A programme delivery report normally answers the question “how much”: how many participants were reached, how much funding was spent, what values the indicators reached. The question “why” — why the target indicator did not move despite full budget execution — falls outside such a report, although it is precisely what determines the next step.
Sequential and concurrent designs
In a sequential design the qualitative stage follows the quantitative one and explains the anomalies found: why the indicator differs sharply in two regions, why participants drop out in the third month. In a concurrent design both data sets are gathered simultaneously and compared at the analysis stage — more expensive, but it avoids the bias of a researcher seeking confirmation of an already formed hypothesis.
Where a qualitative stage is essential
- Indicators were met but the underlying problem did not shift — the fault is more likely in the theory of change than in delivery.
- High participant drop-out at a particular stage — the cause is almost never visible in administrative data.
- A divergence between official statistics and survey data exceeding the margin of error.
- The programme is being launched for the first time in a new setting with no accumulated interpretive experience.
The qualitative stage does not “supplement” the quantitative one. It answers a different class of question, and neither can substitute for the other in either direction.