While there is growing interest in employing mixed methods in evaluation research, there are few documented examples describing how to implement this in practice. This article describes the use of a mixed method approach to evaluate a nonprofit agency that provides organizational consultation and other support services to nonprofit organizations in Israel. It uses conceptualizations proposed by Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) and by Rossman and Wilson (1994) to discuss the unique benefits of such methodology and also addresses the limitations and disadvantages of mixed method evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bielefeld, W. (1994). What affects nonprofit survival? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 5, 19-36.
2.
Brewer, J. & Hunter, A. (1989). Mixed method research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Unwin Hyman.
4.
Cook, T.D. (1985). Post-positivist critical multiplism. In R. L. Shotland & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Social science and social policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5.
Cook, T. D. & Reichardt, C. S. (Eds.), (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6.
Greene, J.C. (1985, October). Validity, management and utilization in mixed-methods evaluation designs. Paper presented at the joint meeting of The Evaluation Research Society, The Evaluation Network, and The Canadian Evaluation Society, Toronto, Canada.
7.
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Towards a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 11(3), 255-274.
8.
Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1984). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies ? Copyrighted manuscript.
9.
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
10.
Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research . Thousand Oaks: Sage.
11.
Light, R.J. & Pillemer, D.B. (1982). Numbers and narrative: Combining their strengths in research reviews. Harvard Educational Review, 52(1), 1-26.
12.
Mark, M.M. & Shotland, L.S. (1985). Toward more useful social science. In R. L. Shotland & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Social science and social policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .
13.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher , 17(2), 13-17.
14.
McClintock, C., & Greene, J. (1985). Triangulation in practice. Evaluation and Program Planning, 8, 351-357.
15.
Morgan, C. (1995). Exploring roles and functions in the organizational development of community-based social service organizations in Massachusetts . Unpublished manuscript, The Heller School, Brandeis University .
16.
Morgan, D.L. (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
17.
Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
18.
Neenan, P.A. & Bowen, G.L. (1991). Multimethod assessment of a child-care demonstration project for AFDC recipient families: The genesis of an evaluation. Evaluation Review, 15(2), 219-232.
19.
Osborne, S.P. & Tricker, M. (1994). Local development agencies: Supporting voluntary action. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 5, 37-51.
20.
Patton, M. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
21.
Rossman, G.B., & Wilson, B.L. (1994). Numbers and words revisited: Being "shamelessly eclectic."Quality and Quantity, 28, 315-327.
22.
Rossman, G.B., & Wilson, B.L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 627-643.
23.
Stewart. D.W., & Shamdasanai, P.M. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
24.
Worthen, B.R. (1996). A survey of Evaluation Practice readers. Evaluation Practice, 17, 85-90.
