Not surprisingly, some methodological choices prompt much discussion and debate among evaluators

Not surprisingly, some methodological choices prompt much discussion and debate among evaluators. For example, Mark and Henry (2006) argue that policymakers are most interested in and most likely to use evaluation results that establish the causal connections between a program or policy and an outcome. Others argue that policymakers don’t really use such results, that they’re too busy with political pressures and have their own opinions about what works. These evaluators argue that evaluation is most likely to be used at the program level where program managers and staff are often more interested in descriptive information. Which type of designs (causal or descriptive) do you think are more likely to be used? By whom? Why?