The Merits of Mixing Methods in Evaluation

Evaluation

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 25-44

  Greene, Jennifer C ^a   Benjamin, Lehn ^b   Goodyear, Leslie ^b,c  

^a 260E Education ^*  (United States)

^b Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

better understanding in evaluation; evaluation practice; mixedmethods inquiry; qualitative and quantitative methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053306682     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: 14617153     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/13563890122209504     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Annie E. Casey Foundation (1995) Getting Smart, Getting Real: Using Research and Evaluation Information to Improve Programs and Policies. Report of theAnnie E. Casey Foundation's September 1995 Research and Evaluation Conference. Baltimore, MD.
2. Bickman, Leonard (ed.) (1987) Using Program Theory in Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation No. 33. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3. Bickman, Leonard (ed.) (1990) Advances in Program Theory. New Directions for Evaluation No. 47. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4. Bos, J., A. C. Huston, R. Granger, G. Duncan, T. Brock and W. C. McLoyd (1999) New Hope for People with Low Incomes: Two-Year Results of a Program to Reduce Poverty and Reform Welfare. New York, NY: Manpower Research Demonstration Corporation.
5. Brewer, John and Albert Hunter (1989) Multimethod Research:'A Synthesis of Styles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Caracelli, Valerie J. and Jennifer C. Greene (1997) 'Crafting Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs', in J. C. Greene and V. J. Caracelli (eds) Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, New Directions for Evaluation No. 74.: 19-32. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8. Chen, Huey-Tsyh (1990) Theory-Driven Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Chen, Huey-Tsyh and Peter H. Rossi (1983) 'Evaluating with Sense: The Theory-Driven Approach', Evaluation Review7: 283-302.
10. Cook, Thomas D. (1985) 'Postpositivist Critical Multiplism', in R.L. Shotland and M. M. Mark (eds) Social Science and Social Policy, pp. 21-62. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Creswell, John W. (1994) Research Designs: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Fay, Brian (1987) Critical Social Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
13. Frechtling, Joy and Laurie Sharp (eds) (1997) User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method Evaluations. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources.
14. Greene, Jennifer C. (1997) 'Evaluation as Advocacy', Evaluation Practice18: 25-35.
15. Greene, Jennifer C. and Valerie J. Caracelli (1997) 'Defining and Describing the Paradigm Issue in Mixed-Method Evaluation', in J. C. Greene and V. J. Caracelli (eds) Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation:. The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, New Directions for Evaluation No. 74.: 5-17. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16. Greene, Jennifer C. Valerie J. Caracelli and Wendy F. Graham (1989) 'Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs', Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis11: 255-274.
17. Greenwood, Davydd and Morten Levin (1998) Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Guba, Egon G. and Yvonna S. Lincoln (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Henry, Gary T., George Julnes and Melvin M. Mark (eds) (1998) Realist Evaluation: An Emerging Theory in Support of Practice. New Directions for Evaluation No. 78. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20. House, Ernest R. (1980) Evaluating with Validity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21. House, Ernest R. (1994) 'Integrating the Quantitative and the Qualitative', in C. S. Reichardt and S. F. Rallis (eds) The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives. New Directions for Evaluation No. 61. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22. House, Ernest R. and Kenneth R. Howe (1999) Values in Evaluation and Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. House, Ernest R. and Kenneth R. Howe (2000) 'Deliberative Democratic Evaluation', in K. R. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process:' Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation. New Directions for Evaluation No. 85: 3-12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24. Krantz, D. L. (1995) 'Sustaining Versus Resolving the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate', Evaluation and Program Planning18: 89-96.
25. Li, S. and C. Zercher (1997) 'Data Analysis Strategies and Issues in Mixed-Method Research', paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, San Diego, CA.
26. Mark, Melvin M., Irwin Feller and Scott B. Button (1997) 'Integrating Qualitative Methods in a Predominantly Quantitative Evaluation: A Case Study and Some Reflections', in J. C. Greene and V. J. Caracelli (eds) Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, New Directions for Evaluation No. 74.: 47-59. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27. Mark, Melvin M., Gary T. Henry and George Julnes (2000) Evaluation: An Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Policies and Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
28. Marquart, J. M. (1997) 'Mixed-Methods Studies: Design and Analysis Dilemmas and Solutions', paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, San Diego, CA.
29. Marquart, Jules M., S. Li and C. Zercher (1997) 'Making the Whole More than the Sum of the Parts: Challenges in a Mixed-Method Study of Inclusion', paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
30. Marquart, Jules M., S. Li and C. Zercher (2000) 'Conceptual Issues and Analytic Strategies in Mixed-Method Studies of Preschool Inclusion', Journal of Early Intervention23: 116-132.
31. Marris, Peter and Martin Rein (1982) Dilemmas of Social Reform: Poverty and Community Action in the United States, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
32. Patton, Michael Q. (1988) 'Paradigms and Pragmatism', in D. M. Fetterman (ed.) Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education: The Silent Scientific Revolution, pp. 116-137. New York: Praeger.
33. Pawson, Ray and Nick Tilley (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage.
34. Popham, W. James (1999) Modern Educational Measurement: Practical Guidelines for Educational Leaders. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
35. Ragin, Charles C. (1989) The Comparative Method.: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
36. Shotland, R. Lance and Melvin M. Mark (1987) 'Improving Inferences from Multiple Methods', in M. M. Mark and R. L. Shotland (eds) Multiple Methods in Program Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation No. 35.: 77-94. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
37. Sivalingham, Vanaja (1997) Examining Claims Made for Performance Assessments Using a High School Science Context', doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
38. Smith, Mary Lee (1997) 'Mixing and Matching: Methods and Models', in J. C. Greene and V. J. Caracelli (eds) Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, New Directions for Evaluation. No. 74: 73-86. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
39. Tashakkori, Abbas and Charles Teddlie (1998) Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Weisner, Thomas (2000) 'Understanding Better the Lives of Poor Families: Ethnographic and Survey Studies in the New Hope Experiment', Poverty Research News4(1): 10-12. Joint Center for Poverty Research, Northwestern University, IL.
41. Weiss, Carol H. (1998) Evaluation, 2nd edn.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.