The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Merits of Mixing Methods in Evaluation
Abstract
Evaluators are challenged to understand human behavior in all of its natural complexity and individuality. Our work is conducted in natural settings, where history and context matter, where human behavior traces complex patterns of influence and relationship, where what is meaningful to those in the setting is both phenomenological and structural, arising from both lived experiences and the societal institutions that frame and shape those experiences. Engaging this complexity requires not a privileging of just one way of knowing and valuing, but rather a marshalling of all of our ways of understanding in a framework that honors diversity and respects difference. This framework is advanced in this article as a mixed-method way of thinking. A presentation of key concepts in the framework is followed by case examples from the US.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/9780674028845 · Cited by 26,084
Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737011003255 · Cited by 5,687
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 39
- Annie E. Casey Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation's September 1995 Research and Evaluation Conference
- Bickman, Leonard, 1987, Using Program Theory in Evaluation
- Bickman, Leonard, 1990, Advances in Program Theory
- Bos, J., 1999, New Hope for People with Low Incomes: Two-Year Results of a Program to Reduce Poverty and Reform Welfare
- Brewer, John, 1989, Multimethod Research:'A Synthesis of Styles
- Caracelli, Valerie J., 1997, Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, 19
- Chen, Huey-Tsyh, 1990, Theory-Driven Evaluation
- 10.1177/0193841X8300700301 · DOI · Paper page
- Cook, Thomas D., 1985, Social Science and Social Policy, 21
- Creswell, John W., 1994, Research Designs: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
- Fay, Brian, 1987, Critical Social Science
- Frechtling, Joy, 1997, User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method Evaluations
- 10.1016/S0886-1633(97)90005-2 · DOI
- Greene, Jennifer C., 1997, Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation:. The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, 5
- Greenwood, Davydd, 1998, Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change
- Guba, Egon G., 1989, Fourth Generation Evaluation
- Henry, Gary T., 1998, Realist Evaluation: An Emerging Theory in Support of Practice
- House, Ernest R., 1980, Evaluating with Validity
- House, Ernest R., 1994, The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives
- House, Ernest R., 1999, Values in Evaluation and Social Research, 10.4135/9781452243252 · DOI
- House, Ernest R., 2000, Evaluation as a Democratic Process:' Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation, 3
- 10.1016/0149-7189(94)00052-Y · DOI
- Li, S., annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association
- Mark, Melvin M., 1997, Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, 47
- Mark, Melvin M., 2000, Evaluation: An Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Policies and Programs
- Marquart, J. M., annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association
- Marquart, Jules M., annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
- 10.1177/105381510002300206 · DOI
- Marris, Peter, 1982, Dilemmas of Social Reform: Poverty and Community Action in the United States
- Patton, Michael Q., 1988, Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education: The Silent Scientific Revolution, 116
- Pawson, Ray, 1997, Realistic Evaluation
- Popham, W. James, 1999, Modern Educational Measurement: Practical Guidelines for Educational Leaders
- Ragin, Charles C., 1989, The Comparative Method.: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies
- 10.1002/ev.1460 · DOI
- Sivalingham, Vanaja (1997) Examining Claims Made for Performance Assessments Using a High School Science Context', doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
- Smith, Mary Lee, 1997, Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, 73
- Tashakkori, Abbas, 1998, Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
- Weisner, Thomas, 2000, Poverty Research News, 4, 10
- Weiss, Carol H., 1998, Evaluation
Cited by
Yvonne Feilzer, M. (2010) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689809349691 · Cited by 1,258
Opening the black box: Presenting a model for evaluating organizational-level interventions
Nielsen, K., & Randall, R. (2013) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2012.690556 · Cited by 431
Understanding mis-implementation in Public Health practice
Brownson, R. C., Allen, P., Jacob, R. R., Harris, J. K., Duggan, K., Hipp, P. R., & Erwin, P. C. (2015) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.11.015 · Cited by 70
Rodriguez-Triana, M. J., Prieto, L. P., Holzer, A., & Gillet, D. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2020.2995557 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Greene, J. C., Benjamin, L., & Goodyear, L.
- Venue
- Evaluation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-44
- ISSN
- 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7153
- OpenAlex
- W2143874826
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
