Triangulation

Conceptual Overview

In accordance with its derivation, triangulation is typically described through the language of capture and constraint—of fixing, positioning, and confining. The implicit assumption in much of the social science literature on triangulation is of developing a more effective method for the capturing and fixing of social phenomena in order to realize a more accurate analysis and explanation. For organization studies, the concomitant phenomenal perspective is of organizations as stable empirical entities that exist and can be represented independent of their observers.

This emphasis on stabilization derives from positivism, which assumes a dualist and objectivist relationship between the researcher and what can be known about the research subject. Accordingly, convergent findings can allow greater researcher confidence in the reliability or validity of results, whereas divergence can lead to greater definition and theoretical elaboration. Although there may be problems in achieving convergence because of difficulties in replication, lack of focus in or alignment with the research question, or varying sensitivities among research instruments, such “problems” with triangulation lie with its operationalization as a research strategy.

The four types of triangulation distinguished by Norman Denzin include (1) data triangulation, where data are collected at different times or from different sources; (2) investigator triangulation, where different researchers or evaluators independently collect data on the same phenomenon and compare the results; (3) methodological triangulation, where multiple methods of data collection are used; and (4) theory triangulation, where different theories are used to interpret a set of data. Within each type of triangulation, there are various subtypes—for example, methodological triangulation can include various combinations of qualitative and quantitative research designs.

Critical Commentary and Future Directions

The positivist assumptions that underlie triangulation have been the subject of much debate. For example, those adopting postmodern and some social constructionist research methodologies have radically questioned the separation of researcher and subject. Instead, it is claimed, reality is mediated rather than objective, and language constitutes rather than reflects or describes any more essential mental processes. Accompanying such recognition of the research author's stance is a demystification of the researcher's authority, for concern lies more with questioning takenfor-granted categories and oppositions than with finding answers. Further, if the living subject is no longer understood to be a concrete object, its representation, capture, and transmission become more difficult.

...