc,
spontaneous evaluations) or well-considered reflective value-judgements (grounding). In the first approximation, “evaluation” is understood as the attempt to gain a
well-founded evaluation statement. In general, evaluations are carried out in order to
establish or determine the (relative) goodness, value, quality, virtue, correctness or
similar of the object of evaluation or the evaluandum (see Reinmuth for evaluation
components in this volume). An evaluation should provide correctly substantiated,
checkable and (at best) acceptable evaluation statements. Before the functions and
roles of value systems in evaluations are clarified, a distinction is made between
evaluation functions, reasons for and purposes of evaluation, and types of evaluations. In the literature, evaluations are assigned various functions (Döring and Bortz
2016; Lumer 1990; von der Pfordten 1993; Scriven 1999). One central function of
evaluation is to express the evaluation result of a speaker and to show with
evaluative reasoning that the value judgement is acceptable (and might be shared).
In practice, an evaluation should fulfil different evaluation functions (e.g. cognitive,
learning and dialogue, optimisation, decision-making and legitimisation functions)
(Döring and Bortz 2016). Making claims for axiological validity supposes that
values can be shared. Grounding values provides chances of values being shared.
Various reasons for evaluation can be identified, which can, for example, be
institutionalised in professional areas: It can belong to certain professions, social
roles or functions that one should or may judge, evaluate, value, examine, monitor,
control, assess, grade, criticize, praise, appreciate, estimate, etc. These different
evaluation contexts are accordingly associated with different expectations and specifications. Evaluations are often partial actions of action sequences—they are embedded in further action sequences and often provide premises in argumentations. If one
would like to acquire a bicycle, then one will judge a suitable offer comparably and
will justify on the basis of an evaluation statement the decision that this bicycle is to
be bought. Professionals have expertise in valuing artefacts in economic terms,
such as cars or real estates. Such assessment of economic value is independent
from any preference of the professional.
As the evaluation motives can be diverse, different evaluation purposes can be
pursued with evaluations. As was already mentioned, evaluation actions can be
partial actions of further action sequences, which pursue in each case certain
purposes. The specific purpose of (systematic) evaluations, to justify in particular
evaluation propositions, emphasized above, is embedded accordingly into further
sequences, whose purposes can be referred also in this wider sense to evaluations.
Embedded into further action sequences evaluations serve the action orientation,
coordination, guidance and justification and the improvement of operational
sequences, objects, devices etc.
Different types of evaluations can be distinguished. The corresponding classifications can be based on the occasions for evaluations, the methods used, the ways in
which the results are formulated, the openness to adaptations, etc. It is to be
134
K. Ott and K. C. Reinmuth