Nillei-Paisey 1

Bennett, Tievoi. (199S). What's new in evaluation ieseaich. A note on the Pawson
anu Tilley Aiticle. !"#$#%& ()*"+,- ). /"#0#+)-)12, S6, S67-S7S.
Abstiact
Bennett's papei "What's New in Evaluation Reseaich," is a stiaightfoiwaiu
iebuttal to Pawson anu Tilley's scathing - anu to use one of Pawson anu Tilley's
woius - "sleugehammei" attack on Bennett's evaluation stuuy of a policing
piogiamme as well as his use of quasi-expeiimental methouology. While initially
ieluctant to iesponu to Pawson anu Tilley's ciitique, aftei colleagues askeu foi
Bennett's opinion anu this ciitique tiickleu thiough the liteiatuie, Bennett ieplieu.
Essentially, Pawson anu Tilley have founu evaluation stuuies in ciiminal justice
anu ciiminology lacking anu point to the weaknesses in quasi-expeiimental uesign
while also applauuing the meiits they peiceive in auopting expeiimental tactics that
ieflect scientific iealism. In setting foith theii agenua, Pawson anu Tilley have taken
aim at Bennett anu his use of quasi-expeiimental uesign because it lacks iefinement,
uetail, anu unambiguous causal explanation. Bennett ietuins fiie anu auuiesses
Pawson anu Tilley's ciiticisms, aiming to uebunk each.
While Pawson anu Tilley claim Bennett's evaluation stuuy of a policing
piogiamme uiu not offei sufficient uocumentation, Bennett pointeu out that
contacts between the police anu public weie well uocumenteu. In auuition, the
natuie of encounteis weie uesciibeu along with the attituue oi "uisposition' of the
iesponuent. Fuitheimoie, in iesponse to Pawson anu Tilley's asseition that Bennett
uiu not empiiically auuiess "causal mechanisms" ielating to causes anu feai of
ciime, Bennett pointeu out that he constiucteu a suivey baseu his theoietical
Nillei-Paisey 1
constiucts of the causes anu feai of ciime. 0ne puipose of his evaluation stuuy was
to test his theoiy.
Nonetheless, Bennett gives Pawson anu Tilley theii uue - oi peihaps moie
accuiately - fiankly expiesses his belief that the stuuy in question woulu have been
stiongei with a qualitative component such as an ethnogiaphic oi obseivation
stuuy. Bowevei, as he states, howevei valuable a qualitative component might have
been, funuing to suppoit this was not available. Bennett uoes auvocate foi a
iigouious assessment of quasi-expeiimental uesign. Be believes these uesigns aie
compiomiseu by nonequivalence between expeiimental anu contiol oi compaiison
gioups. Finally, he affiims that the philosophy of scientific iealism can contiibute to
highei quality quasi-expeiimental anu expeiimental uesign, howevei he cautions
that scientific iealism shoulu be unueistoou well anu its application to an
expeiiment oi stuuy "spelleu out" piecisely.