Write A 1000-Word Paper On Data Collection And Analysis Meth ✓ Solved

Write a 1000-word paper on data collection and analysis meth

Write a 1000-word paper on data collection and analysis methods in impact evaluation and on requirements elicitation techniques, using these sources: Peersman, G. (2014). Overview: Data collection and analysis methods in impact evaluation. UNICEF Office of Research; Yousuf, M., & Asger, M. (2015). Comparison of various requirements elicitation techniques. International Journal of Computer Applications, 116(4); Groen, E. (2017). Requirements elicitation [PPT]; PMCenterUSA. (2012). Improve your requirements elicitation interviews with this 4-step process [YouTube video]; Bruegge, B., & Dutoit, A. H. (2010). Requirements Elicitation. Object-Oriented Software Engineering, Third Edition, Chapter 4. Include in-text citations and a References section with 10 credible references.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

Effective data collection and analysis in impact evaluation and robust requirements elicitation in software engineering are both foundational to designing interventions and systems that meet stakeholder needs. Although these domains have different end goals—measuring program outcomes versus defining system specifications—they share methodological overlaps such as stakeholder engagement, triangulation, and iterative refinement (Peersman, 2014; Bruegge & Dutoit, 2010). This paper synthesizes key methods from impact evaluation and requirements elicitation literatures, compares techniques, and offers practical recommendations for practitioners seeking reliable, actionable results (Yousuf & Asger, 2015; Groen, 2017).

Data Collection and Analysis Methods in Impact Evaluation

Impact evaluation focuses on attributing observed changes to an intervention. Common quantitative methods include randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental designs (difference-in-differences, propensity score matching), and longitudinal panel surveys (Peersman, 2014). RCTs provide the strongest causal evidence but can be costly, ethically constrained, or infeasible in many settings. Quasi-experimental approaches provide pragmatic alternatives that, with careful design and diagnostics, yield credible estimates (Peersman, 2014; Creswell, 2014).

Qualitative methods—focus groups, key informant interviews, case studies, and participatory rural appraisal—complement quantitative analysis by explaining mechanisms, contextual factors, and stakeholder perceptions (Patton, 2015). Mixed-methods evaluations intentionally integrate quantitative impact estimates with qualitative insights to strengthen validity and policy relevance (Peersman, 2014; Creswell, 2014). Triangulation across data sources reduces bias and enhances confidence in findings.

Analytic approaches range from regression models that control for confounders, to thematic coding for qualitative data. Modern practice emphasizes pre-analysis plans, sensitivity analyses, and transparent reporting to avoid specification searching and to allow replication (Peersman, 2014). Data quality safeguards—sampling strategies, instrument piloting, and training enumerators—are critical to credible inference (Kothari, 2004).

Requirements Elicitation Techniques

Requirements elicitation seeks to uncover stakeholder needs, constraints, and acceptance criteria prior to system design. Techniques vary from structured interviews and questionnaires to workshops, prototyping, observation, and scenario-based methods (Bruegge & Dutoit, 2010; Yousuf & Asger, 2015). Each technique has strengths: interviews capture deep tacit knowledge, workshops build consensus, prototyping surfaces usability and interaction issues early, and observation reveals actual workflows that stakeholders may not articulate (Groen, 2017).

Recent frameworks advocate combining techniques in iterative cycles: start with broad stakeholder interviews, validate through workshops, refine with low-fidelity prototypes, and confirm requirements through acceptance criteria and use cases (PMCenterUSA, 2012; Wiegers & Beatty, 2013). This reduces miscommunication and the risk of requirement creep. Tool-assisted elicitation—such as requirements management systems, versioning, and traceability matrices—helps maintain alignment between elicited needs and later design artifacts (Sommerville, 2011).

Comparative Analysis: Shared Principles and Differences

Both impact evaluation and requirements elicitation rest on stakeholder engagement and methodological triangulation. In both domains, iterative refinement improves outcome validity: evaluators refine theories of change and data collection instruments, while requirements engineers refine specifications via prototypes and feedback loops (Peersman, 2014; Bruegge & Dutoit, 2010). Both emphasize the importance of sampling—whether of beneficiaries or stakeholder representatives—and of piloting instruments to improve data quality (Kothari, 2004).

Differences arise in primary objectives and acceptable trade-offs. Impact evaluation prioritizes internal validity and causal attribution; strategies such as randomization or careful control selection are central (Peersman, 2014). Requirements elicitation prioritizes completeness and clarity of stakeholder needs, often valuing qualitative richness and rapid feedback over statistical representativeness (Yousuf & Asger, 2015). Time horizons differ: evaluations often measure post-intervention outcomes over months or years, whereas elicitation cycles may be shorter and embedded within agile development sprints (Sommerville, 2011).

Practical Recommendations

1. Combine methods: Use mixed-methods evaluations and hybrid elicitation approaches. Triangulation strengthens credibility and uncovers both “what” and “why” questions (Peersman, 2014; Patton, 2015).

2. Engage stakeholders early and continuously: Inclusive interviews and workshops reduce misalignment and enhance uptake of findings and system adoption (Groen, 2017; PMCenterUSA, 2012).

3. Pilot instruments and prototypes: Pre-testing survey instruments and using low-fidelity prototypes can reveal measurement errors and misunderstood requirements before major investments (Kothari, 2004; Bruegge & Dutoit, 2010).

4. Use transparent analytic plans: For evaluations, pre-analysis plans and sensitivity checks guard against bias. For elicitation, maintain traceability from requirements to design and testing (Peersman, 2014; Wiegers & Beatty, 2013).

5. Document assumptions and context: Both fields benefit when explicit assumptions, boundary conditions, and contextual influencers are recorded, enabling better interpretation and transferability of results (Creswell, 2014).

Conclusion

Data collection and analysis in impact evaluation and requirements elicitation in software engineering share methodological underpinnings—stakeholder engagement, triangulation, iterative refinement—while diverging in specific goals and trade-offs. Practitioners should adopt mixed, context-sensitive approaches: prioritize causal rigor where attribution matters, prioritize stakeholder clarity where system acceptance matters, and always pilot, document, and engage stakeholders throughout the process. Integrating best practices from both literatures enhances the likelihood that interventions and systems will be effective, acceptable, and sustainable.

References

  • Peersman, G. (2014). Overview: Data collection and analysis methods in impact evaluation. UNICEF Office of Research.
  • Yousuf, M., & Asger, M. (2015). Comparison of various requirements elicitation techniques. International Journal of Computer Applications, 116(4).
  • Groen, E. (2017). Requirements elicitation [PPT].
  • PMCenterUSA. (2012, May 15). Improve your requirements elicitation interviews with this 4-step process [YouTube video].
  • Bruegge, B., & Dutoit, A. H. (2010). Requirements Elicitation. In Object-Oriented Software Engineering (3rd ed., Chapter 4).
  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  • Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques (2nd ed.). New Age International Publishers.
  • Sommerville, I. (2011). Software Engineering (9th ed.). Addison-Wesley.
  • Wiegers, K., & Beatty, J. (2013). Software Requirements (3rd ed.). Microsoft Press.

Related Assignments