The purpose of this paper is to summarize some of the author's logical and empirical reflections on the practice of using naturalistic techniques to conduct evaluations. The main assertion to be supported by these reflections is that naturalistic evaluation is possible and in some cases powerful. This assertion is supported through a review of (1) what naturalistic inquiry is, (2) criteria for judging the quality of a naturalistic study, (3) the purposes of evaluation, and (4) the "Standards for Evaluations of Educational Programs, Projects and Materials" developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. The criteria for judging naturalistic inquiries are juxtaposed with the evaluation standards to identify criteria from the two perspectives which both support and conflict with one another. Finally, the author's experience conducting a naturalistic evaluation is analyzed in terms of those criteria which appear to conflict to see how the logical conflicts match experiential conflicts. (BW)