Mixed method evaluation: A case study

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 227-237

  Waysman, Mark ^a   Savaya, Riki ^b  

^a Center for Evaluation   (Israel)

^b TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958001095     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: 15570878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/109821409701800123     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bielefeld, W. (1994). What affects nonprofit survival? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 5, 19-36.
2. Brewer, J. & Hunter, A. (1989). Mixed method research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3. Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Unwin Hyman.
4. Cook, T.D. (1985). Post-positivist critical multiplism. In R. L. Shotland & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Social science and social policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5. Cook, T. D. & Reichardt, C. S. (Eds.), (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6. Greene, J.C. (1985, October). Validity, management and utilization in mixed-methods evaluation designs. Paper presented at the joint meeting of The Evaluation Research Society, The Evaluation Network, and The Canadian Evaluation Society, Toronto, Canada.
7. Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Towards a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
8. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1984). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? Copyrighted manuscript.
9. Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
10. Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
11. Light, R.J. & Pillemer, D.B. (1982). Numbers and narrative: Combining their strengths in research reviews. Harvard Educational Review, 52(1), 1-26.
12. Mark, M.M. & Shotland, L.S. (1985). Toward more useful social science. In R. L. Shotland & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Social science and social policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
13. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.
14. McClintock, C., & Greene, J. (1985). Triangulation in practice. Evaluation and Program Planning, 8, 351-357.
15. Morgan, C. (1995). Exploring roles and functions in the organizational development of community-based social service organizations in Massachusetts. Unpublished manuscript, The Heller School, Brandeis University.
16. Morgan, D.L. (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17. Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
18. Neenan, P.A. & Bowen, G.L. (1991). Multimethod assessment of a child-care demonstration project for AFDC recipient families: The genesis of an evaluation. Evaluation Review, 15(2), 219-232.
19. Osborne, S.P. & Tricker, M. (1994). Local development agencies: Supporting voluntary action. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 5, 37-51.
20. Patton, M. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
21. Rossman, G.B., & Wilson, B.L. (1994). Numbers and words revisited: Being "shamelessly eclectic." Quality and Quantity, 28, 315-327.
22. Rossman, G.B., & Wilson, B.L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 627-643.
23. Stewart. D.W., & Shamdasanai, P.M. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24. Worthen, B.R. (1996). A survey of Evaluation Practice readers. Evaluation Practice, 17, 85-90.