Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Methods for Program Monitoring and Evaluation: Why Are Mixed-Method Designs Best?
Despite significant methodological advances, much program evaluation and monitoring data are of limited utility because of an over-reliance on quantitative methods alone. While surveys provide generalizable findings on what outcomes or impacts have...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Brief |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2011/05/14981149/combining-quantitative-qualitative-methods-program-monitoring-evaluation-mixed--method-designs-best http://hdl.handle.net/10986/11063 |
| Summary: | Despite significant methodological
advances, much program evaluation and monitoring data are of
limited utility because of an over-reliance on quantitative
methods alone. While surveys provide generalizable findings
on what outcomes or impacts have or have not occurred,
qualitative methods are better able to identify the
underlying explanations for these outcomes and impacts, and
therefore enable more effective responses. Qualitative
methods also inform survey design, identify social and
institutional drivers and impacts that are hard to quantify,
uncover unanticipated issues, and trace impact pathways.
When used together, quantitative and qualitative approaches
provide more coherent, reliable, and useful conclusions than
do each on their own. This note identifies key elements of
good mixed-method design and provides examples of these
principles applied in several countries. |
|---|