A Meta-Framework for Conducting Mixed Methods Impact Evaluations: A Critical Dialectical Pluralistic Approach Seminar

Educational interventions are becoming more complex, far-reaching, and high-stakes (Onwuegbuzie & Hitchcock, 2017:55). Obtaining strong evidence from impact evaluations remains elusive. In this presentation, I build on Onwuegbuzie and Hitchcock's (2017) 8-phase meta-framework for Mixed Methods Theory-Based Impact Evaluation, by incorporating critical dialectical pluralism (CDP) 2.0. This meta-philosophy has a specific focus on five core elements—social justice, inclusion, diversity, and equity, and social responsibility (SIDES).

Although some evaluators use the word integration to describe their use of quantitative and qualitative research approaches, this use has involved only partial integration, representing what Fetters and Freshwater (2015) called the "1 + 1 = 3 integration formula" (p. 116). This talk represents an attempt to promote optimal and diverse integration within the evaluation process. Specifically, I outline seven broad elements within the Mixed Methods Theory-Based Impact Evaluation meta-framework wherein evaluators can strive towards full(er) integration. These elements comprise integrating...
(1) quantitative and qualitative research approaches,
(2) mixed methods research and multimethod research approaches,
(3) disciplines/fields,
(4) arts and sciences,
(5) Global North and Global South researchers,
(6) online and offline spaces, and
(7) researchers and participants.

Incorporating a CDP 2.0 lens into the Mixed Methods Theory-Based Impact Evaluation meta-framework facilitates the adoption of an integrative, integrated, and integral way of thinking. This positions a program evaluator in the third space, or what can be referred to as the radical middle (Onwuegbuzie, 2012)—thereby facilitating the addressing of more complicated and complex problems, especially in a COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 era.