IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/idsxxx/v46y2015i1p30-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Going Beyond Mixed Methods to Mixed Approaches: A Systems Perspective for Asking the Right Questions

Author

Listed:
  • Jeneen R. Garcia
  • Aaron Zazueta

Abstract

An impact evaluation's primary task is to determine which impacts were caused by an intervention, distinguishing them from those produced by other causes. However, in complex systems, interventions may contribute towards less apparent forms of impact (such as negative, unintended, indirect and secondary) that are no less significant, but which require a different way of asking questions. Rather than advocating for a particular evaluation approach or methodology, we propose that (1) beyond the intervention's theory of change (TOC), the complex system within which the intervention has taken place and intends to make an impact must also be examined, and (2) specific elements of an intervention's TOC and the larger system must be understood to have a systematic basis for determining what evaluation questions need to be asked. Only then can the appropriate evaluation approaches and methods be identified, and adapted as this understanding increases over the course of the evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeneen R. Garcia & Aaron Zazueta, 2015. "Going Beyond Mixed Methods to Mixed Approaches: A Systems Perspective for Asking the Right Questions," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 46(1), pages 30-43, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:idsxxx:v:46:y:2015:i:1:p:30-43
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1759-5436.12119
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Juha I. Uitto, 2016. "The Environment-poverty Nexus in Evaluation: Implications for the Sustainable Development Goals," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 7(3), pages 441-447, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:idsxxx:v:46:y:2015:i:1:p:30-43. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0265-5012 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.