Introduction

A few of the very many ways to conduct evaluation are relatively new, but most are long- established. Those with a longer track record are more likely to be seen as tried and tested – and are highly likely to have more currency among commissioners than others. Nonetheless, all have potential. All are right for the right circumstances, and the duty of evaluators is to ensure the most appropriate fit of method choice to the circumstances to which it is to apply.

In finding the ‘right’ fit, the early roots of systematic evaluation in ‘scientific’ and value- free inquiry have seen great emphasis placed on evidence quality, conventionally choosing between those offering optimal rigour. This primacy of evidence quality in method choice serves many evaluations well, but this book suggests purposeful evaluation needs to adopt a modified ‘primary’ perspective led by intent for application. This is certainly not to sideline rigour. Evidence quality remains important, but as an issue supporting utility and optimising methodology within a purpose- driven approach.

Placing intent and utility at the forefront of choices builds on the early efforts of commissioners and evaluators to set a tangible and appropriate purpose (Chapters 2 and 3). This chapter focuses on what follows to provide the best chance of making the right choice and fit of method to purpose.

Starting points: evaluation types, approaches and methods

As design choices and techniques in evaluation have multiplied, so too has the terminology used to describe them. This ‘Babel confusion’ as referred to by Patton (Patton, 2008) has great potential for baffling all but the most experienced evaluators. This is intensified by different disciplinary legacies and national traditions, and compounded by practitioners’ often contrasting use of terminology.