Editing Evaluation (section)

==Approaches==
There exist several conceptually distinct ways of thinking about, designing, and conducting evaluation efforts. Many of the evaluation approaches in use today make truly unique contributions to solving important problems, while others refine existing approaches in some way.

===Classification of approaches===
Two classifications of evaluation approaches by House<ref>House, E. R. (1978). Assumptions underlying evaluation models. ''Educational Researcher''. 7(3), 4-12.</ref> and Stufflebeam and Webster<ref name=Stufflebeam>Stufflebeam, D. L., & Webster, W. J. (1980). [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1163593 "An analysis of alternative approaches to evaluation"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161109021113/http://www.jstor.org/stable/1163593 |date=2016-11-09 }}. ''[[Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis]]''. 2(3), 5-19. {{oclc|482457112}}</ref> can be combined into a manageable number of approaches in terms of their unique and important underlying principles.{{Clarify|date=May 2012}}

House considers all major evaluation approaches to be based on a common [[ideology]] entitled [[liberal democracy]]. Important principles of this ideology include freedom of choice, the uniqueness of the [[individual]] and [[Empiricism|empirical]] inquiry grounded in [[Objectivity (philosophy)|objectivity]]. He also contends that they are all based on [[Subject (philosophy)#Subjectivism|subjectivist]] ethics, in which ethical conduct is based on the subjective or intuitive experience of an individual or group. One form of subjectivist ethics is [[Utilitarianism|utilitarian]], in which "[[Goodness and value theory|the good]]" is determined by what maximizes a single, explicit interpretation of happiness for society as a whole. Another form of subjectivist ethics is [[Ethical intuitionism|intuitionist]]/[[Value pluralism|pluralist]], in which no single interpretation of "the good" is assumed and such interpretations need not be explicitly stated nor justified.

These ethical positions have corresponding [[Epistemology|epistemologies]]—[[Philosophy|philosophies]] for obtaining [[knowledge]]. The objectivist epistemology is associated with the utilitarian ethic; in general, it is used to acquire knowledge that can be externally verified (intersubjective agreement) through publicly exposed [[Methodology|methods]] and [[data]]. The subjectivist epistemology is associated with the intuitionist/pluralist ethic and is used to acquire new knowledge based on existing personal knowledge, as well as experiences that are (explicit) or are not (tacit) available for public inspection. House then divides each epistemological approach into two main political perspectives. Firstly, approaches can take an elite perspective, focusing on the interests of managers and professionals; or they also can take a mass perspective, focusing on [[consumer]]s and [[Participation (decision making)|participatory]] approaches.

Stufflebeam and Webster place approaches into one of three groups, according to their orientation toward the role of [[Value (personal and cultural)|values]] and ethical consideration. The political orientation promotes a positive or negative view of an object regardless of what its value actually is and might be&mdash;they call this [[pseudo-]]evaluation. The questions orientation includes approaches that might or might not provide answers specifically related to the value of an object&mdash;they call this [[wikt:quasi|quasi]]-evaluation. The values orientation includes approaches primarily intended to determine the value of an object&mdash;they call this true evaluation.

When the above concepts are considered simultaneously, fifteen evaluation approaches can be identified in terms of epistemology, major perspective (from House), and orientation.<ref name=Stufflebeam/> Two pseudo-evaluation approaches, politically controlled and public relations studies, are represented. They are based on an objectivist epistemology from an elite perspective. Six quasi-evaluation approaches use an objectivist epistemology. Five of them—[[experiment]]al research, management [[information systems]], testing programs, objectives-based studies, and [[content analysis]]—take an elite perspective. Accountability takes a mass perspective. Seven true evaluation approaches are included. Two approaches, decision-oriented and [[policy]] studies, are based on an objectivist epistemology from an elite perspective. Consumer-oriented studies are based on an objectivist epistemology from a mass perspective. Two approaches—accreditation/certification and [[connoisseur]] studies—are based on a subjectivist epistemology from an elite perspective. Finally, adversary and [[Person-centered therapy|client-centered]] studies are based on a subjectivist epistemology from a mass perspective.

===Summary of approaches===
The following table is used to summarize each approach in terms of four [[Abstraction|attributes]]—organizer, purpose, strengths, and weaknesses. The organizer represents the main considerations or cues practitioners use to organize a study. The purpose represents the desired [[Outcome (Game theory)|outcome]] for a study at a very general level. Strengths and weaknesses represent other attributes that should be considered when deciding whether to use the approach for a particular study. The following narrative highlights differences between approaches grouped together.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! colspan=5 align=center| Summary of approaches for conducting evaluations
|-
! rowspan=2| Approach
! colspan=4 align="center"| Attribute
|-
! Organizer
! Purpose
! Key strengths
! Key weaknesses
|-
! [[Politics|Politically]] controlled
| Threats
| Get, keep or increase influence, power or money.
| Secure evidence advantageous to the client in a conflict.
| Violates the principle of full & frank disclosure.
|-
! [[Public relations]]
| Propaganda needs
| Create positive public image.
| Secure evidence most likely to bolster public support.
| Violates the principles of balanced reporting, justified conclusions, & objectivity.
|-
! [[Experiment|Experimental research]]
| Causal relationships
| Determine causal relationships between variables.
| Strongest paradigm for determining causal relationships.
| Requires controlled setting, limits range of evidence, focuses primarily on results.
|-
! [[Management information system]]s
| Scientific efficiency
| Continuously supply evidence needed to fund, direct, & control programs.
| Gives managers detailed evidence about complex programs.
| Human service variables are rarely amenable to the narrow, quantitative definitions needed.
|-
! [[Educational assessment|Testing]] programs
| Individual differences
| Compare test scores of individuals & groups to selected norms.
| Produces valid & reliable evidence in many performance areas. Very familiar to public.
| Data usually only on testee performance, overemphasizes test-taking skills, can be poor sample of what is taught or expected.
|-
! [[Project objective|Objectives]]-based
| Objectives
| Relates outcomes to objectives.
| Common sense appeal, widely used, uses behavioral objectives & testing technologies.
| Leads to terminal evidence often too narrow to provide basis for judging the value of a program.
|-
! [[Content analysis]]
| Content of a communication
| Describe & draw conclusion about a communication.
| Allows for unobtrusive analysis of large volumes of unstructured, symbolic materials.
| Sample may be unrepresentative yet overwhelming in volume. Analysis design often overly simplistic for question.
|-
! [[Accountability]]
| Performance expectations
| Provide constituents with an accurate accounting of results.
| Popular with constituents. Aimed at improving quality of products and services.
| Creates unrest between practitioners & consumers. Politics often forces premature studies.
|-
! [[Decision making|Decision]]-oriented
| Decisions
| Provide a knowledge & value base for making & defending decisions.
| Encourages use of evaluation to plan & implement needed programs. Helps justify decisions about plans & actions.
| Necessary collaboration between evaluator & decision-maker provides opportunity to bias results.
|-
! [[Policy analysis|Policy studies]]
| Broad issues
| Identify and assess potential costs & benefits of competing policies.
| Provide general direction for broadly focused actions.
| Often corrupted or subverted by politically motivated actions of participants.
|-
! [[Customer|Consumer]]-oriented
| Generalized needs & values, effects
| Judge the relative merits of alternative goods & services.
| Independent appraisal to protect practitioners & consumers from shoddy products & services. High public credibility.
| Might not help practitioners do a better job. Requires credible & competent evaluators.
|-
! [[Accreditation of Certification Body|Accreditation]] / [[Professional certification|certification]]
| Standards & guidelines
| Determine if institutions, programs, & personnel should be approved to perform specified functions.
| Helps public make informed decisions about quality of organizations & qualifications of personnel.
| Standards & guidelines typically emphasize intrinsic criteria to the exclusion of outcome measures.
|-
! [[Connoisseur]]
| Critical guideposts
| Critically describe, appraise, & illuminate an object.
| Exploits highly developed expertise on subject of interest. Can inspire others to more insightful efforts.
| Dependent on small number of experts, making evaluation susceptible to subjectivity, bias, and corruption.
|-
! [[Adversary evaluation|Adversary Evaluation]]
| "Hot" issues
| Present the pro & cons of an issue.
| Ensures balances presentations of represented perspectives.
| Can discourage cooperation, heighten animosities.
|-
! Client-centered
| Specific concerns & issues
| Foster understanding of activities & how they are valued in a given setting & from a variety of perspectives.
| Practitioners are helped to conduct their own evaluation.
| Low external credibility, susceptible to bias in favor of participants.
|-
| colspan=5| Note. Adapted and condensed primarily from House (1978) and Stufflebeam & Webster (1980).<ref name=Stufflebeam/>
|}

===Pseudo-evaluation===
[[Politics|Politically]] controlled and [[public relations]] studies are based on an [[Objectivist epistemology#Epistemology: reason|objectivist epistemology]] from an [[elite]] perspective.{{Clarify|date=May 2012}} Although both of these approaches seek to misrepresent value interpretations about an object, they function differently from each other. [[Information]] obtained through politically controlled studies is released or withheld to meet the special interests of the holder, whereas public relations information creates a positive image of an object regardless of the actual situation. Despite the application of both studies in [[Reality|real]] scenarios, neither of these approaches is acceptable evaluation practice.

===Objectivist, elite, quasi-evaluation===
As a group, these five approaches represent a highly respected collection of disciplined inquiry approaches. They are considered quasi-evaluation approaches because particular studies legitimately can focus only on questions of knowledge without addressing any questions of value. Such studies are, by definition, not evaluations. These approaches can produce characterizations without producing appraisals, although specific studies can produce both. Each of these approaches serves its intended purpose well. They are discussed roughly in order of the extent to which they approach the objectivist ideal.
* [[Experiment|Experimental research]] is the best approach for determining [[Causality|causal relationships]] between [[variable (math)|variables]]. The potential problem with using this as an evaluation approach is that its highly controlled and stylized [[methodology]] may not be sufficiently responsive to the dynamically changing needs of most human service programs.
* [[Management information system]]s (MISs) can give detailed information about the dynamic operations of complex programs. However, this information is restricted to readily [[Numerical data|quantifiable]] data usually available at regular intervals.
* [[Educational assessment|Testing]] programs are familiar to just about anyone who has attended school, served in the military, or worked for a large company. These programs are good at comparing individuals or groups to selected norms in a number of subject areas or to a set of standards of performance. However, they only focus on testee performance and they might not adequately sample what is taught or expected.
* [[Project objective|Objectives]]-based approaches relate outcomes to prespecified objectives, allowing judgments to be made about their level of attainment. The objectives are often not proven to be important or they focus on outcomes too narrow to provide the basis for determining the value of an object.
* [[Content analysis]] is a quasi-evaluation approach because content analysis judgments need not be based on value statements. Instead, they can be based on knowledge. Such content analyses are not evaluations. On the other hand, when content analysis judgments are based on values, such studies are evaluations.

===Objectivist, mass, quasi-evaluation===
* '''[[Accountability]]''' is popular with [[Constituent (politics)|constituents]] because it is intended to provide an accurate accounting of results that can improve the [[Quality (business)|quality]] of [[Product (project management)|products]] and [[Service (economics)|services]]. However, this approach quickly can turn practitioners and [[consumer]]s into adversaries when implemented in a heavy-handed fashion.

===Objectivist, elite, true evaluation===
* '''[[Decision making|Decision]]-oriented''' studies are designed to provide a knowledge base for making and defending decisions. This approach usually requires the close [[collaboration]] between an evaluator and decision-maker, allowing it to be susceptible to [[Political corruption|corruption]] and [[bias]].
* '''[[Policy analysis|Policy studies]]''' provide general guidance and direction on broad issues by identifying and assessing potential [[Cost-benefit analysis|costs and benefits]] of competing [[policy|policies]]. The drawback is these studies can be corrupted or subverted by the politically motivated actions of the participants.

===Objectivist, mass, true evaluation===
* '''[[Customer|Consumer]]-oriented''' studies are used to judge the relative merits of goods and services based on generalized needs and values, along with a comprehensive range of effects. However, this approach does not necessarily help practitioners improve their work, and it requires a very good and credible evaluator to do it well.

===Subjectivist, elite, true evaluation===
* '''[[Accreditation of Certification Body|Accreditation]] / [[Professional certification|certification]]''' programs are based on self-study and peer review of organizations, programs, and personnel. They draw on the insights, experience, and expertise of qualified individuals who use established guidelines to determine if the applicant should be approved to perform specified functions. However, unless performance-based standards are used, attributes of applicants and the processes they perform often are overemphasized in relation to measures of outcomes or effects.
* '''[[Connoisseur]]''' studies use the highly refined skills of individuals intimately familiar with the subject of the evaluation to critically characterize and appraise it. This approach can help others see programs in a new light, but it is difficult to find a qualified and unbiased connoisseur.

===Subject, mass, true evaluation===
* The '''[[Adversary evaluation|adversary approach]]''' focuses on drawing out the pros and cons of [[Controversy|controversial]] issues through quasi-[[Lawsuit|legal proceedings]]. This helps ensure a balanced presentation of different perspectives on the issues, but it is also likely to discourage later [[Co-operation|cooperation]] and heighten animosities between contesting parties if "winners" and "losers" emerge.

===Client-centered===
* '''Client-centered''' studies address specific concerns and issues of practitioners and other clients of the study in a particular setting. These studies help people understand the activities and values involved from a variety of perspectives. However, this responsive approach can lead to low external [[credibility]] and a favorable bias toward those who participated in the study.