Taking Stock of Qualitative Methods of Evaluation: A Study of Practices and Quality Criteria

Research on evaluation has mapped the landscape of quantitative evaluation methods. There are far fewer overviews for qualitative methods of evaluation. We present a review of scholarly articles from five widely read evaluation research journals, examining the types of methods used and the transparency of their quality criteria. We briefly look at a large sample of 1070 articles and then randomly select 50 for in-depth study. We document a remarkable variety of qualitative methods, but some stand out: Case studies and stakeholder analysis, often combined with interview techniques. Articles rarely define and conceptualize their methods explicitly. This is understandable from a practical point of view, but it can make it difficult to critically interrogate findings and build systematic knowledge. Finally, we find that the transparency of qualitative criteria required in the literature is not always sufficient, which can hinder the synthesis of results.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Evaluation Review
Published
2025-08-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841x251370426
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.11
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Taking Stock of Qualitative Methods of Evaluation: A Study of Practices and Quality Criteria

Achim Kemmerling, Thilo Bodenstein
1 citations
Evaluation Review
Evaluation and Performance Assessment
2.11
article

Taking Stock of Qualitative Methods of Evaluation: A Study of Practices and Quality Criteria

Achim Kemmerling, Thilo Bodenstein
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Research on evaluation has mapped the landscape of quantitative evaluation methods. There are far fewer overviews for qualitative methods of evaluation. We present a review of scholarly articles from five widely read evaluation research journals, examining the types of methods used and the transparency of their quality criteria. We briefly look at a large sample of 1070 articles and then randomly select 50 for in-depth study. We document a remarkable variety of qualitative methods, but some stand out: Case studies and stakeholder analysis, often combined with interview techniques. Articles rarely define and conceptualize their methods explicitly. This is understandable from a practical point of view, but it can make it difficult to critically interrogate findings and build systematic knowledge. Finally, we find that the transparency of qualitative criteria required in the literature is not always sufficient, which can hinder the synthesis of results.

Evaluation ReviewVol. 50(1)
Central European University (AT), University of Erfurt (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Evaluation and Performance Assessment
2.11
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.