Lawrenz Frances, Thao Mao, Johnson Kelli
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, College of Education and Human Development, Department of Educational Psychology, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Eval Program Plann. 2012 Aug;35(3):390-7. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.01.003. Epub 2012 Jan 15.
Site visits are used extensively in a variety of settings within the evaluation community. They are especially common in making summative value decisions about the quality and worth of research programs/centers. However, there has been little empirical research and guidance about how to appropriately conduct evaluative site visits of research centers. We review the processes of two site visit examples using an expert panel review: (1) a process to evaluate four university research centers and (2) a process to review a federally sponsored research center. A set of 14 categories describing the expert panel review process was obtained through content analysis and participant observation. Most categories were addressed differently through the two processes highlighting the need for more research about the most effective processes to use within different contexts. Decisions about how to structure site visits appear to depend on the research context, practical considerations, the level at which the review is being conducted and the intended impact of the report. Future research pertaining to the selection of site visitors, the autonomy of the visitors in data collection and report writing, and the amount and type of information provided would be particularly valuable.
实地考察在评估领域的各种场景中被广泛使用。它们在对研究项目/中心的质量和价值做出总结性价值决策时尤为常见。然而，关于如何恰当地对研究中心进行评估性实地考察，实证研究和指导却很少。我们通过专家小组评审来回顾两个实地考察示例的过程：（1）评估四个大学研究中心的过程，以及（2）评审一个联邦资助研究中心的过程。通过内容分析和参与观察，获得了一组描述专家小组评审过程的14个类别。大多数类别在这两个过程中的处理方式不同，这凸显了针对不同背景下最有效流程进行更多研究的必要性。关于如何组织实地考察的决策似乎取决于研究背景、实际考虑因素、评审进行的层面以及报告的预期影响。未来关于实地考察人员的选择、考察人员在数据收集和报告撰写方面的自主权以及所提供信息的数量和类型的研究将特别有价值。
