Evaluators’ Perspectives on Research on Evaluation

Abstract

Program evaluators are giving increasing attention to research on evaluation (RoE)

Material Incentives and Other Potential Factors Associated With Response Rates to Internet Surveys of American Evaluation Association Members: Findings From a Randomized Experiment

“…Response rates to these surveys have been, on average, only slightly more than 25% (e.g., Azzam & Szanyi, 2011; Fleischer & Christie, 2009; N. Galport & Azzam, 2017; Szanyi, Azzam, & Galen, 2013), with some as low as 15% (Seidling, 2015) or 16% (Lewis, Harrison, Ah Sam, & Brandon, 2015). 1 These estimates do not include AEA Topical Interest Group (TIG) surveys, which sometimes produce greater response rates (e.g., Preskill and Caracelli’s [1997] survey of the AEA’s Evaluation Use TIG, which resulted in a response rate of 54%), and also exclude surveys sometimes distributed through EvalTalk (the official listserv of AEA).…”

A Decade of Research on Evaluation

“…Moreover, Coryn et al (2016) found that most AEA members (96.94% ± 2.38%) and all prominent evaluation theorists and scholars (100%) consider RoE important to the development of the field/discipline of evaluation. Szanyi et al (2013) and Lewis, Harrison, Ah Sam, and Brandon (2015) report similar findings. In addition, Coryn et al (2016) found that AEA members and prominent theorists and scholars indicate that RoE has influenced their thinking about evaluation and their evaluation practice (97.00% ± 3.38% and 94.00% ± 4.79%, for AEA members, and 100% and 100%, for prominent theorists and scholars, respectively).…”

“…(p. 70)Despite Henry and Mark’s (2003) cynicism, such investigations have seemingly increased in the last decade (e.g., Azzam, 2011; Brandon, 2015a, 2015b; Brandon & Fukunaga, 2013). These studies include surveys of American Evaluation Association (AEA) members (e.g., Coryn et al, 2016; Fleischer & Christie, 2009; Lewis, Harrison, Ah Sam, & Brandon, 2015; Seidling, 2015; Szanyi, Azzam, & Galen, 2013), descriptions of evaluator education and training (e.g., Christie, Quiñones, & Fierro, 2014; Davies & MacKay, 2014; LaVelle & Donaldson, 2010), RoE methods (e.g., Galport & Galport, 2015; Reichardt, 2011; St. Clair, Cook, & Hallberg, 2014), and systematic reviews of published research (e.g., Brandon & Fukunaga, 2013; Chouinard & Cousins, 2013; Coryn, Noakes, Westine, & Schröter, 2011; Johnson et al, 2009; Miller & Campbell, 2006; Vallin, Philippoff, Pierce, & Brandon, 2015), among many others.…”