Introduction to Paradigms
and Qualitative Evaluation
[insert date]
Qualitative Methods
in Evaluation of Public
Health Programs
Session 1
The evaluation process
Evaluation paradigm (how you/client view the world; your “lens”)
Methodological assumptions (Qualitative? Quantitative?)
Evaluation design
Data collection and analysis
Methodological norms/standards of quality
Dissemination and use
The evaluation process
Evaluation paradigm (how you/client view the world; your “lens”)
Methodological assumptions (Qualitative? Quantitative?)
Evaluation design
Data collection and analysis
Methodological norms/standards of quality
Dissemination and use
Learning objectives
Understand and compare the four major
paradigms of evaluation
Compare and contrast the use of qualitative
methods for evaluation
as opposed to other approaches
Establish the appropriateness of the use of mixed-
methods of evaluation
What is the point?
Monitoring and evaluation
Class discussion—why bother?
Why do we conduct monitoring and
evaluation?
What is the point
of these activities?
What makes these
activities worthwhile?
Breaking the code/sorting out the glasses
Evaluation terminology can be used to
confuse and as a way
for evaluators to hide behind complicated
words
There is no area where this is more true
than the philosophy of the scientific
method, or paradigms
Paradigm = view of the world
What do you view as reality?
What is viewed as knowledge and truth?
Guides choice of method and design
Breaking the code/sorting out the glasses
Paradigms are, in essence, a classification system
Every evaluation design can be mapped to this
classification system or paradigm
Once you know which paradigm your evaluation
uses, you will understand the underlying view of
reality, the knowledge type that is sought, and the
probable methods applied
Breaking the code/sorting out the glasses
Characteristics of paradigms
Ontology: Nature of reality or theory
of existence
Epistemology: How do we know the world?
Theory of knowledge, learning,
and the nature of truth
Methodology: How do we gain knowledge about the world?
Theory of method?
Breaking the code
Why do we care?
Helps you to understand where others are coming
from:
Other evaluators
Funders
Clients
Other stakeholders
You need to be able to communicate
your work, and understanding the paradigms give
you terminology
to express yourself
Positivist
Ontology: One “scientific,” “real” reality
Reality Search for certainty
Epistemology: Explain events through knowable
Knowledge, reality, and facts, causes, and effects, law-like underlying
truth regularities
“True” findings
“Objective” observation
Absolute knowledge
Methodology: Quantitative
Experimental
Testing
Predicting
Control
Generalization
Example: Positivist paradigm
You are designing a study on school attendance and
absenteeism.
Question: What would be the positivist way
to evaluate this topic?
Answer: Collect quantitative data—possibly monitoring data
over time to look at trends, maybe disaggregated by sex and
age.
Constructivist/interpretivist
Ontology: Multiple subjective realities,
Reality which are constructed and
interpreted
Constructed through human
interactions
Epistemology:
Knowledge, reality, Events understood through
and truth interpretation and influenced by
interactions with social context
Methods: Qualitative
Case studies
Understanding and
interpretation of
particular contexts
Constructivist/interpretivist example
Same topic: Study on school attendance
and absenteeism
Question: What would be the constructivist/
interpretivist way to evaluate this topic?
Answer: Look at existing quantitative data for trends.
Discover that adolescent girls are more likely
to miss school.
Do in-depth interviews with adolescent girls to find out why they
are missing school. It could be that girls stay home for four days
a week when they have their period.
Critical/emancipatory
Ontology: Reality shaped by historical, social, political,
Reality economic values, people
in society, power
Epistemology: Understand events in the social
Knowledge, and economic context; emphasis
reality, on ideological critique and praxis
and truth
Findings are value mediated
and socially constructed
Methods: Argumentative and controversial
Aims for social justice
and emancipation
Critical discourse analysis
Critical action research
Feminism
Critical/emancipatory example
Same topic: Study on school attendance
and absenteeism
Question: What would be the critical/
emancipatory way to evaluate this topic?
Answer: Add more interviews to the plan to gather info on the
social, economic, historical context.
You might find out that there are no girls’ bathrooms at
school. Girls may be thought to be dirty when they have their
period. There may not be enough soap at home, so they cannot
always wash the girl’s uniform to go to school.
Summary of the paradigms
Positivists
o They seek to explain reality
Constructivists/interpretivists
o Trying to understand the multiple constructed
realities
Critical/emancipatory
o Argue for changes in power relationships, and in
some cases
move toward emancipation
Paradigm debate
Group work Split into three groups
Plan your position for the
paradigm assigned to
your group. State why
you would not use the other two
paradigms
o 15 Minutes
Generate a list of pros/cons
for each paradigm
Present to class.
(5 minutes each)
Class debate
o Combined 20 minutes
after all groups present
Paradigm debate
Positivist
Constructivist/interpretivist
Critical/emancipatory
The Third Wave
What is better, qualitative
or quantitative?
Different strengths and weaknesses
Must be judged by their own criteria
Facilitated the development—last “paradigm”/
3rd wave
Pragmatism
Focus on usefulness
Mixed-methods
Supplement each other
The Third Wave
Group activity
Split into four groups representing each
of the four major paradigms
Design an evaluation project around the topic
o Develop a particular evaluation question
and expand on the context
o Develop your group’s
evaluation concept
o 20 minutes
Present your plan to the class
o 5 minutes each
Class discussion
o Combined 20 minutes after all groups present
The Third Wave
Positivist
Pragmatists
Constructivist/interpretivist
Critical/emancipatory
The Third Wave
Case study example
The Third Wave
Tanzania
Tanzania is located on the east coast of Africa,
just south of the equator
Shares borders with Kenya, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique,
and the Indian Ocean
Approximately 120 ethnic groups, languages representing all
four major African language groups
Tanzanians are fluent in own language and Swahili (Kiswahili in
Swahili)
The second official language is English, a vestige
of the British colonial period
Traditional marriage customs vary by ethnic group
The Third Wave
Tanzania
Extreme poverty often obligates male heads of households to
migrate in search of work
Women often takeover some of the hard,
physical labor
The changing roles are often contemplated
Alcohol abuse, HIV/AIDS, and poverty place great strains on
relationships
Violence, especially within a marriage, is commonly accepted at
a cultural level
According to Tanzania’s 2015–2016 DHS Survey, 39.5% of all
women ages 15–49 had experienced violence after the age of 15,
while 41.7% of ever-married women had experienced violence
committed by a husband or partner
The Third Wave
Framework
Evaluation Description
component
Evaluation
question
Sample
population
Data collection
methods
Summary: Mixed-methods approach
Combines strengths of quantitative
and qualitative methods
Can speak to different audiences
Qualitative data can be used to do formative evaluation
to inform development of quantitative measurements
Qualitative data can be used to help explain patterns
observed in the survey data
Enhance robustness and integrity of findings
Provide greater capacity to explain
and interpret findings
This presentation was produced with the support of the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of
MEASURE Evaluation cooperative agreement
AID-OAA-L-14-00004. MEASURE Evaluation is implemented by the
Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in
partnership with ICF International; John Snow, Inc.; Management Sciences
for Health; Palladium; and Tulane University. Views expressed are not
necessarily those of USAID or the United States government.
[Link]
