Date: Sunday, September 13, 2026
Hello, AEA365 community! Liz DiLuzio here, Lead Curator of the blog. This week is Individuals Week, which means we take a break from our themed weeks and spotlight the Hot Tips, Cool Tricks, Rad Resources and Lessons Learned from any evaluator interested in sharing. Would you like to contribute to future individuals weeks? Email me at AEA365@eval.org with an idea or a draft and we will make it happen.
Hello! I’m Arthur Hernández, an evaluator and educator whose work focuses on evaluation, community engagement, and the forms of knowledge we authorize as credible.
Evaluation and research are related, but they are not the same. This distinction matters especially when evaluators are asked whether their work requires Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. Federal human subjects regulations define research as “a systematic investigation…designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” The key phrase is not simply “systematic investigation.” Evaluations are often systematic. They may use surveys, interviews, comparison groups, statistical analyses, standardized measures, or mixed-methods designs. The key phrase is “designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” My concern is that this phrase is often misunderstood, particularly when evaluators, organizations, or IRBs conflate generalizability with transferability.
Generalizability refers to the extent to which findings are designed to apply beyond the immediate sample or setting, usually through design features. In this sense, generalizability is not accidental. It is built into a study’s purpose and design. Transferability, by contrast, refers to whether findings from one context may be useful in another context based on thoughtful comparison. This distinction is especially important for evaluators. A community organization may commission an evaluation to determine whether a mentoring program is meeting its goals. The evaluator may use strong methods, analyze outcome data, and produce findings that are credible and useful. The findings may even be presented at a conference or shared with similar organizations. Still, the primary purpose was to inform decisions about that specific program, in that specific context, for those specific stakeholders. That is evaluation. The fact that others may learn from the evaluation does not automatically make it research.
Methods do not determine whether an activity is research. Evaluations often use rigorous methods, and they should, rigor is an ethical and professional obligation. But using systematic data collection, statistical analysis, qualitative coding, or mixed methods does not by itself mean an evaluation is designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge.
Dissemination does not determine whether an activity is research. Evaluation findings are often shared. Evaluators present lessons learned, publish case examples, and contribute to professional learning. This sharing may support transferability, but dissemination alone does not establish that the original activity was designed as research.
Purpose matters. The central question is: Why was the inquiry undertaken? If the primary purpose is to support local decision-making, assess the merit or worth of a program, improve services, or guide organizational learning, the activity may be evaluation rather than research even when the methods are sophisticated.
Be explicit in evaluation plans and IRB communications.
Describe the intended use of findings. Name the decisions the evaluation will inform. For example: continuation, improvement, expansion, resource allocation, accountability, or stakeholder learning.
Use transferability language when appropriate. Rather than saying findings are “generalizable,” consider saying: “Findings are context-specific but may be transferable to similar settings when users judge relevant contextual similarities.”
Clarify why rigorous/research methods are being used. For example: “The evaluation uses comparison data and validated measures to support credible conclusions for stakeholder decision-making, not to make population-level generalizations.”
Do not treat IRB review as the only form of ethical oversight. Some evaluations may not meet the regulatory definition of research but still require careful ethical attention. Evaluators must still consider consent, confidentiality, power, cultural context, potential harms, data ownership, and use of findings.
Misclassifying evaluation as research can create unnecessary burdens, delay time-sensitive learning, and discourage organizations from engaging in systematic improvement. At the same time, evaluators should not use the research/evaluation distinction to avoid ethical responsibility. The better path is conceptual clarity.
Evaluation often seeks useful, credible, context-sensitive findings. Research is more often designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge. Both can be rigorous. Both can be ethical. Both can inform practice. But they serve different primary purposes and should not be regulated or reviewed as though they are always the same.
For evaluators, the practical implication is clear: say what the work is designed to do, say who it is intended to serve, and distinguish carefully between knowledge that is generalizable and learning that is transferable.
Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this AEA365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please do so using the form on our website. AEA365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. The views and opinions expressed on the AEA365 blog are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the American Evaluation Association, and/or any/all contributors to this site.