RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

12.01.2015 Views

TRIANGULATION 141 student’s problem-solving ability. The researcher might observe the student working on a problem, or might talk to the student about how she is tackling the problem, or might ask the student to write down how she tackled the problem. Here the researcher has three different datacollecting instruments – observation, interview and documentation respectively. If the results all agreed – concurred – that, according to given criteria for problem-solving ability, the student demonstrated a good ability to solve a problem, then the researcher would be able to say with greater confidence (validity) that the student was good at problem-solving than if the researcher had arrived at that judgement simply from using one instrument. Concurrent validity is very similar to its partner – predictive validity – in its core concept (i.e. agreement with a second measure); what differentiates concurrent and predictive validity is the absence of a time element in the former; concurrence can be demonstrated simultaneously with another instrument. An important partner to concurrent validity, which is also a bridge into later discussions of reliability, is triangulation. Triangulation Triangulation may be defined as the use of two or more methods of data collection in the study of some aspect of human behaviour. The use of multiple methods, or the multi-method approach as it is sometimes called, contrasts with the ubiquitous but generally more vulnerable singlemethod approach that characterizes so much of research in the social sciences. In its original and literal sense, triangulation is a technique of physical measurement: maritime navigators, military strategists and surveyors, for example, use (or used to use) several locational markers in their endeavours to pinpoint a single spot or objective. By analogy, triangular techniques in the social sciences attempt to map out, or explain more fully, the richness and complexity of human behaviour by studying it from more than one standpoint and, in so doing, by making use of both quantitative and qualitative data. Triangulation is a powerful way of demonstrating concurrent validity, particularly in qualitative research (Campbell and Fiske 1959). The advantages of the multi-method approach in social research are manifold and we examine two of them. First, whereas the single observation in fields such as medicine, chemistry and physics normally yields sufficient and unambiguous information on selected phenomena, it provides only a limited view of the complexity of human behaviour and of situations in which human beings interact. It has been observed that as research methods act as filters through which the environment is selectively experienced, they are never atheoretical or neutral in representing the world of experience (Smith 1975). Exclusive reliance on one method, therefore, may bias or distort the researcher’s picture of the particular slice of reality being investigated. The researcher needs to be confident that the data generated are not simply artefacts of one specific method of collection (Lin 1976). Such confidence can be achieved, as far as nomothetic research is concerned, when different methods of data collection yield substantially the same results. (Where triangulation is used in interpretive research to investigate different actors’ viewpoints, the same method, e.g. accounts, will naturally produce different sets of data.) Further, the more the methods contrast with each other, the greater the researcher’s confidence. If, for example, the outcomes of a questionnaire survey correspond to those of an observational study of the same phenomena, the more the researcher will be confident about the findings. Or, more extreme, where the results of a rigorous experimental investigation are replicated in, say, a role-playing exercise, the researcher will experience even greater assurance. If findings are artefacts of method, then the use of contrasting methods considerably reduces the chances of any consistent findings being attributable to similarities of method (Lin 1976). We come now to a second advantage: some theorists have been sharply critical of the limited use to which existing methods of inquiry in the Chapter 6

142 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY social sciences have been put. One writer, for example, comments: Much research has employed particular methods or techniques out of methodological parochialism or ethnocentrism. Methodologists often push particular pet methods either because those are the only ones they have familiarity with, or because they believe their method is superior to all others. (Smith 1975) The use of triangular techniques, it is argued, will help to overcome the problem of ‘methodboundedness’, as it has been termed; indeed Gorard and Taylor (2004) demonstrate the value of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. In its use of multiple methods, triangulation may utilize either normative or interpretive techniques; or it may draw on methods from both these approaches and use them in combination. Referring us back to naturalistic inquiry, Lincoln and Guba (1985: 315) suggest that triangulation is intended as a check on data, while member checking, and elements of credibility, are to be used as a check on members’ constructions of data. Types of triangulation and their characteristics We have just seen how triangulation is characterized by a multi-method approach to a problem in contrast to a single-method approach. Denzin (1970b) has, however, extended this view of triangulation to take in several other types as well as the multi-method kind which he terms ‘methodological triangulation’: Time triangulation: this type attempts to take into consideration the factors of change and process by utilizing cross-sectional and longitudinal designs. Kirk and Miller (1986) suggest that diachronic reliability seeks stability of observations over time, while synchronic reliability seeks similarity of data gathered in the same time. Space triangulation: this type attempts to overcome the parochialism of studies conducted in the same country or within the same subculture by making use of cross-cultural techniques. Combined levels of triangulation: this type uses more than one level of analysis from the three principal levels used in the social sciences, namely, the individual level, the interactive level (groups), and the level of collectivities (organizational, cultural or societal). Theoretical triangulation: this type draws upon alternative or competing theories in preference to utilizing one viewpoint only. Investigator triangulation: this type engages more than one observer, data are discovered independently by more than one observer (Silverman 1993: 99). Methodological triangulation: this type uses either the same method on different occasions, or different methods on the same object of study. Many studies in the social sciences are conducted at one point only in time, thereby ignoring the effects of social change and process. Time triangulation goes some way to rectifying these omissions by making use of crosssectional and longitudinal approaches. Crosssectional studies collect data at one point in time; longitudinal studies collect data from the same group at different points in the time sequence. The use of panel studies and trend studies may also be mentioned in this connection. The former compare the same measurements for the same individuals in a sample at several different points in time; and the latter examine selected processes continually over time. The weaknesses of each of these methods can be strengthened by using a combined approach to a given problem. Space triangulation attempts to overcome the limitations of studies conducted within one culture or subculture. As Smith (1975) says, ‘Not only are the behavioural sciences culturebound, they are sub-culture-bound. Yet many such scholarly works are written as if basic principles have been discovered which would hold true as tendencies in any society, anywhere, anytime’. Cross-cultural studies may involve the

142 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY<br />

social sciences have been put. One writer, for<br />

example, comments:<br />

Much research has employed particular methods or<br />

techniques out of methodological parochialism or<br />

ethnocentrism. Methodologists often push particular<br />

pet methods either because those are the only ones<br />

they have familiarity with, or because they believe<br />

their method is superior to all others.<br />

(Smith 1975)<br />

The use of triangular techniques, it is argued,<br />

will help to overcome the problem of ‘methodboundedness’,<br />

as it has been termed; indeed<br />

Gorard and Taylor (2004) demonstrate the<br />

value of combining qualitative and quantitative<br />

methods.<br />

In its use of multiple methods, triangulation may<br />

utilize either normative or interpretive techniques;<br />

or it may draw on methods from both these<br />

approaches and use them in combination.<br />

Referring us back to naturalistic inquiry, Lincoln<br />

and Guba (1985: 315) suggest that triangulation is<br />

intended as a check on data, while member checking,<br />

and elements of credibility, are to be used as a<br />

check on members’ constructions of data.<br />

Types of triangulation and their<br />

characteristics<br />

We have just seen how triangulation is<br />

characterized by a multi-method approach to<br />

a problem in contrast to a single-method<br />

approach. Denzin (1970b) has, however, extended<br />

this view of triangulation to take in several other<br />

types as well as the multi-method kind which he<br />

terms ‘methodological triangulation’:<br />

<br />

<br />

Time triangulation: this type attempts to take<br />

into consideration the factors of change<br />

and process by utilizing cross-sectional and<br />

longitudinal designs. Kirk and Miller (1986)<br />

suggest that diachronic reliability seeks stability<br />

of observations over time, while synchronic<br />

reliability seeks similarity of data gathered in<br />

the same time.<br />

Space triangulation: this type attempts to overcome<br />

the parochialism of studies conducted in<br />

the same country or within the same subculture<br />

by making use of cross-cultural techniques.<br />

Combined levels of triangulation: this type uses<br />

more than one level of analysis from the three<br />

principal levels used in the social sciences,<br />

namely, the individual level, the interactive<br />

level (groups), and the level of collectivities<br />

(organizational, cultural or societal).<br />

Theoretical triangulation: this type draws upon<br />

alternative or competing theories in preference<br />

to utilizing one viewpoint only.<br />

Investigator triangulation: this type engages<br />

more than one observer, data are discovered<br />

independently by more than one observer<br />

(Silverman 1993: 99).<br />

Methodological triangulation: this type uses<br />

either the same method on different occasions,<br />

or different methods on the same object of<br />

study.<br />

Many studies in the social sciences are<br />

conducted at one point only in time, thereby<br />

ignoring the effects of social change and<br />

process. Time triangulation goes some way to<br />

rectifying these omissions by making use of crosssectional<br />

and longitudinal approaches. Crosssectional<br />

studies collect data at one point in<br />

time; longitudinal studies collect data from the<br />

same group at different points in the time<br />

sequence. The use of panel studies and trend<br />

studies may also be mentioned in this connection.<br />

The former compare the same measurements<br />

for the same individuals in a sample at several<br />

different points in time; and the latter examine<br />

selected processes continually over time. The<br />

weaknesses of each of these methods can be<br />

strengthened by using a combined approach to<br />

a given problem.<br />

Space triangulation attempts to overcome the<br />

limitations of studies conducted within one<br />

culture or subculture. As Smith (1975) says,<br />

‘Not only are the behavioural sciences culturebound,<br />

they are sub-culture-bound. Yet many<br />

such scholarly works are written as if basic<br />

principles have been discovered which would<br />

hold true as tendencies in any society, anywhere,<br />

anytime’. Cross-cultural studies may involve the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!