Integrating quasi-experimental and inductive designs in evaluation: A case study of the impact of free bus travel on public health

25Citations
Citations of this article
91Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Evaluations of ‘natural experiments’ in public policy are typically considered ‘weak’ evidence. Challenges include: making credible claims for causal inference (internal validity); generalizing beyond the case (external validity); and providing useful evidence for decision makers. In public health, where experimental evidence is encouraged by funders and enjoys a degree of rhetorical favour, in theory if not practice, current guidance for evaluating natural experiments focuses largely on methods for strengthening internal validity. Using a case study of the evaluation of free bus travel for young people in London, UK, we demonstrate a pragmatic approach to strengthening both internal and external validity in evaluations through integrating the logic of quasi-experimental methods with inductive qualitative analysis. Combining theoretical and inductive analysis in this way to address questions of policy interest through evaluations of natural experiments may be fruitful, and have methodological advantages over randomized designs.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Green, J., Roberts, H., Petticrew, M., Steinbach, R., Goodman, A., Jones, A., & Edwards, P. (2015). Integrating quasi-experimental and inductive designs in evaluation: A case study of the impact of free bus travel on public health. Evaluation, 21(4), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389015605205

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free