EMMIE and engineering: What works as evidence to improve decisions?. (July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tilley, Nick
• Is Part Of: Evaluation. Volume 22:Number 3(2016:Jul.)
• Page Start: 304
• Page End: 322
• Publication Date: 2016-07
• Subjects: EMMIE -- engineering -- pragmatism -- realism -- realist; Evaluation research (Social action programs) -- Periodicals; 361.61068
• DOI: 10.1177/1356389016656518
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1356-3890

Abstract

While written by a proponent of realism, this article argues in favour of a pragmatic approach to evaluation. It argues that multiple sources of evidence collected using diverse research methods can be useful in conducting informative evaluations of programmes, practices and policies. It argues in particular that methods, even if their assumptions appear incommensurable with one another, should be chosen to meet the evidence needs of decision-makers. These evidence needs are captured in the acronym, EMMIE, which refers to Effect size, Mechanism, Moderator (or context), Implementation and Economic impact. Finally the article questions evidence hierarchies that are inspired by clinical trials, and suggests instead that, notwithstanding the clear differences in the physical and social worlds, engineering may provide a superior model for evaluators to try to emulate. And engineering is, above all, a pragmatic field.