Card sorting methods: A List

Card / pile sorting is a simple and useful means of eliciting and aggregating qualitative data, in a participatory manner. In anthropology, it is described as pile sorting, and is used for domain analysis, in the field of cognitive anthropology. In website design it is known as card sorting.

Anthropology
Website design
Software
  • OptimalSort: Online card sorting software:
  • SynCapsV2:  For the analysis of the results of physical card sorts, which can be downloaded and used on a desktop/laptop
  • UsabilitiTest: Our Cards Sorting tool supports Closed, Open and Hybrid testing, and our Prioritization Matrix is the only such tool, currently online.
  • MozDev.org: uzCardSort is an open source, MPL licensed, Mozilla based tool for conducting and analyzing card sorts.
  • XSort: is a free card sorting application for Mac, aimed at user experience professionals and social scientists.

 

Six courses on program evaluation topics

Date: October 19 – 24, 2009
Venue: Ottawa, Canada

Registration Deadline – October 1 Classes are filling up — so call us to hold space for you

TEI and CES Collaborative Program

This October, 2009, the Canadian Evaluation Society, National Capital Chapter (CES-NCC) and The Evaluators’ Institute (TEI) will continue their collaboration to bring six courses on program evaluation topics to Canadian evaluators.
Continue reading “Six courses on program evaluation topics”

“Text Analysis under Time Pressure. Tools for humanitarian and development workers”

By Aldo Benini

“The purpose of this paper is to add simple productivity tools for text analysis, by publicizing existing ones and by adding one that I created. “Simple” is a relative term. As the diagram in the Summary section suggests, the suitability of the tools depends on the skills and equipment level of the intending user. Also, I assume a kind of working environment that developing country organizations will not everywhere offer for computer-supported text analysis: that the analyst actually can acquire the documents digitally.
Continue reading ““Text Analysis under Time Pressure. Tools for humanitarian and development workers””

Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Impact Evaluation and Measuring Results

Sabine Garbarino and Jeremy Holland, March 2009

Issues paper | Workshop report

There has been a renewed interest in impact evaluation and measuring results in recent years amongst development agencies and donors. This paper reviews the case for promoting and formalising qualitative and combined methods for impact evaluation and measuring results, as part of a broader strategy amongst donors and country partners for tackling the evaluation gap. The accompanying workshop report provides a summary of the January 2009 workshop “Make an Impact: Tackling the “I” and the “D” of Making It Happen”, which aimed to familiarise DFID staff with the use of qualitative methods in impact evaluation and measuring results.

The case for qualitative and combined methods is strong. Qualitative methods have an equal footing in evaluation of development impacts and can generate sophisticated, robust and timely data and analysis. Combining qualitative research with quantitative instruments that have greater breadth of coverage and generalisability can result in better evaluations that make the most of their respective comparative advantages.

Systematic synthesis of community-based rehabilitation (CBR) project evaluation reports for evidence-based policy: a proof-of-concept study

Pim Kuipers, Sheila Wirz and Sally Hartley
Published: 6 March 2008
BMC International Health and Human Rights 2008, 8:3
Full text via this page > 1472-698X-8-3.pdf

Abstract
Background: This paper presents the methodology and findings from a proof-of-concept study
undertaken to explore the viability of conducting a systematic, largely qualitative synthesis of
evaluation reports emanating from Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) projects in developing
countries.

Methods: Computer assisted thematic qualitative analysis was conducted on recommendation
sections from 37 evaluation reports, arising from 36 disability and development projects in 22
countries. Quantitative overviews and qualitative summaries of the data were developed.
Results: The methodology was found to be feasible and productive. Fifty-one themes were
identified and the most important ones of these are presented to illustrate the significance of the
method. The relative priorities of these themes indicated that “management” issues were the
primary areas in which recommendations were made. Further analysis of themes reflected the
emphasis evaluators placed on the need for enhanced management, organisational, personnel and
administrative infrastructure in CBR projects. Evaluators consistently recommended that CBR
projects should be more connected and collaborative at governmental, organisational, political and
community levels. The synthesis also noted that evaluators questioned the emphasis in CBR on
project expansion and income generation.

Conclusion: The application of the synthesis methodology utilised in this proof-of-concept study
was found to be potentially very beneficial for future research in CBR, and indeed in any area within
health services or international development in which evaluation reports rather than formal
“research evidence” is the primary source material. The proof-of-concept study identified a number
of limitations which are outlined. Based on the conclusions of 37 evaluation reports, future policy
frameworks and implementation strategies in CBR should include a stronger emphasis on technical,
organisational, administrative and personnel aspects of management and strategic leadership.