I mixed methods e la valutazione: un’analisi tramite Structural Topic Model

Journal title RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione
Author/s Noemi Novello
Publishing Year 2021 Issue 2020/76
Language Italian Pages 16 P. 107-122 File size 416 KB
DOI 10.3280/RIV2020-076007
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of the relation-ship between the mixed methods approach and the evaluation field, with an overall look at the international social science area. Analysing a set of papers that make use of mixed methods, a reflection on the prevalence of the evaluation field is presented. Text analysis through the Structural Topic Model (STM) technique allows to extract topics from a corpus of documents. Findings show how the evaluation filed has a relevant role within the area of studies that use a mixed methods approach. Evaluation emerges indeed as a topic itself. Moreover, rela-tionships among evaluation and other disciplinary fields wherein mixed methods are used can be highlighted. The overview presented in this study allows to look at trends within the mixed methods approach in social science and within evaluation, as well as intersections be-tween the two areas.

Keywords: Empirical social research, evaluative research, Mixed Methods Research, theory, research practices, operational experiences

  1. Airoldi E. M. and Bischof J. M. (2016), Improving and Evaluating Topic Models and Other Models of Text. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111(516), 1381–1403.
  2. Amaturo E. e Punziano, G. (2016), I Mixed Methods nella ricerca sociale. Carocci.
  3. Andrew S. and Halcomb E. (2009), Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences. Wiley Online Library.
  4. Bazeley P. (2015), Mixed Methods in Management Research: Implications for the Field. 13(1), 9.
  5. Campbell D. T. and Fiske, D. W. (1959), Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.
  6. Creswell J. W. and Garrett, A. L. (2008), The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28(3), 321–333.
  7. Doyle L., Brady A.-M. and Byrne G. (2009), An overview of mixed methods research. Journal of Research in Nursing, 14(2), 175–185.
  8. Fetters M. D. and Molina-Azorin J. F. (2017), The Journal of Mixed Methods Research Starts a New Decade: Principles for Bringing in the New and Divesting of the Old Language of the Field. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(1), 3–10.
  9. Fidel R. (2008), Are we there yet?: Mixed methods research in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 30(4), 265–272.
  10. Grafton J., Lillis A. M. and Mahama, H. (2011), Mixed methods research in accounting. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(1), 5–21.
  11. Greene J. C. (2007), Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. John Wiley & Sons.
  12. Greene J. C. (2008), Is Mixed Methods Social Inquiry a Distinctive Methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7–22.
  13. Greene J. C., Caracelli V. J. and Graham W. F. (1989), Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.
  14. Hall J. N. (2013), Pragmatism, Evidence, and Mixed Methods Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2013(138), 15–26.
  15. Krishnan A. (2009), What are academic disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarity vs. interdisciplinarity debate.
  16. Lopez-Fernandez O. and Molina-Azorin J. F. (2011), The use of mixed methods research in the field of behavioural sciences. Quality & Quantity, 45(6), 1459.
  17. Mauceri, S. (2017). L’avvento dell’era dei mixed methods. Nuovo paradigma o deadline di un dibattito? Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, 113, 39–61.
  18. Mertens D. M. (2014), Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity With Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. SAGE Publications.
  19. Niaz M. (2008), A Rationale for Mixed Methods (Integrative) Research Programmes in Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(2), 287–305.
  20. Nicolescu B. (2002), Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. SUNY Press.
  21. O’Cathain A. (2009), Editorial: Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences: A Quiet Revolution. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(1), 3–6.
  22. O’Cathain A., Murphy E. and Nicholl J. (2007), Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research, 7(1), 85.
  23. Onwuegbuzie A. J. and Leech N. L. (2004), Enhancing the interpretation of “significant” findings: The role of mixed methods research. The qualitative report, 9(4), 770–792.
  24. Plano Clark V. L. and Ivankova N. V. (2016), Mixed methods research. A guide to the field. Sage.
  25. Roberts M. E., Stewart B. M. and Tingley D. (2014), stm: R package for structural topic models. R package version 0.6, 1.
  26. Steyvers M. and Griffiths T. (2007), Probabilistic topic models. Handbook of latent semantic analysis, 427(7), 424–440.
  27. Tashakkori A. and Creswell J. W. (2008), Editorial: Mixed Methodology Across Disciplines. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 3–6.
  28. Tashakkori A. and Teddlie C. (2003), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Sage.

Noemi Novello, I mixed methods e la valutazione: un’analisi tramite Structural Topic Model in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 76/2020, pp 107-122, DOI: 10.3280/RIV2020-076007