Evaluation and research share methodologies but differ in their intents, scope, and uses. Evaluation aims to determine a program's effectiveness by examining outcomes, while research explores issues without necessarily assessing programs. Politics also influences research and evaluation through funding, agenda-setting, and preferences for certain types of studies over others. Researchers and policymakers sometimes have conflicting interests, timelines, and views on complex problems and solutions.

1. RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
© LOUIS COHEN, LAWRENCE
MANION & KEITH MORRISON

2. STRUCTURE OF THE CHAPTER
• Research and evaluation: similarities and
differences
• Research, politics and policy making

3. DEFINING EVALUATION
The provision of information about specified issues
upon which judgements are based and from which
decisions for action are taken.

4. SIMILARITIES BETWEEN
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH
• Evaluation can examine the effectiveness of a
program or policies, as can research;
• They share the same methodologies (styles,
instrumentation, sampling, ethics, reliability,
validity, data analysis techniques, reporting and
dissemination mechanisms).

5. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH
(Smith, M. and Glass, G. (1987) Research and Evaluation
in the Social Sciences. New Jersey: Prentice Hall)
• The intents and purposes of the investigation;
• The scope of the investigation;
• Values in the investigation;
• The origins of the study;
• The uses of the study;
• The timeliness of the study;
• Criteria for judging the study;
• The agendas of the study.

6. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH
(Norris, N. (1990) Understanding Educational Evaluation.
London: Kogan Page)
• The motivation of the enquirer;
• The objectives of the research;
• Laws versus description;
• The role of explanation;
• The autonomy of the enquiry;

7. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH
(Norris, N. (1990) Understanding Educational Evaluation.
London: Kogan Page)
• Properties of the phenomena that are assessed;
• Universality of the phenomena studied;
• Salience of the value question;
• Investigative techniques;
• Criteria for assessing the activity;
• Disciplinary base.

8. CONFORMATIVE EVALUATION
(Stronach, I. and Morris, B. (1994) Polemical notes on
educational evaluation in an age of ‘policy hysteria’.
Evaluation and Research in Education, 8 (1&2), pp. 5-19).
• Short-term, takes project goals as given;
• Ignores the evaluation of longer-term outcomes;
• Gives undue weight to the perceptions of
programme participants who are responsible for
the successful development and implementation
of the programme: ‘over-reports’ change;
• Neglects/‘under-reports’ the views of some
practitioners and critics;

9. CONFORMATIVE EVALUATION
• Adopts an atheoretical approach, and regards the
aggregation of opinion as the determination of
significance;
• Involves a tight contractual relationship with
programme sponsors that disbars public reporting
or encourages self-censorship to protect future
funding;
• Risks implicit advocacy of the programme in its
reporting style.

10. MODELS OF EVALUATION
• Survey;
• Experiment;
• Illuminative;
• The CIPP model:
– Context, Input, Process, Product;
– Look for congruence between what was intended
to happen and what actually happened in these
four areas.
• Objectives:
– How far have the objectives been achieved.

11. STAKE’S MODEL OF EVALUATION
Congruence between intentions & observations – what actually happened
INTENTIONS
Congruence
OBSERVATIONS
Intended
antecedents
←• • • • • • • •→
Actual
antecedents
Intended
transactions
←• • • • • • • •→
Actual
transactions
Intended
outcomes
←• • • • • • • •→
Actual outcomes
Antecedents = initial conditions
Transactions = processes, what takes place during the program

12. RESEARCH, POLITICS & POLICY
MAKING
Politics, research and evaluation are
inextricably linked in respect of:
– Funding
– Policy-related research
– Commissioned research
– Control and release of data and findings
– Dissemination of research
– How does research influence policy?
– Who judges research utilization?
– Consonance with political agendas

13. RESEARCH, POLITICS & POLICY
MAKING
Researchers and policy makers may have conflicting:
• Interests
• Agendas
• Audiences
• Time scales
• Terminology
• Concern for topicality

14. RESEARCH, POLITICS & POLICY
MAKING
Policy makers like:
• Simple Impact Model
• Superficial facts
• Unequivocal data
• Short term solutions
• Simple, clear remedies
for complex, generalized
social problems
• Certainty
• Positivist methodologies
Researchers work with:
• Complex models
• Complex data
• Uncertain findings
• Longer-term time scales
• Subtle and provisional
data on complex and
multi-faceted issues
• Conjecture
• Diverse methodologies
(fitness for purpose)