Generative experimentation is increasingly used in public policymaking, especially in response to wicked policy problems. A policy solution is refined within its context and informed by feedback from its users. Studies reporting on these approaches, however, rarely consider the role of evaluation and the nature and goals of knowledge produced. This article addresses evaluation in such contexts. We present a case study of a living lab that combined theory-driven and developmental evaluation, and, responding to contradictory pressures, aimed to generate both actionable and academic knowledge to improve asylum seeker reception. We describe how we addressed these diverging demands and the resulting tensions in a politically charged and substantively insecure policy context. We conclude that evaluation should be an explicit part of the broader design concept, and while generative experimenting can produce actionable learning, evaluation should also aim for academic learning, in a manner that is both democratic and robust.

在公共政策制定中，越来越多地采用生成性实验，尤其是在应对邪恶的政策问题时。策略解决方案在其上下文中进行了优化，并从用户的反馈中获悉。但是，报告这些方法的研究很少考虑评估的作用以及所产生知识的性质和目标。本文介绍了在这种情况下的评估。我们提出了一个生活实验室的案例研究，该实验室结合了理论驱动的评估和发展评估，并应对矛盾的压力，旨在产生可行的知识和学术知识，以提高寻求庇护者的接受度。我们描述了我们如何在政治上充斥且实质上不安全的政策环境中解决这些不同的需求以及由此产生的紧张局势。