{"id":149,"date":"2025-10-03T13:41:09","date_gmt":"2025-10-03T17:41:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/?post_type=chapter&p=149"},"modified":"2026-05-25T13:55:42","modified_gmt":"2026-05-25T17:55:42","slug":"evaluation-approaches","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/chapter\/evaluation-approaches\/","title":{"raw":"4.4 Evaluation approaches","rendered":"4.4 Evaluation approaches"},"content":{"raw":"Over the past century, evaluation practices have expanded and diversified a lot. Approaches and methods have evolved. It is a field where one will find a variety of definitions and evaluation questions reflecting the perspectives of those contributing to the field. Evaluation experts often use the same terms but with different meanings, organize and frame evaluation questions in varying ways, and have various ways of representing their evaluation approach. The field has also engaged in major philosophical and methodological debates, gathering thinkers in quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research, and has made strong contributions to research designs. There are many ways to evaluate interventions, and one needs to be prepared to make some explicit choices and to discuss them. It is a field where debate is welcome. All evaluators consider themselves as constant learners in methodologies, methods, and engagement.\r\n\r\nShadish et al. (1991) contrasted (then) existing evaluation approaches and identified five core dimensions that any evaluation model addresses, albeit differently and with more or less emphasis: use, social programming, knowledge, values, and practice. Inspired by this work, Alkin (2004)\u2019s work titled Evaluation Roots<\/em> where he offered a tree representation to position and group well-known evaluation approaches. The tree had three main branches (use, methods, and valuing) and two roots (accountability and control, and social inquiry). This representation attempted to classify evaluation approaches in a simple way; however, it lost the fact that each evaluation approach positions itself according to the five dimensions identified by Shadish and colleagues (1991).\r\n\r\nIn 2023, Mertens published a critique of the tree, emphasizing that Alkin\u2019s (2004) tree did not include Indigenous\u2019 voices and those of people of colour (Mertens, 2023). Mertens proposed the inclusion of Indigenous and transformative approaches that pursue \u201csocial, economic, and environmental justice through evaluation\u201d (Mertens, 2023, p. 12). She proposed that evaluation approaches be compared on their assumptions about axiology (assumptions related to the nature of ethics and values), ontology (the nature of reality), epistemology (the nature of knowledge and the relationships between the evaluator and stakeholders), and methodology (the nature of systematic inquiry) to make explicit the believes and values underpinning our approaches (Mertens, 2023).\r\n\r\nIn 2023, M.Q. Patton emphasized that each evaluation theory addresses values, methods and use, with contrasted configurations of approaches for each of these component, proposing that evaluation theories shouldn\u2019t be conceptualized as a tree, but rather as a forest (Patton, 2023a, 2023b), somewhat echoing the original analysis of Shadish, Cook and Leviton (Shadish et al., 1991).\r\n\r\nInterestingly, in the rich discussions following the publication of the evaluation tree, the roots of the evaluation tree (accountability and control, and social inquiry) have attracted less attention. Instead, the focus has gravitated toward the branches (values, use and methods), as though these were more important, overlooking the full set of five core dimensions identified by Shadish and colleagues in their early work (Shadish et al., 1991).\r\n\r\nIn practice, evaluators tend to apply similar approaches in comparable contexts, reflecting their training and their specializations in the field. Fewer evaluators adapt the choice of approach to the evaluation context. Contandriopoulos and Brousselle (2012) have shown that there seems to be a fit between the characteristics of the context and the appropriateness of the choice of approach. Evaluators seem to be drawn to practice in contexts of similar characteristics, hence using and advocating for the same family of approaches. However, the emerging context of higher polarization, widespread disinformation, and the de-credibilization of scientific expertise creates a need for evaluators to adapt their practice, becoming skilled facilitators capable of using bricolage in the design of their evaluation projects. This new expectation underscores the need to train evaluators in developing their ability to mobilize different approaches according to the characteristics and dynamics of their specific evaluation contexts.\r\n\r\nExposure to diverse approaches occurs through engagement in the field\u2014via readings, participation in training events, attendance at conferences, and practical application\u2014broadening the range of possibilities in the evaluation process. Understanding the principles of diverse approaches\u2014and their suitability for different contexts of evaluation\u2014enhances effectiveness and adaptability as an evaluator. This comes with time and experience by reading different authors, being exposed to different currents of thought, and working with different evaluators on diverse projects.","rendered":"

Over the past century, evaluation practices have expanded and diversified a lot. Approaches and methods have evolved. It is a field where one will find a variety of definitions and evaluation questions reflecting the perspectives of those contributing to the field. Evaluation experts often use the same terms but with different meanings, organize and frame evaluation questions in varying ways, and have various ways of representing their evaluation approach. The field has also engaged in major philosophical and methodological debates, gathering thinkers in quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research, and has made strong contributions to research designs. There are many ways to evaluate interventions, and one needs to be prepared to make some explicit choices and to discuss them. It is a field where debate is welcome. All evaluators consider themselves as constant learners in methodologies, methods, and engagement.<\/p>\n

Shadish et al. (1991) contrasted (then) existing evaluation approaches and identified five core dimensions that any evaluation model addresses, albeit differently and with more or less emphasis: use, social programming, knowledge, values, and practice. Inspired by this work, Alkin (2004)\u2019s work titled Evaluation Roots<\/em> where he offered a tree representation to position and group well-known evaluation approaches. The tree had three main branches (use, methods, and valuing) and two roots (accountability and control, and social inquiry). This representation attempted to classify evaluation approaches in a simple way; however, it lost the fact that each evaluation approach positions itself according to the five dimensions identified by Shadish and colleagues (1991).<\/p>\n

In 2023, Mertens published a critique of the tree, emphasizing that Alkin\u2019s (2004) tree did not include Indigenous\u2019 voices and those of people of colour (Mertens, 2023). Mertens proposed the inclusion of Indigenous and transformative approaches that pursue \u201csocial, economic, and environmental justice through evaluation\u201d (Mertens, 2023, p. 12). She proposed that evaluation approaches be compared on their assumptions about axiology (assumptions related to the nature of ethics and values), ontology (the nature of reality), epistemology (the nature of knowledge and the relationships between the evaluator and stakeholders), and methodology (the nature of systematic inquiry) to make explicit the believes and values underpinning our approaches (Mertens, 2023).<\/p>\n

In 2023, M.Q. Patton emphasized that each evaluation theory addresses values, methods and use, with contrasted configurations of approaches for each of these component, proposing that evaluation theories shouldn\u2019t be conceptualized as a tree, but rather as a forest (Patton, 2023a, 2023b), somewhat echoing the original analysis of Shadish, Cook and Leviton (Shadish et al., 1991).<\/p>\n

Interestingly, in the rich discussions following the publication of the evaluation tree, the roots of the evaluation tree (accountability and control, and social inquiry) have attracted less attention. Instead, the focus has gravitated toward the branches (values, use and methods), as though these were more important, overlooking the full set of five core dimensions identified by Shadish and colleagues in their early work (Shadish et al., 1991).<\/p>\n

In practice, evaluators tend to apply similar approaches in comparable contexts, reflecting their training and their specializations in the field. Fewer evaluators adapt the choice of approach to the evaluation context. Contandriopoulos and Brousselle (2012) have shown that there seems to be a fit between the characteristics of the context and the appropriateness of the choice of approach. Evaluators seem to be drawn to practice in contexts of similar characteristics, hence using and advocating for the same family of approaches. However, the emerging context of higher polarization, widespread disinformation, and the de-credibilization of scientific expertise creates a need for evaluators to adapt their practice, becoming skilled facilitators capable of using bricolage in the design of their evaluation projects. This new expectation underscores the need to train evaluators in developing their ability to mobilize different approaches according to the characteristics and dynamics of their specific evaluation contexts.<\/p>\n

Exposure to diverse approaches occurs through engagement in the field\u2014via readings, participation in training events, attendance at conferences, and practical application\u2014broadening the range of possibilities in the evaluation process. Understanding the principles of diverse approaches\u2014and their suitability for different contexts of evaluation\u2014enhances effectiveness and adaptability as an evaluator. This comes with time and experience by reading different authors, being exposed to different currents of thought, and working with different evaluators on diverse projects.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"menu_order":4,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[49],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-149","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","chapter-type-numberless"],"part":141,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/149","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/149\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":558,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/149\/revisions\/558"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/141"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/149\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=149"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=149"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}