Mixed Methods e valutazione democratica

Titolo Rivista RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione
Autori/Curatori Nicoletta Stame
Anno di pubblicazione 2021 Fascicolo 2020/76
Lingua Italiano Numero pagine 18 P. 53-70 Dimensione file 306 KB
DOI 10.3280/RIV2020-076004
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Jennifer Greene pioneered the study of mixed methods (MM) eval-uations; she distinguished between techniques of data collection, methods of analysis and approaches, and focused on the various pur-poses pursued with the single evaluation design. This elaboration helps us make sense of the current use of MM in evaluation, and of the mo-tivation often underlying the terms of reference that require them. The article distinguishes the logic of MM from that of the hierarchy of methods; it highlights the main focuses under which MM are used, and compares them to the purposes listed by Greene. Then, it comments on the recent development of Greene’s thought, where mixing different approaches becomes a way of making democratic evaluation possible. Based on this framework, and starting from the generic demand for MM evaluation currently found in many terms of reference, the article addresses the theme of what a fruitful relationship between commis-sioners and evaluators could look like.

Parole chiave:Metodi misti, valutazione democratica, approcci alla va-lutazione, domande dei committenti, scopi

  1. Bamberger M., Rao V., Woolcock M. (2010), Using Mixed Methods in monitoring and evaluation. Experiences from international development. Policy Research Working Paper 5245, World Bank.
  2. Bamberger M. (2016), The importance of a Mixed Method Approach for Evaluating Complexity.In Bamberger M., VaessenJ. e Raimondo E., a cura di, Dealing with Complexity in Development Evaluation. A practical Approach. Los Angeles: Sage.
  3. Bamberger M., Vaessen J., Raimondo E. (2016), Dealing with Complexity in Development Evaluation. Los Angeles: Sage.
  4. Bohni-Nielsen S., Lemire S., Christie C. (2018), The Commercial Side of Evaluation: Evaluation as An Industry and As a Professional Service. In Furubo J.E. e Stame N., a cura di, The EvaluationEnterprise. A Critical View. New York: Routledge.
  5. ConnellJ.P. e Kubisch A.C. (2007), L’approccio della teoria del cambiamento applicato alla valutazione delle iniziative integrate di comunità: stato dell’arte, prospettive e problemi. In Stame N., a cura di, Classici della Valutazione. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  6. Center for Global Development (2006), When will we ever learn? Improving Lives through Impact Evaluation, -- https://www.cgdev.org/publication/when-will-we-ever-learn-improving-lives-through-impact-evaluation
  7. Feinstein O. (2020), Development and radical uncertainty. In Development in Practice, DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2020.1763258
  8. Greene J.C. (2005), A conversation with Jennifer Greene”. Evaluation Exchange, XI (3).
  9. Greene J.C. (2008), Is Mixed Methods Social Inquiry a Distinctive Methodology?. Journal of Mixed Method Reseacrh, 2(1), 7-22.
  10. Greene J.C. (2021), Research and Evaluation: The practices, politics, and possibilities of mixed methods social inquiry, Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione, 76.
  11. Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J. e Graham W.F. (1989), Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall, 11(3), 255-274 (tr. it.: I metodimisti. In N. Stame, a cura di, Classici della valutazione. Milano: Franco Angeli, 2007).
  12. Hawkins P. (2003), Contracting evaluation: a tender topic. In Lunt N., Davidson C. e McKegg K, a cura di, Evaluating Policy and Practice. A New Zealand Reader. Auckland: Pearson.
  13. Laboratorio di Valutazione Democratica (2017), Cosa intendiamo con le parole che usiamo? Termini chiave a disposizione di committenti e valutatori, -- www.valutazionedemocratica.it
  14. House E. R. e Howe K.R. (2007), Valutazione e democrazia deliberativa. In Stame N., a cura di, Classici della Valutazione. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  15. Mertens D. e Hesse-Biber S., a cura di (2013), Mixed methods and credibility of evidence in evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation, 138.
  16. Patton M.Q. (1997), Utilization-Focused Evaluation. 3a ed., thousand Oakes, C a: Sage.
  17. Pawson R. (1996), Theorizing the Interview. The British Journal of Sociology, 47(2), 295-314.
  18. Rogers P. (2008), Using program theories to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14(1).
  19. Rogers P. (2016). Understanding and supporting equity: Implications of methodological and proceduralchoices in equity-focused evaluations. In Donaldson S. e Picciotto R., a cura di, Evaluation for anEquitable Society. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  20. Scriven, M. (2007), Logica della valutazione e pratica della valutazione. In N. Stame, a cura di, Classici della valutazione. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  21. Stame, N. (2010), What doesn’t work? Three failures and many answers. Evaluation, 16(4), 371-387.
  22. Stame, N. (2016), Valutazione pluralista. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  23. Stame N. (2018), Strengthening the Ethical Expertise of Evaluators. Evaluation, 24(4), 438-451.
  24. Stame N. (2019), Doubt, surprise, and the ethical evaluator: Lessons from the work of Judith Tendler. Evaluation, 25(4), 449–468.
  25. StameN. (2020), Possibilism, change and unintended consequences. In Meldolesi L. e Stame N., a cura di, A passion for the Possible. Third Conference on Hirschman Legacy. Roma: IDE.
  26. Stern E. (2016), La valutazione d’impatto. Una guida per committenti e manager. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  27. Stern E., Stame N., Mayne J., Forss K., Davies R., Befani B. (2012), Broadening the range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluation. London: DFID.
  28. Tendler J. (2018), Beautiful Pages by Judith Tendler, a cura di N. Stame. Roma: Italic Digital Editions. -- https://media-manager.net/storage/achii/media/judith-tendler/2000-2011/beautiful_pages_by_judith_tendler.pdf
  29. White H. (2010), A contribution to current debates in impact evaluation., Evaluation, 16(2).
  30. White H. (2013), The Use of Mixed Methods in Randomized Control Trials. New Directions for Evaluation, 138.
  31. Yin R. (1994), Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Nicoletta Stame, Mixed Methods e valutazione democratica in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 76/2020, pp 53-70, DOI: 10.3280/RIV2020-076004