Quality of Life Indicators and Program Evaluation

Social indicators and program evaluation research have much in common. Quality of ltfe work specifically raises the question of objective versus subjective variables, aggregate data versus distributional and individual issues, and the reference standards used in judgment and evaluation decisions. This articlepresentsperspectives on these issues from the orientation of quality of life research and proposes that these approaches have relevance for program evaluation work. Social indicators research is about the same age as evaluation research. Both have the same disciplinary origins in economics, sociology and social psychology. Both areas of activity are engaged in collecting statistics of direct normative interest, the assessment of social change or stability and the detection of factors effective in achieving social and policy goals. Historically, evaluation research has focused on specific programmatic efforts while social indicator research has tried to assess a wider mix of societal variables and contexts. Both, however, are interested in the complex structure of networks of interacting variables and the effects of directed policy and social programs in the flow of less purposeful social trends. Both expect the dissemination and understanding of their results to be followed by some cognitive shift with behavioral or policy consequences. Thus one can look for considerable overlap in the problems and issues arising in each area of research. OBJECTIVE VERSUS SUBJECTIVE MEASURES Certainly one of the major controversies in social indicator studies is the role of objective versus subjective variables. Disciplines and people within them differ in their emphasis on “hard” data. There are differences too in the conceptualization of well-being and welfare and measurement problems are always with us. Formulators of the social indicators movement (Bauer, 1966; Olson, 1969; Sheldon&Moore, 1968; and others) were initially concerned with the inadequacies of social data and the resulting lack of insights into social functioning. Part of the lack of understanding was associated with the realization that in spite of improvement in physical well-being the quality of life had not uniformly improved. This occurred because of a new mix of objective factors and a shift in standards for judgment as expressed in the ideal of a revolution in aspirations and expectations. At any rate the social indicators effort rapidly led to research in the quality of life and this work partly emphasized subjective judgments and evaluations. Economists have been interested in aggregate output. The GNP is a product that itself engenders arguments as to the adequacy of its assessment of societal wellbeing. These aggregate measures dodge any distributional issues about differences in well-being within a society. This stems from the refusal of economists, in general, to make interpersonal comparisons of utility or well-being. From this posture the emphasis on aggregate production or consumption is understandable. The GNP-type “goods” are presumably instrumental in securing, in turn, actual “objects” of utility; but in tracking the productive process it is not teacher salaries Requests for reprints should be sent to Stephen B. Withey, Survey Research Center, Box 1248, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106.