In common usage, evaluation is a systematic determination and assessment of a subject's merit, worth and significance, using criteria governed by a set of standards.
[1] The primary purpose of evaluation, in addition to gaining insight into prior or existing initiatives, is to enable reflection and assist in the identification of future change.
It can also be summative, drawing lessons from a completed action or project or an organization at a later point in time or circumstance.
Summative Evaluations provide information of short-term effectiveness or long-term impact for deciding the adoption of a product or process.
[6] One justification of this is that "when evaluation findings are challenged or utilization has failed, it was because stakeholders and clients found the inferences weak or the warrants unconvincing" (Fournier and Smith, 1993).
[6] The development of a standard methodology for evaluation will require arriving at applicable ways of asking and stating the results of questions about ethics such as agent-principal, privacy, stakeholder definition, limited liability; and could-the-money-be-spent-more-wisely issues.
Depending on the topic of interest, there are professional groups that review the quality and rigor of evaluation processes.
Finally, evaluators themselves may encounter "conflict of interest (COI)" issues, or experience interference or pressure to present findings that support a particular assessment.
General professional codes of conduct, as determined by the employing organization, usually cover three broad aspects of behavioral standards, and include inter-collegial relations (such as respect for diversity and privacy), operational issues (due competence, documentation accuracy and appropriate use of resources), and conflicts of interest (nepotism, accepting gifts and other kinds of favoritism).
[10] However, specific guidelines particular to the evaluator's role that can be utilized in the management of unique ethical challenges are required.
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.
This would include it lacking a consistent routine; or the concerned parties unable to reach an agreement regarding the purpose of the program.
[clarification needed] House considers all major evaluation approaches to be based on a common ideology entitled liberal democracy.
Important principles of this ideology include freedom of choice, the uniqueness of the individual and empirical inquiry grounded in objectivity.
One form of subjectivist ethics is utilitarian, in which "the good" is determined by what maximizes a single, explicit interpretation of happiness for society as a whole.
The objectivist epistemology is associated with the utilitarian ethic; in general, it is used to acquire knowledge that can be externally verified (intersubjective agreement) through publicly exposed methods and data.
The political orientation promotes a positive or negative view of an object regardless of what its value actually is and might be—they call this pseudo-evaluation.
The questions orientation includes approaches that might or might not provide answers specifically related to the value of an object—they call this quasi-evaluation.
When the above concepts are considered simultaneously, fifteen evaluation approaches can be identified in terms of epistemology, major perspective (from House), and orientation.
Five of them—experimental research, management information systems, testing programs, objectives-based studies, and content analysis—take an elite perspective.
Methods may be qualitative or quantitative, and include case studies, survey research, statistical analysis, model building, and many more such as: