Program Evaluation the Difference Between Action Research

Program Evaluation

The difference between action research and program evaluation might seem rather negligible on the surface, but a basic understanding of how action research differs from more traditional research methods also leads to great clarity in understanding the differences in evaluative methods. Action research is essentially a method of formative evaluation, where the evaluation is an ongoing process embedded in the experimental phases of the research; program evaluation is more summative, and (generally speaking) takes place after the experimental/observational phase of the research has been concluded (NAU 2011). While there are certain benefits and limitations to both types of evaluation, the research that will be engaged in (a mixed-methods investigation) will definitely be best served through a more traditional program evaluation methodology, properly guided by specifically selected problems.

As Dr. Laura Knight-Lynn makes quite clear in the video presentation of her roundtable discussion, understanding the limitations of a given study is essential in creating effective observations and interpretations, and thus can be considered a foundational element of program evaluation. This will be the primary guiding principle utilized in the development of a proper program evaluation tool for this researcher, as it will help determine the scope of the evaluation necessities in a much more precise and comprehensive fashion than organizing the evaluation along other lines. Especially when using a mixed methods approach, which already broadens and complicates the types of inferences and interpretations that can be made, understanding limitations in these areas is essential.

The decision to use the study limitations as the primary controlling factor in the design and implementation of the program evaluation for this research is easily justified by a reading of Spaulding (2008). The very definition of a program itself denotes the level of specificity that is necessary in carrying out research, and certainly in evaluating the outcomes of that research program: a program must consist of a specific set of actions with a consciously intended purpose, meaning that it must be precisely and distinctly defined and limited from the outset (Spaulding 2008). A program evaluation must be no less specific, then, and must also take into account the specific purpose and the specific actions of the program, while also examining other unintended effects of the program. By understanding what the program was specifically intended to affect/measure/accomplish, the evaluation can be organized and implemented in a way that differentiates between success and unintended ramifications, leading to an evaluation that is effective, on point, and comprehensive.