What do you think about the submission that evaluators can do without research?
Provide a paragraph of your thoughts by the 23rd February 2018.
The paragraph carries 5 marks.
Zake
Provide a paragraph of your thoughts by the 23rd February 2018.
The paragraph carries 5 marks.
Zake
where should we put the assignment prof
ReplyDeleteEvaluation is a methodological area that is closely related to, but distinguishable from more traditional social research. Evaluation utilizes many of the same methodologies used in traditional social research, but because evaluation takes place within a political and organizational context, it requires group skills, management ability, political dexterity, sensitivity to multiple stakeholders and other skills that social research in general does not rely on as much. As an evaluator I think I can evaluate without research.
Michael J. Scriven (2003), notes that evaluation assigns value to a program while research seeks to be value-free. As such, researchers collect data, present results and then draw conclusions that expressly link to the empirical data. However, evaluators add extra steps -they collect data, examine how the data lines up with previously-determined standards (also known as criteria or benchmarks) and determine the worth of the program. So while evaluators also make conclusions that must faithfully reflect the empirical data, they take the extra steps of comparing the program data to performance benchmarks and judging the value of the program. While this may seem to cast evaluators in the role of judge we must remember that evaluations determine the value of programs so they can help improve them. Therefore, research complements evaluations and leads to the argument that evaluators can not do without researchers.
DeleteAccording to Berrington(1990)he noted, that university and collège training program on Evaluation have tended to focus on méthodology while neglecting skills needed to undertake thé first and third stages .this has left many Néotype evaluators ill-equiped to Cope with thé pressure encountered in thé real world of organisation décision making and police research. Its vital Noting that both Evaluation and research draw on the some range of data collection and analysis techniques, in both thé qualitative and quantitative domaine,
ReplyDeleteThus thé submission that Evaluators can do without research is a loose end for Any professional evaluators. As thé définition for research goes as asystematic investigation designed to develop thé général knowldege,its important evaluations which target particular impact have agrounding in research to be in position to do compréhensive Evaluations
Evaluation is an appraisal of something to determine its worth,it analyses the level of achievement of both expected and unexpected results by examining the chain,while research is a systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach a new conclusion.this implies that evaluation is a sub -set of research in that it just proves the theory which is already in existence while research improves the existing program ,then evaluation is concluded for the purpose of research for gaining new knowledge T. Beney(2011).This makes me think that evaluation can not do with out reseach.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the submission that evaluators can do without a research, the reason is that evaluators evaluate projects, programs, policies, and organizations or even human resources for the purpose of ensuring that the goals which have been set are achieved. As evaluators, our aim of doing evaluation is to make sure that the program or any other activity being evaluated is worthwhile. While on the other hand, research is looking for a new knowledge or solution of an existing problem and the researcher will need to design tools to gather the information he is looking from the population or a district but evaluation focuses on what is on hand.
ReplyDeleteEvaluation is a management tool that involves measuring and reporting on the results of programs and projects. National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data (Murai Survedi & Shawn Morford). Research is gathering of data, information and facts for the advancement of knowledge. Godwin Colibao : 1996. This means that evaluators cannot do without research because as they gather data and then analyse the information to enable reporting, they are in fact undertaking research.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Mathison (2007, the relationship between evaluation and research is such that evaluations are designed to improve what has already been researched. Research will first define what is and then evaluations takes on the so what. Research will define how it works and evaluation proceeds with how well it works. Research will determine what is and then evaluation defines what is valuable. Research draws conclusions upon which evaluations can be done for decision making. Evaluators therefore cannot do without research since both research and evaluation use the same methods in question development, study design and tools to facilitate the analysis of information.
Evaluation is a subset of research.
ReplyDeleteA lot discussions has been going on about the relationship between Research and Evaluation, many people have in most cases confused Evaluation with Research but these two are mutually independent. I look at Evaluation as a subset of Research because it involves assessment of finding or observations against standards for the purpose of making a decision by asking questions such as "what is good"?, which is better or what conditions are best to produce desired results?. Research asks questions such as Why is this?, What is the difference between these, these questions are for learning purposes whereas the Evaluation questions are Judgmental.
Evaluation looks at impact of an intervention while research is more interested in producing more generalized knowledge, more theoretical unlike evaluation that is more specific, applied knowledge and aims at determining effectiveness of a specific program. (Micheal Qinn Patton, 2014, Evaluation Flash Cards).
Evaluation is the systematic assessment of the worth or merit of some object. It also utilizes many of the same methodologies used in traditional social research. Evaluation requires group skills, management ability, political dexterity, sensitivity to multiple stakeholders and other skills but research in general does not rely on as much that is it strives to establish that a particular factor caused a particular effect i.e. smoking causes lung cancer. The goal of evaluation, however, is to help improve a particular program that has already been researched.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Michael J. Scriven, Ph.D., evaluation assigns value to a program while research seeks to be value-free4. Researchers collect data, present results and then draw conclusions that expressly link to the empirical data. Evaluators add extra steps. They collect data, examine how the data lines up with previously-determined standards (also known as criteria or benchmarks) and determine the worth of the program. I therefore strongly agree that evaluators can not do without research since research is the first step that is as they are collecting data they are doing research
I strongly agree with you Jackie, it is after conducting an evaluation of the completed research findings that you can be able to do yours trying to fill the gaps. They are actually bedmates :) .
DeleteI think to a greater extend evaluators can not do without research because according to Micheal Scriven, 1998: Bill Trichim:1998, Micheal Quinn Patton:1998, " Although there are arguments that evaluation and research especially applied social research, are no different in general, evaluators do claim there is a difference but the two are interconnected because evaluation requires the investigation of what is, doing evaluation requires doing research. In other words, determining the value, merit or worth of an evaluand requires some factual knowledge about the evaluand and perhaps similar evaluands. But of course,evaluation requires more than facts about evaluands, as suggested by Scriven in his interview with Evaluation exchange. However to a small extend evaluators can do without research this is because the area of evaluation developed because research could not supply satisfactory answers to the kind of questions that evaluations deals with. The pressure on evaluators and on evaluation to carry out activities using research criteria prevents evaluators from producing satisfactory evaluations. Therefore acknowledging evaluation as an independent discipline, different from research, will enable evaluators to develop their own criteria and appropriate methodology according to "The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, vol. 18.
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with the submission that evaluators can do without research. Research is systematic investigation that is purposed at generating knwoledge and contributing towards knowlegde. Looking at Evaluation, though quite different in context, it is also conducted systematically by following well defined and generally agreed-upon procedures; and it aims at facilitating learning for better planning, designing and implementation of developement interventions. Therefore, there are two substantial common elements that qualify research and evaluation as bedfellows, that is, 'process' and 'purpose'. In both, the process is systematic and procedural, and the purpose is to generate knowledge and facilitating learning. The marginal variance is that the purpose for research is more indefinite and less destined than that of evaluation. But again, this qualifies evaluation as a sub-set of research.
DeleteEvaluation can be defined as a structured process of assessing the success of a project in meeting its goals and to reflect on the lessons learned.
ReplyDeleteOECD (2002), Research comprises “creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications.”
Basically I think under no circumstances can one do effective evaluation without research. You cannot ably ascertain the success of a project unless adequate research in to what has happened and possibly reasons why it has happened, then we may not be able to inform on our findings. On the other hand research without evaluation may be meaningless because if you do research without analyzing the success of the first research assignment, you are bound to repeat the same mistakes.
Evaluators of programmes or interventions get data on the intervention activities, outputs, outcomes and impact of a given intervention trying to understand the objectives. Evaluators compare what has been achieved as compared to the objectives of the intervention, compare the effectiveness and the efficiency . All that is done through research. I therefore submit that evaluators can not do without research. You need to do research to get the details of the intervention and how the intervention has impacted on the intended beneficiaries.
ReplyDeleteEvaluators can do less without research. Evaluations are carried out using social research methods and practices to measure what changes the programme, projects and policies have contributed to and to get a mature understanding of how it happened. Evaluation aims at increasing the knowledge about one or several aspects of the intervention for learning, informing decision-making processes, and being accountable to stakeholders, donors and citizens.( Mathison 2007). Research is a process to discover new knowledge (Thomas Kuhn, 1996) this makes evaluation just to add on research. Research is a careful and detailed study into a specific problem, concern, or issue using the scientific method. Research is a process of systematic inquiry that entails collection of data; documentation of critical information; and analysis and interpretation of that data/information, in accordance with suitable methodologies set by specific professional fields and academic disciplines and evaluation is made basing on this data collected. Research is conducted to evaluate the validity of a hypothesis or an interpretive framework; to assemble a body of substantive knowledge and findings for sharing them in appropriate manners; and to generate questions for further inquiries. Given the above evaluation is just a sub set of research and if research is not properly done evaluation will not properly produce the intended results
ReplyDeleteResearch and evaluation are characterized by similar features that center on the shared objective of answering a question. However, it is important to distinguish between the two disciplines by explaining that the purpose of evaluation is essentially to improve the existing program for the target population, while research is intended to prove a theory or hypothesis. Relatedly according to Stufflebeam, D.L. (1983). “The purpose of evaluation is to improve, not prove.” Considering the aspects of research and evaluation, there is validity in Stufflebeam’s quotation. However, from what we know about the purpose of evaluation, some evaluations do seek to ‘prove’ a theory; for example probability evaluations prove that the outcomes or impact of a program are the result of program activities. Therefore, although the main purpose of evaluation is to improve a program, certain circumstances enlist evaluations to "prove". It is also possible to say that evaluation is a sub-set of research because it would be impossible to conduct an evaluation without incorporating basic constructs of research, such as question development and study design. This well stated, I conclude that Evaluators cannot do without research
ReplyDeleteEvaluators cannot do without research.
ReplyDeleteI think doing an evaluation requires doing some research. It may not be as broad as what we value research to be, but it should be able to give you, your intended results. Research is about searching again, it seeks produce new knowledge whereas evaluation measures progress towards goals and seeks to inform decision making. While research is designed to prove something, Evaluation aims at improving something. In order to carry out an evaluation one may consider doing some basic research to improve on undertakings. Evaluators cannot do without research. In Michael Scrivens’ interview with evaluation exchange; evaluation requires synthesis of the facts and values in the determination of merit, worth or value. Research on the other hand, investigates factual knowledge. I think the two concepts are interconnected and research complements evaluation
Evaluators cannot do without research because most of the evaluations follow research paradigms where research criterion is applied in evaluation exercises. Evaluation and research are different disciplines that complement each other therefore go hand-in-hand. The methods, tools and concepts used in both are similar. Important to note is that research initiatives can be evaluated and evaluation research is appropriate whenever some social intervention occurs or is planned.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of research is to enlarge the body of scientific knowledge while the purpose of evaluation is to provide useful feedback to program managers and entrepreneurs. The constant pressure to examine evaluations by the criteria of research prevents evaluation from becoming an independent discipline. The main difference between evaluation and research is the domain of application. Both evaluation and research aspire to increase our understanding in a variety of areas, but the kinds of understanding they contribute to are different. The dominant paradigm in research is meant to formulate general knowledge, in contrast, evaluation is intended to amass knowledge and understanding of a concrete activity — a project — and to give this understanding back to the project as feedback.
In cases where evaluators use research procedures and carry out evaluations in research settings, they use research tools that are valid for focused questions. As a result, the application of the findings is broader.
My submission is that evaluators can not do without research because research and evaluation have similar characteristics that centre on the shared objective of answering a question. However, the two disciplines may differ. The purpose of an evaluation is to improve the existing program for the target population while research is intended to prove a theory or hypothesis. Both may use similar data collection and analysis methods but at a later stage of usage and dissemination, the two disciplines differ. How ever, at some point, evaluations do seek to prove a theory; probability evaluations prove that the outcome or impact of a program are the results of a program. Therefore although the main purpose of evaluation is to improve a program, certain circumstances make evaluations to prove. For example, an evaluation has the ability to demonstrate that micro credit programs for women reduce child mortality. An evaluation is a sub-set of research because it is impossible to conduct an evaluation without involving the basic research components such as question development and study design.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Berrington(1990)he noted, that university and college training program on Evaluation have tended to focus on methodology while neglecting skills needed to undertake the first and third stages .this has left many evaluators ill-equipped to Cope with the pressure encountered in the real world of organization decision making and police research. It’s vital Nothing that both Evaluation and research draw on the some range of data collection and analysis techniques, in both the qualitative and quantitative domain
ReplyDeleteAccording to Mathison (2007, the relationship between evaluation and research is such that evaluations are designed to improve what has already been researched. Research will first define what is and then evaluations takes on the so what. Research will define how it works and evaluation proceeds with how well it works.
Evaluation looks at impact of an intervention while research is more interested in producing more generalized knowledge, more theoretical unlike evaluation that is more specific, applied knowledge and aims at determining effectiveness of a specific program. (Micheal Qinn Patton, 2014, Evaluation Flash Cards).
In my line of work as a Statistician/ Economist, I frequently encounter a lack of awareness about the essence of evaluation, in general, and the difference between evaluation and research, in particular. “Evaluation Research” is the literature we often use as a kind of hybrid term but in many cases, this is a product of Miscegenation that is neither good research nor poor evaluation. Thus I Denis Msc M&E Student 2017/18 propose to show that these are separate and distinct disciplines despite the similarities that arise from their sharing concepts, instruments, and methods in some cases. I claim that the difficulty in distinguishing between evaluation and research is at the expense of evaluation. The ongoing attempts to apply research criteria to evaluation put pressure on evaluators to relinquish the special attributes of evaluation; when this is done, the uniqueness and quality of evaluation is diminished.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the submission "evaluators can do without research".
ReplyDeleteEvaluators cannot do without research, the purpose of research is essentially to prove a theory or hypothesis, while evaluation is intended to improve the existing program for the target population. though both use similar data collection and analysis methods. Evaluation is a subset of research. Evaluations prove that the outcomes or impact of a program are the result of the program activities. Using an example of microcredit programs for women in society, an evaluation has the ability to demonstrate that microcredit programs for women reduce child mortality as they would be economically empowered to provide basic needs and care of a family. The primary purpose of program evaluations is to benefit program target audience. It is possible to say that evaluation is a subset of research because it is impossible to conduct an evaluation without incorporating basic elements of research, such as question development and study design.
An evaluator's ability to determine context and unexpected effects of a program distinguishes him from the researcher. Whereas a researcher would seek to determine whether microcredit programs accomplish the intended goal of reducing child mortality, an evaluator would look for effects of the same microcredit program. Questions asked by the evaluator during the course of program analysis. How does it improve the household's quality of life? How does the program increase spending on health care? What villages reduced on child mortality? Research intends to increase the knowledge on a particular issue. On the other hand, evaluators make recommendations for stakeholders. Therefore, research and evacuation work hand in hand for the success of projects.
Research and evaluation are characterized by similar features that center on the shared objective of answering a question. However, it is important to distinguish between the two disciplines by explaining that the purpose of evaluation is essentially to improve the existing program for the target population, while research is intended to prove a theory or hypothesis. Although both use similar data collection and analysis methods, the two disciplines diverge again during use and dissemination.
ReplyDeleteThese are different in that;
1. research tends to generate new knowledge while evaluators seek information for discussion making.
2. research results are published while evaluation results are given to stakeholders
so i conclude that evaluators can do without research
ReplyDeleteAs noted by D.L. Stufflebeam, the purpose of evaluation is "to improve not to prove" that is, evaluation is essentially to improve the existing program for the target population while research is intended to prove a theory or hypothesis. Both use similar data collection methods although the two disciplines diverge again during use and dissemination. When we speak of the application of evaluation or research, it is important to distinguish between two main points: the procedures of examination (questionnaires, interviews, observations) that the evaluators or researchers use for collecting data; and the findings and conclusions derived from the data, and their consequences. The reason for making this distinction lies in the principal differences between evaluation and research, in the possible application of the two methods. However, from what we know about the purpose of evaluations, some evaluations do seek to prove a theory or certain circumstances that enlist evaluations to prove. Therefore, It is possible to say that evaluation is a subset of research because it would be impossible to conduct an evaluation without incorporating basic constructs of research such as question development and study design.
Evaluation and research are separate and distinct disciplines despite the similarities that arise from their sharing of concepts,instruments and methods in some cases. whereas research is aimed at increasing the body of knowledge, evaluation intends to provide useful feedback to program managers and entrepreneurs.
ReplyDeletewhen research tools are used in evaluation,the evaluator may fail to give coherent feedback concerning the project because the the tools will give generalized and abstract answers only appropriate to research. so the quality of evaluation is damaged because operators do not get answers relevant to their work. For evaluation needs the ability to stand aside and observe, to see and understand processes, to organise them so as to improve on the performance of the project. Therefore, the boarders of evaluation and research are not clear and I claim that evaluation is a subset of research. In conclusion, evaluators can't do without research.
I think evaluators can do evaluation without research because evaluation usually focuses on an internal situation, such as collecting data about specific programs, with no intent to generalise the results to other settings and situations. This can be done without research hence qualifying an evaluator to do evaluation without research.
ReplyDeleteI think Evaluators cannot do without research reason being evaluators use social science research techniques to answer questions of worth. It is seen as a subjective because it produces value judgments and is the most important and useful type of research according to Melvin. H. Shelly 1982.
ReplyDeleteIn my view,both evaluation and research are almost hinged on to each other.Research looks at collecting facts about a phenomena to help get a deeper understanding of a project or policy.And evaluation is usually done on an existing project or policy which was implemented after being researched about,so evaluation feeds on research and both of them use the same methods and techniques during data collection,hence both evaluation and research are synonymous.
ReplyDeleteMany scholars have given their views on the relationship between research and evaluation. However in my own perspective basing on several encounters that links research and evaluation, when one examines and judges events and effectiveness, he or she is engaged in evaluation while when this examination of effectiveness is conducted systematically and empirically through vigilant data collection and solicitous scrutiny, one is engaged in evaluation research. Thus, these are two clearly differentiated disciplines despite their similarity in concepts, tools, and methods. The purpose of research is to enlarge the body of scientific knowledge while the purpose of evaluation is to provide use full feedback to program managers and entrepreneurs. When we speak of the application of evaluation or research, it is important to distinguish between two main points: the procedures of examination (questionnaires, interviews, observations) that the evaluators or researchers use for collecting data; and the findings and conclusions derived from the data, and their consequences. The reason for making this distinction lies in the principal differences between evaluation and research in the possible application of the two methods. Therefore I strongly submit that evaluators can do without research although the two disciplines are interrelated.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this submission, simply not because these two are interconnected but rather in the fact that the attempt to to draw distinctions between the two is always caricatured; for example the popular distinction that evaluation particularizes and that research generalizes is neither true, more so the idea that evaluation is done for decision making and research is done for affirming decision making is also invalid as there are contexts in which evaluation is done for the sake of doing an evaluation with no anticipation of a decision, change or improvements. In addition some forms of social research are closely aligned to social action or seeking solutions to social problems.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Micheal Quinn Patton (1998) "The distinction between research and evaluation, like most of the distinction we make, perhaps all of them, is arbitrary. one can make the case that the two are the same or different, along a continuum or on different continua completely".
Therefore well as evaluation is a discipline of its own with its own logic and theories, see Mathison 2004b.) it's reliance on social science research for methodology, interpretations and conclusions makes an indelible fact that its intertwined within research and therefore cannot do away with research.
Evaluators cannot do without research because most of the evaluations follow research paradigms where research criterion is applied in evaluation exercises. Evaluation and research are different disciplines that complement each other. Research results act as a bench mark when conducting an evaluation. It is from the research findings that an evaluator measures success of a project or whether the project has met its desired objective or not.
ReplyDeleteTherefore evaluators cannot do without research.
An evaluator is someone whose job is to judge the quality, importance, amount, or value of something. (Definition of “evaluator” from the Cambridge Business English Dictionary © Cambridge University Press); by doing so, he/she is trying to identify the knowledge gap of what should be and what ought to be. the process of investigating this matter is research itself. therefore an evaluator can not do without research.
ReplyDeleteEvaluation is an example of applied social research (Karberg et al. 2005). Beneficial and valuable evaluations require knowing the basic principles of social science, experimental design, and data collection methods that are facets of research. Successful evaluations frequently demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between theoretical concepts of human behavior or social structure and pragmatic interventions. However, research in evaluation or evaluation research differs in its emphasis from such other major types of social research as exploratory studies, which seek to formulate new problems and hypotheses, or explanatory research, which places emphasis on the testing of theoretically significant hypotheses (Selltiz et al. 1959). Regardless of the form the evaluation takes, evaluators have to partly or fully employ research while conducting evaluation and thus cannot do without research.
ReplyDeleteHarriet Bonabaana21 April 2018 at 23:54
ReplyDeleteMichael J. Scriven (2003), notes that evaluation assigns value to a program while research seeks to be value-free. As such, researchers collect data, present results and then draw conclusions that expressly link to the empirical data. However, evaluators add extra steps -they collect data, examine how the data lines up with previously-determined standards (also known as criteria or benchmarks) and determine the worth of the program. So while evaluators also make conclusions that must faithfully reflect the empirical data, they take the extra steps of comparing the program data to performance benchmarks and judging the value of the program. While this may seem to cast evaluators in the role of judge we must remember that evaluations determine the value of programs so they can help improve them. Therefore, research complements evaluations and leads to the argument that evaluators can not do without researchers.
Research is very important in evaluating the success of a programme. Evaluators usually use both quantitative and qualitative methods of social research. Without research programmes will not have a meaningful direction. Robson (1993:170) supports that research is a necessity in evaluation because upon it policy makers and programme formulators, implementers, and evaluators make the decision on the most effective approach to attain the set goals and objectives
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement that evaluators can do without research because evaluations which are conducted to generate knowledge about programs, policies, or approaches and are often grounded in formal, systematic research methods.
ReplyDeleteThe first step in any evaluation is to define the research questions that will drive the
inquiry. Once evaluators and program stakeholders frame the questions, evaluators
identify appropriate measures, methods, sampling procedures, and time required to
answer these questions. After that, data collection and data analysis are undertaken and the evaluators report back to program staff and help to interpret and share results with stakeholders.
Clearly, evaluators can not do without research.
Evaluations and research are two closely linked disciplines. Principally an evaluation is a form of research, hence its often referred to as an evaluation research.
ReplyDeleteIts key to note that Evaluation is a methodological area that is closely related to, but distinguishable from more traditional social research. Evaluation utilizes many of the same methodologies used in traditional social research, but because evaluation takes place within a political and organizational context, it requires group skills, management ability, political dexterity, sensitivity to multiple stakeholders and other skills that social research in general does not rely on as much.
The central point of divergence between the two is the fact that evaluations may concentrate on assessing the worth of an intervention, value for money, continuity etc while research aims to generate data to solve a problem, an issue of gain deeper understanding about a given phenomena..
Summarily i wound postulate that evaluation cannot cannot be disjointed from research due to methodological, analytical, reporting similarities, hence research is an inherent part of evaluations.
evaluation is a process that takes place before, during and after an activity. taking the opportunity to understand whether you achieved what you set out to, how well you did it and what impact your activity has had. research one the other hand seeks to develop further knowledge on a topic or knowledge on a topic. these two have differences, evaluation is usually done for thr purpose of decision making. and to improve something. research is usually done to prove something and develop facts. though these two are different, they are interconnected as they use the same methods, more importantly evaluation requires investigation of what is already there, hence doing evaluation requires research. evaluation therefore can not be done without research. however research can be done without evaluation.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the submission that evaluators can do without research.
ReplyDeleteEvaluation is conducted to prove the achievements of the intended project or program for the purpose of improvement while research is done for purposes of gaining knowledge on a particular subject, phenomena or issue. It is impossible to conduct an evaluation without the basic constructs of research like the research questions/ evaluation questions, sampling procedures, data collection and analysis. The fact that most evaluations are conducted through surveys, discussion with focus groups, key informats as a way of obtaining knowledge to assess the worth of a given project/program shows that the two concepts are actually intertwined.
Evaluation is a process that critically examines a program. It involves collecting and analyzing information about a programs' activities, characteristics, and outcomes. its purpose is to make judgement about a program, to improve its effectiveness, and / or to inform programming decisions(Patton, 1987).
ReplyDeleteEvaluators can not do without research because they first review collected information about program or project to gain full meaning of the project deliverables and much up aligned thoughts through gap analyse of the meant and umeant program/ project deliverable
“The purpose of evaluation is to improve, not prove.” (D.L. Stufflebeam)
ReplyDeleteResearch and evaluation are characterized by similar features that center on the shared objective of answering a question. However, it is important to distinguish between the two disciplines by explaining that the purpose of evaluation is essentially to improve the existing program for the target population, while research is intended to prove a theory or hypothesis. Although both use similar data collection and analysis methods, the two disciplines diverge again during use and dissemination.