This article is about characterizing and appraising something of interest. It is long term and done at the end of a period of time. Evaluation is the
This article is about characterizing and appraising something of interest. It is long term and done at the end of a period of time. Evaluation is the structured interpretation and giving post occupancy evaluation pdf meaning to predicted or actual impacts of proposals or results. It looks at original objectives, and at what is either predicted or what was accomplished and how it was accomplished.
A systematic, rigorous, and meticulous application of scientific methods to assess the design, implementation, improvement, or outcomes of a program. The focus of this definition is on attaining objective knowledge, and scientifically or quantitatively measuring predetermined and external concepts. In this definition the focus is on facts as well as value laden judgments of the programs outcomes and worth. The core of the problem is thus about defining what is of value. From this perspective, evaluation “is a contested term”, as “evaluators” use the term evaluation to describe an assessment, or investigation of a program whilst others simply understand evaluation as being synonymous with applied research.
There are two function considering to the evaluation purpose Formative Evaluations provide the information on the improving a product or a process Summative Evaluations provide information of short-term effectiveness or long-term impact to deciding the adoption of a product or process. Not all evaluations serve the same purpose some evaluations serve a monitoring function rather than focusing solely on measurable program outcomes or evaluation findings and a full list of types of evaluations would be difficult to compile. However, the strict adherence to a set of methodological assumptions may make the field of evaluation more acceptable to a mainstream audience but this adherence will work towards preventing evaluators from developing new strategies for dealing with the myriad problems that programs face. Some reasons for this situation may be the failure of the evaluator to establish a set of shared aims with the evaluand, or creating overly ambitious aims, as well as failing to compromise and incorporate the cultural differences of individuals and programs within the evaluation aims and process. None of these problems are due to a lack of a definition of evaluation but are rather due to evaluators attempting to impose predisposed notions and definitions of evaluations on clients. Evaluators may encounter complex, culturally specific systems resistant to external evaluation.
Furthermore, the project organization or other stakeholders may be invested in a particular evaluation outcome. However, specific guidelines particular to the evaluator’s role that can be utilized in the management of unique ethical challenges are required. The Joint Committee standards are broken into four sections: Utility, Feasibility, Propriety, and Accuracy. Various European institutions have also prepared their own standards, more or less related to those produced by the Joint Committee. They provide guidelines about basing value judgments on systematic inquiry, evaluator competence and integrity, respect for people, and regard for the general and public welfare.