Goal-free program evaluation

Ross Woods

Goal-free evaluation, first suggested by Michael Scriven, works on the assumption that a program evaluator observing a program can be biased by knowing the program goals. The program evaluator interprets observations according to program goals, and can become blind to anything else.

The "rhetoric of intent" is one of the program participant's best tools to defend what they have done. This is the "But the purpose was to ... " argument. They might simply seek a coherent rationale for their actions, or might naturally want to rationalize the program as successful.

Almost by definition, the evaluator could not be someone in the program who knew its goals. The evaluator observes what happens in the program to find actual products and effects. Rather than asking about the goals of the program, he must infer the actual goals from his observations. He might also be able to infer the reasons why the program exists and why it uses the approaches it does. The evaluator's inferences should resemble those that were originally formulated if the program reality matched the formulation and suited its consumers.

Scriven did not present a clear methodology, but the basic steps seem to be:

1. identify the program,
2. observe the processes,
3. question participants on what they are doing (but not why),
4. find out their personal responses to the program,
5. infer real effects and actual goals, and
6. prepare a report for use in a product evaluation.

Note: this approach tends to look at the program from the consumer's viewpoint rather than the program developer's viewpoint.