Whether evaluation — whether utilization

Abstract

In “Evaluation: Manifestations of a New Field,” Flaherty and Morel1 (1978) suggest there is such great variety among the various endeavors termed evaluation that it is too early to define the characteristics of evaluation. Rather we should search for the common elements of these various endeavors and let that commonality define the process. At the 5th Annual Conference of the Evaluation Network, Kirkhart (1979) moderated a symposium on “Making Evaluation Results Useful; Knowledge Utilization Re-Examined,” to some extent at least, a reaction to the oft cited complaint that results of many evaluations are ignored. Such inattention to evaluation results may be partly responsible for Tornatzky’s (1979) argument, in “The Triple-Threat Evaluator,” that evaluators should do more than evaluate; they should work toward modifications of the programs they evaluate, improving the effectiveness of current, helpful programs, “performing euthanasia of social programs that are ineffective, or harmful, or both.” He goes on to say he “finds it difficult to separate the general role of the evaluator from the specific roles of researcher, and innovator, and politicianadministrator.” Fox and Rappaport (1972) suggest programs need not be evaluated, but if they are, “good” evaluation can be utilized: On a different level, some mental health professionals argue that formal evaluation studies are inappropriate to the mental health field and that program decisions are better based on professional intuition than on such studies. We contend that, although program decisions must ultimately be based on judgment regardless of whether evaluation is conducted, good evaluation can provide information that can contribute to the decision making process. (emphasis added) (p. 172)