Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Experiences from conducting a mixed methods evaluation in the RUCAS programme

Vassilios Makrakis and Nelly Kostoulas-Makrakis

Evaluation and Program Planning, 2016, vol. 54, issue C, 144-151

Abstract: Quantitative and qualitative approaches to planning and evaluation in education for sustainable development have often been treated by practitioners from a single research paradigm. This paper discusses the utility of mixed method evaluation designs which integrate qualitative and quantitative data through a sequential transformative process. Sequential mixed method data collection strategies involve collecting data in an iterative process whereby data collected in one phase contribute to data collected in the next. This is done through examples from a programme addressing the ‘Reorientation of University Curricula to Address Sustainability (RUCAS): A European Commission Tempus-funded Programme’. It is argued that the two approaches are complementary and that there are significant gains from combining both. Using methods from both research paradigms does not, however, mean that the inherent differences among epistemologies and methodologies should be neglected. Based on this experience, it is recommended that using a sequential transformative mixed method evaluation can produce more robust results than could be accomplished using a single approach in programme planning and evaluation focussed on education for sustainable development.

Keywords: Quantitative; Qualitative; Mixed methods; Paradigm; Education for sustainable development; RUCAS (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718915000828
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:epplan:v:54:y:2016:i:c:p:144-151

DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.008

Access Statistics for this article

Evaluation and Program Planning is currently edited by Jonathan A. Morell

More articles in Evaluation and Program Planning from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().