THREE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS RELEVANT TO INSIDE VERSUS OUTSIDE EVALUATION RESEARCH ARE: (1) OUTSIDERS TEND TO BE BRIGHTER THAN PEOPLE AVAILABLE WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION BEING EVALUATED; (2) OUTSIDERS ARE MORE OBJECTIVE THAN INSIDERS; AND (3) INSIDERS ARE MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE AND SENSITIVE THAN OUTSIDERS. IT IS LIKELY THAT BRIGHT PEOPLE WILL WORK WHEREVER MONETARY COMPENSATION AND WORK CONDITIONS ARE ADEQUATE. MANY FIND THE SMALL RESEARCH FIRM WITH ITS UNIVERSITY-LIKE ATMOSPHERE MORE CONGENIAL THAN THE LARGE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY THAT OFTEN IS BEING EVALUATED. LARGE BUREAUCRACIES CAN AND DO, HOWEVER, HAVE AUTONOMOUS RESEARCH UNITS. NO CLEAR ADVANTAGE CAN ACCRUE TO INSIDERS OR OUTSIDERS WITH REGARD TO OBJECTIVITY, GIVEN THE MULTIPLICITY OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE OBJECTIVITY OF INVESTIGATORS. THE VIEW THAT INSIDERS ARE MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE AND SENSITIVE IS NOT SUPPORTED. THE CENTRAL QUESTION IN EVALUATION RESEARCH INVOLVES HOW TO GIVE EVALUATORS SUFFICIENT AUTONOMY TO EXERCISE THEIR BEST PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND SKILLS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SUPERVISING THEM SO THAT THEIR WORK IS DIRECTED TO THE NEEDS OF CLIENTS TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE INFORMATION ON WHICH TO BASE POLICY DECISIONS. THERE ARE TWO ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE EVALUATION RESEARCH: (1) THE AUTONOMOUS EVALUATION WITHIN A LARGER AGENCY THAT HAS A COMPONENT TO BE EVALUATED AND (2) A STRONG CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN AGENCY AND AN OUTSIDE EVALUATOR. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.