The youth mentoring program Big Brothers Big Sisters is one of the first social interventions involving youth in Ireland to be evaluated using a randomized controlled trial methodology. This article sets out the design process undertaken, describing how the research team came to adopt a concurrent embedded mixed methods design as a means of balancing ethical, feasibility, and scientific issues associated with the randomized controlled trial method, establishing an epistemological position and integrating data from various methods and multiple sources.
The Atlantic Philanthropies. (2007). 2006 Annual report-Giving while living. Retrieved May 30, 2008 , from http://atlanticphilanthropies.org/content/download/4518/69535/file/2006APAR.pdf
2.
Chelimsky, E. (1997). Thoughts for a new evaluation society. Evaluation, 3, 97-118.
3.
Chen, H. (1997). Applying mixed methods under the framework of theory driven evaluations. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 61-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Colley, H. (2003). Mentoring for social inclusion: A critical approach to nurturing mentoring relationships. London: Routledge.
5.
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Dubois, D.L., Doolittle, F., Yates, B.I., Silverthorn, N., & Kraemer Tobes, J. (2006). Research methodology and youth mentoring. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 657-676.
7.
Dubois, D.L., Holloway, B.E., Valentine, J.C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology , 30, 157-197.
8.
EU Commission. (1999). Council regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 [Electronic Version]. Official Journal of the European Communities. Retrieved April 7, 2009 , from www.esf.gov.sk/documents/1999-1260.pdf
9.
Furona, K., Roaf, P.A., Styles, M.B., & Branch, A.Y. (1993). Big Brothers/Big Sisters: A study of program practices . Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
10.
Ghate, D. (2001). Community-based evaluations in the UK: Scientific concerns and practical constraints. Children & Society , 15, 23-32.
11.
Greene, J.C. (2000). Understanding social programs through evaluation . In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 981-1000). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Greene, J.C. (2003). Understanding social programs through evaluation . In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 590-618). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixed methods social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Greene, J.C., Benjamin, L., & Goodyear, L. (2001). The merits of mixing methods in evaluation. Evaluation, 7, 25-44.
15.
Greene, J.C., & Caracelli, V.J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 5-17). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
16.
Greig, A., Taylor, J., & Mackay, T. (2007). Doing research with children. London: Sage.
17.
Johnson, Z., Howell, F., & Molloy, B. (1993). Community mothers' programme: Randomised control trial of non-professional intervention in parenting. British Medical Journal, 306, 1449-1452.
18.
Lalor, K., de Roiste, A., & Devlin, M. (2007). Young people in contemporary Ireland. Dublin, Ireland: Gill & Macmillan.
19.
Liabo, K., Lucas, P., & Roberts, H. (2005). International: The UK and Europe. In D. Dubois & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 392-407). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Little, M., Kogan, J., Bullock, R., & van der Laan, P. (2004). ISSP: An experiment in multi-systemic responses to persistent young offenders known to children's services. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 225-240.
21.
Oakley, A. (2000). Experiments in knowing. New York: Polity.
22.
Oakley, A., Strange, V., Toroyan, T., Wiggins, M., Roberts, I., & Stephenson, J. (2003). Using random allocation to evaluate social interventions: Three recent UK examples. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 170-189.
23.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London : Sage.
24.
Philip, K. (2003). Youth mentoring: The American dream comes to the UK? British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 31, 101-112.
25.
Philip, K., Shucksmith, J., & King, C. (2004). Sharing a laugh? A qualitative study of mentoring interventions with young people. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
26.
Philip, K., & Spratt, J. (2007). A synthesis of published research on mentoring and befriending [Electronic Version]. Retrieved April 7, 2009 , from http://www.mandbf.org.uk/resources/research/
27.
Rhodes, F.H.T., & Healy, J.R. (2006). Investment in knowledge: A case study of a philanthropy's partnership with government. Administration, 54, 63-84.
28.
Rhodes, J.E. (2005). A model of youth mentoring. In D. L. Dubois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 30-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental design and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inferences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
31.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Tierney, J.P., Grossman, J.B., & Resch, N.L. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study of Big Brothers/ Big Sisters. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
33.
Tovey, H., & Share, P. (2003). A sociology of Ireland. Dublin , Ireland: Gill & Macmillan.
