The preconditions for successful evaluation: Is there an ideal paradigm?

Abstract

The dominant paradigm in evalua,tion research is undergoing serious challenge. This article explores the ideal role of evaluation in decisionmaking, the methodologies for conducting evaluations, the congruence between evaluation methodology and actual organizational behavior, and the relationship between evaluators and program managers. We conclude that although there are serious disparities between the ideal and the actual in each of these four areas, and especially in the congruence between evaluation methodology and organizational behavior, there is not likely to be a change in the dominant paradigm because it is difficult for practitioners to use the language and values of new organizational perspectives.The field of evaluation research is undergoing an identity crisis. From its initial surge in the 1960s when it was dominated by a single paradigm and researchers believed that its potential was unlimited, it has been undergoing a metamorphosis. Instead of a dominant paradigm, several alternative approaches to evaluation have emerged and skepticism about its potential contributions to public policy has been raised. House

Crafting Evaluation Research in the Public Sector: Reconciling Rigour and Relevance

“…Evaluation was assumed to be an objective 'scientific' exercise and it was optimistically believed that the results of evaluations would automatically be used to improve decision-making processes. There is now considerable doubt about all of these assumptions (Palumbo and Nachmias, 1983) and evaluators have become more aware of the importance of the relationship between the evaluator and policymaker. As Browne and Wildavsky (1987) observe 'the plunge into the cold bath of implementation has given evaluation the chills'.…”

Creating A Reform Environment: A Case Study In Community Corrections And Coalition Building

“…The methodological problems confronting typical program evaluations have been widely discussed (Weise and Rein, 1969;Guba, 1978;Palumbo and Nachmias, 1983;Gilsinan, 1984), and there is increasing recognition that their atheoretical nature makes the interpretation of results problematic (Glaser, 1980;Chen and Rossi, 1981;Giliinan and Volpe, 1984). The methodological problems confronting typical program evaluations have been widely discussed (Weise and Rein, 1969;Guba, 1978;Palumbo and Nachmias, 1983;Gilsinan, 1984), and there is increasing recognition that their atheoretical nature makes the interpretation of results problematic (Glaser, 1980;Chen and Rossi, 1981;Giliinan and Volpe, 1984).…”

Do not cry wolf until you are sure: The manufactured crises in evaluation research

“…First, qualitative and quantitative methods assume different things about the nature of social reality (Gilsinan, 1973;Wilson, 1970). Second, these different assumptions result in specifically different questions about organizational phenomena and in different ways of assessing program outcomes (Palumbo and Nachmias, 1983). Third, different assumptions, questions, and assessment routines result in different professional commitments and practice (Cronbach, 1980;Carton and Harmon, 198 I).…”

“…The correct choice will solve the specific problem under consideration while the incorrect choice will severely hamper the field. Examples of crying wolf can be found in discussions pertaining to methodology (Weiss and Rein, 1969;Guba, 1978;Palumbo and Nachmias, 1983), to programmatic efficacy (Prather and Gibson, 1977;Hackler, 1978), and to the appropriate relationship among evaluators, policymakers, and administrators (Cronbach and Associates, 1980;Chelimsky, 1982). This last body of literature is primarily concerned with the utilization of evaluation results by those in authority.…”