Quantitative or Qualitative: Selecting the Right Methodological Approach for Credible Evidence

Author:

Jones Kenneth R.1,Gwynn Eugenia P.2,Teeter Allison3

Affiliation:

1. University of Kentucky

2. North Carolina A&T State University

3. Kansas State University

Abstract

This article provides insight into how an adequate approach to selecting methods can establish credible and actionable evidence. The authors offer strategies to effectively support Extension professionals, including program developers and evaluators, in being more deliberate when selecting appropriate qualitative and quantitative methods. In addition, several examples of commonly used measures are described to help in determining their applicability for evaluating Extension programs. Benefits and challenges of select methods are discussed as well as pitfalls to avoid that can derail the evaluative process. Lastly, a few cases are shared to present how Extension is aiming to establish credible evidence through state efforts and at the national level. The authors discuss the use of practical designs (e.g., common measures) that offer a more uniform way of evaluating programs. Examples are also included to highlight the effective use of Extension reporting systems that aim to streamline data collection, evaluation, and reporting as a means to ensure more credibility.

Publisher

Mississippi State University Libraries - DIGITAL COMMONS JOURNALS

Reference71 articles.

1. 4H.org. (2019). Common measures. Retrieved from https://4-h.org/professionals/common-measures/

2. Alkin, M. C., & King, J. A. (2017). Definitions of evaluation use and misuse, evaluation influence, and factors affecting use. American Journal of Evaluation, 38(3), 434–450.

3. American Evaluation Association. (2018). American Evaluation Association guiding principles for evaluators. Retrieved from https://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=51

4. Bennett, D. B. (1984). Evaluating environmental education in schools: A practical guide for teachers. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0006/000661/066120eo.pdf

5. BetterEvaluation. (2013). Decide purpose. Retrieved from https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/rainbow_framework/frame/decide_purpose

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3