|
Annie
Fisher & Sharon James 2008 Considering
triangulation as a means of strengthening data in interpretive research
1.
Triangulation: Qualitative
research is inherently multimethod in focus. Flick
(2002:226) A range of methodological literature (for example, Denscombe, 2003; Flick, 2002; Silverman, 2000, 2006; Wellington, 2000) suggests that conducting interpretive research is inextricably bound up with collecting multiple versions of ‘reality’ or ‘truth’. Without this series of lenses, it is suggested that the resulting uni-dimensional view of the situation is inadequate in providing the researcher with the means to ‘interpret’ what is perceived. 2.
A Basic
Definition: “An attempt to map out,
or explain more fully, the richness and complexity of human behavior by
studying it from more than one standpoint“ Cohen, Manion and Morrison
(2000:112)
Silverman’s
later definition provides the analogy with navigation: "Comparing different kinds of data (e.g. quantitative and
qualitative) and different methods (e.g. observation and interviews) to
see
whether they corroborate one another. This form of comparison, called
triangulation, derives from navigation, where different bearings give
the
correct position of an object". Silverman
(1993:156) In more recent writing on interpreting qualitative data, Silverman (2006) suggests that whatever the researcher’s theoretical stance, the issue of validity is central. In interpretive research, this combination of “a variety of theories, methods, observers, and empirical materials to produce a more accurate, comprehensive and objective representation of the object of study” (p.201) has often been considered to be the most effective way of ensuring validity; it was assumed that if a variety of methods allowed the same conclusions to be drawn, validity had been established. 3.
The
interpretive researcher: often seeks to
address validity and reliability through the use of triangulation. This
can
lead to the misguided search for a single
truth. Mason (1995) According to
Eisner (1998:55), in any research “the
need for replicability is a need for reliability” as the “need for
relevance is
the need for validity”; he describes the use of coherence,
corroboration and
consensus in the evaluation of qualitative research as “structural
corroboration”: the use of multiple data sources so that conclusions
can be
“structurally corroborated”. This is clearly similar to triangulation. Mason (1995) suggests
methodological triangulation as a way of corroborating the data in
qualitative
case studies. This implies that we may obtain a ‘true’ understanding of
the
situation by seeking the intersection of, for example, interview and
observational data though a process of ‘overlaying’. This has clear
links to the
vexed question of ‘truth; however, as
Silverman (1993) cautions, if we conceive reality as socially
constructed, and
context-dependent, then no one ‘phenomenon’ can be applied to all cases
to
provide a definitive and objective explanation. Silverman (2006) and
others (for example:
Cresswell, 2007; Fielding and Fielding, 1986; Mason, 1995, 2000; Flick,
2002),
however, posit that, contrary to Denzin’s(1970) original theorizing on
method
triangulation (see slide 4) as a means of finding ‘truth’, this is not
adequate
in social research In a quest for
reliability, Silverman (1993) cautions that if we conceive reality as
socially
constructed, and context-dependent, then no one ‘phenomenon’ can be
applied to
all cases. We also need to be aware of the naiveté inherent in a
search for
ultimate ‘truth’ through triangulation. 4.
Denzin’s
Typology: Data triangulation – time,
space, person; investigator triangulation; theory triangulation;
methodological
triangulation. (1970,
In
Wellington,2000) As an early advocate of
triangulation, Denzin’s (1970) original typology is much discussed
(Wellington,
2000; Denscombe, 2007). To overcome partial views of any ‘case’, Denzin
suggests using data triangulation, subdivided into (1) time:
considering
cross-sectional and longitudinal studies; (2) space: engaging in
comparative
study of populations, countries, and (3) person: at the level of the
individual, the interaction between groups and the collection level. He
goes on
to suggest investigator triangulation where more than one person
investigates
the same phenomena; theory triangulation where alternative or competing
theories are applied to the situation, and finally, methodological
triangulation. Methodological
triangulation appears the most complex, comprising ‘within method’,
whereby the
same method is used on different occasions, and ‘between method’ where
different methods are employed in relation to the same subject. To
this, he
adds a further possibility: checking interpretations with the
participants to
ensure accurate representation of views and attitudes. Faulkner’s (1982, in
Wellington, 2000)notion of ‘triads’ is extremely similar in that he
proposes
enquiry should rest on three ‘legs’, each of which represents a
separate method
of data collection; for example interviews, observation, and scrutiny
of
documents. The
concerns of what constitutes truth, validity and reliability in
interpretive
research and to what extent research
findings can be applied to alternative situations (generalisability)
continue
to be debated between epistemologies and even within interpretive
research.
While one may argue the advantages and disadvantages of this
multimethod
approach, as one can with all methods of forming validity and
reliability, it
really becomes a debate on the epistemological stance of those
participating in
the debate. Silverman (1985, in Cohen et al. 2000) suggests that
triangulation
is positivistic in stance and “that this is most clearly exposed in
data
triangulation as it assumes that a multiple data source (concurrent
validity)
is superior to a single data source or instrument”. 5.
Confusion
for Novice Researchers? “Simplicity and rigour” are
preferable to “an illusory search for ‘the full picture’”. Silverman (2000: 100) Good
case study research requires at least 6 different types of information.
Yin (2003) For the novice
researcher, deciding on methods of enquiry can be confusing. According
to Mason
(1995), in qualitative case studies, methodological triangulation aids
data corroboration
and Yin (2003) confirms that good case-study research requires at least
six
different types of information. This implies that we may obtain a
‘true’
understanding of the situation by seeking the intersection of, for
example, a range of interview and
observational data
though a process of ‘overlaying’. However, Silverman (2000:100)
suggests
“simplicity and rigour” are preferable to “an illusory search for the
‘full
picture’”. 6.
Painting
a rich picture “No single method holds the key to truth.”Denscombe
(2003) “The combination of multiple methodological
practices…adds rigour, breadth, complexity, richness and depth to an
inquiry.”
Flick (2002: 229) Fielding and Fielding
(1986) clarify the position somewhat; although multiple sources of
information
cannot give ‘objective truth’ they can be more effectively applied if
the
researcher follows a set of guidelines: begin with a theoretical
perspective
(for example, constructionism); chose methods and data which will
provide an
account of structure and meaning within the context under examination.
For
Webster and Mertova (2007) similarly, triangulation does not add to the
validity
of a narrative approach to research; they believe that the real test of
validity is that readers find the account ‘believable’.
As Flick (2006) states, triangulation is not
a tool of validation, but an alternative to it. 7.
Slide
7 provides an example of rich data collection This allows for different
lines of enquiry and provides qualitative and
quantitative data. 8.
A
richer picture - Crystallization? “Validity
for postmodernist texts is not the triangle…the central imagery is the
crystal…which combines symmetry and substance with an infinite variety
of
shapes, substances, transmutations, multi-dimensionalities, and angles
of
approach.” Richardson and Saint-Pierre,
2005, in Denzin and Lincoln, 2005 Richardson and Saint-Pierre
talk of “CAP (creative analytical processes) ethnographies” (p2005:962). In this postmodern view, knowledge is seen as
fragmentary, situated, and influenced by the self; there are far more
than
three sides to any story. Rather than working with a fixed,
two-dimensional
model, hoping to find a central ‘truth’, they use the metaphor of a
crystal
which acts as a prism. Here there are multiple viewpoints; what we see
depends
on our angle and there can be no single truth. This multi-faceted
structure
produces deep, yet complex, and, paradoxically partial understanding. Taylor (1996:44) explains the paradox is that “we know more
and doubt that we know”, but has no doubt that the importance of
“struggle,
ambiguity and contradiction” within the data that “provides us with a
deepened complex,
thoroughly partial understanding “ of
that which we research. A crystalline
approach, according to Richardson (1997, in Denzin and Lincoln, 2003)
allows
for shifts, changes and alterations in focus without being “amorphous”
(p.280).
This notion of research as an interweaving of “discovery, seeing,
telling,
storying and representation” (p.280) perhaps represents more clearly
the
process an interpretive researcher experiences as she struggles to
present a
representative rather than ‘accurate’ picture of the subject. 9.
Advantages ·
Provides
a range of views and perspectives ·
Provides
a wider picture ·
Allows
findings to be corroborated or questioned ·
May increase validity ·
Is a
pragmatic strategy (Schatzman & Strauss 1974) ·
Enables
questionnaire data to be verified through interview ·
Allows
qualitative and quantitative data to be combined According to Flick (2006)
knowledge obtained through qualitative methods
may be further grounded by “systematically extending and completing the
possibilities
of knowledge production” (390). Where a variety of methods are used to
build a
rich picture, discrepancies and inconsistencies may occur, but, as
Bryman
(1998) and Matheson (1988) suggest, these should be expected. The
researcher
should not question if what they have found is ‘right’ but undertake
further
probing to explain the discrepancies. "In
practice, triangulation as a strategy
provides a rich and complex picture of some social phenomenon being
studied,
but rarely does it provide a clear path to a singular view of what is
the case.
Because of the predominance of the assumption that triangulation will
result in
a single valid proposition, we look for convergence of evidence and
miss what I
see as the greater value of triangulating. More accurately, there are
three
outcomes that might result from a triangulation strategy….convergence,
inconsistency,
and contradiction". Mathison
(1988: 13, 17) 10.
Disadvantages ·
Each
data set may be under analysed ·
Overlaying
data is a complex process ·
Fragments
of data may be used out of context ·
May
lead to over generalisation ·
‘Verification’
may not be accurate – people do not necessarily tell the ‘truth’ Unlike navigational
triangulation, in which a ‘true’ point can be
established, this is not possible in interpretative research. Different
perspectives might point in similar directions, but are unlikely to
converge at
a point of reality. Hammersley and
Atkinson (1983) caution that collection of multiple sources of data can
create,
rather than solve, problems in reaching understanding; a common
problem, for
example, when working with multiple sources is to under-investigate the
original dataset. 11.
Opportunities
for Reflection ·
Can triangulation ever provide an accurate
picture of what has happened? ·
Can triangulation add validity to data? ·
By examining multiple data sets is there a
danger of overlooking an
important element? ·
Is the crystal a more effective metaphor? We would be delighted if you responded to
these discussion points on The Hive. Thanks, Annie & Sharon References Bryman, A. (1998)
Quality and Quantity in Social Research. London: Unwin Hyman. Cohen, L., Manion, L.
and Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education (5th
Ed.)
London: RoutledgeFalmer Cresswell, J. (2007)
Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Denscombe, M. (2003)
The Good Research Guide (2nd Ed.) Buckingham: OUP. Denzin, N. and
Lincoln, Y. (eds.) (2005) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand
Oaks. SAGE. Denzin, N. and
Lincoln, Y. (eds.) (2003) The Landscape of Qualitative Research (2nd
Ed.) Thousand Oaks. SAGE. Eisner,
E.W. (1998) The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the
Enhancement of
Educational Practice. New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall. Fielding, N. and
Fielding, J. (1986) Linking Data. London: SAGE. Flick, U. (2006) An
Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: SAGE. Mason, J. (1996)
Qualitative researching. London: SAGE. Mathison, S. (1988) Why
Triangulate? In Educational Researcher, 2. Miles, M. and
Huberman, A. (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis. London: SAGE. Silverman, D. (2000)
Doing Qualitative Research. London: SAGE. Silverman, D. (2006)
Interpreting Qualitative Data. (3rdEd.) London: SAGE. Taylor,
P. (1996) Papers presented at the Institute of Drama educational
Research –
July 1995 at Griffin University Nathan Qld Australia.
Australia: Routledge Webster, L. and
Mertova, P. (2007) Using Narrative Enquiry. London: Routledge. Wellington, J. (2000)
Educational Research: Contemporary Issues and Practical Approaches.
London:
Continuum. |