Abstract
The use of mixed methods in researching poverty and vulnerability and evaluation of interventions in this field has expanded rapidly in the last few years. The added value of mixed methods research in analysing poverty and vulnerability has now been widely acknowledged (see Shaffer 2013, Stern et al. 2012). Much work has been undertaken with respect to meaningfully combining methods at various stages in the research process — from generating data to analysis and reporting — and reflections thereon have led to mixed methods not only having become more ‘mainstream’ but also more robust and of greater quality. Despite an exponential growth of studies using mixed methods research in the last decade, gaps and challenges remain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bamberger, Michael, Vijayendra Rao, and Michael Woolcock. 2010. Using Mixed Methods in Monitoring and Evaluation. Experiences from International Development. In Policy Research Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Befani, Barbara, Chris Barnett, and Elliot Stern. 2014. Introduction — Rethinking Impact Evaluation for Development. IDS Bulletin 45(6): 1–5. doi:10.1111/1759–5436.12108.
Bevan, Philippa. 2014. Researching Social Change and Continuity: A Complexity-Informed Study of Twenty Rural Community Cases in Ethiopia in 1994–2015. In Methodological Challenges and New Approaches to Research in International Development, edited by Laura Camfield, 103–136. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Camfield, Laura. 2014. Conclusion. In Methodological Challenges and New Approaches to Research in International Development, edited by Laura Camfield, 309–324. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Davis, Peter, and Bob Baulch. 2011. Parallel Realities: Exploring Poverty Dynamics Using Mixed Methods in Rural Bangladesh. Journal of Development Studies 47 (1): 118–142.
Picciotto, Robert. 2014. Is Impact Evaluation Evaluation?. European Journal of Development Research 26 (1): 31–38.
Pradel, W., Cole, C., and G. Prain (2013). Mixing Methods for Rich and Meaningful Insight: Evaluating Changes in an Agricultural Intervention Project in the Central Andes. In Better Evaluation, downloaded from http://betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/Mixing%20Methods%20for%20Rich%20and%20Meaningful%20Insight.pdf (30 April 2015).
Shaffer, Paul. 2013. Ten Years of “Q-Squared”: Implications for Understanding and Explaining Poverty. World Development 45: 269–285.
Sorde Marti, Teresa, and Donna M. Mertens. 2014. Mixed Methods Research With Groups at Risk: New Developments and Key Debates. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. doi:10.1177/1558689814527916.
Stern, Elliot, Nicoletta Stame, John Mayne, Kim Forss, Rick Davies, and Barbara Befani. 2012. Broadening the Range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluations. London: DFID.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2015 Keetie Roelen and Laura Camfield
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roelen, K., Camfield, L. (2015). Introduction. In: Roelen, K., Camfield, L. (eds) Mixed Methods Research in Poverty and Vulnerability. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137452511_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137452511_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-68681-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-45251-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Intern. Relations & Development CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)