Mixed methods and credibility of evidence in evaluation / / Donna M. Mertens, Sharlene Hesse-Biber, editors

• Record Nr.: UNINA9910812109803321
• Pubbl/distr/stampa: [San Francisco, Calif.], : Jossey-Bass, c2013
• ISBN: 1-118-72045-8; 1-118-72049-0
• Edizione: [1st ed.]
• Descrizione fisica: 1 online resource (136 p.)
• Collana: New Directions for Evaluation ; ; Number 138
• Altri autori (Persone): MertensDonna M; Hesse-BiberSharlene Nagy
• Disciplina: 001.4
• Soggetti: Evaluation - Methodology; Mixed methods research
• Lingua di pubblicazione: Inglese
• Formato: Materiale a stampa
• Livello bibliografico: Monografia
• Note generali: "Summer 2013."
• Nota di bibliografia: Includes bibliographical references at the end of each chapters and index.
• Nota di contenuto: Mixed Methods and Credibility of Evidence in Evaluation; Copyright; Contents; Editors' Notes; Issue Overview; Acknowledgments; References; 1. Mixed Methods and Credibility of Evidence in Evaluation; What Is Mixed Methods?; Synergy and Mixed Methods Evaluation Designs; Evaluation Paradigms and Mixed Methods; References; 2. Pragmatism, Evidence, and Mixed Methods Evaluation; Deweyan Pragmatism; Intelligent Action; Intelligent Mixed Methods Evaluation and Evidence; What Is Being Mixed?; What Counts as Evidence?; What Makes Evidence Credible?; How Can Evidence Be Utilized?; Putting Intelligent Action Into PracticeThe Leadership Academy: A Case Example; Conclusion; References; 3. What Does a Transformative Lens Bring to Credible Evidence in Mixed Methods Evaluations?; Transformative Paradigm; Transformative Axiological Assumption; Transformative Ontological Assumptions; Transformative Epistemological Assumption; Transformative Methodological Assumption; Conclusions; References; 4. Considering the Evidence-and-Credibility Discussion in Evaluation Through the Lens of Dialectical Pluralism; A Brief Overview of Dialectical Pluralism; Evidence-Based Practice and Its CriticsPractice-Based Evidence and Its Critics; Practice Research Networks and Communities of Practice; A ; Lingering Monism; A Circle of Scientific Evidence and Knowledge Model; Some Questions and Tentative Answers for Evidence-Based Evaluation; References; 5. Thinking Outside the Randomized Controlled Trials Experimental Box: Strategies for Enhancing Credibility and Social Justice; Mixed Methods and RCT; Re-Visioning RCT: Weaving and Shifting a Qualitative Component Into RCT Evaluation Designs; Prior to RCT; During the RCT; Post-RCT; Putting Things Together: Evaluation Case StudyConclusions; References; 6. The Use of Mixed Methods in Randomized Control Trials; Conceptual Issues; The Black Box: Curse or Blessing?; What Are Mixed Methods?; The Use of Different Methods in a Single Study; Examples of Mixed Method Causal-Chain Analysis; Setting Out the Evaluation Framework; Develop Hypothesis and Identify Instrumental Variables; Questionnaire Design and Improved Data Collection; Implementation Failure Versus Design Failure; Fidelity of Evaluation Design; Understand How Something Works (or Why It Does Not); Presenting Results: The Power of the AnecdoteConclusions; References; 7. The Contribution of Pluralistic Qualitative Approaches to Mixed Methods Evaluations; Using Qualitative Methods in Evaluation; Pluralistic Qualitative Evaluation; Youth Participation in a Youth Inclusion Program; Discussion; References; 8. Establishing Interpretive Consistency When Mixing Approaches: Role of Sampling Designs in Evaluations; Interpretive Consistency; Challenges Affecting Interpretive Consistency; Application of Sampling Criteria: Heuristic Example; Conclusions; References; 9. Incorporating Qualitative Evidence in Systematic Reviews: Strategies and Challenges
• Sommario/riassunto: Mixed methods in evaluation have the potential to enhance the credibility of evaluation and the outcomes of evaluation. This issue explores advances in understanding mixed methods in philosophical, theoretical, and methodological terms and presents specific illustrations of the application of these concepts in evaluation practice. Leading thinkers in the mixed methods evaluation community provide frameworks and strategies that are associated with improving the probability of reaching the goals of enhanced credibility for evaluations, the evidence they produce, and the actions taken as a res