CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5,687Evaluation and Performance AssessmentEducational Research and MethodsQualitative Comparative Analysis Research

Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs

Greene, Jennifer C., Caracelli, Valerie J., Graham, Wendy F.·1989·Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
DOI 10.3102/01623737011003255
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In recent years evaluators of educational and social programs have expanded their methodological repertoire with designs that include the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods. Such practice, however, needs to be grounded in a theory that can meaningfully guide the design and implementation of mixed-method evaluations. In this study, a mixed-method conceptual framework was developed from the theoretical literature and then refined through an analysis of 57 empirical mixed-method evaluations. Five purposes for mixed-method evaluations are identified in this conceptual framework: triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation, and expansion. For each of the five purposes, a recommended design is also presented in terms of seven relevant design characteristics. These design elements encompass issues about methods, the phenomena under investigation, paradigmatic framework, and criteria for implementation. In the empirical review, common misuse of the term triangulation was apparent in evaluations that stated such a purpose but did not employ an appropriate design. In addition, relatively few evaluations in this review integrated the different method types at the level of data analysis. Strategies for integrated data analysis are among the issues identified as priorities for further mixed-method work.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/01623737011003255

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The use of a mixed method approach was deemed important to achieve the primary benefits of development and expansion of the checklist.

    “The use of a mixed method approach was deemed important to achieve the primary benefits of development and expansion of the checklist (Greene,Caracelli,&Graham,1989).”

    From Developing an English Language Textbook Evaluative Checklist (2013) · cites this paper as Greene,Caracelli,&Graham,1989

  • Greene and Caracelli found that methodological triangulation was rare in mixed-method research, used by only 3 of 57 studies.

    “Ironically, in a comprehensive review of mixed-method evaluation studies, Greene and Caracelli (1989) found that methodological triangulation was actually quite rare in mixed-method research, used by only 3 of 57 studies.”

    From Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research (2002) · cites this paper as Greene and Caracelli, 1989

  • The results were measured through a mixed concurrent or triangulated study.

    “The results were measured through a mixed concurrent or triangulated study [19–21].”

    From The virtual patient as a learning tool: a mixed quantitative qualitative study (2018) · cites this paper as [19]

  • With Greene et al.'s (1989) initiation purpose, the initiation strand follows the unexpected results that it is supposed to explain.

    “Likewise, with Greene et al.’s (1989) initiation purpose, the initiation strand follows the unexpected results that it is supposed to explain.”

    From How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design (2017) · cites this paper as Greene et al.’s (1989)

  • Greene et al. (1989) distinguished five purposes for mixing in mixed methods research: triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation, and expansion.

    “Greene et al. (1989, p. 259) distinguished the following five purposes for mixing in mixed methods research:”

    From How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design (2017) · cites this paper as Greene et al. (1989)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Venue
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
Publisher
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Published
1989-09
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
255-274
ISSN
  • 0162-3737 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1062
DOI
10.3102/01623737011003255
OpenAlex
W2109685530
Cited by
5,687
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 282 · 2025: 266 · 2024: 273 · 2023: 300 · 2022: 321 · 2021: 377 · 2020: 322 · 2019: 300 · 2018: 266 · 2017: 286 · 2016: 314 · 2015: 336 · 2014: 328 · 2013: 300 · 2012: 279
FWCI
6.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Keywords
conceptual framework, evaluation design, triangulation, complementarity, program evaluation, educational program evaluation, social program evaluation, integrated data analysis, design features

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