Generalising from qualitative evaluation

Q2 Social Sciences Evaluation Journal of Australasia Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.1177/1035719X21993938
J. Guenther, I. Falk
{"title":"Generalising from qualitative evaluation","authors":"J. Guenther, I. Falk","doi":"10.1177/1035719X21993938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evaluations are often focused on assessing merit, value, outcome or some other feature of a programme, project, policy or some other object. Evaluation research is then more concerned with the particular rather than the general – even more so, when qualitative methods are used. But does this mean that evaluations should not be used to generalise? If it is possible to generalise from evaluations, under what circumstances can this be legitimately achieved? The authors of this article have previously argued for generalising from qualitative research (GQR), and in this article, they extrapolate the discussion to the field of evaluation. First, the article begins with a discussion of the definitions of generalisability in research, recapping briefly on our arguments for GQR. Second, the differentiation between research and evaluation is explored with consideration of what literature there is to justify generalisation from qualitative evaluation (GQE). Third, a typology derived from the literature is developed, to sort 54 evaluation projects. Fourth, material from a suite of evaluation projects is drawn from to demonstrate how the typology of generalisation applies in the context of evaluations conducted in several fields of study. Finally, we suggest a model for GQE.","PeriodicalId":37231,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","volume":"21 1","pages":"7 - 23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1035719X21993938","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X21993938","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Evaluations are often focused on assessing merit, value, outcome or some other feature of a programme, project, policy or some other object. Evaluation research is then more concerned with the particular rather than the general – even more so, when qualitative methods are used. But does this mean that evaluations should not be used to generalise? If it is possible to generalise from evaluations, under what circumstances can this be legitimately achieved? The authors of this article have previously argued for generalising from qualitative research (GQR), and in this article, they extrapolate the discussion to the field of evaluation. First, the article begins with a discussion of the definitions of generalisability in research, recapping briefly on our arguments for GQR. Second, the differentiation between research and evaluation is explored with consideration of what literature there is to justify generalisation from qualitative evaluation (GQE). Third, a typology derived from the literature is developed, to sort 54 evaluation projects. Fourth, material from a suite of evaluation projects is drawn from to demonstrate how the typology of generalisation applies in the context of evaluations conducted in several fields of study. Finally, we suggest a model for GQE.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从定性评价中归纳
评价通常侧重于评价一个方案、项目、政策或其他目标的优点、价值、结果或某些其他特征。因此,评价研究更多地关注具体问题而不是一般问题——在使用定性方法时更是如此。但这是否意味着评估不应该被用来概括?如果可以从评价中归纳,在什么情况下可以合法地做到这一点?这篇文章的作者以前曾主张从定性研究(GQR)中进行概括,在这篇文章中,他们将讨论推断到评估领域。首先,本文首先讨论了研究中概括性的定义,简要回顾了我们对GQR的争论。其次,研究和评估之间的区别是通过考虑哪些文献可以证明定性评估(GQE)的概括来探索的。第三,建立了文献类型学,对54个评价项目进行了分类。第四,从一套评估项目的材料中提取,以证明泛化的类型学如何应用于在几个研究领域进行的评估。最后,我们提出了一个GQE模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evaluation Journal of Australasia
Evaluation Journal of Australasia Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Utilising existing data for a pilot social return on investment analysis of the family wellbeing empowerment program: A justification and framework Evaluation at the cutting edge: Driving innovation and quality The best medicine: Lessons from health for policy randomistas Evaluator perspective: Meet an Australian Evaluation Society Fellow – Nan Wehipeihana Meta-evaluation: Validating program evaluation standards through the United Nations Evaluation Quality Assessment (EQAs)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1