Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-7sgmh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-18T07:57:39.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - EVALUATION RESEARCH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Paul S. Gray ,
John B. Williamson ,
David A. Karp  and
John R. Dalphin
Paul S. Gray
Affiliation:
Boston College, Massachusetts
John B. Williamson
Affiliation:
Boston College, Massachusetts
David A. Karp
Affiliation:
Boston College, Massachusetts
John R. Dalphin
Affiliation:
Merrimack College, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation research is designed to solve practical problems for individuals and groups. It accomplishes this goal by assessing the need for, and evaluating the ongoing functioning of, a variety of projects and organizations in the worlds of for-profit business, nonprofit community agencies, and government. Often, evaluation research measures the effectiveness of a program or initiative by comparing its original goals with its subsequent, actual accomplishments. The findings from this comparison are then used to determine the value of the program and perhaps how to change it in the future. Evaluation research makes use of a variety of methods of data collection including interviewing, surveying, and experimentation. However, all of these techniques are applied in a real-world setting. Indeed, it is an example of applied social rfsearch, a problem-solving effort that has taken social investigation out of the ivory tower of academic endeavor and into real-world settings. This chapter will highlight the problems that have arisen as this transition occurs.

An Example: Pedestrian Safety

The major components of evaluation research are illustrated in the following example. The Federal Highway Administration commissioned a four-year study (Huang et al., 2000) to find out which type of motorist warning signs produce the safest conditions at pedestrian crosswalks. Noting that many drivers do not slow down at intersections even when they are legally required to do so, the researchers wondered whether signage directed at motorists would improve pedestrian safety, and further, which type of sign would be most effective in getting motorists to yield for pedestrians.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Research Imagination
An Introduction to Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
 , pp. 349 - 374
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Action Research Resources. 2004. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arhome. html.
Davidson, E. Jane. 2005. Evaluation Methodology Basics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Earl, Sarah, et al. 2001. Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs. Ottawa: IDRC.Google Scholar
Krueger, Richard A., and Casey, Mary Anne. 2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNiff, Jean, ed. 2006. Action Research in Organizations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mertler, Craig. 2005. Teachers as Researchers in the Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Murray, P. J. 1997. “Using Virtual Focus Groups in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Health Research 7 (4): 542–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, Larry L. 1998. Social Experiments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Patton, Michael Quinn. 1997. Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Preskill, Hallie, and Russ-Eft, Darlene. 2004. Building Evaluation Capacity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rossi, Peter H., Mark, W. Lipsey, and Howard, E. Freeman. 2004. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Soriano, Fernando I. 1995. Conducting Needs Assessments: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Stewart, David W., Prem, N. Shamdasani, and Dennis, W. Rook. 2006. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Weiss, Carol H. 1998. Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Armstrong, Gaylene S. 2001. Private vs. Public Operation of Juvenile Correctional Facilities. New York: LFB.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, Jeanne, and Lynda, J. Ames, eds. 1998. Critical Perspectives on Project Head Start: Revisioning the Hope and Challenge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Friedlander, Daniel, and Burtles, Gary. 1996. Five Years After: The Long-Term Effects of Welfare-To-Work Programs. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Greenberg, David H., and Shroder, Mark. 1997. Digest of Social Experiments. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Edward Harris, and Brookmeyer, Ron, eds. 2001. Quantitative Evaluation of HIV Prevention Programs. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reason, Peter, and Bradbury, Hilary, eds. 2001. Handbook of Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rossi, Peter Henry. 1998. Feeding the Poor: Assessing Federal Food Aid. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
Skarupski, Kimberly. 2005. “Outcomes Evaluation of the Long Distance Dads (LDD) Program.” Research in Review 8 (2) September: 2–10.Google Scholar
Action Research Resources. 2004. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arhome. html.
Davidson, E. Jane. 2005. Evaluation Methodology Basics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Earl, Sarah, et al. 2001. Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs. Ottawa: IDRC.Google Scholar
Krueger, Richard A., and Casey, Mary Anne. 2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNiff, Jean, ed. 2006. Action Research in Organizations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mertler, Craig. 2005. Teachers as Researchers in the Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Murray, P. J. 1997. “Using Virtual Focus Groups in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Health Research 7 (4): 542–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, Larry L. 1998. Social Experiments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Patton, Michael Quinn. 1997. Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Preskill, Hallie, and Russ-Eft, Darlene. 2004. Building Evaluation Capacity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rossi, Peter H., Mark, W. Lipsey, and Howard, E. Freeman. 2004. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Soriano, Fernando I. 1995. Conducting Needs Assessments: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Stewart, David W., Prem, N. Shamdasani, and Dennis, W. Rook. 2006. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Weiss, Carol H. 1998. Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Armstrong, Gaylene S. 2001. Private vs. Public Operation of Juvenile Correctional Facilities. New York: LFB.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, Jeanne, and Lynda, J. Ames, eds. 1998. Critical Perspectives on Project Head Start: Revisioning the Hope and Challenge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Friedlander, Daniel, and Burtles, Gary. 1996. Five Years After: The Long-Term Effects of Welfare-To-Work Programs. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Greenberg, David H., and Shroder, Mark. 1997. Digest of Social Experiments. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Edward Harris, and Brookmeyer, Ron, eds. 2001. Quantitative Evaluation of HIV Prevention Programs. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reason, Peter, and Bradbury, Hilary, eds. 2001. Handbook of Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rossi, Peter Henry. 1998. Feeding the Poor: Assessing Federal Food Aid. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
Skarupski, Kimberly. 2005. “Outcomes Evaluation of the Long Distance Dads (LDD) Program.” Research in Review 8 (2) September: 2–10.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gary L., Kathryn, G. Herr, and Nihlen, Ann. 2007. Studying Your Own School: An Educator's Guide to Practitioner Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boardman, Anthony E., et al., eds. 2000. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Carden, Fred. 2000. “Giving Evaluation Away: Challenges in a Learning-based Approach to Institutional Assessment.” In Learning from Change: Issues and Experiences in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, 176–185. Estrella, Marisol et al., eds. Ottawa: IDRC.Google Scholar
Chambers, Fred. 1994. “Removing the Confusion about Formative and Summative Evaluation.” Evaluation and Program Planning 17:9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deshler, Donald. 1990. “Conceptual Mapping: Drawing Charts of the Mind.” In Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood, 336–353. Mezirow, Jack, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Deutscher, Irwin. 1999. Making a Difference: The Practice of Sociology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Dick, Bob. 1997. “Case Study 1: An Evaluation of an Action Learning Program.” http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/ case1.html.
Earl, Sarah, et al. 2001. Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs. Ottawa: IDRC.Google Scholar
Fetterman, David M. 2000. Foundations of Empowerment Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fetterman, David M., and Wandersman, Abraham. 2005. Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Finsterbusch, Kurt, and Motz, Annabelle Bender. 1980. Social Research for Policy Decisions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Gill, John, and Johnson, Phil. 2002. Research Methods for Managers. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gordon, Gerald, and Edward, V. Morse. 1975. “Evaluation Research.” In Annual Review of Sociology, 339–361. Vol. 1. Inkeles, Alex et al., eds. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Greenwood, Davydd J., and Levin, Morten. 1998. Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Guba, Egon, and Lincoln, Yvonne. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Guijt, Irene. 2000. “Methodological Issues in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation.” In Learning from Change: Issues and Experiences in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, 201–216. Estrella, Marisol et al., eds. Ottawa: IDRC.Google Scholar
Huang, Herman, et al. 2000. “The Effects of Innovative Pedestrian Signs at Unsignalized Locations: A Tale of Three Treatments.” Report No. FHWA-RD-00–098. U.S. Federal Highway Administration.
Johnson, John M. 1975. Doing Field Research. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Krueger, Richard A., and Casey, Mary Anne. 2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Light, Richard J., ed. 2001. Evaluation Findings that Surprise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Loveless, Tom. 1999. The Tracking Wars: State Reform Meets School Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Morgan, David L. 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton-Cooper, Alison. 2000. Action Research in Health Care. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Porter, , and Tanner, Steve. 1998. Assessing Business Excellence: A Guide to Self-Assessment. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heineman.Google Scholar
Posavac, Emil J., and Raymond, G. Carey. 1997. Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Rossi, Peter H., Mark, W. Lipsey, and Howard, E. Freeman. 2004. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ryan, Katherine E., and Destefano, Lizanne, eds. 2000. Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Scriven, Michael. 2000. Evaluation Thesaurus. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Smutylo, Terry. 2001. “Crouching Impact, Hidden Attribution: Overcoming Threats to Learning in Development Programs.” Draft Background Paper No. 3. Block Island Workshop on Across Portfolio Learning, IDRC.
Stake, Robert E. 2004. Standards-Based and Responsive Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stringer, Ernest T. 1999. Action Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, Edward A. 1967. Evaluative Research: Principles and Practice in Public Service and Social Action Programs. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Trochim, William M. K. 2002. “Evaluation Research.” In Research Methods Knowledge Base. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. http://trochim.cornell.edu/kb/evaluation.htm.Google Scholar
Waddock, Sandra A. 2001. Leading Corporate Citizens. Columbus, OH: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ward, David, and Kassebaum, Gene. 1972. “On Biting the Hand That Feeds: Some Implications of Sociological Evaluations of Correctional Effectiveness.” In Evaluating Action Programs, 300–310. Weiss, Carol, ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Weiss, Carol H. 1998. Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×