Approaches (on this site) refer to an integrated package of options (methods or processes). For example, 'Randomized Controlled Trials' (RCTs) use a combination of the options random sampling, control group and standardised indicators and measures. A strengths-based approach designed to support ongoing learning and adaptation by identifying and investigating outlier examples of good practice and ways of increasing their frequency. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it An approach that focuses on assessing the value of an intervention as perceived by the (intended) beneficiaries, thereby aiming to give voice to their priorities and concerns. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it A research design that focuses on understanding a unit (person, site or project) in its context, which can use a combination of qualitative and quantitative data. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it An approach designed to support ongoing learning and adaptation, which identifies the processes required to achieve desired results, and then observes whether those processes take place, and how. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it An impact evaluation approach based on contribution analysis, with the addition of processes for expert review and community review of evidence and conclusions. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it An impact evaluation approach that iteratively maps available evidence against a theory of change, then identifies and addresses challenges to causal inference. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it An approach used to surface, elaborate, and critically consider the options and implications of boundary judgments, that is, the ways in which people/groups decide what is relevant to what is being evaluated. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it Various ways of doing evaluation in ways that support democratic decision making, accountability and/or capacity. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it An approach designed to support ongoing learning and adaptation, through iterative, embedded evaluation. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it A stakeholder involvement approach designed to provide groups with the tools and knowledge they need to monitor and evaluate their own performance and accomplish their goals. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it A particular type of case study used to jointly develop an agreed narrative of how an innovation was developed, including key contributors and processes, to inform future innovation efforts. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it A way to jointly develop an agreed narrative of how an innovation was developed, including key contributors and processes, to inform future innovation efforts. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it A particular type of case study used to create a narrative of how institutional arrangements have evolved over time and have created and contributed to more effective ways to achieve project or program goals. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it Approach primarily intended to clarify differences in values among stakeholders by collecting and collectively analysing personal accounts of change. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it An impact evaluation approach suitable for retrospectively identifying emergent impacts by collecting evidence of what has changed and, then, working backwards, determining whether and how an intervention has contributed to these changes. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it An impact evaluation approach which unpacks an initiative’s theory of change, provides a framework to collect data on immediate, basic changes that lead to longer, more transformative change, and allows for the plausible assessment of the initiative’s contribution to results via ‘boundary partners’. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it A range of approaches that engage stakeholders (especially intended beneficiaries) in conducting the evaluation and/or making decisions about the evaluation. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it A participatory approach which enables farmers to analyse their own situation and develop a common perspective on natural resource management and agriculture at village level. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it A strengths-based approach to learning and improvement that involves intended evaluation users in identifying ‘outliers’ – those with exceptionally good outcomes - and understanding how they have achieved these. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it An impact evaluation approach without a control group that uses narrative causal statements elicited directly from intended project beneficiaries. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it An impact evaluation approach that compares results between a randomly assigned control group and experimental group or groups to produce an estimate of the mean net impact of an intervention. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it A Rapid Evaluation is an approach that uses multiple evaluation methods and techniques to quickly and systematically collect data when time or resources are limited. Many terms are used to describe these approaches, including real time evaluations, rapid feedback evaluation, rapid evaluation methods, rapid-cycle evaluation and rapid appraisal. The common feature of these different models is the expedited implementation timeframes which generally range from 10 days to 6 months. An approach especially to impact evaluation which examines what works for whom in what circumstances through what causal mechanisms, including changes in the reasoning and resources of participants. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it An participatory approach to value-for-money evaluation that identifies a broad range of social outcomes, not only the direct outcomes for the intended beneficiaries of an intervention. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it Click an approach on the left to navigate to it An approach to decision-making in evaluation that involves identifying the primary intended users and uses of an evaluation and then making all decisions in terms of the evaluation design and plan with reference to these. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it
Qualitative or quantitative research? Who says you have to choose? With market research, you are never short of options. No matter your business objectives or goals, there are a number of qualitative or quantitative methodologies at your disposal. Each method is designed to answer a specific question in order to get desirable and actionable results. With hundreds of market research methodologies to choose from, it is easy to get bogged down in choosing just one study to answer a variety of business questions. Hybrid research instead offers an easy and full approach to collecting all-encompassing data.
Qualitative or quantitative research? You don't have to choose just one. Hybrid research is an easy approach to finding the all-encompassing data you're looking for. What is hybrid research? Hybrid research is a combination of two market research techniques whether it be qualitative and quantitative, or a mixture of qualitative methods, to deliver the perfect solution. Where qualitative research methods aim to explore, quantitative research focuses on quantifiable statistics and measurement. The methodologies used for qualitative research such as focus groups and in-depth interviews use a smaller participant sample size to explore mindsets with great detail. In this regard, more time and focus is spent on individual respondents. On the other side of the research spectrum, quantitative research methods like online surveys collect a large amount of responses to collect statistically, reliable feedback. Although the time spent with participants is less, quantitative research offers a much higher degree of data reliability. Whether it is a mixture of different quantitative approaches, or a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, a hybrid research approach offers the most optimal project outcomes. Combining qualitative and quantitative research Using quantitative and qualitative research in a hybrid approach provides a comprehensive story, but what comes first the qual or the quant? Where there is no right or wrong answer, as a market research company specializing in both methodologies, we often support the golden rule of conducting qualitative research before quantitative. By using qualitative research first, you are able to make well informed answer choices for say a quantitative phone survey. In doing so, respondents are able to choose answers that are most relevant, and in turn creates highly valuable feedback. Regardless of the order in which you choose to conduct your research, it is important to remain consistent when utilizing a hybrid approach in order to easily translate insights and data across both project phases. It is best to work with the same market research company when conducting both methodologies to ensure results are not impacted or varied. Remember to keep any specific audience demographics the same as well. If you are researching 35 year-old women in your qualitative research, but 18 year-old men in your quantitative study, it is likely these results will not be conducive to one another. Hybrid research approach example Again, the market research methodology in which you choose should be solely based on your project objectives. With that being said, it is likely researchers will have multiple objectives that require different types of qualitative or quantitative methods. Perhaps you have a range of target audiences best reached through different media outlets or you are looking for both individual and group feedback. In cases like these, and several others, a hybrid research approach proves to be most beneficial. For example, a food service company launched a brand of brown rice, ready to eat in 60 seconds. After a few months of being available to purchase in grocery stores around the country, the food service company wasn’t seeing the impact they had anticipated in the marketplace. Instead, the feedback they received was predominantly negative. The company decided to first conduct in-depth interviews with 8 participants who were light users of their instant brown rice. The participants answered questions regarding the likes and dislikes of the product as well as their process for cooking the rice. Through this qualitative research, the analysts found a lack of willingness to follow directions on the label of the boxed rice. Diving deeper, there was a major correlation between participants who did not like the rice and those who did not read the instructions. Understanding this correlation, the food service company then created an online survey with specific questions regarding their food labels and cooking instructions. Customer feedback from the online survey showed the directions on the box of brown rice were not clear or easy to follow. By following a hybrid research approach, the food service company uncovered critical insights and changed their on-pack communications immediately. Contact Drive Research Drive Research is a market research company located in Syracuse, NY. Our team has the knowledge and tools to design a robust market research study, should it be the right fit for your business. Interested in learning more about our market research services? Reach out through any of the four ways below. Message us on our website |
Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in a single research project can enhance measurement:
Postagens relacionadas
direito autoral © 2024 EstudaremCasa Inc.
