The purpose of this article is to describe lessons learnt when the first author, an ‘outsider’, was undertaking a theory-based, mixed-methods evaluation of an unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance program in Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR). The lessons learnt comprised: 1) issues related to using a theory-based mixed-methods evaluation design; 2) contextualising languages, meaning and translation; and 3) cultural interpretation of ethical issues. Finally, it is proposed that reflexivity is an essential quality that evaluators need to develop in order to manage such challenges.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshleyC., & CarneyD.1999, Sustainable livelihoods: lessons from early experience, Department for International Development, London.
2.
ChenH.1997, ‘Applying mixed methods under the framework of theory-driven evaluations’, in GreenJC, & CaracelliVJ (eds), Advances in mixed-method evaluation—the challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms: New directions for evaluation, 74, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
3.
CreswellJ.W., & Plano ClarkV.L.2007, Designing and conducting mixed method research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
4.
EremencoS.L., CellaD., & ArnoldB.J.2005, ‘A comprehensive method of the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires’, Evaluation and the Health Professions, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 212–232.
5.
GreeneJ.C., & CaracelliV.J.1993, ‘Data analysis strategies for mixed method evaluation design’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 195–207.
6.
Handicap International Belgium1997, Living with UXO: final report on the national survey on the socioeconomic impact of UXO in the Lao PDR, Handicap International for the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare Lao National UXO Programme, Vientiane.
7.
HenninkM.2008, ‘Language and communication in cross-cultural qualitative research’, in LiamputtongP (ed.), Doing cross-cultural research: ethical and methodological perspectives, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
8.
HoeyerK., DahlagerL., & LynöeN., 2005, ‘Conflicting notions of research ethics: the mutually challenging traditions of social scientists and medical researchers’, Social Science and Medicine, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 1741–1749.
9.
KaziM.2003, Realist evaluation in practice health and social work, Sage, London.
10.
KochT., & HarringtonA.1998, ‘Reconceptualizing rigour: the case for reflexivity’, The Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 882–890.
11.
LiamputtongP.2008, ‘Doing research in a cross-cultural context: methodological and ethical challenges’, in LiamputtongP (ed.), Doing cross-cultural research: ethical and methodological perspectives, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
12.
National Regulatory Authority for UXO/Mine Action Sector in Lao PDR (NRA)2010, The unexploded ordnance (UXO) problem and operational programs in the Lao PDR—official figures, NRA, Vientiane.
13.
PattonM.Q.2002, Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
SaleJE & LohfeldL.H., & BrazilK.2002, ‘Revisiting the quantitative–qualitative debate: implications for mixed methods research’, Quality and Quantity, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 43–53.
16.
United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS)2003, International Mine Action Standards, 04.10: Glossary of mine action terms, definitions and abbreviations, 2nd edn, UNMAS, New York, viewed 20 July 2008, <http://www.mineactionstandards.org/imas.htm>.
17.
WeissC.H.1998, Evaluation: methods for studying programs and policies, 2nd edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
