Exploring women’s empowerment using a mixed methods approach

This article explores a fifteen-year collaborative process of studying women’s empowerment in agricultural research for development using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The article discusses how this deep collaboration has provided new insights into women’s empowerment. These collaborations were based on feminist principles related to both the processes and the content of the work. Mixed methods were used within single projects, across sub-projects in different contexts, and across projects over time. By using qualitative and quantitative methods together, new insights are generated about how joint asset ownership and decision making may or may not be empowering and the importance of agency over time, not just workload, as an indicator of empowerment. In addition, the article discusses what has been learned about the processes of collaboration with partners across disciplines and methodologies, geographies, and time and its value in knowledge formation. HIGHLIGHTS Using mixed methods, global and interdisciplinary research collaborations offer new insights into women’s empowerment. Empowerment emerges as a multifaceted concept both within and across locations. Examples on asset ownership, decision making, and time use illuminate this approach. Success in collaborative research requires long-term funding and strong leadership.

The main objective of this campbell systematic review was to provide a systematic review of the evidence on the effects of microcredit on women's control over household spending in developing countries. More specifically, we aimed to answer two related research questions: 1) what does the impact evaluative evidence say about the causal relationship between microcredit and specific dimensions of women's empowerment (women's control over household spending); and 2) what are the mechanisms which mediate this relationship. We prioritise depth of analysis over breadth, thus the scope of this review is narrower than previous systematic reviews on microfinance (stewart et al., 2010; duvendack et al. 2011; stewart et al., 2012). We focused on specific aspects of women's empowerment which allowed us to combine statistical meta-analysis and realist (context-mechanism-outcome) synthesis. From the different searches we identified an initial number of 310 papers that were selected for full text examination. Eventually, 29 papers were retained for further analysis, corresponding to 25 unique studies. In line with three recent other reviews on microfinance (stewart et al., 2010; duvendack et al., 2011; stewart et al. 2012) we found that the microcredit evidence base is extensive, yet most studies are weak methodologically. From those studies deemed comparable and of minimum acceptable quality, we concluded that overall there is no evidence for an effect of microcredit on women's control over household spending.

Global Development, Converging Divergence and Development Studies: A Rejoinder

Getting under the skin: qualitative methods in dermatology research.

<p>This paper is concerned with investigating the integration of quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods research and whether, in spite of its challenges, it can be of positive benefit to many investigative studies. The paper introduces the topic, defines the terms with which this subject deals and undertakes a literature review to outline the challenges and benefits of employing this approach to research. The specific terms research, educational research, research methodologies and methods, research design, quantitative approaches, qualitative approaches and mixed methods approaches are all defined. Mixed methods approaches are outlined in terms of their challenges and benefits, with the researcher offering a personal opinion in conclusion to the paper. The conclusion that was drawn was that provided that mixed methods research was a suitable approach to any given project, its use would yield positive benefits, in that the use of differing approaches has the potential to provide a greater depth and breadth of information which is not possible utilising singular approaches in isolation. In spite of its time-consuming nature, and the suspicion with which some quarters of academia still regard mixed methods research, it does afford opportunities for researchers to have an informed conversation or debate involving information that is generated by both quantitative and qualitative collection methods. Furthermore, evidence would suggest that, rather than restricting the opportunities for research by only utilising either qualitative or quantitative methods, a mixed methods approach provides researchers with a greater scope to investigate educational issues using both words and numbers, to the benefit of educational establishments and society as a whole.</p>

ABSTRACTEngineering education researchers are increasingly integrating qualitative and quantitative research methods to study learning and retention in engineering. While quantitative methods can provide generalisable results, qualitative methods generate rich, descriptive understanding of the investigated phenomenon. On the other hand, a mixed methods approach provides benefits of the two approaches by incorporating them in a single study. However, engineering faculty often faces difficulty in integrating qualitative and quantitative methods and designs in their education research. This article discusses mixed methods in the context of an actual ongoing engineering education research project investigating student resistance to active learning. We describe the research design in phases that show the integration of quantitative and qualitative results, and how these data sources can help influence the direction of the research and triangulate findings. Our mixed method research experience highlights the importance of thinking iteratively between qualitative and quantitative data sources during the instrument development process.

In recent decades, the mixed methods approach has gained traction in many research fields, including impact evaluation. Impact evaluation is used in many sectors, but this paper focuses on its use in international development. This paper explores what is known and unknown about using mixed methods as a possible solution for the many challenges facing impact evaluation. To provide a foundation for this claim and clarify the language surrounding mixed methods and impact evaluations, the paper first defines the terms impact evaluation, qualitative, quantitative, and methodology. It also discusses the benefits and limitations to qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches as they apply to impact evaluation. The paper then conceptualizes how rigor is applied to both qualitative and quantitative work. Finally, it outlines current best practices and gives recommendations going forward.

Chapter 46 - Qualitative methods and mixed methods

BackgroundThe study of safety culture and its relationship to patient care have been challenged by variation in definition, dimensionality and methods of assessment. This systematic review aimed to map methods...

A mixed methods design for building occupants’ energy behavior research

When attending last year’s (2011) International Health Economics Association (iHEA) conference in Toronto, we were struck by the notion that almost all papers we listened to used a very similar quantitativemethodology, whereas qualitative methods barely seemed to play a role. This is unfortunate: (Health) economists could effectively integrate combinations of qualitative and quantitative methods into their research toolkit, without having to give up the formal modeling approach they are accustomed to. The population and institutions studied will rarely be identical with the population for which policy recommendations are derived, so that, to the extent that the two differ, the recommendations may only partially hold. However, acquiring knowledge about the compatibility of populations and institutions is a complex task, one that may require the type of data generated by qualitative research.

This study aims to determine the policy strategy partnership integrated the development of tourism destinations in South Sulawesi. This study uses a combination of research methods sequential explanatory model or designs a method that combines a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods in series, wherein the first phase of the research carried out by using quantitative methods and in the second stage with qualitative methods. This type of research used in this study is mixed methods research (mixed methods). The study is a mixed-methods research approach that combines or associate the form of qualitative and quantitative form. This approach involves philosophical assumptions, approaches the application of qualitative and quantitative, and mixing (mixing) of both approaches in a single study. Policy in the form of Tourism Development Master Plan (RIPP) used as a guide in directing, fostering, developing, and controlling the development of the tourism sector in Bulukumba, preferably stems from the source of the problem and must be enforceable through local regulation.

Review question/objective The objective of this systematic review is to critically appraise and synthesise the best available evidence regarding the uptake of research evidence in clinical practice as experienced by nurses. This review seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What are the experiences of nurses in relation to the uptake of research into clinical practice? 2. What factors do nurses report as helpful in the uptake of research evidence into clinical practice? 3. What factors do nurses report as limiting the uptake of research evidence into clinical practice? Inclusion criteria Types of participants This review will consider qualitative studies that include all nurses working in any type of health care setting, including acute (hospitals), primary (community health), mental health and aged care. For the purpose of this review, the generic term ‘nurses’ will include registered nurses, enrolled nurses and assistants in nursing. The aim is to be as inclusive as possible and allow for global variations of nurse positions. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest This review will consider studies that investigate the experience of nurses regarding the uptake of research evidence into clinical practice, including clinical decision making or clinical judgement. The term ‘clinical decision making’ for this review will describe any organisational aspects that influence decision making. The term ‘clinical judgement’ will describe the ‘different grounds for making judgements’. 20 (p. 1506) Additionally, for this review the terms research uptake or utilisations and evidence-based practice will be used interchangeably as they all represent the aspect of incorporating research evidence into clinical practice. Types of outcomes This review will consider any subjective accounts by nurses describing their experiences, either positive or negative, in relation to the uptake of research evidence into clinical practice.

Controversy exists over whether to target public- and private-sector programs to female-headed households in developing countries in the attempt to combat poverty and social disadvantage. The issues related to the definition and measurement of female headship and the importance of the concept for development policy are discussed. A systematic review is then presented of the empirical evidence on the relation between female headship and poverty. If female-headed households tend to be poorer on average than other households headship should seriously be considered as a potentially useful criterion for targeting antipoverty interventions especially in developing countries where means testing is not feasible. The authors examine the potential costs and benefits of targeting female headship and review the experience of Chile one of the few countries which has targeted female headship through government intervention and the only one which has evaluation data available. The analysis of the project experience is used along with a review of the empirical evidence to answer the question of the desirability and efficiency of targeting female headship in order to reduce poverty in developing countries.

Education researchers are increasingly leveraging mixed methods approaches with the aim of improving teaching and learning science across contexts. As a result, mixed methods inquiries are becoming increasingly common in the field of science teacher education. This chapter explores the contemporary use of mixed methods approaches in science teacher education, how researchers are using mixed methods, and the potential affordances and constraints. The discussion, supported with examples from the research base, illustrates how the purpose of much of this research is for the evaluation of teacher education interventions or programs. Furthermore, most of the studies focus exclusively on the participants that take part in the initiative or program with extraordinarily little evidence sought to make generalizable claims. While many researchers do not address the underlying philosophical, epistemological, methodological, or theoretical perspectives that guided their decisions to use mixed methods approaches, most align with the commonsense definition of mixed methods – a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods within one study. Overall, mixed methods approaches are affording science teacher educators opportunities to generate findings that effectively improve teaching and learning. However, the chapter illustrates that the future direction of this body of research continues to hold promises not yet fully realized.