Using Mixed Methods in Monitoring and Evaluation [electronic resource] : Experiences From International Development / Woolcock, Michael
Material type:
TextPublication details: Washington, D.C., The World Bank, 2010Description: 1 online resource (30 p.)Subject(s): Counterfactual | Econometric analysis | Education | Evaluation methods | Experimental design | Flexibility | Impact evaluation | Instrumental variables | Intervention | Key informant interviews | Poverty Impact Evaluation | Poverty Monitoring & Analysis | Poverty Reduction | PRA | Program interventions | Programs | Project beneficiaries | Project evaluation | Project impacts | Qualitative methods | Quantitative evaluation | Quantitative methods | Science and Technology Development | Science Education | Scientific Research & Science Parks | Selection bias | Statistical & Mathematical Sciences | Treatment effectsAdditional physical formats: Woolcock, Michael.: Using Mixed Methods in Monitoring and Evaluation.Online resources: Click here to access online Abstract: This paper provides an overview of the various ways in which mixing qualitative and quantitative methods could add value to monitoring and evaluating development projects. In particular it examines how qualitative methods could address some of the limitations of randomized trials and other quantitative impact evaluation methods; it also explores the importance of examining "process" in addition to "impact", distinguishing design from implementation failures, and the value of mixed methods in the real-time monitoring of projects. It concludes by suggesting topics for future research - including the use of mixed methods in constructing counterfactuals, and in conducting reasonable evaluations within severe time and budget constraints.
This paper provides an overview of the various ways in which mixing qualitative and quantitative methods could add value to monitoring and evaluating development projects. In particular it examines how qualitative methods could address some of the limitations of randomized trials and other quantitative impact evaluation methods; it also explores the importance of examining "process" in addition to "impact", distinguishing design from implementation failures, and the value of mixed methods in the real-time monitoring of projects. It concludes by suggesting topics for future research - including the use of mixed methods in constructing counterfactuals, and in conducting reasonable evaluations within severe time and budget constraints.
There are no comments on this title.