Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Saggi

No. 95 (2026)

From Algorithmic Outputs to Evaluative Judgment: Governing Evidence in the Age of AI

  • Francesco Mazzeo Rinaldi
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/Riv2026oa23355
Submitted
luglio 24, 2026
Published
2026-09-21

Abstract

This article critically examines the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in policy and program evaluation, focusing on the processes through which algorithmic outputs become evaluative evidence. Drawing on a critical narrative review of international literature published between 2016 and 2025, the paper identifies three main ways AI is conceptualized within evaluation: as an extension of analytical capacity, as an interpretive and ethical risk, and as an object of evaluation and governance. The analysis shows that these perspectives often leave implicit the inferential chain linking outputs, interpretation, and evaluative judgment. To address this gap, the article proposes an analytical framework structured around five stages - algorithmic output, technical validation, theory-informed interpretation, triangulation, and evaluative judgment - aimed at making visible potential forms of “epistemic compression” in AI-mediated evaluation processes.

References

  1. ANVUR (2024). Documento sulle modalità di valutazione dei casi studio Gruppo di Esperti della Valutazione Attività di valorizzazione delle conoscenze (GEV Interdisciplinare), Roma, 31 luglio VQR-2020-2024-Modalita-valutazione-GEV_VdC.pdf
  2. Barbera, F. (2004). Meccanismi sociali. Elementi di sociologia analitica. Bologna: Il Mulino.
  3. Boffo, S., Moscati, R., Rostan, M. (2025). La Terza Missione nell’Università italiana. Politiche e attività in dodici atenei. Milano: Guerini e Associati.
  4. Brambilla, R, Palumbo, M. (2024). Valutare per valorizzare: l’Apprendimento permanente nella Valutazione della Terza Missione Accademica. Epale Journal on Adult Learning and Continuing Education, 14, pp. 26-35, Marzo.
  5. Carrera, L., Castelnuovo, I., Cavaglia, G.M.C., Chimenti, S., De Bortoli, A., Pascuzzi, E., Piazza S., Sardi, M. (2025). Il Public Engagement delle università italiane nella VQR 2015-19. Uno studio di casi. RIV. Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione, XXIX, 92, pp. 123-143.
  6. Celletti, A., Uricchio, A. F, (2025). Valutare per valorizzare e migliorare: l’esperienza della VQR. Quaderni di Sociologia, 95, pp. 67-80.
  7. Chen, H.T. (2005). Theory-Driven Evaluations / Practical Program Evaluation Sage.
  8. Charles, D, Nieth, L., Coenen, L. Cinar, R. (eds.) (2026). Universities, Knowledge and Places. London-New York: Routledge.
  9. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; trad. it. Fondamenti di teoria sociale. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2005.
  10. Elster, J. (2007). Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.; trad.it. La spiegazione del comportamento sociale. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2010.
  11. European Commission: Directorate-General for International Partnerships, Evaluation handbook, Publications Office of the European Union. (2024), https://data.europa.
  12. eu/doi/10.2841/340793, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/06350947-4d56-11ef-acbc-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
  13. Fetterman, D.M., Kaftarian, S.J., Wandersman, A. (2015). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment, evaluation capacity building, and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  14. Fontana, R., Valentini, E. (a cura di) (2020). Conseguenze della valutazione. Idee e pratiche dei docenti universitari nelle scienze sociali. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  15. Goddard, J., Hazelkorn, E., Kempton, L., Vallance, P. (2021). The civic university: The policy and leadership challenges. Cheltenham–Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar.
  16. Hazelkorn, E. (2020). Research evaluation: Global trends and good practice. Paris: OECD Publishing
  17. House, E. (1993). Professional Evaluation: Social Impact and Political Consequences, Thousand Oaks, Ca., Sage.
  18. House, E.R., Howe, K.R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research, Thousand Oaks, Ca., Sage.
  19. Huemann, M., Turner, R. (eds.) (2024). The Handbook of Project Management (6th ed.). London: Routledge.
  20. Leeuw, F.L. (2023). John Mayne and Rules of Thumb for Contribution Analysis: A Comparison with Two Related Approaches. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 37(3), 403–421.
  21. Mayne, J. (2001). Addressing Attribution through Contribution Analysis. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 16(1), pp. 1–24.