What is evaluation? Perspectives of how evaluation differs (or not) from research

Definitions of Evaluation 
The definitions that participants provided for what they considered evaluation varied 
considerably. However, there was one nearly universal consistency: most participants believed 
the purpose of evaluation is to provide a value judgment (84.4%). Often, this was voiced in terms 
of evaluating the “merit, value, or worth,” “effectiveness or efficiency,” or extent to which the 
program was “meeting its stated goals and objectives.” Less commonly discussed was the 
evaluation purpose of evaluation for learning, program improvement, or decision-making 
(31.6%). Evaluators (82.5%) and researchers (86.5%) were equally likely to mention the purpose 
of evaluation as providing a value judgment; furthermore, members of AERA (86.2%) were 
equally likely as members of AEA in youth TIGs (78.6%) and AEA members not in youth TIGs 
(83.0%) were equally likley to mention the purpose of evaluation as providing a value judgment. 
However, evaluators (39.3%) were more likely to describe evaluation as a means for program 
improvement and learning than researchers (24.0%). 
Roughly half of participants specifically mentioned some aspect of the methodology of 
evaluation (45.8%), although many of these responses was simply to say it was a “systematic 
inquiry.” However, a small number of responses suggested evaluation is simply an RCT, quasi-
experimental study, or similar study intended to determine causal effects. Evaluators and 
researchers equally mentioned evaluation examining the outcomes (evaluators 16.7% vs 
researchers 15.4%) and processes (evaluators 19.1% vs researchers 17.2%) of a program. 

---

However, evaluators were about twice as likely to emphasize the participation of stakeholders in 
the process than researchers (evaluators 11.3% vs researchers 6.0%). On the other hand, 
researchers were more likely to describe evaluation as “applied research” compared to evaluators 
(evaluators 3.9% vs researchers 7.1%). 
Similar results were found comparing AEA and AERA members. AEA members both in 
youth TIGs (42.0%) and not in youth TIGs (38.3%) were more likely to describe evaluation as a 
means for program improvement and learning compared to AERA members (27.3%). AEA 
members were also equally likely to mention evaluation examining the outcomes (AEA youth 
TIGs 20.5% vs AEA non-youth TIGs 10.6% vs AERA 15.0%) and processes (AEA youth TIGs 
18.8% vs AEA non-youth TIGs 14.9% vs AERA 18.8%). However, AEA members were more 
likely to emphasize the participation of stakeholders in the process than AERA members (AEA 
youth TIGs 12.5% vs AEA non-youth TIGs 17.0% vs AERA 6.5%). There were no differences 
by membership in whether they described evaluation as “applied research.”