Programme evaluations of social interventions are currently able to draw from a variety of research designs. However, concerns regarding reliability, validity and the complex nature of human behaviour, attitudes, skills and knowledge (generally the focus of evaluations) have resulted in a growing consensus among evaluation experts that a mixed-method approach i.e. a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is necessary in the implementation of effective and useful evaluations.

In this thesis, I examine some of the ways in which an evaluation can be improved through the use of a mixed-method approach, with specific reference to the impact on instruments, data collection procedures and the validity of results. I argue against the position of using one epistemological perspective to the exclusion of others and argue that methodological choices are often pragmatic rather than paradigmatic in nature.

The role of qualitative data in an evaluation is examined in some detail as well the diverse effects of using either qualitative or quantitative methods at particular time-points in the evaluation process.

I use a case study of an evaluation of a capacity building initiative in order to examine both the benefits and challenges of a mixed-method approach. I conclude that although the mixed-method approach may not be applicable or feasible for every social science research project or evaluation, a single methodology design can limit a study's perspective considerably.

Back to top