Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Data in Welfare Policy Evaluations in the United States

Andrew S London, Saul Schwartz, Ellen K. Scott

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Researchers have made significant efforts to combine quantitative and qualitative methods in welfare reform policy research in the United States. This paper draws on several examples arising from the American experience to argue that mixed-methods research (particularly, but not exclusively, with integrated sampling, data collection, and data analysis) can yield important and unexpected insights that neither method alone could generate. We caution that each method has strengths and weaknesses that must be borne in mind so as not to oversell the promise of mixed-methods research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)342-353
Number of pages12
JournalWorld Development
Volume35
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2007

Fingerprint

social policy
research method
evaluation
welfare reform
reform policy
quantitative method
qualitative method
data analysis
welfare
sampling
method
policy
Mixed methods research
Welfare policy
Qualitative data
Policy evaluation
experience
Welfare reform
Policy research
Quantitative methods

Keywords

  • mixed-methods research
  • policy evaluation
  • poverty
  • United States
  • welfare reform

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Development
  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Data in Welfare Policy Evaluations in the United States. / London, Andrew S; Schwartz, Saul; Scott, Ellen K.

In: World Development, Vol. 35, No. 2, 02.2007, p. 342-353.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9ec437ac46c0415cb5472ef667d18aef,
title = "Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Data in Welfare Policy Evaluations in the United States",
abstract = "Researchers have made significant efforts to combine quantitative and qualitative methods in welfare reform policy research in the United States. This paper draws on several examples arising from the American experience to argue that mixed-methods research (particularly, but not exclusively, with integrated sampling, data collection, and data analysis) can yield important and unexpected insights that neither method alone could generate. We caution that each method has strengths and weaknesses that must be borne in mind so as not to oversell the promise of mixed-methods research.",
keywords = "mixed-methods research, policy evaluation, poverty, United States, welfare reform",
author = "London, {Andrew S} and Saul Schwartz and Scott, {Ellen K.}",
year = "2007",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.10.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "342--353",
journal = "World Development",
issn = "1873-5991",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Data in Welfare Policy Evaluations in the United States

AU - London, Andrew S

AU - Schwartz, Saul

AU - Scott, Ellen K.

PY - 2007/2

Y1 - 2007/2

N2 - Researchers have made significant efforts to combine quantitative and qualitative methods in welfare reform policy research in the United States. This paper draws on several examples arising from the American experience to argue that mixed-methods research (particularly, but not exclusively, with integrated sampling, data collection, and data analysis) can yield important and unexpected insights that neither method alone could generate. We caution that each method has strengths and weaknesses that must be borne in mind so as not to oversell the promise of mixed-methods research.

AB - Researchers have made significant efforts to combine quantitative and qualitative methods in welfare reform policy research in the United States. This paper draws on several examples arising from the American experience to argue that mixed-methods research (particularly, but not exclusively, with integrated sampling, data collection, and data analysis) can yield important and unexpected insights that neither method alone could generate. We caution that each method has strengths and weaknesses that must be borne in mind so as not to oversell the promise of mixed-methods research.

KW - mixed-methods research

KW - policy evaluation

KW - poverty

KW - United States

KW - welfare reform

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33846562441&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33846562441&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.10.007

DO - 10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.10.007

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33846562441

VL - 35

SP - 342

EP - 353

JO - World Development

JF - World Development

SN - 1873-5991

IS - 2

ER -