Using Mixed Methods in Monitoring and Evaluation: Experiences from International Development

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.

[1]  V. Rao.  PRICE HETEROGENEITY AND “REAL” INEQUALITY: A CASE STUDY OF PRICES AND POVERTY IN RURAL SOUTH INDIA , 2000 .

[2]  Michael Woolcock,et al.  Empowerment, Deliberative Development, and Local-Level Politics in Indonesia: Participatory Projects as a Source of Countervailing Power , 2008 .

[3]  Mary Kane,et al.  Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation , 2006 .

[4]  Michael Woolcock,et al.  Toward a plurality of methods in project evaluation: a contextualised approach to understanding impact trajectories and efficacy , 2009 .

[5]  Vijayendra Rao,et al.  Celebrations as Social Investments: Festival Expenditures, Unit Price Variation and Social Status in Rural India , 2001 .

[6]  J. Harriss,et al.  The Search for Empowerment: Social Capital as Idea and Practice at the World Bank , 2007 .

[7]  Michael Woolcock,et al.  Governance in the Gullies: Democratic Responsiveness and Leadership in Delhi's Slums , 2005 .

[8]  Abbas Tashakkori,et al.  Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences , 2008 .

[9]  V. Rao.  Experiments in ‘ Participatory Econometrics ’ Improving the Connection between Economic Analysis and the Real World , 2006 .

[10]  Lant Pritchett,et al.  It pays to be ignorant: A simple political economy of rigorous program evaluation , 2002 .

[11]  M. Bamberger.  Strengthening the evaluation of programme effectiveness through reconstructing baseline data , 2009 .

[12]  M. Woolcock,et al.  Contesting Development: Participatory Projects and Local Conflict Dynamics in Indonesia , 2011 .

[13]  A. Deaton.  Instruments of Development: Randomization in the Tropics, and the Search for the Elusive Keys to Economic Development , 2009 .

[14]  Linda Mabry,et al.  RealWorld Evaluation: Working Under Budget, Time, Data, and Political Constraints , 2006 .

[15]  Joshua A. Salomon,et al.  Enhancing the Validity and Cross-cultural Comparability of Survey Research 1 , 2002 .

[16]  Ray C. Rist,et al.  The Road to Results: Designing and Conducting Effective Development Evaluations , 2009 .

[17]  M. Ravallion.  Evaluating Anti-Poverty Programs , 2005 .

[18]  E. Duflo,et al.  Use of Randomization in the Evaluation of Development Effectiveness , 2004 .

[19]  D. Mosse,et al.  Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice , 2004 .

[20]  C. Murray,et al.  Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey Research , 2003, American Political Science Review.

[21]  K. Brock,et al.  Knowing Poverty: Critical Reflections on Participatory Research and Policy , 2002 .

[22]  V. Rao,et al.  Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches in Program Evaluation , 2003 .

[23]  V. Rao,et al.  Sex workers and the cost of safe sex - the compensating differential for condom use in Calcutta , 1999 .

[24]  R. Chambers.  The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal * ROBERT CHAMBERS ? , 1994 .

[25]  Erik Weber,et al.  Counterfactuals and causal inference: methods and principles for social research , 2008 .

[26]  Christopher Winship,et al.  Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research , 2007 .

[27]  Vijayendra Rao,et al.  Dignity through Discourse: Poverty and the Culture of Deliberation in Indian Village Democracies , 2009 .

[28]  Nancy Cartwright,et al.  Are RCTs the Gold Standard? , 2007 .

[29]  M. Bamberger,et al.  Evaluating the impact of water supply projects in Indonesia. , 2000 .

[30]  F. Bourguignon,et al.  The Impact of Macroeconomic Policies on Poverty and Income Distribution , 2008 .

[31]  Frans L. Leeuw,et al.  Impact evaluations and development : NONIE guidance on impact evaluation , 2009 .

[32]  Michael Quinn Patton,et al.  Utilization-Focused Evaluation , 1979 .

[33]  Michael Chung Kimberly Spal Bamberger,et al.  Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research in Development Projects , 2000 .

[34]  V. Rao,et al.  Is Deliberation Equitable ? Evidence from Transcripts of Village Meetings in South India , 2009 .

[35]  James D. Fearon,et al.  Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods , 2008 .