This article explores the tensions that arise in the evaluation of programs for the prevention of violent extremism (PVE), using Bourdieu’s theory of fields and frame analysis as analytical lenses. Based on qualitative data collected in nine Western countries, the study highlights how divergent field logics shape actors’ expectations, interpretations, and practices around evaluation. It identifies four central tensions—particularity vs harmonization, involvement vs independence, transparency vs confidentiality, and program vs practice evaluation—each reflecting structural and ethical dilemmas. Rather than viewing these tensions as obstacles, the article argues that they can become productive through processes of frame alignment, especially when evaluators act as mediators between fields. Although not exclusive to PVE, these challenges are intensified by the political sensitivity and ethical demands of this domain. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for relational competence, field awareness, and inclusive approaches in building meaningful and legitimate evaluations.
Pablo Madriaza (Tue,) studied this question.