Program evaluation plays a critical role in assessing program performance. However, as with most disciplines of knowledge, there are different views or paradigms for how to assess a program.
The word paradigm, in this context, means a collection of assumptions or beliefs that shape an individual’s worldview. For example, creationists have assumptions about how life came to be that are different from those of people who believe in evolution. Just as paradigms influence science, they also play a role in how evaluators view the structure and purpose of program evaluation.
In this post, we will briefly go over four schools of thought or paradigms of program evaluation, along with a description of each and how they approach program evaluation. These four paradigms are
- Postpositive
- Pragmatic
- Constructivist
- Transformative
Postpositive
The postpositive paradigm grew out of the positive paradigm. Both paradigms are focused on the use of the scientific method to investigate a phenomenon. They also both support the idea of a single reality that is observable. However, postpositivists believe in a level of probability that accounts for human behavior. This assumption may have given rise to statistics which focuses heavily on probability.
Postpositivism is heavily focused on methods that involve quantitative data. Therefore, any program evaluator who is eager to gather numerical data is probably highly supportive of postpositivism.
Pragmatic
A pragmatic paradigm is one in which there is a strong emphasis on the actual use of the results. A pragmatist wants to collect data that they are sure will be used to make a difference in the program. In terms of data and methods, anything goes as long as it leads to implementation.
Since pragmatism is so flexible it is supportive of mixed methods which can include quantitative or qualitative data. While a postpositivist might be happy once the report is completed, a pragmatist is only happy if their research is used by stakeholders.
Constructivist
The constructivist paradigm is focused on how people create knowledge. Therefore, constructivists are focused on the values of people because values shape ideas and the construction of knowledge. As such, constructivists want to use methods that focus on the interaction of people.
With the focus on people, constructivists want to create a story using narrative approaches that are often associated with qualitative methods. It is possible but unusual to use quantitative methods with constructivists because such an approach does help to identify what makes a person tick in the same way as an interview would.
Transformative
The transformative paradigm is focused on social justice. Therefore, adherents to this paradigm want to bring about social change. This approach constantly investigates injustice and oppression. The world and the system need to be radically changed for the benefit of those who are oppressed.
People who support the transformative paradigm are focused on the viewpoints of others and the development of more rights for minority groups. When the transformative paradigm is the view of a program evaluation the evaluators will look for inequity, inequality, and injustice. Generally, with this approach, the outcome is already determined in that there is some sort of oppression and injustice that is happening, and the purpose of the evaluation is to determine where it is so that it can be stamped out.
Conclusion
The paradigm that someone adheres to has a powerful influence on how they would approach program evaluation. The point is not to say that one approach is better than the other. Instead, the point is that being aware of the various positions can help people to better understand those around them.