Beneath the ‘methods debate’ in impact assessment: baring assumptions of a mixed methods impact assessment in Vietnam

Paul Shaffer

Journal of Development Effectiveness, 2012, vol. 4, issue 1, 134-150

Abstract: The past decade has seen renewed interest in the use of mixed-method approaches across the social sciences and in the field of impact assessment. This body of work has focused on questions of method with insufficient attention devoted to foundational issues. The objective of the present article is to bare the foundational concepts that guided a mixed-method impact assessment of the Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction (HEPR) programme in Vietnam. Specifically, it shows how the applied methods used in the HEPR study rested on foundational differences concerning: conceptions of causation and models of causal inferences (probabilities versus mechanisms); analytical focus (outcomes versus processes) and external validity (empirical generalisation versus statistical inference); and constituents of ‘objective’ knowledge (intersubjective observables versus perceptual data).

Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/19439342.2011.639456 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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:taf:jdevef:v:4:y:2012:i:1:p:134-150

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RJDE20

DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2011.639456

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Development Effectiveness is currently edited by Howard White

More articles in Journal of Development Effectiveness from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().