| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
The Qualitative Method of Impact AnalysisSPP-Larch Hall, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1220, lmohr{at}umich.edu Consider the qualitative approach to evaluation design (as opposed to measurement) to be typified by a case study with a sample of just one. Although there have certainly been elaborate and emphatic defenses of the qualitative approach to program evaluation, such defenses rarely attempt to qualify the approach explicitly and rigorously as a method of impact analysis. The present paper makes that attempt. The problem with seeking to advance a qualitative method of impact analysis is that impact is a matter of causation and a non-quantitative approach to design is apparently not well suited to the task of establishing causal relations. The root of the difficulty is located in the counterfactual definition of causality, which is our only broadly accepted formal definition of causality for social science. It is not, however, the only definition we use informally. Another definition, labeled "physical causality," is widely used in practice and has recently been formalized. Physical causality can be applied to the present problem. For example, it explains the persuasiveness of Striven’s "Modus Operandi" approach tailored case study design with a sample size of one in principle as strong a basis for making inferences program impact as a randomized experiment. Crucial program evaluation finding that people’s "operative reasons" for doing what they do are the physical actions. it is shown that external validity using this qualitative approach would have exceptional strengths.
American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 20, No. 1,
69-84 (1999) This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
