Use of Geographic Information Systems by American Evaluation Association Members in their Professional Practice
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: As geographic information systems (GIS) technology continues to develop and expand in its capacity and applications, it is becoming increasingly useful to many disciplines. Even so, little has been written about the place of GIS technology in evaluation practice, and there is a paucity of information as to the extent to and applications for which evaluation practitioners use such technology.
Purpose: In this investigation, the prevalence and common applications of GIS technology in professional evaluation practice are examined. Particularly, the study was designed to estimate what proportion of American Evaluation Association (AEA) members who self-identify as evaluation practitioners use GIS in their practice, if at all, and, if so, to what extent. For those who use GIS in their evaluation practice, the specific GIS software packages and applications used also are explored.
Setting: Not applicable.
Intervention: Not applicable.
Research Design: A simple random sample of American Evaluation Association (AEA) members were surveyed, with an emphasis on evaluation practitioners.
Findings: Less than less than half (41.04% ±6.09%) of AEA members who consider themselves evaluation practitioners have ever used GIS in their evaluation practice and less than one-third (31.47% ±5.75%) have received some form of training in GIS methods. Data visualization is, by far, the most frequent application of GIS in evaluation practice.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain full copyright for articles published in JMDE. JMDE publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC 4.0). Users are allowed to copy, distribute, and transmit the work in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes, provided that the original authors and source are credited accurately and appropriately. Only the original authors may distribute the article for commercial or compensatory purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org
References
Azzam, T. (2013). Mapping data, geographic information systems. New Directions for Evaluation, 140, 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20074 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20074
Azzam, T., & Robinson, D. (2013). GIS in evaluation: Utilizing the power of geographic information systems to represent evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(2), 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214012461710 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214012461710
Brunsdon, C., & Comber, L. (2015). R for spatial analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Coryn, C. L. S., Becho, L. W., Westine, C. D., Mateu, P. F., Abu-Obaid, R. N., Hobson, K. A., Schröter, D. C., Dodds, E. L., Vo, A. T., & Ramlow, M. (2020). Material incentives and other potential factors associated with response rates to Internet surveys of American Evaluation Association members: Findings from a randomized experiment. American Journal of Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018818371 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018818371
Coryn, C. L. S., Ozeki, S., Wilson, L. N., Greenman II, G. D., Schröter, D. C., Hobson, K. A., Azzam, T., & Vo, A. T. (2016). Does research on evaluation matter? Findings from a survey of American Evaluation Association members and prominent evaluation theorists and scholars. American Journal of Evaluation, 37(2), 159-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214015611245 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214015611245
Coryn, C. L. S., Wilson, L. N., Westine, C. D., Hobson, K. A., Ozeki, S., Fiekowsky, E. L., Greenman II, G. D., & Schröter, D. C. (2017). A decade of research on evaluation: A systematic review of research on evaluation published between 2005 and 2014. American Journal of Evaluation, 38(3), 329-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016688556 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016688556
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394260645 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394260645
Henry, G. T., & Mark, M. M. (2003). Toward an agenda for research on evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 97, 69-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.77 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.77
Jamieson, V., & Azzam, T. (2012). The use of technology in evaluation practice. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 8(18), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v8i18.340 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v8i18.340
Langabeer, J. R., Gourishankar, A., Chambers, K. A., Giri, S., Madu, R., & Champagne-Langabeer, T. (2019). Disparities between US opioid overdose deaths and treatment capacity: A geospatial and descriptive analysis. Journal of Addiction Medicine,13(6), 476-482. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000523 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000523
Mark, M. M. (2008). Building a better evidence base for evaluation theory: Beyond general calls to a framework of types of research on evaluation. In N. L. Smith & P. R. Brandon (Eds.), Fundamental issues in evaluation (pp. 111-134). New York: Guilford.
Ozeki, S., Coryn, C. L., & Schröter, D. (2019). Evaluation logic in practice: Findings from two empirical investigations of American Evaluation Association members. Evaluation and Program Planning, 76, 101681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101681 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101681
Renger, R., Cimetta, A., Pettygrove, S., & Rogan, S. (2002). Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as an evaluation tool. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4), 469-479. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400202300407 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400202300407
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Coryn, C. L. (2014). Evaluation theory, models, & applications (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tomlinson, R. F. (1967). An introduction to the geo-information system of the Canada Land Inventory. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Forestry and Rural Development.