RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

42 THE NATURE OF INQUIRY
addressing ethical issues in conducting the
investigation
deciding on data analysis techniques
deciding on reporting and interpreting results.
Indeed Norris (1990) argues that evaluation
applies research methods to shed light on a
problem of action (Norris 1990: 97); he suggests
that evaluation can be viewed as an extension of
research, because it shares its methodologies and
methods, and because evaluators and researchers
possess similar skills in conducting investigations
(see http://www.routledge.com/textbooks/
9780415368780 – Chapter 1, file 1.10. ppt). In
many senses the eight features outlined above
embrace many elements of the scientific method,
which Smith and Glass (1987) set out in seven
steps:
1 A theory about the phenomenon exists.
2 A research problem within the theory is
detected and a research question is devised.
3 A research hypothesis is deduced (often about
the relationship between constructs).
4 A research design is developed, operationalizing
the research question and stating the null
hypothesis.
5 The research is conducted.
6 The null hypothesis is tested based on the
data gathered.
7 The original theory is revised or supported
based on the results of the hypothesis testing.
Indeed, if steps 1 and 7 were removed then there
would be nothing to distinguish between research
and evaluation. Both researchers and evaluators
pose questions and hypotheses, select samples,
manipulate and measure variables, compute statistics
and data, and state conclusions. Nevertheless
there are important differences between
evaluation and research that are not always obvious
simply by looking at publications. Publications
do not always make clear the background
events that gave rise to the investigation, nor
do they always make clear the uses of the material
that they report, nor do they always make
clear what the dissemination rights (Sanday 1993)
are and who holds them. Several commentators
set out some of the differences between evaluation
and research. For example Smith and
Glass (1987) offer eight main differences (see
http://www.routledge.com/textbooks/
9780415368780 – Chapter 1, file 1.11. ppt):
The intents and purposes of the investigation: the
researcher wants to advance the frontiers of
knowledge of phenomena, to contribute to
theory and to be able to make generalizations;
the evaluator is less interested in contributing
to theory or the general body of knowledge.
Evaluation is more parochial than universal
(Smith and Glass 1987: 33–4).
The scope of the investigation: evaluation studies
tend to be more comprehensive than research
in the number and variety of aspects of a
programme that are being studied (p. 34).
Values in the investigation: research aspires to
value neutrality, evaluations must represent
multiple sets of values and include data on
these values.
The origins of the study: researchhasitsorigins
and motivation in the researcher’s curiosity
and desire to know (p. 34). The researcher is
answerable to colleagues and scientists (i.e. the
research community) whereas the evaluator
is answerable to the ‘client’. The researcher
is autonomous whereas the evaluator is
answerable to clients and stakeholders. The
researcher is motivated by a search for
knowledge, the evaluator is motivated by the
need to solve problems, allocate resources and
make decisions. Research studies are public,
evaluations are for a restricted audience.
The uses of the study: theresearchisusedto
further knowledge, evaluations are used to
inform decisions.
The timeliness of the study: evaluationsmustbe
timely, research need not be. Evaluators’ time
scales are given, researchers’ time scales need
not be given.
Criteria for judging the study: evaluationsare
judged by the criteria of utility and credibility,
research is judged methodologically and by the
contribution that it makes to the field (i.e.
internal and external validity).