Similarities and Dissimilarities between and Evaluation - Research Paper Example

Abstract This essay discusses similarities and dissimilarities between research and evaluation, which are two distinct disciplines although they are used interchangeably. The two disciplines share various things such as concepts, methods, and tools but are differentiated during use and dissemination. The purpose of this essay is to provide useful information concerning purpose of both evaluation and research and how they are conducted. It examines the central characteristics of research and evaluation such as validity, generalization, theory, relevance and their usefulness in decision making process as well as the roles those characteristics play in each. Evaluation and research differ in degree along dimensions of generalizations of both particularization and generalization as well as decision oriented and conclusion oriented that serve as the basic of distinctions. The essay further includes different functions of both evaluation and research and asserts that the use of research methods have prevented evaluation from becoming independent discipline. Introduction Research and evaluation have almost similar features focusing on the shared objectives of responding to questions. Evaluation tends to improve the existing program for the target population but research always tends to prove a theory or hypothesis. Both evaluation and research use similar data collection and analysis methods but diverge during use and dissemination(Wadsworth, 2010). Evaluation may be said to be a subset of research because conducting it requires incorporation of basic constructs of researchand must balance the needs to remain objective and the expectations to make recommendations as required. However, the main purpose of research is to enhance understanding, knowledge, and eventually providing results going beyond an individual program or project. This paper examines the differences and similarities between research and evaluation by providing a few examples to strengthen the points. Although research and evaluation are interconnected, there are differences between the two disciplines. Considering the similarities between research and evaluation, it is clear that application of the examination is always as wide as possible. It is also worth noting that the borders between research and evaluation are not clear and there are, of course many points where research and evaluation overlap. Wadsworth (2010) explains that some of the commonalities between research and evaluation based on purpose, methods and results. Both the disciplines share a common purpose to enhance people’s knowledge base of some specific topic and further involve the collection of information previously published articles, interviews, written surveys and personal observation. Looking at the results for both research and evaluation it is clear that they both reveal strengths and weaknesses linked with the topic under study thus providing a way of leading improvement and development of goals (Wallace & Van, 2012). Despite arguments that evaluation and research are similar, evaluators believe that there are differences between the two disciplines because determining the worth, quality, or worth of an “evaluand” needs some factual knowledge and more than facts in conducting it. Evaluation usually requires synthesis of facts in determining the merits while research investigates factual knowledge, which may not necessarily include value that may require evaluation(Fitzpatrick, Sanders &Worthen, 2005). There are tightfisted ways of differentiating between research and evaluation where other people feel that research is a subset of research while others think vice versa. According to Wadsworth (2010), purpose, methods of inquiry and judgment of quality of both research and evaluation play a critical role in comparing and contrasting the two disciplines. Fitzpatrick, Sanders &Worthen (2005) explain that purpose of evaluation and research differs in many ways including the fact that evaluation particularizes while research generalizes. Evaluation is normally designed to improve something and provide basis for decision making while research is designed to prove something and provide the basis for drawing conclusions. Moreover, evaluation answers “so what?” question while research tends to answer the “what’s so?” question. According to Wallace & Van (2012), evaluation considers responding to how well something works, as research tends to analyze how something works. In addition, evaluation is about what is valuable while research is about what is. However, these distinctions are problematic because they tend to travesty to seek clear differences because simple distinction relies on limited specific notions of both social science research and evaluation. It should be understood that social science research is more diverse thanrecommendedboth in contradictory perceptions on ontology and epistemology but evaluation as a practice is as what is depicted instead of foundation of evaluation (Wallace & Van, 2012). Research may not be mainly about generalization for instance, a historical analysis of the causes of French Revolution or an ecological study of the Galapagos Islands may not be conducted in a way that they generalize all the revolutions or perhaps all the matriarchal cultures(Wadsworth, 2010). As much evaluation is key about the particular, evaluations further offers the basis for generalization and while research is about generalization, as far as making inferences is concerned from a sample population, most research is about the particular. Moreover, not all evaluation is about decision making or action because in some instances, evaluation may be done for the sake of doing evaluation such as evaluations of movies or books that can be either ends in and of them(Fitzpatrick, Sanders &Worthen, 2005).Most practicing evaluators are more concerned with practice of evaluation instead of instead of the discipline of evaluation prompting them to focus on the expectation that evaluation will positively and significantly improve goals. However, thinking of evaluation as a discipline makes one differentiate between evaluative claims and making prescriptions, a notion that provides a distinct form of reasoning(Wallace & Van, 2012). Additionally, research usually seeks solution to social problem such as alleviating problems, taking action, as well as working towards a social state of affairs aligning with those values and policy analysis is directly connected to decision making(Fitzpatrick, Sanders &Worthen, 2005).Research tends to alleviate almost all sorts of problems including environmental, social and health and therefore the idea that research is about is about establishing facts, stating what is and drawing is only relevant for some research. However, the link between research, action, and decision making may not be as strong as it is for evaluation because much research is intended to influence policies and practice(Wadsworth, 2010). Social science research only influences policies and practices indirectly after accumulation of research knowledge, which sums up as an influence at a macro level. An individual research is not likely to influence policy and practice because it is regarded insufficient to determine a decision due to the feeling that they provide an incomplete image of the study. Social science researchers however believe that their research normally raise awareness of an issue, a fact that leads to collection of body of knowledge that inform decision making or establishing research evidence. On the other hand, evaluation may more directly affect decision making using micro level decisions when compared to the macro level decision found in research. However, the long term relationship ascertained characterized with utilization and lack of utilization imply that link between evaluative claims and decisions are unsubstantiated. For instance, because of ubiquity of the program about evaluations of the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, a program that has widely been evaluated in many countries, has led to the mixed results. Although some early evaluations showed that the DARE program was effective, it has since been indicated by the recent evaluation that that it is not as effective as deemed. It is therefore clear that both evaluation and research requires accumulation of research of knowledge and the only difference may be because of investment of considerable programmatic and evaluative resources. Evaluations’ contribution to micro decision-making and research’s contribution to macro decision making may not therefore be true when a close analysis of the distinctions are carried out(Fitzpatrick, Sanders &Worthen, 2005). Differences between research and evaluation methods may also be analyzed in many ways considering that evaluation borrows from the research’s methods of inquiry. Most evaluators undergo social science kind of education particularly psychology and sociology and would therefore use research methodologies informed by research traditions. Few evaluators have moved far beyond the influence of research methodologies because evaluation examines issues such as needs, costs, ethicality, and justifiability that make evaluators use a wider spectrum of evidentiary technologies. Fitzpatrick, Sanders &Worthen (2005) posit that evaluators further borrow from many other disciplines including philosophy, accounting, and ethics. On the other hand, research experiences challenges that have led to epistemological crisis because of many acceptable strategies for data collection and inquiry. According to Fitzpatrick, Sanders &Worthen (2005), evaluation uses tools from various disciplines to arrive at both facts, values, and further explored the quantitative and qualitative techniques. Regardless of using m any methods, evaluators apply anarchist epistemology in rejecting the domination of one method over the others or even single idea or scientific chauvinism(Wadsworth, 2010). Evaluators consider it useful not to use any singular commitment to social science style of knowledge or techniques but rather make sure the valuation is done in a meaningful way and within the context. Some specific approaches to evaluation are linked with research traditions prompting overlooking of unique and wider array of evaluations’ methods of inquiry. Evaluators are committed to developing evaluation specific methods to make sure that they make appropriate and sufficient judgments(Fitzpatrick, Sanders &Worthen, 2005). Some of the methods used by evaluators are cluster evaluation, rural rapid appraisal, significant change technique and photo voice that have proved effective. Wadsworth (2010) asserts that judgment of the quality of evaluation and research are derived from their purpose. The main purpose of research is contributing to understanding how the world works making it to be judged by its accuracy captured by perceived legitimacy, consistency and attention to causality while evaluation is judged by its accuracy although there is additional aspects of utility, feasibility and propriety. The many dimensions for judging the quality of evaluation are evident in the Meta-evaluation Checklist informed by the Program Evaluation Standards. According to Wallace & Van (2012), differentiating feature of evaluation is the universal focus on stakeholders’ perception, something not available in research. Evaluations attend to stakeholders’perspectives but research may entail stakeholders’ language and inclusion of the same is never necessary. Evaluations normally start by engaging stakeholders in the inquiry as a way of understanding their perspectives. For instance, public health work involves partnerships and therefore disregarding the stakeholders may lead to criticism or resistance of the findings in an evaluation conducted. In conclusion, evaluation and research differ in degree along dimensions of generalizations of both particularization and generalization as well as decision oriented and conclusion oriented that serve as the basic of distinctions. Research and evaluation also differ in terms of methods applied and how judgments of quality are made although there are some similarities such as the need for accuracy in both. When evaluators distance themselves further from the social science techniques, there is likeliness that distinction between research and evaluation will broaden(Fitzpatrick, Sanders &Worthen, 2005). Some people think that evaluation is an incomplete research that does not meet research criteria thereby not recognizing evaluation in its own right, which exerts pressure on evaluators prompting them to reach higher validation rates. Although there are many similarities between evaluation and research, the two disciplines are very different except for the fact that evaluators use some research criteria and methods. References Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., &Worthen, B. R. (2005). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Boston [u.a.]: Pearson [u.a. Wadsworth, Y. (2010). Building in research and evaluation: Human inquiry for living systems. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Wallace, D. P., & Van, F. C. (2012). Knowledge into action: Research and evaluation in library and information science. Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited. Read More