本文焦點在探討方法論與政策民主化議題。首先，本文檢閱評估研究的發展趨勢，指出前三代評估與第四代評估的主要差異，特別是在基本假定上有很大的不同。簡單地說，建構主義方法論的運用，產生了明顯有別於科學探究之結果。學者指出，這樣的評估途徑頗適合應用於公共行政領域，畢竟政策問題通常是棘手的，該途徑則能夠把互動與參與式政策途徑結合運用。然而，這並非意味著在評估者在實際執行的過程中，將不會遭遇到任何的阻礙。回應性評估在執行上通常欠缺最適化的條件。在此情形下，評估者如何在實存世界之中，妥善管理社群參與的過程，遂值得吾人進一步地討論。本文最後結論道，回應性評估如能擷取批判理論的觀察洞見，才能使理論發展更臻健全。

For the purpose of this study, the author attends to concentrate on the issues of methodology and policy democratization. The author begins the discussion by reviewing four generations of evaluation and demonstrates that there are major difference between the first three generations and the last one, especially in their basic assumptions. Briefly, the results of utilizing constructivist methodology are startlingly different from those of scientific inquiry. Scholars point out that this approach to evaluation is especially appropriate for the field of public administration, given the existing wicked problems and the potential synergy with interactive and participatory policy approaches. However, this is not to say that evaluators face no barrier in the implementation of responsive evaluation. The conditions for conducting a responsive evaluation usually are not optimal. Thus the issue of how evaluators manage the processes of community participation in a real world needs further discussion. This paper concludes only when combined in some sense with critical theory is a sound responsive evaluation theory possible.