More effective use of mixed-methods evaluation designs employing quantitative and
qualitative methods requires clarification of important design and analysis issues.
Design needs include assessments of the relative costs and benefits of alternative mixed-methods designs, which can be differentiated by the independence of the different
methods and their sequential or concurrent implementation. The evaluation reported
herein illustrates an independent, concurrent mixed-method design and highlights its
significant triangulation benefits. Strategies for analyzing quantitative and qualitative
results are further needed. Underlying this analysis challenge is the issue of cross-paradigm triangulation. A comment on this issue is provided, in conjunction with
several triangulation analysis strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allison, G.T. (1971) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.
2.
Bednarz, D. (1983) "Quantity and quality in evaluation research: A divergent view." Revised version of paper presented at the Joint Meeting of the Evaluation Network and the Evaluation Research Society, Chicago.
3.
Campbell, D.T. and D.W. Fiske (1959) "Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix." Psychological Bulletin56: 81-106.
4.
Cohen, D.K. (1983) "Evaluation and reform," in A. S. Bryk (ed.) Stakeholder-Based Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5.
Cronbach, L.J. (1982) Designing Evaluations of Educational and Social Programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
6.
———and associates (1980) Toward Reform of Program Evaluation . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Denzin, N.K. (1978) The Research Act: An Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
Feldman, M. S and J.G. March (1982) "Information in organization as signal and symbol ." Administrative Science Quarterly26: 71-186.
9.
Gold, N. (1983) "Stakeholders and program evaluation: Characterizations and reflections," in A. S. Bryk (ed.) Stakeholder-Based Evaluation. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
10.
———( 1981) The Stakeholder Process in Educational Program Evaluation . Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
11.
Greene, J.C. (1984) "Toward enhancing evaluation use: organizational and methodological perspectives." Presented at the Joint Meeting of the Evaluation Network and the Evaluation Research Society , San Francisco.
12.
——— J.L. Compton, B. Ruiz, and H. Sappington (1984) "Successful strategies for implementing qualitative methods." Unpublished manuscript.
13.
Guba, E.G. and Y.S. Lincoln (1981) Effective Evaluation. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
14.
Ianni, F.A. and M.T. Orr (1979) "Toward a rapprochement of quantitative and qualitative methodologies," in T. D. Cook and C. S. Reichardt (eds.) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
Jick, T.D. (1983) "Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action," in J. Van Maanen (ed.) Qualitative Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16.
Kilmann, R.H. (1979) Social Systems Design. New York : North-Holland.
17.
Knapp, M.S. (1979) "Ethnographic contributions to evaluation research," in T. D. Cook and C. S. Reichardt (eds.) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18.
Leviton, C.C. and E.F. Hughes (1981) "Research on the utilization of evaluation : a review and synthesis." Evaluation Review5: 525-548.
19.
Lotto, L.S. (1983) "Revisiting the role of organizational effectiveness in education evaluation." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis5: 367-378.
20.
Madey, D.L. (1982) "Some benefits of integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in program evaluation, with illustrations." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis4: 223-236.
21.
Mark, M.M. and R.L. Shotland (1984) "Problems in drawing inferences from multiple methodologies ." Presented at the Joint Meeting of the Evaluation Network and the Evaluation Research Society, San Francisco .
22.
Maynard-Moody, S. and C. McClintock (1981) "Square pegs in round holes: program evaluation and organizational uncertainty." Policy Studies Journal9: 644-666.
23.
McClintock, C. and J.C. Greene (forthcoming) "Triangulation in practice." Evaluation and Program Planning.
24.
———( 1984) "Conceptual and methodological considerations in assessing information needs for planning and evaluation." Program Evaluation Studies Paper Series 6, Department of Human Service Studies, Cornell University.
25.
McClintock, C. and C. Nocera (1984) "Information management in program planning and evaluation: a study of program development in Extension home economics." Program Evaluation Studies Paper Series 8, Department of Human Services Studies, Cornell University.
26.
Nisbett, R. and L. Ross (1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
27.
Norris, S.P. (1983) "The inconsistencies at the foundation of construct validation theory," In E. R. House (ed.) Philosophy of Evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation 19. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
28.
Patton, M.Q. (1980) Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29.
———( 1978) Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30.
Phillips, D.C. (1983) "After the wake: postpositivist educational thought ." Educational Researcher12: 4-12.
31.
Reichardt, C.S. and T.D. Cook (1979) "Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods," in T. D. Cook and C. S. Reichardt (eds.) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
Sieber, S.D. (1973) "The integration of field work and survey methods ." American Journal of Sociology78: 135-159.
33.
Smith, J.K. (1983a) "Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue." Educational Researcher12: 6-13.
34.
———( 1983b) "Quantitative versus interpretive: The problem of conducting social inquiry," in E. R. House (ed.) Philosophy of Evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation 19. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35.
Thompson, B. and J.A. King (1981). "Evaluation utilization: a literature review and research agenda." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles .
36.
Trend, M.G. (1979) "On the reconciliation of qualitative and quantitative analyses: a case study," in T. D. Cook and C. S. Reichardt (eds.) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37.
Webb, E.J., D.T. Campbell, R.D. Schwartz, and L. Sechrest (1980) Nonreactive Measures in Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
38.
———( 1966) Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally .
39.
Weiss, C.H. (1983) "Toward the future of stakeholder approaches in evaluation," in A. S. Bryk (ed.) Stakeholder-Based Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
40.
———( 1975) "Evaluation research in the political context," in E. L. Streuning and M. Guttentag (eds.) Handbook of Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
