ABSTRACT
One of the most widespread applications of research skills and methods is in evaluating or auditing services. This type of research differs from basic scientific research. When undertaking to evaluate or audit a service or an aspect of a service, we adapt and use methods, measurement principles, measures, designs, and statistical techniques from basic behavioural and mental health research, but our purpose is different. Audit and evaluation are intended to improve clinical practice and services, to monitor and justify the use of resources, and to inform decision making, rather than to build theory and improve understanding by addressing scientific questions. Even applied research is not primarily driven by the immediate needs of service funders, managers and clinicians. Evaluation and audit are examples of applicable rather than applied research. Milne (1987) compiles a Table to summarise these differences (See Table 18.1).
|
Factor |
Basic Research |
Evaluative Research |
|---|---|---|
|
1. Purpose of research |
lb build theories and improve understanding |
To make decisions and improve programmes |
|
2. Applicability of findings |
Widely applicable |
Results only directly relevant to same programme and setting |
|
3. Value of research |
lb establish ‘truth’ |
lb improve worth of programme |
|
4. Measurement |
Standardised instruments: rigorous control; scientific standards essential (e.g. randomisation) |
Ragbag of measuring tools; control very difficult to achieve; scientific standards desirable |
|
5. Topics |
Anything |
Socially important phenomena |
|
6. Judgement |
Eschewed |
Integral |
|
7. Research consumers |
Secondary, not identified |
Primary |
|
8. Politics |
An improper consideration |
A necessary and important consideration |
|
9. Replicability |
Important hallmark |
Neither important nor possible |
|
10. Setting |
Not treated as significant; highly controlled |
Essential aspect; control very limited |
|
11. Publication |
Major academic goal of research |
Uncommon and secondary |
