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

Michael Bamberger · Vijayendra Rao · Michael J. V. Woolcock

123 citations0/0 files storedSage eBooks

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Evaluation and Performance Assessment Advanced Causal Inference Techniques Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research

Abstract

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues.An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished.The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly.The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors.They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Policy Research Working Paper 5245This 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", This paper-a product of the Poverty and Inequality Team, Development Research Group-is part of a larger effort in the department to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods for monitoring and evaluation.Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org.The author may be contacted at vrao@worldbank.org.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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 123 citations exist upstream.

References

2007Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia 2007Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation 2005Evaluating Anti-Poverty Programs 2001Celebrations as Social Investments: Festival Expenditures, Unit Price Variation and Social Status in Rural India 2002It pays to be ignorant: A simple political economy of rigorous program evaluation 2008Empowerment, Deliberative Development, and Local-Level Politics in Indonesia: Participatory Projects as a Source of Countervailing Power

Cited by

2012Systematic reviews: from ‘bare bones’ reviews to policy relevance 2012The mixing of methods: A three-step process for improving rigour in impact evaluations 2012Why do we care about evidence synthesis? An introduction to the special issue on systematic reviews 2012Intersubjective Meaning and Collective Action in Developing Societies: Theory, Evidence and Policy Implications 2014The usefulness of game theory as a method for policy evaluation 2011La evaluación de impacto en la práctica 2017The Role of Monitoring and Evaluation in Construction Project Management

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.