Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explain the “evaluation deadlock” or “stasis” diagnosed by many authors. The explanation relies on a thought experiment. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is conceptual and builds on a thought experiment inspired by qualitative research such as interviews with communication consultants in Sweden. It makes use of principal–agent theory and Akerlof’s theory of lemon markets. Findings: A plausible explanation for the evaluation stasis requires consideration of practitioners’ self-interest as businesspeople. The deadlock is explained by an anomaly in practitioner populations and passive or active but covert resistance. If the long-time neglect of measurement and evaluation has led to expectation inflation and overpromising, even well-performing actors might shy away from rigorous measurement and evaluation practices in their own mandates, since they fear being measured against promotional, not realistic standards. At the same time, on the level of industry discourse, these practitioners would still advocate for measurement and evaluation in principle, so as to avoid the suspicion of underperformance. Research limitations/implications: The paper suggests an explanation for further empirical investigation. It does not attempt to demonstrate anything else than that the suggestion is plausible and that it warrants further investigation. Practical implications: The scientific community engaged in the measurement and evaluation debate appears puzzled by the discrepancy between practitioners’ words and actions. The authors hope that the paper contributes to a more realistic and thus more constructive dialogue between practitioners and academics in the measurement and evaluation debate. Originality/value: Inspired by Alvesson and Spicer’s concept of functional stupidity, the paper argues that attempts to explain the evaluation stasis have been marked by circumspection and narrowness. At present, explanations for the evaluation stasis tend to focus on lack of knowledge or inadequate systems or frameworks. The paper offers a more comprehensive explanation.

中文翻译：

---

解释测量和评估的停滞

目的：本文的目的是解释许多作者诊断出的“评估僵局”或“停滞”。解释依赖于思想实验。设计/方法论/方法：本文是概念性的，建立在思想实验的基础上，该实验受定性研究的启发，例如对瑞典传播顾问的访谈。它利用委托代理理论和阿克洛夫的柠檬市场理论。结论：对评估停滞的合理解释需要考虑从业者作为商人的自身利益。僵局的原因是从业者群体异常，被动或主动但隐秘的抵抗。如果长期以来对测量和评估的忽视导致了预期的通胀和过度承诺，甚至表现出色的参与者也可能会在自己的任务中回避严格的衡量和评估实践，因为他们担心会根据促销标准而非现实标准进行衡量。同时，在行业话语层面上，这些从业人员仍会原则上主张进行衡量和评估，以避免怀疑表现不佳。研究局限性/含义：本文为进一步的实证研究提供了解释。除了暗示该建议是合理的并且值得进一步调查外，它不会尝试证明其他任何内容。实际意义：从事测量和评估辩论的科学界似乎对实践者的言行之间的差异感到困惑。作者希望本文能够在测量和评估辩论中为从业者和学者之间更现实，从而更具建设性的对话做出贡献。独创性/价值：受Alvesson和Spicer的功能性愚蠢概念的启发，本文认为，解释评估停滞的尝试以谨慎和狭marked为特征。目前，对评估停滞的解释往往集中在缺乏知识或系统或框架不足的情况下。本文提供了更全面的解释。该论文认为，解释评价停滞的尝试以谨慎和狭窄为特征。目前，对评估停滞的解释往往集中在缺乏知识或系统或框架不足的情况下。本文提供了更全面的解释。该论文认为，解释评价停滞的尝试以谨慎和狭窄为特征。目前，对评估停滞的解释往往集中在缺乏知识或系统或框架不足的情况下。本文提供了更全面的解释。