Deck 10: Qualitative Evaluation in Community Partnership

Question 1

Explain the term qualitative inquiry.

Answer 1

Many descriptions of qualitative inquiry begin with a comparison between qualitative and quantitative "methods." In this contrast, quantitative methods are conceptualized as procedures that quantify a phenomenon in some way, usually via counts, distributions, or other statistical measurements or manipulations. Qualitative methods, in contrast, are procedures that qualify or characterize the essence of a phenomenon, often through "thick" narrative description (e.g., written accounts of behaviors and social interactions and their meanings within specific contexts). While this procedural distinction highlights an important difference between quantitative and qualitative approaches, it does not explain why and under what circumstances one would employ qualitative inquiry. Moreover, the procedural distinction overlooks fundamental differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches that are rooted in philosophy of science. When we speak of "quantitative" or "qualitative" methodologies, we are, in the final analyses speaking of an interrelated set of assumptions about the social world which are philosophical, ideological, and epistemological. They encompass more than simply data gathering techniques.

Question 2

Evaluate qualitative inquiry in terms of evaluation and evaluation questions.

Answer 2

When determining whether qualitative inquiry is well-suited, and which qualitative approach to use in a community partnership context, it is useful to consider some key issues related to qualitative philosophy of science. These are the (a) purposes of the evaluation, (b) questions to be answered by the evaluation, and (c) methodology and methods to be employed in the evaluation. While these questions are central for any type of evaluation, in our experience, facets of these questions are particularly relevant to qualitative evaluation in community partnership. We share an example to elucidate how a careful consideration of these questions can inform the design and implementation of a community-partnered qualitative evaluation.

Question 3

Evaluate qualitative methodology and review two methodologies discussed in the textbook.

Answer 3

Varies. A methodology is the logic and justification for using specific methods to produce knowledge. A qualitative methodology provides a systematic way of capturing qualia that is consistent with specific philosophical premises. There have been approximately 20 different methodologies identified. Among them, the most widely used are (a) ethnography, (b) grounded theory, (c) narrative inquiry, (d) phenomenology, (e) case study, and (f) participatory action inquiry.
One methodology discussed in the text is grounded theory. In grounded theory, the inquirer uses prescribed procedures to translate descriptions of a phenomenon into explanations and theories of that phenomenon. While some use grounded theory to analyze data, others maintain that the goal is not simply analysis (i.e., description) but theory generation. In fact, some argue that grounded theory is an optimal approach when there is not theory to guide (or constrain) the work. The data are drawn on to help establish a theoretical framework. In this sense, a grounded theory approach is most apt for evaluations focused on theory building such as determining what aspects of a program (from the perspective of participants) are responsible for the program's effectiveness. Interviewing is often the method of choice in this methodology, and interview transcripts are coded and compared in a systematic way. One might use a grounded theory methodology to generate a logic model (see Chapter 1 for an introduction to logic models) that postulates how the self-help group works to facilitate recovery.
A second methodology expressed by the authors is case study. Case studies examine a particular issue within a case--a bounded system or set of systems. The "case" can be an individual, group, program, organization, society, and so on. Notably, some scholars do not consider the case study to be a methodology per se, but a level of analysis in inquiry. One type of case study, an intrinsic case study, is a natural fit for many evaluations because the case is the issue of interest as it represents a departure from the norm. For example, one self-help group might evidence more favorable outcomes than others. A case study of that group might focus on what is unique about its functioning (e.g., policies, procedures, processes). In addition, if one adopts the view that a case study is a level of analysis, it is possible to embed one of the previously mentioned methodologies within it (e.g., ethnographic case study).