Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Experiences from conducting a mixed methods evaluation in the RUCAS programme Vassilios Makrakis *, Nelly Kostoulas-Makrakis University of Crete, 74100 Rethymnon, Crete, Greece 1. Introduction In the last decades, rapid socio-economic growth has resulted in considerable improvements in health, education, and the quality of life worldwide, especially in economically-advanced countries. However, it has become evident that the world, over these decades, has experienced an unsustainable path of socio-economic devel- opment manifested by enormous and unprecedented environ- mental, social and economic crises. These include increased economic disparities, global poverty and hunger, deterioration of the natural ecosystems, global climate changes and the violation of human rights, etc. International entities and NGOs (Non- Governmental Organisations) have raised voices and concerns that this unsustainable path has to be reversed if planet Earth is to survive (Mader, 2013). It is widely agreed that becoming sustainable requires a change in our value-systems, attitudes and behaviours which have driven the planet to the current unsustainable state. The sustainability crisis our world is facing is deeply rooted in the way we are treating the natural and human environment. Consequently, it is a crisis of values and of our value-systems which are driving our actions towards a non-sustainable society. This inevitably raises the issue of sustainability ethics that concerns human beings’ ethical relationship with their natural and social environment. In this context, a fundamental question that can be addressed is: what are our responsibilities with respect to the environment and society, and why? Lynn (2015, p. 191) discusses that science alone cannot speak to the origin of such a crisis that is impoverishing both humanity and nature, since ‘‘its origin lies in a deeply rooted cultural conflict over our coexistence with other forms and ways of life’’. The urgent need to take action to reverse the sustainability crisis has continuously been addressed by the concept of sustainable development over the last two decades. This calls for HEIs (Higher Education Institutions) to play a critical role in building a more sustainable society. However, ‘‘to fulfil this role at the regional, national and international levels, higher education institutions themselves have to undergo critical transformation towards sustainable development in their philosophy and practices and put in place quality assurance systems to ensure that this transformation is consistently implemented and effec- tive’’ (Fadeeva, Galkute, Mader, & Scott, 2014, p. 1). A question which challenges academics and decision-makers in higher education is: what sort of teaching, learning and curricula will students need to meet the profound social, environmental, economic and political challenges of the 21st century? Sterling Evaluation and Program Planning xxx (2015) xxx–xxx A R T I C L E I N F O Article history: Available online xxx Keywords: Quantitative Qualitative Mixed methods Paradigm Education for sustainable development RUCAS A B S T R A C T Quantitative and qualitative approaches to planning and evaluation in education for sustainable development have often been treated by practitioners from a single research paradigm. This paper discusses the utility of mixed method evaluation designs which integrate qualitative and quantitative data through a sequential transformative process. Sequential mixed method data collection strategies involve collecting data in an iterative process whereby data collected in one phase contribute to data collected in the next. This is done through examples from a programme addressing the ‘Reorientation of University Curricula to Address Sustainability (RUCAS): A European Commission Tempus-funded Programme’. It is argued that the two approaches are complementary and that there are significant gains from combining both. Using methods from both research paradigms does not, however, mean that the inherent differences among epistemologies and methodologies should be neglected. Based on this experience, it is recommended that using a sequential transformative mixed method evaluation can produce more robust results than could be accomplished using a single approach in programme planning and evaluation focussed on education for sustainable development. ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: makrakis@edc.uoc.gr (V. Makrakis). G Model EPP-1234; No. of Pages 8 Please cite this article in press as: Makrakis, V., & Kostoulas-Makrakis, N. Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Experiences from conducting a mixed methods evaluation in the RUCAS programme. Evaluation and Program Planning (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.evalprogplan.2015.07.008 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Evaluation and Program Planning jo ur n al ho m ep ag e: www .els evier .c om /lo cat e/evalp r og p lan http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.008 0149-7189/ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.