Randomized Control Trials and Qualitative Evaluations of a Multifaceted Programme for Women in Extreme Poverty: Empirical Findings and Methodological Reflections
Randomized Control Trials and Qualitative Evaluations of a Multifaceted Programme for Women in Extreme Poverty: Empirical Findings and Methodological Reflections
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/19452829.2018.1536696
复制
发表时间：
2019-04-03
影响因子：
1.5
通讯作者：
Kabeer, Naila
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kabeer, Naila
本文件着手综合研究中的主要经验教训，使用替代方法进行影响评估。报告以Sen的能力办法为概念框架，分析了在西孟加拉邦和信德省进行的两对影响评估，这些评估大约在同一时间进行，而且彼此距离很近。每一对都包括随机对照试验和对BRAC将资产转移给极端贫困妇女的试点方法的定性评估。本文报告了这些研究的发现，他们建立因果关系主张的策略，以及他们建立这些主张所依据的信息基础。它发现，随机对照试验不仅没有达到它们自己确定因果关系的标准，而且它们对观察到的结果的模式提供的解释也非常有限。这些信息构成了定性研究的实质。这篇论文的结论是，更多地使用混合方法可能有助于抵消随机对照试验的一些局限性，并使他们的研究结果有更坚实的基础。
This paper sets out to synthesize key lessons from studies using alternative methodologies to impact assessment. Drawing on Sen's capability approach as a conceptual framework, it analyses two pairs of impact assessments which were carried out in West Bengal and Sindh around the same time and within close proximity to each other. Each pair consisted of a randomized control trial and a qualitative assessment of attempts to pilot BRAC's approach to transferring assets to women in extreme poverty. The paper reports on the findings of these studies, their strategies for establishing their claims about causality and the information base they drew on to establish these claims. It finds that not only did the RCTs fail to meet their own criteria for establishing causality, but they also provided very limited explanation for the patterns of outcomes observed. Such information formed the substance of the qualitative studies. The paper concludes that greater use of mixed methods could help to offset some of limitations of RCTs and to place their findings on much firmer ground.