The productiveness of complementarity: Negotiating the research-evaluation hourglass

Evaluation and research are related but distinct disciplines. The tools practitioners use – qualitative and quantitative methods and analysis – are similar, but according to John Lavelle’s hourglass, the purposes differ: Research seeks to generate new knowledge, while evaluation asks and answers questions specifically to generate learnings to apply to future iterations of the work. How, then, might this complementarity (and perhaps – some might argue – tension) be productive in the context of a system-level effort to improve achievement among Stage 6 students in a large public education system? What features are required to ensure the partnership is functional and evidence-generating? How might researchers and evaluators not only function alongside each other, but potentially strengthen each other’s work?

In this paper, authors will outline specific features of this relationship that have effectively supported impactful work in the Strategy, generating important new knowledge about teaching practice and impact, and how the evaluation of the successful NSW HSC Strategy has functioned alongside a long-running academic partnership with Western Sydney University. This partnership – built on the research of Wayne Sawyer and evaluation approaches such as developmental, utilisation-focused (both Michael Quinn Patton) and realist (Ray Pawson and Nicholas Tilley) – has enabled the NSW Department of Education to scale and iterate the work, backed by genuinely useful evidence and insight.  Researchers, as genuine thought partners, have enabled evaluators to connect with research rigour in their own work, and have also had lasting and meaningful impact on the world's second-biggest education system.