NCJ Number
48098
Journal
JOURNAL OF EVALUATION AND PROGRAM PLANNING Volume: 1 Dated: (1978) Pages: 1-9
Date Published
1978
Length
9 pages
Annotation
AN EXAMINATION OF THE FIELD OF PROGRAM EVALUATION REVEALS THAT IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR IT. THE HISTORY AND CURRENT STATE OF THE FIELD CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF GROWTH.
Abstract
AT FIRST EXAMINATION THE FIELD OF EVALUATION APPEARS TO HAVE A COHESIVE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, BUT CLOSER ANALYSIS INDICATES AT LEAST THREE CHARACTERISTICS OF EVALUATION ABOUT WHICH THERE IS A DIVISION OF OPINION. ONE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT HOLDS THAT EVALUATIVE RESEARCH IS PRIMARILY RESEARCH, AND AS SUCH REQUIRES THE UTILIZATION OF SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES. CRITICS OF THE VIEW ARGUE THAT ADHERENCE TO RESEARCH METHODOLOGY REQUIRES HOLDING THE PROGRAM CONSTANT RATHER THAN SEEKING ITS IMPROVEMENT. THEY INSIST THAT IT IS NOT USEFUL TO THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASES OF THE PROJECT, AND THAT IT REQUIRES THE CONTROL OF TOO MANY CONDITIONS THUS DEPRIVING THE PROGRAM OF THE CAPACITY TO BE GENERALIZED IN THE REAL WORLD. MOREOVER, THERE ARE OPPOSING SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT ON THE KIND AND THE TIMING OF INFORMATION WHICH EVALUATION SHOULD PROVIDE. THE GOAL-ATTAINMENT APPROACH ASSUMES THAT PROGRAM GOALS CAN BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE PROGRAM AND THAT THE PRIMARY ROLE OF EVALUATION IS THE MEASUREMENT OF THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THESE PREDETERMINED GOALS. THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACH, DESCRIBED AS ENUMERATIVE EVALUATION, FORMATIVE EVALUATION, OR PROCESS EVALUATION/IMPLEMENTATION, ASSUMES THAT EVALUATION REQUIRES A COMPREHENSIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM FUNCTIONS, FEEDBACK ON ATTAINMENT OF OBJECTIVES, AND A CONTINUING ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FUNCTIONING AND GOAL ACHIEVEMENT. FINALLY, DISAGREEMENT EXISTS REGARDING EVALUATION INFORMATION USE. WHILE PROGRAM EVALUATION EFFORTS GO BACK TO 1943, THE FIELD OF EVALUATION HAS SHOWN SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH ONLY IN THE PAST 5 TO 10 YEARS. FOUR MAJOR FACTORS APPEAR TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS SPURT IN GROWTH: (1) INCREASING DEMANDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY; (2) GREATER INTEREST AMONG SOCIAL SCIENTISTS IN SOCIAL RELEVANCE AND APPLIED RESEARCH; (3) A SCARCITY OF JOBS AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR TRADITIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH; AND (4) THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RESEARCH TOOLS AND METHODS. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (JAP)