EBL 101
Research Methods: Triangulation
Virginia
Wilson
Director,
Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (C-EBLIP)
University
Library
University
of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada
Email:
virginia.wilson@usask.ca
Received: 11
Feb. 2014 Accepted: 16 Feb. 2014
2014 Wilson. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the
resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one.
Triangulation refers to using more than one
particular approach when doing research in order to get richer, fuller data
and/or to help confirm the results of the research. Denzin via Flick (2002)
points out four different types of triangulation:
Triangulation initially was undertaken as a
way to increase the validity of research results. However, Flick (2002) states
that “triangulation is less a strategy for validating results and procedures
than an alternative to validation which increases scope, depth and consistency
in methodological proceedings” (p. 227). Triangulation can be used in
quantitative and qualitative research and it even seems as though triangulation
is just another term for mixed-methods research. The Journal of Mixed Methods Research has a special issue devoted to
analyzing and exploring the various ways triangulation is used in mixed-methods
research, obviously differentiating the two terms. This topic was chosen for
the special issue “based on the claims made by many scholars in the field that
triangulation provides a justification for the use of mixed methods” (Mertens
& Hesse-Biber, 2012, p. 76).
Triangulation has been taken to task on a
couple of occasions. Given the philosophical and epistemological nature of the
various positions taken regarding triangulation, it is too complex to delve
into in this relatively brief column. In brief, triangulation has been
criticized for “subscribing to a naive realism that implies that there can be a
single definitive account of the social world” as well as for assuming that
“sets of data deriving from different research methods can be unambiguously
compared and regarded as equivalent” (Bryman, 2004, p. 3). Despite possible
controversies, triangulation in whatever form it takes (although the most
common is probably methodological triangulation), has become a staple in social
science research.
Examples of studies using triangulation:
Wahl, D., Avery, B., & Henry, L. (2013). Studying distance
students: Methods, findings, actions. Journal of Library & Information Services
in Distance Learning7 (1-2), 183-209. doi: 10.1080/1533290X.2012.705656
Zuze, H. & Weideman, M. (2013). Keyword stuffing and the big three search engines. Online Information Review37(2),268-286. doi: 10.1108/OIR-11-2011-0193
Bitso, C. & Fourie, I. (2012). An
investigation of information-seeking behaviour of geography teachers for an
information service intervention: The case of Lesotho. Information Research17(4). Retrieved 23 Feb. 2014 from http://www.informationr.net/ir/17-4/paper549.html#.Uwo1i-ZFDIU
Resources:
O’Cathain,
A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl,J. (2010). Three techniques for integrating data
in mixed methods studies. BMJ 341 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587
(Published 17 September 2010).
Denzin, N. K. (19708). Strategies of
multiple triangulation. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.
(pp.). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
References
Bryman, A. (2004). Triangulation and measurement. Retrieved 11 Feb.
20134 from http://www.referenceworld.com/sage/socialscience/triangulation.pdf
Flick, U. (2002). An
introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Mertens, D. M. & Hesse-Biber, S. (2012). Triangulation and mixed
methods research: Provocative positions. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research 6(2), 75-79. doi:10.1177/1558689812437100