ABSTRACT
https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780203892374/4e54f153-d353-4fa6-8a55-2a1dd4f67b49/content/figu8_1_B.jpg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"/> We now turn to the action processes that professionals can use when empirical evidence does not seem to fit, in part or in total, the problem, or when insufficient empirical study of need has been conducted to inform professional action. In these instances, we suggest that naturalistic strategies are indicated either on their own or in concert with experimental-type needs assessment. However, for the most part, as we will see, what many refer to as naturalistic or qualitative methods are, in essence, mixed-methods approaches. That is to say, even if naturalistic methods are used for obtaining information and conducting analysis, the needs assessment relies on mixed methods both in its philosophical foundation as well as its action strategies. Look back to our discussion of philosophy and the clear fit of pragmatism with both evaluation practice and mixed-methods research as the basis for this claim. As we have reiterated, because of its purposive foundation, all evaluation is, in some way, anchored on pragmatism. Moreover, because evaluation practice is designed to look at context-specific problems and their solutions, the “target” or population and, at least, its undesirable characteristics to be changed by the professional action, are already known. Pure naturalistic inquiry is based on induction in which the knowledge seeker is theoretically unaware of the boundaries or characteristics of the domain of concern. Therefore, purely inductive or naturalistic thinking and action cannot typically be used in the needs assessment phase of evaluation practice, as this phase is designed to identify what is needed to resolve an identified phenomenon. For instructional purposes, we discuss naturalistic tenets so that you will know what they are and how to integrate them into pragmatic mixed-methods needs assessments.
