Open AccessDirections in Qualitative Evaluation
Author(s) -
Ian Shaw
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
socialvetenskaplig tidskrift
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2003-5624
pISSN - 1104-1420
DOI - 10.3384/svt.2002.9.2-3.2787
Subject(s) - mainstream , argument (complex analysis) , relevance (law) , management science , qualitative research , epistemology , evaluation methods , psychology , engineering ethics , computer science , sociology , social science , engineering , political science , medicine , philosophy , law , reliability engineering
It is regarded by many as not far short of bad taste to advance passionate claims based on the superiority of this or that methodology. The argument of most mainstream evaluation theorists is for a ‘horses for courses’ approach that aims to identify the strengths of different methods and discourage evaluators from over-claiming the relevance and application of any one approach to evaluation. I use this article to develop a few outline arguments in support of turning on their heads some conventional arguments about methodological choices for evaluation. I touch on four areas where qualitative methodology enables evaluators to re-cast central aspects of evaluation practice, viz causal understanding, methodological choice, the evaluation of professional practice, and the uses of evaluation.