Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Methods for Program Monitoring and Evaluation: Why Are Mixed-Method Designs Best?

Adato, Michelle

World Bank, Washington, DC

关键词: AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH;    AGRICULTURE;    BENEFICIARIES;    CORRECTIVE ACTIONS;    CORRECTIVE MEASURES;   

RP-ID  :  64386

学科分类：社会科学、人文和艺术（综合）

来源: World Bank Open Knowledge Repository

【 摘 要 】

Despite significant methodologicaladvances, much program evaluation and monitoring data are oflimited utility because of an over-reliance on quantitativemethods alone. While surveys provide generalizable findingson what outcomes or impacts have or have not occurred,qualitative methods are better able to identify theunderlying explanations for these outcomes and impacts, andtherefore enable more effective responses. Qualitativemethods also inform survey design, identify social andinstitutional drivers and impacts that are hard to quantify,uncover unanticipated issues, and trace impact pathways.When used together, quantitative and qualitative approachesprovide more coherent, reliable, and useful conclusions thando each on their own. This note identifies key elements ofgood mixed-method design and provides examples of theseprinciples applied in several countries.