What is evaluation? And how does it differ from research? by Dana Wanzer

Hi! I’m Dana Wanzer, doctoral candidate at Claremont Graduate University and an avid #EvalTwitter user!

Many people new to evaluation—students and clients alike—struggle with understanding what evaluation is, and many evaluators struggle with how to communicate evaluation to others. This issue is particularly difficult when evaluation is so similar to related fields like auditing and research.

There are many great resources on what evaluation is and how it differs from research, including John LaVelle’s AEA365 blog post, Sandra Mathison’s book chapter, and Patricia Rogers’ Better Evaluation blog post.  I wanted to examine these findings more in depth, so I conducted a study with AEA and AERA members to see how evaluators and researchers defined program evaluation and differentiated evaluation from research.

In this study, I recruited members of AEA (who were primarily members of the PreK-12 Educational Evaluation and Youth-Focused Evaluation TIGs) and members of Division H (Research, Evaluation, and Assessment in Schools) of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). A total of 522 participants completed the survey which, among some other questions, had them define evaluation, choose which of the below diagrams matches their definition of evaluation, and rate how much evaluation and research differs across a variety of study areas (e.g., purpose, audience, design, methods, drawing conclusions, reporting results).

Lesson Learned: Evaluators and researchers alike mostly define evaluation like Scriven’s definition of determining the merit, significance, or worth of something—essentially, coming to a value judgment. However, many evaluators also think evaluation is about learning, informing decision making, and improving programming, indicating the purpose of evaluation beyond simply the process.

Lesson Learned: Mathison described five ways in which evaluation and research could be related:

How evaluation and research are related diagram
(Click for larger image)

Half of participants thought research and evaluation overlap like a Venn diagram, which is similar to the hourglass model from LaVelle’s blog post, and a third thought evaluation is a sub-component of research. However, evaluators were more likely to think research and evaluation intersect whereas researchers were more likely to think evaluation is a sub-component of research. Evaluators are seeing greater distinction between evaluation and research than researchers are!

Lesson Learned: Participants agreed that evaluation most differs from research by the purpose, audience, providing recommendations, disseminating results, and generalizing results and are most similar in study designs, methods, and analyses. However, more evaluators thought evaluation and research differed greatly across a multitude of study-related factors like these compared to researchers.

Hot Tip: If your students or clients already know about research, describing how evaluation is similar to and different from research might be a great approach for teaching what evaluation is!

I believe this study will be useful in helping propel the field of evaluation forward, at least by helping our field better describe evaluation but potentially in situating our field as a distinct discipline and profession.

Rad Resource: Hungry for more information? All the study materials, data, and manuscript are posted on the Open Science Framework, a free and open-source website that allows scientists to collaborate, document, and share research projects, materials, and data.

Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

3 thoughts on “What is evaluation? And how does it differ from research? by Dana Wanzer”

  1. Pingback: #EvalTuesdayTip: Identifying relationships between evaluation & research - Khulisa

  2. Erika Stanischewski

    Hi Dana,

    Your post is of particular interest since it has prompted me to reflect on the relationship between evaluation and research within the context of teaching. I am a high school science teacher, and I have always regarded myself primarily as a deliverer of information that I hoped would become knowledge to the receiver. I did not consider myself an evaluator at the same time, and it was only until recently that my thought process began to change.

    When reading your post, I was immediately inclined to support the Venn diagram, and thus the hourglass model that LaVelle suggested in his post, to represent my idea of how evaluation and research are related. I can appreciate that research and evaluation both have their respective purposes, research being to discover “generalizable knowledge” and evaluation to discover “context-specific knowledge” (Alkin, M. C. & Taut, S. M., 2003), but that they share common methodologies and analysis techniques to render their conclusions.

    However, when I think of my role as a teacher, I see myself as using the results of an evaluation to illicit more research, to then test out and re-evaluate. I see myself learning through this process. When you say, “many evaluators also think evaluation is about learning, informing decision making, and improving programming, indicating the purpose of evaluation beyond simply the process”, it validates my belief that evaluation can elicit more research and can result in learning on behalf of the evaluator for the benefit of the stakeholders: my students.

    For example, I am evaluating whether a specific set of laboratory skills have been internalized by my students, and whether they are then transferrable to another scenario. Through the evaluation, I discover that the transfer of knowledge did not occur. Therefore, I research different methods for ensuring transferability of knowledge and then try the evaluation again to see whether my new approach has worked. Within my context of teaching, I am seeing evaluation and research as cyclical in that there really is no beginning or end; whether we begin with research that we then evaluate, or an evaluation that leads to more research. Either research or evaluation prompts the other in a cyclical manner. I wonder what your thoughts are in regards to my perspective.

    Thank you for a great thought provoking post, and congratulations on your work in the field of evaluation.

    1. I definitely agree that research and evaluation can and should be a cyclical process! I think we think of research informing evaluation more so than the other way around, but they can both improve how we think about the other. Research can inform us on what might be useful programs or interventions, but evaluations can elucidate things that might need further research to determine whether it can generalize to other people, situations, contexts, etc.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.