Impact Evaluation - Mixed Methods

Revision as of 10:00, 17 November 2009

Triangulation is a key concept that embodies much of the rationale behind doing mixed method research and represents a set of principles to fortify the design, analysis and interpretation of findings in Impact Evaluation. Triangulation is about looking at things from multiple points of view, a method “to overcome the problems that stem from studies relying upon a single theory, a single method, a single set of data […] and from a single investigator” (Mikkelsen).

There are different types of triangulation:

Data triangulation—To study a problem using different types of data, different points in time, or different units of analysis
Investigator triangulation—Multiple researchers looking at the same problem
Discipline triangulation—Researchers trained in different disciplines looking at the same problem
Theory triangulation—Using multiple competing theories to explain and analyze a problem
Methodological triangulation—Using different methods, or the same method over time, to study a problem.

Mixed Methods

Advantages of mixed-methods approaches to impact evaluation are the following:

A mix of methods can be used to assess important outcomes or impacts of the intervention being studied. If the results from different methods converge, then inferences about the nature and magnitude of these impacts will be stronger.
A mix of methods can be used to assess different facets of complex outcomes or impacts, yielding a broader, richer portrait than one method alone can. Quantitative impact evaluation techniques work well for a limited set of pre-established variables (preferably determined and measured ex ante) but less well for capturing unintended, less expected (indirect) effects of interventions. Qualitative methods or descriptive (secondary) data analysis can be helpful in better understanding the latter.
One set of methods could be used to assess outcomes or impacts and another set to assess the quality and character of program implementation, including program integrity andthe experiences during the implementation phase.
Multiple methods can help ensure that the sampling frame and the sample selectionstrategies cover the whole of the target intervention and comparison populations.

Quantitative impact evaluation

Quantitative impact evaluation have a comparative advantage in addressing the issue of attribution: Evaluations can either be experimental (or randomized control designed) as when the evaluator purposely collects data and designs evaluations in advance or quasi-experimental as when data are collected to mimic an experimental situation. Multiple regression analysis is the all-purpose technique that can be used in virtually all settings; when the experiment is organized in such a way that no controls are needed, a simple comparison of means can be used instead of a regression since it will give the same answer.Three related problems that quantitative impact evaluation techniques attempt to address are the following:

the establishment of a counterfactual: What would have happened in the absence of the intervention(s);
the elimination of selection bias/effects, leading to differences between intervention group (or treatment group) and control group;
a solution for the problem of unobservables: the omission of one or more unobserved variables, leading to biased estimates.

Qualitative impact evaluation

Survey data collection and (descriptive) analysis, semi-structured interviews, and focus-group interviews are but a few of the specific methods that are found throughout the landscape of methodological approaches to impact evaluation.Qualitative techniques cannot quantify the changes attributable to interventions but should be used to evaluate important issues for which quantification is not feasible or practical, and to develop complementary and in-depth perspectives on processes of change induced by interventions.

Other approaches

Nowadays, participatory methods have become ‘mainstream’ tools in development in almost every area of policy intervention. Participatory evaluation approaches are built on the principle that stakeholders should be involved in some or all stages of the evaluation. In the case of impact evaluation this includes aspects such as the determination of objectives, indicators to be taken into account, as well as stakeholder participation in data collection and analysis.
Methodologies commonly included under this umbrella include: Appreciative Inquiry (AI), Citizen Report Cards (CRCs), Community Score Cards (CSCs), Beneficiary Assessment (BA), Participatory Impact Monitoring the Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) family including Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), and Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA), Policy and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA), Social Assessment (SA), Systematic Client Consultation (SSC), Self-esteem, associative strength, resourcefulness, action planning and responsibility (SARAR), and Objectives-Oriented Project Planning (ZOPP).

Sources:

Leeuw, Frans & Vaessen, Jos (2009): Impact Evaluations and Development. Nonie Guidance on Impact Evaluation. Draft Version for Discussion at the Cairo conference March-April, 2009. Nonie – Network on Impact Evaluation, p.48- 50.

Impact Evaluations and Development: NONIE Guidance on Impact Evaluation 2009: URL: http://www.worldbank.org/ieg/nonie/guidance.html 02/11/2009.

Mikkelsen, B. (2005) Methods for development work and research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, p. 96.

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 #<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'arial','sans-serif'">the establishment of a ''counterfactual'': What would have happened in the absence of the intervention(s);&nbsp;</span>
-#<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'arial','sans-serif'">the elimination of <font color="#002bb8">''[[Selection_Bias|selection bias/effects]]'',</font> leading to differences between intervention group (or treatment group) and control group;&nbsp;</span>
+#<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'arial','sans-serif'">the elimination of <font color="#002bb8">''[[Selection Bias|selection bias/effects]]'',</font> leading to differences between intervention group (or treatment group) and control group;&nbsp;</span>
 #<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'arial','sans-serif'">a solution for the problem of ''unobservables'': the omission of one or more unobserved variables, leading to biased estimates.&nbsp; </span>
 ===== '''Qualitative&nbsp;impact evaluation'''&nbsp;  =====
-*<span style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: arial"><font face="Arial">Survey data collection and [http://www.endev.info/wiki/extensions/FCKeditor/fckeditor/editor/Descriptive%20Analysis <font color="#002bb8">(descriptive) analysis</font>], [http://www.endev.info/wiki/extensions/FCKeditor/fckeditor/editor/Semi-structured%20Interviews <font color="#002bb8">semi-structured interviews</font>], and [http://www.endev.info/wiki/extensions/FCKeditor/fckeditor/editor/Focus%20Group%20Interviews <font color="#002bb8">focus-group interviews are</font>] but a few of the specific methods that are found throughout the landscape of methodological approaches to impact evaluation.</font></span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 'univers-condensed','sans-serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: univers-condensed">Qualitative techniques cannot quantify the changes attributable to interventions but should be used </span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 'univers-condensed','sans-serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: univers-condensed">to evaluate important issues for which quantification is not feasible or practical, and to develop complementary </span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 'univers-condensed','sans-serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: univers-condensed">and in-depth perspectives on processes of change induced by interventions.</span>
+*<span style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: arial"><font face="Arial">Survey data collection and <font color="#002bb8">(descriptive) analysis</font>, <font color="#002bb8">semi-structured interviews</font>, and <font color="#002bb8">focus-group interviews are</font> but a few of the specific methods that are found throughout the landscape of methodological approaches to impact evaluation.</font></span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 'univers-condensed','sans-serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: univers-condensed">Qualitative techniques cannot quantify the changes attributable to interventions but should be used </span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 'univers-condensed','sans-serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: univers-condensed">to evaluate important issues for which quantification is not feasible or practical, and to develop complementary </span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 'univers-condensed','sans-serif'; mso-bidi-font-family: univers-condensed">and in-depth perspectives on processes of change induced by interventions.</span>
 ===== '''Other approaches'''  =====
 *<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'arial','sans-serif'">Nowadays, participatory methods have become ‘mainstream’ tools in development in almost every area of policy intervention. Participatory evaluation approaches are built on the principle that stakeholders should be involved in some or all stages of the evaluation. In the case of impact evaluation this includes aspects such as the determination of objectives, indicators to be taken into account, as well as stakeholder participation in data collection and analysis. </span>
-*<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'arial','sans-serif'">Methodologies commonly included under this umbrella include: Appreciative Inquiry (AI), Citizen Report Cards (CRCs), Community Score Cards (CSCs), Beneficiary Assessment (BA), Participatory Impact Monitoring the Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) family including Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), '''Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), '''and Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA), Policy and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA), Social Assessment (SA), Systematic Client Consultation (SSC), Self-esteem, associative strength, </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: windowtext; font-family: 'arial','sans-serif'">resourcefulness, action planning and responsibility (SARAR), and Objectives-Oriented Project Planning (ZOPP).</span>
+*<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'arial','sans-serif'">Methodologies commonly included under this umbrella include: Appreciative Inquiry (AI), Citizen Report Cards (CRCs), Community Score Cards (CSCs), Beneficiary Assessment (BA), Participatory Impact Monitoring the Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) family including Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), and Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA), Policy and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA), Social Assessment (SA), Systematic Client Consultation (SSC), Self-esteem, associative strength, </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: windowtext; font-family: 'arial','sans-serif'">resourcefulness, action planning and responsibility (SARAR), and Objectives-Oriented Project Planning (ZOPP).</span>
 &nbsp;

Community

About

Help

Contact

Search

Main Page

About energypedia

Technologies

Energy Use

Cross Cutting Issues

energypedia consult

Search

Toolbox

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Impact Evaluation - Mixed Methods

Revision as of 10:00, 17 November 2009

Contents

Methodological Triangulation

Mixed Methods

Quantitative impact evaluation

Qualitative impact evaluation

Other approaches

Log in / create account

Community

About

Help

Contact

Search

Main Page

About energypedia

Technologies

Energy Use

Cross Cutting Issues

energypedia consult

Search

Toolbox

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Impact Evaluation - Mixed Methods

Revision as of 10:00, 17 November 2009

Contents

Methodological Triangulation

Mixed Methods

Quantitative impact evaluation

Qualitative impact evaluation

Other approaches