RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 43
The agendas of the study: anevaluator’sagenda
is given, a researcher’s agenda is his or her own.
Norris (1990) reports an earlier piece of
work by Glass and Worthen (1971) in which
they identified eleven main differences between
evaluation and research:
The motivation of the inquirer: research is
pursued largely to satisfy curiosity, evaluation
is undertaken to contribute to the solution of
aproblem.
The objectives of the research: research and
evaluation seek different ends. Research seeks
conclusions, evaluation leads to decisions.
Laws versus description:researchisthequestfor
laws (nomothetic), evaluation merely seeks to
describe a particular thing (idiographic).
The role of explanation:properandusefulevaluation
can be conducted without producing an
explanation of why the product or project is
good or bad or of how it operates to produce its
effects.
The autonomy of the inquiry: evaluation is
undertaken at the behest of a client, while
researchers set their own problems.
Properties of the phenomena that are assessed:
evaluation seeks to assess social utility directly,
research may yield evidence of social utility but
often only indirectly.
Universality of the phenomena studied:
researchers work with constructs having a
currency and scope of application that make
the objects of evaluation seem parochial by
comparison.
Salience of the value question: in evaluation value
questions are central and usually determine
what information is sought.
Investigative techniques: while there may be
legitimate differences between research and
evaluation methods, there are far more
similarities than differences with regard to
techniques and procedures for judging validity.
Criteria for assessing the activity: thetwomost
important criteria for judging the adequacy of
research are internal and external validity, for
evaluation they are utility and credibility.
Disciplinary base: the researcher can afford to
pursue inquiry within one discipline and the
evaluator cannot.
A clue to some of the differences between
evaluation and research can be seen in the
definition of evaluation. Most definitions of
evaluation include reference to several key
features:
answering specific, given questions
gathering information
making judgements
taking decisions
addressing the politics of a situation (Morrison
1993: 2).
(See http://www.routledge.com/textbooks/
9780415368780 – Chapter 1, file 1.12. ppt.) Morrison
(1993: 2) provides one definition of evaluation
as: the provision of information about specified
issues upon which judgements are based and from
which decisions for action are taken. This view
echoes MacDonald (1987) in his comments that
the evaluator
is faced with competing interest groups, with divergent
definitions of the situation and conflicting informational
needs ....Hehastodecidewhichdecisionmakers
he will serve, what information will be of most
use, when it is needed and how it can be obtained ....
The resolution of these issues commits the evaluator
to a political stance, an attitude to the government of
education. No such commitment is required of the researcher.
He stands outside the political process, and
values his detachment from it. For him the production
of new knowledge and its social use are separated. The
evaluator is embroiled in the action, built into a political
process which concerns the distribution of power,
i.e. the allocation of resources and the determination
of goals, roles and tasks ....Whenevaluationdata
influences power relationships the evaluator is compelled
to weight carefully the consequences of his task
specification ....Theresearcherisfreetoselecthis
questions, and to seek answers to them. The evaluator,
on the other hand, must never fall into the error
of answering questions which no one but he is asking.
(MacDonald 1987: 42)
Chapter 1