Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

the profession: systemic inquiry, competence, integrity/honesty, respect for people, and
responsibilities for general and public welfare. The committee, commonly called The
Joint Committee, also developed The Standards for Program Evaluation: utility,
feasibility, propriety, and accuracy (Patton, 1997). To this day, scholars concur that The
Standards are the benchmark against which all evaluations must be measured (Patton;
Preskill & Torres, 1998; Rodriguez-Campos, 2005; Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeeman;
Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007). The AEA is now 20 years old and has more than 5,200
members who represent 60 countries. As society advances, it is important to note that the
“evaluation enterprise [is] powerfully shaped by changing times” (Rossi, Lipsey, &
Freeman, 2004, p. 15). Over the course of evaluation’s history, one issue has
“persistently plagued evaluation researchers and practitioners… the use of evaluation
findings” (Preskill & Donaldson, 2008, p. 113). It was out of concern for persistent and
pervasive lack of use of evaluation findings that Patton (1997) and others began to
seriously investigate and implement the utilization-focused design for evaluations.
Evaluation approaches. Evaluation in practice tends to look very much like
traditional academic research. Both are driven by research questions. Both must identify
data collection and analysis methods. Both typically generate meaning and provide
recommendations for future actions. As in traditional academia, the evaluation field of
practice and practitioners spans the rich spectrum of quantitative and qualitative
methodologies (Patton, 1997; Preskill & Torres, 1998; Rodriguez-Campos, 2005; Rossi,
Lipsey, & Freeeman; Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007) However, there is a distinction to
be made: “a distinguishing characteristic of evaluation is that unlike traditional forms of
academic research, it is grounded in the everyday realities of organizations” (Russ-Eft &
20