Qualitative Evaluations, Combined Methods and Key Challenges

General Lessons from the Qualitative Evaluation of Community Intervention in Stroke Rehabilitation

Jeff Hearn, John Lawler, George Dowswell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article has a twofold agenda. First, it examines lessons from qualitative evaluative research on a community intervention in stroke rehabilitation. Second, it focuses on more general, fundamental questions in evaluation, particularly in healthcare. This involves addressing the domination of a relatively narrow range of positivist research approaches in much medical research and how this limits understanding. While in the medical field randomized controlled trials are regarded as the gold standard, evaluations that rely on quantitative methods and measuring outcomes alone are inadequate. General themes addressed include: the relative neglect of nonpositivist, qualitative and process-orientated evaluation; the recognition of key distinctions in healthcare evaluation research; the need for greater attention to mixed and combined methods in evaluation; and the recognition of barriers to and key challenges in developing combined methods. This agenda suggests a need for more pluralist mentalities in research funding, evaluation and publication.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)30-54
Number of pages25
JournalEvaluation
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

stroke
rehabilitation
evaluation
community
health care
gold standard
evaluation research
medical research
mentality
research approach
quantitative method
domination
qualitative research
neglect
funding
method
gold

Cite this

@article{3d9791a001c7414a8bc44a49847e3921,
title = "Qualitative Evaluations, Combined Methods and Key Challenges: General Lessons from the Qualitative Evaluation of Community Intervention in Stroke Rehabilitation",
abstract = "This article has a twofold agenda. First, it examines lessons from qualitative evaluative research on a community intervention in stroke rehabilitation. Second, it focuses on more general, fundamental questions in evaluation, particularly in healthcare. This involves addressing the domination of a relatively narrow range of positivist research approaches in much medical research and how this limits understanding. While in the medical field randomized controlled trials are regarded as the gold standard, evaluations that rely on quantitative methods and measuring outcomes alone are inadequate. General themes addressed include: the relative neglect of nonpositivist, qualitative and process-orientated evaluation; the recognition of key distinctions in healthcare evaluation research; the need for greater attention to mixed and combined methods in evaluation; and the recognition of barriers to and key challenges in developing combined methods. This agenda suggests a need for more pluralist mentalities in research funding, evaluation and publication.",
keywords = "combined methods, healthcare, qualitative evaluation, randomized controlled trials, stroke rehabilitation",
author = "Jeff Hearn and John Lawler and George Dowswell",
year = "2003",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1356389003009001003",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "30--54",
journal = "Evaluation",
issn = "1356-3890",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "1",

}

Qualitative Evaluations, Combined Methods and Key Challenges : General Lessons from the Qualitative Evaluation of Community Intervention in Stroke Rehabilitation. / Hearn, Jeff; Lawler, John; Dowswell, George.

In: Evaluation, Vol. 9, No. 1, 01.01.2003, p. 30-54.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Qualitative Evaluations, Combined Methods and Key Challenges

T2 - General Lessons from the Qualitative Evaluation of Community Intervention in Stroke Rehabilitation

AU - Hearn, Jeff

AU - Lawler, John

AU - Dowswell, George

PY - 2003/1/1

Y1 - 2003/1/1

N2 - This article has a twofold agenda. First, it examines lessons from qualitative evaluative research on a community intervention in stroke rehabilitation. Second, it focuses on more general, fundamental questions in evaluation, particularly in healthcare. This involves addressing the domination of a relatively narrow range of positivist research approaches in much medical research and how this limits understanding. While in the medical field randomized controlled trials are regarded as the gold standard, evaluations that rely on quantitative methods and measuring outcomes alone are inadequate. General themes addressed include: the relative neglect of nonpositivist, qualitative and process-orientated evaluation; the recognition of key distinctions in healthcare evaluation research; the need for greater attention to mixed and combined methods in evaluation; and the recognition of barriers to and key challenges in developing combined methods. This agenda suggests a need for more pluralist mentalities in research funding, evaluation and publication.

AB - This article has a twofold agenda. First, it examines lessons from qualitative evaluative research on a community intervention in stroke rehabilitation. Second, it focuses on more general, fundamental questions in evaluation, particularly in healthcare. This involves addressing the domination of a relatively narrow range of positivist research approaches in much medical research and how this limits understanding. While in the medical field randomized controlled trials are regarded as the gold standard, evaluations that rely on quantitative methods and measuring outcomes alone are inadequate. General themes addressed include: the relative neglect of nonpositivist, qualitative and process-orientated evaluation; the recognition of key distinctions in healthcare evaluation research; the need for greater attention to mixed and combined methods in evaluation; and the recognition of barriers to and key challenges in developing combined methods. This agenda suggests a need for more pluralist mentalities in research funding, evaluation and publication.

KW - combined methods

KW - healthcare

KW - qualitative evaluation

KW - randomized controlled trials

KW - stroke rehabilitation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=28944455304&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://journals.sagepub.com/home/evi

U2 - 10.1177/1356389003009001003

DO - 10.1177/1356389003009001003

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 30

EP - 54

JO - Evaluation

JF - Evaluation

SN - 1356-3890

IS - 1

ER -