Eco-Mapping as a mixed method research tool

Using eco-mapping as a mixed-method research tool.

 

What are eco-maps?

 

Eco-maps were first developed by Hartman (Hartman, 1995) and is based on ecology, the connection between a living thing and its environment and how this connection is maintained and enhanced. Using only the social aspect of ecology, a tool was created to represent the social systems and connections that people use to help them interact with the physical and social environment more effectively. This implies that people form relationships that provide resources including social support, information and practical help to assist them in their everyday lives. Eco-maps allow a graphical representation of the relationships that people have and their connection to larger social networks (Wright & Leahey, 2000), this can provide a researcher with valuable information about a persons social network, including the structure, size and function of the network and individual connections (Tracy, Whittaker, Pugh, Kapp, & Overstreet, 1994). Eco-maps are a useful tool for mapping and tracking changes to people and their social relations and contacts over a period of time, capturing the participants own perceptions (McCarty, 2002),in a visual, standardized manner (Hartman, 1995).

 

Eco-maps are built upon 3 concepts, relationships, social networks and social support. Relationships refer to individual connections that a person may have formed to other people; social network refers to the people with which a person interacts with on a day-to-day basis. Social support refers to the support of benefit that a person receives through relations with other people.

 

Eco-maps have been successfully used as a clinical tool (Early, Smith, Todd, & Beem, 2000). Modified eco-mapping techniques have been used as a way of identifying and advertising the support available to people who were dying and to identify associations between different support providers. However, it was only fairly recently that eco-mapping was first used as a research tool, (Ray & Street, 2005) used eco-mapping techniques to gather information about the social networks of carers living with motor neuron disease (MND) and found that this technique can be useful for facilitating discussion around the structure and strength of social networks. There are calls for eco-maps to be used more for research purposes (Rempel, Neufield, & Kushner, 2007), and suggestions that eco-mapping could be used to demonstrate the social support available for people seeking behavioral change, indicating the impact that this support system may have on the efficacy of behavioral change (Ray & Street, 2005).

 

How are eco-maps constructed?

 

Eco-maps are usually constructed like a spider diagram with the person or family being represented in a circle in the middle, with each social contact being displayed around the circle in individual circles. Social contacts are identified by the person the Eco map is focused on, prompts to identify these contacts could include work; school, community, health care professional, family members, neighbors and friends (Tracy, et al., 1994). Lines can be used to represent the strength of a relationship between the person in the middle and each social contact, common technique for this are changing the thickness of the line or the number of lines used (Hartman, 1995). The number of lines used can represent the strength of relationship in a likert style or the type of relationship (e.g. colleague, acquaintance, close relationship). Extra details about the type of relationship can be added by adding a note to each line or social contact (Hartman, 1995). A slashed or zig-zagging line can be used to show a troubled relationship. Arrows can be added to lines to depict the flow of resources within the relationship and whether a person sees this relationship as reciprocal. Other questions can be asked to construct an eco-map, for example the type of relationship (R) (e.g. neighbor), the type of support received (S), and the frequency of this support (Center, 2005)

 

Eco-maps can be conducted in 3 ways; the interviewer may represent data as they see it; the interviewee may do this with assistance from the interviewer or there may be a collaborative effort from the interviewee and interviewer (Hartman, 1995). The first option may affect the validity of the study by not providing the participant with the opportunity to think about and alter their eco-map (Ray & Street, 2005) The second option may lead to participants forgetting to add details to the eco-map (Tracy, et al., 1994). However, the third option would allow a flexible and collaborative approach whilst still providing all of the details needed for the eco-map (Ray & Street, 2005).

 

Eco-maps can be a useful tool for examining how social contacts have interacted and changed over a period of time by conducting a number of Eco-maps (Ray & Street, 2005). In complicated situations, like the family, it has been suggested that sequential eco-maps can be useful(Mattaini, 1995), particularly when the interconnected networks of stressors, supports, resources, and issues are complicated and a single measure simply cannot capture all of the data of importance.

Issues can arise in the way that the eco-map is conducted. It appears that the technique works better when people can identify each of their social contacts before categorizing them and adding lines, as this can disrupt the flow of the discussion in the co-construction of the eco-map (Ray & Street, 2005). Using a standardized set of questions throughout the construction of the eco-map can help to solve this problem. A standardized set of questions and a detailed explanation of the technique has been provided in the literature (McCormick, Stricklin, Nowak, & Rous, 2008).

Are eco-maps a valid measure?

Using data from the type/strength of relationships and the number of people identified in an eco-map, Calix (2004) was able to compare this information to a number of quantitative measures. Eco-maps showed an acceptable and satisfactory reliability (α = .86; test-retest after three weeks, r = .78, p < .01), however, contradictory correlations with concurrent instruments were found (Multi-Dimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988, r = .19, p = .09; The Young Adult Social Support Inventory, McCubbin & Thompson, 1991, r = .33, p < .01). The partial validity and reliability of eco-maps as a research tool is promising based on the limited operationalized variables used.

The validity of using visual images alongside text to give deeper insight into sociological data has been confirmed (Harper, 1994). Eco-mapping can be a useful tool to visually represent the composition and content of social networks; however some researchers have claimed the insight it can provide beyond this is limited;

 

“The mapping process needs to be undertaken in conjunction with a qualitative interview and/or participant observation to give contextual information necessary to gain a wider perspective on the situation.” (Ray & Street, 2005)

Can eco-mapping be used to provide more information?

Eco-maps suffer from the limitation of providing highly detailed qualitative information, however, they lack the ability to provide quantitative information to be rigorously tested or compared to other quantitative variables. There have been previous efforts in the past to “quantify” eco-maps. Harold, Mercier & Calorossi (1997) used an eco-mapping activity together with researchers feedback on the experiences and research, with coding schemes used to organize and analyse data. One grid was used to look at each family’s reported themes and the assessment (line thickness) of each family member, whilst a second coding system looked at the consistency in the thickness of lines between family members and the choice of words used to describe this. This type of analysis represents a useful effort to standardize data collected from eco-maps, however, has its limitations with the attempts to code qualitative data.

 

Another effort to quantify data from eco-maps (Carra-Mittini, 2008) comes from using Social Network Analysis (SNA) on the data collected from eco-maps to provide information on the eco-map and compare this to supportive network concepts. This provides useful information on a single eco-map, however, SNA is not a theory or methodology, it is a perspective and because of this hypotheses or predictions about the data gathered from eco-maps cannot be tested (Marin & Wellman, 2009).

 

An alternative form of quantitative eco-map is the RC –Eco-map (Colesso, 2011). This is a research technique investigating eco-maps from a relational competence perspective. Whilst research in this area looks promising and the data collected from these activities appears to be valid and reliable (Colesso, 2011), the categorical nature of the research tool, may restrict, the participant involvement found in the traditional eco-map.

 

Allowing participants to co-construct their eco-maps alongside a coding activity to record quantitative information based upon participants own qualitative information may provide a mixed-method research tool that could be useful for research purposes.

 

References

Carrà Mittini, E. (2008). Un’osservazione che progetta. Strumenti per l’analisi e la

progettazione relazionale di interventi sociali [Designing observation. Tools for analysis and relational design of social interventions]. Milano: LED.

Calix, A. R. (2004). Is the Ecomap a valid and reliable social work tool to measure     social support? Master thesis in Social Work. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803.

Center, N. E. C. T. (2005). Using Eco-Mapping as a Research Tool Research Spotlight.

Colesso, W. (2011). RC-Ecomap: A valid and reliable measure tool to assess intimate relationships. Doctoral Thesis in Psychology. Università degli Studi di Padova

Early, B. P., Smith, E. D., Todd, L., & Beem, T. (2000). The needs and supportive networks of the dying: an assessment instrument and mapping procedure for hospice patients. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care, 17, 87-96.

Harper, D. (1994). On the authority of the image: visual methods at the crossroads In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research   (pp. 403-412). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications  

Harold, R. D., Mercier, L. R., & Colarossi, G. (1997). Eco Maps: a tool to bridge the practice- research gap. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 24, 29-44.

Hartman, A. (1995). Diagrammatic assessment of family relationships    Families in Society   76, 111.

Mattaini, M. (1995). Visualizing practice with children and families.   . Early Child Development and Care 106, 59-74.

McCarty, C. (2002). Structure in personal networks   Journal of Social Structure(3).

McCormick, K. M., Stricklin, S., Nowak, T. M., & Rous, B. (2008). Using Eco-Mapping to Understand Family Strengths and Resources    Young Exceptional Children, 11(17), 17-28.

McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, A. I. (1991). Family assessment inventories for research         and practice. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Ray, R. A., & Street, A. F. (2005). Ecomapping: an innovative research tool for nurses   Methodological Issues in Nursing Research, 50(5), 545-552.

Rempel, G. R., Neufield, A., & Kushner, K. E. (2007). Interactive use of genograms and ecomaps in family caregiving research. Journal of Family Nursing, 13(4), 403-419.

Tracy, E. M., Whittaker, J. K., Pugh, A., Kapp, S. N., & Overstreet, E. J. (1994). Support networks of primary caregivers receiving family preservation services: an exploratory study. Families in Society   75, 481-489.

Wright, L. M., & Leahey, M. (2000). Nurses and Families: A Guide to Family Assessment and Intervention. Philadelphia, PA.: FA Davis Co.

Zimet, G. D., Dahlen, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30-41.