TRIANGULATION IN EVALUATION
Design
and
Analysis Issues
JENNIFER GREENE
CHARLES McCLINTOCK
Cornell University
onsiderable
tive
debate has accompanied the emergence of qualitamethodology and the naturalistic paradigm of inquiry
within the evaluation arena. The intensity and persistence of this debate
attests to its importance for both the theory and practice of evaluation.
Though originally focused on the relative merits of quantitative versus
qualitative methods and of positivist versus naturalistic paradigms, the
debate has shifted to questions about the complementarity of these
alternative methods and the degree of cross-perspective integration
possible. This shift signals a greater acceptance of the naturalistic perspective-or at least of qualitative methods-within the evaluation
community. There is also an emerging consensus that inquiry methods
themselves are not inherently linked to one or the other paradigm
AU FHORS NOTE: An earlier version of this article was presented at the Joint Meeting
of the Evaluation Network and the Evaluation Research Society, San Francisco, 1984.
EVALUATION REVIEW, Vol. 9
1985 Sage Publications, Inc
523
524
525
526
Examples of relatively independent and concurrent use of quanqualitative methods to study the same phenomenon are
more rare. (Note that an independent, sequential mixed-method
strategy approaches existing practice in the profession at large, with
different researchers/evaluators building on each others work.)
However, there is a clear need for multiple &dquo;competing&dquo; evaluations,
smaller in scope than the single &dquo;blockbuster&dquo; study, differentiated
by the designs and methods of separate project teams (Cronbach and
associates, 1980) or by orientation to a single stakeholder group
(Cohen, 1983; Weiss, 1983). The benefits cited for this strategy are
substantial, including improved project manageability and increased
opportunities for true triangulation.
This brief review underscores the need for comparative assessments
of various mixed-method designs to help dispel current confusion
about their interchangeability. These assessments should clarify the
relative costs and benefits of different designs on such criteria as project management, validity, and utilization of results. As illustrated,
different designs pose different logistical requirements, and the logic
of triangulation requires not just multiple methods but their independent, concurrent implementation as well (McClintock and Greene,
titative and
forthcoming).
DATA ANALYSIS IN MIXED-METHODS DESIGNS
527
Cross-philosophy triangulation is not possible because of the necessity of subsuming one approach to another. There are conflicting requisites from the totality of the perspective, i.e., the location of causality and its derivatives regarding
validity, reliability, the limits of social science, and its mission.... There have
been calls for the selective use of parts of the &dquo;qualitative and quantitative
paradigms&dquo; in the belief that the researcher can somehow stand outside a
perspective when choosing the ways to conduct social research. I have argued
that even for individuals who can see the differences of alternative perspectives it
is not possible to simultaneously work within them because at certain points in
the research process to adhere to the tenets of one is to violate those of the other.
Put differently, the requirements of differing perspectives are at odds (Bednarz,
1983: 39, 41: emphasis in the original).
(Additional perspectives on this debate are found in Guba and Lincoln, 1981: 76-77; Ianni and Orr, 1979; Patton, 1980; and Smith,
1983a, 1983b.)
A TRIANGULATED EVALUATION
OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
To illustrate these mixed-method design and analysis issues, we will
review a two-part evaluation of a structured program development
process used by an adult and community education organization. The
evaluation included both a mail questionnaire administered to a
528
statewide
TRIANGULATION DESIGN
tion focused
on
development, including the degree to which current practices of information gathering, exchange, interpretation, and reporting met needs
for program decision making and accountability.
More specifically, the studys conceptual framework focused on information needs in program development and was developed from
literatures on evaluation utilization and organizational decision making. Utilization issues centered on the importance of identifying
evaluation questions that are of priority interest to program
stakeholders (Gold, 1981; Guba and Lincoln, 1981; Patton, 1978).
Evaluation studies that address important stakeholder information
needs are more likely to produce results perceived as useful and actually used. However, understanding these information needs-or more
broadly, the role of information in program decision making-is
complicated considerably by organizational and political factors
(Lotto, 1983; Thompson and King, 1981; Weiss, 1975). For example,
529
530
content
of the questionnaire and the interview are contrasted in Table 1. This table portrays
the deliberate linkage of the two methods with their respective
paradigms. That is, the positivist nature of the questionnaire component is reflected in its intent to derive prescriptions for change from a
deductive analysis of responses on a predetermined set of specific
variables. Criteria of technical rigor guided questionnaire development (e.g., minimum measurement error), data collection (e.g., maximum response rate), and analysis (e.g., statistical significance)
toward a reductionistic prioritizing of major findings. In contrast, the
naturalistic nature of the interview component is reflected in its intent
to describe and understand inductively the domain of inquiry from the
multiple perspective of respondents. Criteria of relevance and emic
meaning guided interview development (e.g., open-ended, unstructured), data collection (e.g., emergent, on-site), and analysis (e.g., inductive, thematic) toward an expansionistic, holistic description of
patterns of meaning in context.
TRIANGULATION ANALYSIS
In
this
531
TABLE 1
Dimensions from Reichardt and Cook (1979) and Guba and Lincoln (1981). Not
applicable to this study and thus excluded are dimensions relevant to issues of causality and to the design and implementation of a treatment.
a.
532
three levels:
for change.
?
zs
5
3
Q)
(L)
9
b
r.
CISQ)
V.
.8
K
Q)
a
Q)
..t::
N
..:
.4 :..0
< A
H
:z
<I)
(L)
~4
Q)
>
m
.ck.
z
0
v.I
Q)
Q
Q)
x
4..~
.z
Cd
533
10
0
.rg
r_0
u
N
W
.4
PQ
<
H
534
0
m
w
m
r.
c
C
$a~
rI)
bD
0
..
0
1.
(L)
.t:J
r-
:3
c
©g
ZCIS....
0 .!! ~:
U
>
#t
.S !!
.fi
ii
N
d) -
i _
E
d) 4 a; t3
..
13 C:
Q,=
.S .g
w
~
4)
r= 11
z CY
4.6
535
536
parallelism
;t~
o
0>
04
D
f
il4
c
u
c,3
S
o
o
-~4
.5
}
13
0Cd
M- I-<
,4Q IM4il40
CQ04Q)2
E-<
a
c
.9
f VJ
(L)
CY;:j
8
0
n
lI4
bD
c
~5
c
lI4
0
!?
537
.1
VJ
&dquo;5
VJ
C1)
1:4
C1)
>f
P.
0
t)
A
C1)
1
O 1
.4-
o~
14
:l
&dquo;0
c:
-~ ~
~
fl
f2q
C1)
F. 04
C1)t
C1)
+1
i
0
It~
o
duo
c
&dquo;0
s::
&dquo;4
I..
0
.cts-
538
539
more
tions, weaving the threads of the descriptive results into the fabric of
major themes. Again, this pattern overall represents that fact that the
interview analysis was guided only by broad domains of inquiry. More
specifically, (a) nearly all of the interview descriptive results, contextual and substantive, are incorporated into the major thematic findings ; (b) many of these results contribute to more than one theme; and
(c) the summary themes clearly are based on multiple sets of results.
This pattern well reflects the emergent, expansionistic, holistic nature
of the qualitative interview data analysis.
Moreover, we believe that this within-method consistency for both
study components, revealed in the differing substance, form, and
derivation of their summary findings, is largely attributable to the independence of the two efforts. In our view, this independence preserved the assumptive and methodological integrity of each component.
But, what are the implications of these different summary findings for
between-method triangulation? For answers to this, we now turn to an
analysis of recommendations for change.
Recommendations for change. The questionnaire data identify improvements needed in the program development process, whereas the
interview data describe the complexities and details of this process as
conducted in the two selected counties. These results are consistent
with the clients expectation that the detail and depth of the interview
findings would make questionnaire recommendations more meaningful and easier to interpret.
Implementation of the questionnaire-based recommendations by
themselves is constrained by two limitations of the methodology, one
obvious and the other less apparent. First, a mail questionnaire, even
with pilot testing and open-ended questions, is limited in its capacity
for representing details of description, nuances of meaning, and patterns of interaction, a limitation especially problematic for crosssectional designs. With the addition of the contextual data from the
interviews, this limitation is at least partially countered. As shown in
Tables 2, 3, and 4, the interview data highlight the complexity of information sharing both inside and outside the organization. There are
many formal actors in this process: county and state staff, volunteers,
campus faculty, outside agency personnel, and community leaders.
Interview analyses identify the strength of relations among individual
actors, the network of interconnections among groups of actors, and
540
the types of information exchange that occur. Interview data also portray the feelings and values of the various actors for each others contributions and for the organization as a whole.
The second limitation of the mail questionnaire is, ironically, also
one of its major strengths. With a mail questionnaire, it is possible to
collect data from a larger cross section of the population for a given
cost and, therefore, to attempt to make the recommendations for
change representative of the respondent groups sampled. In an actionoriented study, however, it is often necessary to ask the kinds of
specific, detailed questions that render the questionnaire too specialized for some respondent groups. This is the case in the present study, in
which the response rate for the volunteers stratum (53 %) is much
lower than that for the rest of the sample (86%). Thus, although
the questionnaire is more representative of the organization on a
statewide basis than is the interview, it systematically excludes
respondents who feel marginal to the formalized aspects of program
development represented in the questionnaire. The interview format
more successfully captures the perceptions and understandings of all
participants in the program development process. The interviews
more integrated portrayal of this process thereby strengthens the final
541
primarily
to
paradigms.
The integrity of the method-paradigm linkage in the present study
is illustrated by the differences in the major findings of each component. Each set of findings well represents the contrasting assumptions
of the methodology used. Further, it is precisely these differences that
thwart triangulation efforts at this level. More successful, in terms of
congruence and complementarity of findings, are triangulation efforts
at the levels of specific descriptive findings and discrete recommendations for change. This specificity and discreteness, however, reflect the
particularistic, reductionist stances of the questionnaire paradigm, not
the expansionist, holistic stances of the interview paradigm.
Further, in the clients written summary of recommendations for
change, interview results were consciously allocated a secondary, supportive role (Trend, 1979), as consistent with the study objectives.
This all argues that our triangulation effort was conducted not across
paradigms, but rather from the perspective represented by the questionnaire. To reinforce this point, we imagined what this effort would
have looked like if conducted from the perspective represented by the
interview. Our speculations suggest that very little of any questionnaire data would fit with, make sense, or otherwise be of convergent
or complementary value to the interview results.
542
CONCLUSION
This article uses the results of a mixed-method evaluation to illustrate significant design and analysis issues related to integrating
quantitative and qualitative methods, specifically between-method
and cross-paradigm triangulation. The strong link between method
and paradigm deliberately established in this study significantly
facilitated the discussion.
The mixed-method evaluation design involved the independent,
concurrent implementation of a quantitative questionnaire and a
qualitative interview guide, both investigating the same phenomena.
The benefits of this mixed-method strategy appear to be twofold.
First, unique to this strategy, the independence of the two study components preserved the assumptive and methodological integrity of
each, thus maximizing the intended value of each set of results and
avoiding the kinds of between-method tensions reported by Trend
(1979) and Knapp (1979). Second, opportunities for triangulation of
results were significantly aided by the independent and concurrent implementation of both components. As illustrated, between-method
triangulation of results can enhance fulfillment of study objectives
beyond that provided by a single method (though increased costs,
notably evaluator time, must also be noted). This illustration also offered several specific strategies for triangulated analysis of quantitative and qualitative results.
However, even with the method-paradigm linkage, we have argued
that the triangulation effort in this study was conducted from the
perspective represented by the questionnaire and thus does not constitute an instance of cross-paradigm triangulation. Different
epistemological origins and assumptions preclude the possibility or
sensibility of cross-paradigm triangulation.
NOTES
1. For simplicity, the terms "paradigm" and "perspective" will be used interchangeably, and the labels positivist and naturalistic will be used respectively to refer to
(a) the traditional, dominant perspectives of logical positivism and postpositivism,
realism, experimentalism and (b) the emergent perspectives of idealism, phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, and ethnomethodology in the evaluation field.
543
Differences among members of these two camps of perspectives will not be addressed (see Bednarz, 1983; Norris, 1983; Phillips, 1983; and Smith, 1983a, 1983b). The
quantitative and qualitative labels will be reserved for types of methods and data.
2. For discussions of the substantive findings of the questionnaire and interview
components of this study, see McClintock and Nocera (1984) and Greene (1984),
respectively.
3. Three individuals were members of both teams.
4. Other major influences on information needs are the cognitive processes and
personality styles of the individual users of information. See Nisbett and Ross (1980)
and Kilmann (1979) for two different approaches to understanding these individual difference factors.
5. In one of the counties, the interviews preceded the questionnaire, whereas the
order was reversed in the other. The interview data from both counties were similar, and
the questionnaire data consistent with responses statewide. Thus, the double assessment
in these two counties did not seem to affect their results.
6. Both the questionnaire and the interviews also served instructional purposes, providing field experiences for graduate courses in evaluation methods.
REFERENCES
ALLISON, G. T. (1971) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Boston: Little, Brown.
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.
CAMPBELL, D. T. and D. W. FISKE (1959) "Convergent and discriminant validation
by the multitrait-multimethod matrix." Psychological Bulletin 56: 81-106.
COHEN, D. K. (1983) "Evaluation and reform," in A. S. Bryk (ed.) StakeholderBased Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
CRONBACH, L. J. (1982) Designing Evaluations of Educational and Social Programs.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
———and associates (1980) Toward Reform of Program Evaluation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
DENZIN, N. K. (1978) The Research Act: An Introduction to Sociological Methods.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
544
methodological perspectives."
———
Jossey-Bass.
IANNI, F. A. and M. T. ORR (1979) "Toward
545
Sociology
78: 135-159.