The Archipelago Approach To Mixed Method Evaluation

Abstract

In this article, we propose a new metaphorical framework for understanding and using mixed methods evaluation. Our re-conceptualization of mixing methods provides important insights into the theoretical and practical challenges of using a mixed method approach. Mixed methods can create philosophical and practical dilemmas in the ways data are collected, analyzed, interpreted and reported. We used an archipelago as a metaphor for resolving these challenges. An archipelago is a set of islands that loosely forms a group. Using the archipelago as a metaphor helped to clarify and re-conceptualize the evaluation approach and its findings by allowing simultaneous consideration of different mixed methods and stances. The results have implications for those attempting to use mixed methods to evaluate programs.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bogdan, R. , & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Caracelli, V. , & Greene, J. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In J. Greene & V. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New directions for evaluation (No. 74, pp. 19-32). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Greene, J. , & Caracelli, V. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In J. Greene & V. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation (No. 74, pp. 5-17). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Lawrenz, F. , Huffman, D. , & Welch, W. (2001). The science achievement of various subgroups on alternative assessment formats. Science Education, 85, 279-290.

Lawrenz, F. , Huffman, D. , & Robey, J. (in press). Relationships among student, teacher and observer perceptions of science classrooms and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education.

National Research Council . (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Foundation . (1993). User-friendly handbook for project evaluation: Science, mathematics, engineering and technology education. Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Foundation . (1996). CREATE/Evaluation Conference, Introductory Session. Washington, DC: Author.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

10.

Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization focused evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Shadish, W. R. (1993). Critical multiplism: A research strategy and its attendant tactics. In L. Sechrest (Ed.), Program evaluation: A pluralistic enterprise. New directions for program evaluation (No. 60, pp. 13-58). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

12.

Weiss, I. R. (1997). The status of science and mathematics teaching in the United States: Comparing teacher views and classroom practice to national standards. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.