Archipelago approach

Lawrenz & Huffman, (2002)

The Archipelago Approach To Mixed Method Evaluation

This approach likens the different data collection methods to groups of islands; all interconnected ‘underwater’ by the underlying ‘truth’ of the program. This approach has its advantages since it is often difficult to uncover the complete ‘truth’ so using a combination of data types and analysis procedures can facilitate it. The authors quote Green & Caracelli (1997) and their three stances to mixing paradigms, the purist, pragmatic and dialectical stances then attempt to map their archipelago approach to each of these three stances. Thereby opposing Green and Caracelli’s view that the stances are distinct, in fact the authors believe the their metaphor allows for simultaneous consideration and thus provides a framework for integrating designs.

A nationally funded project is evaluated using the archipelago approach to highlight its benefits. Science teachers in 13 high schools across the nation were recruited and consideration was made to the level of mixing the methods in an area that traditionally used a more ‘logical-positivist’ research approach. So three different approaches were used:

1.     Quasi-experimental design – both quantitative and qualitative assessments of achievement. About half of the evaluation effort in terms of time and money were spent on this approach. This was pragmatic as it was included to meet the needs of stakeholders.

2.     A social interactionism approach – gathered data through site visits to schools and classrooms and observations made through open-ended field notes and this data produced narratives descriptions of each site. About one third of the evaluation effort focused on this approach.

3.     A phenomenological study of six of the teachers during implementation of the new curriculum via in-depth interviews.

The archipelago approach extends the idea of triangulation, which is linear to take into account the complex, unequally weighted and multi-dimensional manner. When considering the underlying truth about the effectiveness of the program, achievement was viewed as likely to be the strongest indicator and therefore most effort went into this approach. The learning environment was considered the next strongest indicator and the teacher’s experience as the least.

‘This approach created a way for the authors to preserve some unique aspects of each school while at the same time considering that the schools were linked in some fundamental way’. (p.337)It is hoped that this approach can lead evaluators to think less in either/or ways about mixing methods and more in complex integrative ways.