evaluation or research

Leading on from last weeks ramblings on the differences between research and evaluation, Owen (2006 p.64) says that the inclusion of the planning and communicating stages is what differentiates evaluation from social research. The 'middle section' is the research which uses similar ranges of data collection and analysis techniques.

I want to concentrate on this difference. Try and prove that concentrating on the first and 3rd sections of the pie (picture) will help improve evaluation practices. ie the interactive instrument helps with these sections. and help with including time to do them.

Need more readings around time taken for each of these sections. Need to continue reading Owen.

Update: Nov 2011

Alkin & Taaut, 2003 write that the goal of research is generizable knowledge but the purpose of evaluation is context-specific (p.3). They Quote Cronbach & Suppes (1969) and conclusion-oriented research vs. decision-oriented evaluation.

update March 2012

Alkin (2011 - Evaluation Essentials form A to Z) states on p.8 that research seeks conclusions and evaluation leads to decisions. researchers ask their own questions in order to seek conclusions they can use to add to the knowledge bank. Evaluation answers questions that are important to a particular person - the stakeholder or client, say.

Alkin talks briefly about the definition of evaluation (which are goal orientated, around merit and worth) but he directs the readers focus to the processes which allow one to reach the point of being ready to judge merit and worth.

Update August 2012

reading Mackenzie, N. M. & Ling, L. M. (2009). The research journey: A Lonely Planet approach. Issues In Educational Research, 19(1), 48-60. http://www.iier.org.au/iier19/mackenzie.html

quote Mertens (Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.) though i can't give a page number of this as its in html (open access)


"This highlights the decisions we take as researchers when we aim for convergent outcomes or divergent outcomes. If our research is so prescribed and directed as to push us towards particular desired outcomes, it is convergent and in fact, may potentially not be research at all. Mertens (2005) makes a distinction between research and other forms of activity such as evaluation.

The relationship between research and evaluation is not simplistic. Much of evaluation can look remarkably like research and vice versa. Both make use of systemic inquiry methods to collect, analyse, interpret and use data to understand, describe, predict, control or empower. Evaluation is more typically associated with the need for information for decision making in a specific setting, and research is more typically associated with generating new knowledge that can be transferred to other settings. (p.2)

In fact, much of the prescribed and funded so-called research we undertake for convergent outcomes which fit the agenda of funding bodies is probably more akin to evaluation than research. Research which does not work towards pre-determined or prescribed outcomes and thus can produce divergent outcomes more in the spirit of what we understand as true research."