Usi e utilità dei Mixed Methods nella ricerca valutativa

Journal title RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione
Author/s Alessandra Decataldo
Publishing Year 2021 Issue 2020/76 Language Italian
Pages 20 P. 33-52 File size 321 KB
DOI 10.3280/RIV2020-076003
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.

The first relevant attempt to describe mixed methods (MM) in the field of evaluative research is attributable to Greene and Caracelli (1997). The authors distinguish various forms of MM starting from the purposes for which they are used. Since 1997 important developments occurred in academic and professional debates related to MM in evalu-ative research. Starting from the reconstruction of the debate on the usefulness and use of MM in evaluative research, this paper reflects on the ontologi-cal, epistemological, methodological, and axiological issues related to the evaluative research processes using MM. This consideration needs to involve an extended vision of the issues underlying the choices of specific methods in the research process. This is even more necessary in evaluative research that constitutionally engages with complex di-lemmas, especially on the axiological level.

Keywords: Social research, evaluation, paradigm, research design, quality assessment, complexity

  1. Alkin M.C., Christie C.A. (2013), An evaluation theory tree. In Alkin M.C. (ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theoristis, views and influences, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  2. Bamberg M., Vaessen J., Raimondo E. (eds.) (2016), Dealing with Complexity in Development Evaluation. A Practical Approach, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  3. Bazeley P. (2018), Integrating Analyses in Mixed Methods Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  4. Bergman M.M. (2008), Advances in Mixed Methods Research: Theories and Applications, London: Sage Publications.
  5. Biesta, G. (2010), Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In Tashakkori, A. e Teddlie C. (eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  6. Bryman A. (1988), Quality and Quantity in Social Research, London: Routledge.
  7. Campbell D.T., Fiske D.W. (1959), Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.
  8. Caracelli, V.J., Greene J.C. (1997), Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In New Directions for Evaluation, 74, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pub.
  9. Creamer, EG. (2017), An Introduction to Fully Integrated Mixed Methods Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  10. Denzin N.K. (1978), The research act. A theoretical introduction to sociological methods, 2nd, New York: McGraw-Hill.
  11. Dewey J. (1938), Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, New York: Henry Holt and Company.
  12. DuBois W.E.B. (1899), The Philadelphia Negro, New York: Schocken Books.
  13. Frechtling J., Sharp L. (1997), User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method Evaluations, --
  14. Greene J.C. (2007), Mixed Method in Social Inquiry, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  15. Greene J.C., Caracelli, V.J. (ed.) (1997), Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigm. In New Directions for Evaluation, 74, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pub.
  16. Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J., Graham W.F. (1989), Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.
  17. Greene J.C., Hall J.N. (2010), Dialectics and Pragmatism: Being of Consequence. In Tashakkori, A. e Teddlie C. (eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  18. Guba E.G., Lincoln Y.S. (2005), Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences. In Denzin N.K. e Lincoln Y.S. (eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  19. Hanson B. (2008), Wither Qualitative/Quantitative?: Grounds for Methodological Convergence, Quality & Quantity, 42(1), 97–111.
  20. Howe K.R. (1988), Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard, Educational researcher, 17(8), 10–16.
  21. James W. (1907), Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, New Yorks: Longmans, Green, and co.
  22. Johnson R.B. (2012), Dialectical Pluralism and Mixed Research, American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 751-754.
  23. Johnson R.B. (2017), Dialectical Pluralism: A Metaparadigm whose time has come, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156-173.
  24. Johnson R.B., Onwuegbuzie A. (2004), Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come, Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
  25. Johnson R.B., Onwuegbuzie A.J., Turner L.A. (2007), Toward a definition of mixed methods research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
  26. Johnson R.B., Schoonenboom J. (2016), Adding Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research to Health Intervetion Studies: Interacting Differences, in Qualitative Health Research, 26(5), 587-602.
  27. Kuhn T.S. (1962), The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  28. Leech N.L., Onwuegbuzie A.J. (2009), A typology of mixed methods research designs, Quality & Quantity, 43(2), 265–275.
  29. Le Play F. (1855), Les Ouvriers européens: étude sur les travaux, la vie domestique et la condition morale des populations ouvrières de l’Europe, et leurs relations avec les autres classes, précédé d’un exposé de la méthode d’observation, Paris: Imprimerie impériale.
  30. Lincoln Y.S., Guba E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  31. Marradi A. (2007), Metodologia delle scienze sociali, Bologna: il Mulino.
  32. Mathison S. (2014), Participatory Evaluation. In Coghlan D. e Brydon-Miller M. (eds.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Action Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  33. Mauceri, S. (2017), L’avvento dell’era dei mixed methods. Nuovo paradigma o deadline di un dibattito?, Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, 113, 39–61.
  34. Maxwell J.A., Mittapalli K. (2010), Realism as a Stance for Mixed Methods Research. In Tashakkori, A. e Teddlie C. (eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  35. Mertens D.M. (2015), Transformative Research and Evaluation, New York: Guilford.
  36. Mertens D.M. (2018), Mixed Method Design in Evaluation, New York: Sage Publications.
  37. Mertens D.M., P. Bazley, L. Bowleg, N. Fielding, N., J. Maxwell, J.F. Molina-Azorin, K. Niglas (2016), The future of mixed methods: A five-year projection to 2020, --
  38. Morgan, D.L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48-76.
  39. Morse J.M. (1991), Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation, Nursing research, 40(2), 120–123.
  40. Onwuegbuzie A.J., Johnson R.B. (2006), The validity issue in mixed research, Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.
  41. Palinkas L.A., Mendon S.J., Hamilton A.B. (2019), Innovations in Mixed Methods Evaluations, Annual Review of Public Health, 1(40), 423-442.
  42. Parkhurst P.E., Lovell K.L., Sprafka S.A., Hodgins M. (1972), Evaluation of videodisc modules: a mixed method approach, Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care, 747–751.
  43. Patton M.Q. (2002), Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 3 ed., London: Sage.
  44. Patton M.Q. (2011), Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use, New York: Guilford.
  45. Peirce C.S. (1878), The Nature of Truth: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives, --
  46. Phillips D.C. (2005), The Contested Nature of Empirical Educational Research (and Why Philosophy of Education Offers Little Help), Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(4), 577–597.
  47. Plano Clark V.L., Ivankova N.V. (2016), Mixed methods research. A guide to the field, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  48. Sale J.E.M., Lohfeld L.H., Brazil K. (2002), Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research, Quality & Quantity, 36, 43–53.
  49. Scriven M. (1991), Evaluation Thesaurus, Auckland: EdgePress and Sage.
  50. Tashakkori A., Teddlie C. (eds) (1998), Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  51. Tashakkori A., Teddlie C. (eds.) (2003), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  52. Tashakkori A., Teddlie C. (eds.) (2010), Handbook of mixed methods research for the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  53. Teddlie C., Tashakkori A. (2003), Major issues and controveries in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In Tashakkori A., Teddlie C. (eds.) (2003), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  54. Teddlie C, Tashakkori A. (2012), Common “core” characteristics of mixed methods research: A review of critical issues and call for greater convergence, American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 774–788.
  55. Vergani A. (2005), Valutazione e Sociologia: qualche nota introduttiva, Studi di Sociologia, 43(3), 211-236.

  • L'Agenda Digitale Europea: il punto sulle strategie e gli investimenti nel campo della valutazione Ida Cortoni, Valeria Pandolfini, in RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione 85/2024 pp.145
    DOI: 10.3280/RIV2023-085008

Alessandra Decataldo, Usi e utilità dei Mixed Methods nella ricerca valutativa in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 76/2020, pp 33-52, DOI: 10.3280/RIV2020-076003