Year: 2010
Type: dissertation
Abstract: The contemporary evaluation literature advocates for and recommends a pluralistic approach to \nprogramme evaluation, with some writers contending that the use of multiple and/or mixed \nmethods for the practice is inevitable. The rationale for such an approach encompasses \naspects of both the ‘technical’ and the ‘political’ requirements of evaluation practice. A review of \nevaluation research literature underscores the important role of mixed methods research \ntowards realizing richer evaluation findings, and addressing the pragmatic, democratic and \npolitical facets of the evaluation practice. However, it is observed that there is a dearth of \nliterature that focuses on how the use of a mixed methods evaluation approach facilitates the \nrealization of richer conclusions or inferences about programme merit/worth. Thus, the \noverarching aim of the thesis is to establish how the perception and implementation of mixed \nmethods research among evaluation practitioners influences the nature of inferences they \nmake. \nThis thesis aims at identifying patterns and relationships within and between conceptions and \npractices of mixed methods evaluation through a descriptive process. The selection of cases is \ntherefore purposive and includes fourteen published evaluation articles on \nprojects/programmes. An analytical framework is developed on the basis of a literature review \non mixed methods research and background literature on evaluation research. This framework \nguides the qualitative content analysis of each case study and the cross-case analysis across \nthe fourteen studies to identify common patterns. \nThe findings reveal two prominent perspectives of mixed methods evaluation prevailing among \nevaluation practitioners. The first (labeled a ‘strong’ conception) has the intention of and places \nemphasis on the integration of the qualitative and quantitative components, with the primary \nobjective of obtaining richer evaluation inferences. In this conception, the use of the methods \nand the data/inferences thereof are synthesized to achieve this goal. This conception is \ncongruent with mixed methods purposes of: - ‘complementarity’ and ‘triangulation’ and is \nresponsive to the ‘technical’ needs of evaluation. The second perspective (labeled a ‘weak’ \nconception) is silent about the integration of the respective methods or data/findings/inferences, \nqualifying the use of multiple methods and data in a single study as sufficing for a mixed \nmethods approach. It resonates with justifications of mixed methods research that address \nissues of: - comprehensiveness, multiple view points, inclusiveness and democracy and seems \nmore tailored to the ‘political’ needs of evaluation. The findings also reveal that the resulting \n \nmultiple inferences from this ‘weak’ conception can weaken each other when contradicting or \ninaccurate qualitative and quantitative findings result, especially when the complimentary \nfunction of either method is not planned a priori. \nTherefore within the context of realizing richer and more valid evaluation findings/inferences, it \nis recommended that the purposes and qualification as mixed methods research of the second \nperspective be re-considered. It is apparent that in embracing the ‘political’ needs of evaluation \npractice, this conception seems to eschew the ‘technical’ requirements initially intended for a \nmixed methods approach. This has implications particularly for the mixed methods purpose of \n‘expansion’ and rationales of pluralism, inclusiveness and democracy, which are seemingly \npopular within programme evaluation practice.
Author: Apolo Peter Kyeyune
Language: English
Subfield: Public Administration
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2107842889