NEW PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRE EVALUATORS TO BECOME PART OF THE PROGRAM RATHER THAN REMAIN OUTSIDE IT. MOST CURRENT EVALUATIONS ARE NOT RESEARCH, BUT THEY ARE AD HOC ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE AND ASSESS PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNT FOR EXPENDITURES OF FUNDS. THERE IS NO THEORY TO INFORM METHODOLOGY, NO CONSISTENCY IN METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, NO SYSTEMATIC APPLICATION OF METHODS, AND, PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANT, NO SYSTEM FOR PASSING ON INFORMATION FROM ONE EVALUATION TO THE NEXT. ALTHOUGH THERE IS A GROWING TENDENCY TO TURN TO ANTHROPOLOGY FOR GUIDANCE IN DEVELOPING SOUND PROGRAM EVALUATION AND IN SOLVING SPECIFIC EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH PROBLEMS (E.G., INSIGHT INTO GOAL-SPECIFIC FIELD ENGAGEMENT OPERATIONS), THERE IS SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE PREFERRED STYLE IN ETHNOGRAPHY OF THE SOLITARY FIELD WORKER AND THE CORRESPONDING RESISTANCE TO TEAM RESEARCH IS APPROPRIATE TO THE CURRENT LARGE-SCALE PROBLEM-SOLVING ORIENTATION OF MUCH EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND EVALUATION. OUTSIDE AGENCIES OR GROUPS CANNOT EXAMINE, DEFINE, AND REDEFINE THE INSTITUTIONAL SETTING IN EDUCATION. EVALUATORS CANNOT USE PREORDAINED METHODS GROWING OUT OF SPECIFIC THEORIES, AND THE USE OF UNTRAINED PARTICIPANT OBSERVERS HAS CREATED GREAT PROBLEMS IN THE FIELD. QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES CAN BE COMBINED, BUT THE SELECTION AND COMBINATION OF THESE APPROACHES SHOULD ANSWER CERTAIN RESEARCH DESIGN QUESTIONS ON THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATION THE ROLE OF EVALUATION IN DECISIONMAKING, THE EFFECT OF EXTERNAL TIME AND MONEY CONSTRAINTS, AND TECHNICAL ISSUES OF DESIGN, ANALYSIS, AND MEASUREMENT. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (AOP)