intelligent measurement

The International Conference of the European Evaluation Society is underway in London and I just participated in several of the pre-conference workshops.

In one workshop, Elliot Stern, a senior Evaluation Consultant made a very poignant point - is the aim of evaluation “to prove” or “improve”?

 A simple but interesting distinction - traditionally he pointed out most evaluation aimed to “prove” if an intervention changed anything - and that’s it (a gasp when through the room…)

It’s only a rather recent development that evaluation has been asked to focus also on “improve”  - how can an intervention be more effective. 

Most likely you are thinking that it can’t be so - how can an evaluation not make the step from ”prove” to “improve” ? But often the terms of reference for an evaluator is only to “prove” - in other words, evaluate but please no recommendations.

Glenn