| Abstract: | This study examines a public debate in Australia, arising from a national government report, around how social contribution in the nonprofit sector should be assessed. Guided by several meta‐perspectives on evaluation, we identify connections between foundational assumptions and normative positions on evaluation espoused by non‐profit organizations (NPOs), and examine the ways in which the inter‐paradigmatic context of the non‐profit sector contributes to the emergence of NPOs’ different normative positions on evaluation. We conclude that particular paradigmatic orientations of NPOs (positivism, interpretivism, constructivism) lead to particular perspectives on how NPOs should engage with alternative paradigms (monism, impartial pluralism, radical pluralism). |
