Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Sulautettu tapaustutkimus× | Ohjelman arviointi× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala≠ | Laadulliset menetelmät | Kenttämenetelmät |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1984–1995 (Yin's foundational editions; Stake 1995) | 1960s–1970s (Scriven 1967; Stufflebeam CIPP model 1971) |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Robert K. Yin (systematic case study design); Robert E. Stake (naturalistic tradition) | Michael Scriven; Daniel Stufflebeam; Peter Rossi |
| Tyyppi≠ | Qualitative research method | Applied evaluation methodology |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-1506336169 | Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-0761908944 |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | embedded single-case design, multiple-unit case study, nested case study, embedded unit analysis | evaluation research, program assessment, educational evaluation, systematic program evaluation |
| Liittyvät≠ | 6 | 3 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | An embedded case study is a case study design in which one or more units of analysis are nested within a single overarching case. Rather than treating the case as a single, holistic entity, the researcher deliberately examines multiple sub-units — such as departments within an organisation, classrooms within a school, or programmes within a hospital — to build a richer, more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon under study. Formalised by Robert K. Yin, the design is contrasted with the holistic single-case study and with multi-case (multiple-case) designs. | Program evaluation is a systematic, empirically grounded process of collecting and analyzing information about a program to determine its merit, worth, or significance. Applied across education, public health, social services, and policy, it addresses questions such as whether a program is reaching its target population, whether it is being implemented as designed, and whether it is producing the intended outcomes. It draws on both quantitative and qualitative methods and serves accountability, improvement, or knowledge-generation purposes. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|