blaikie triangulation

8/9/2019 Blaikie Triangulation

1/22

Quality @iantity 23: 115-136, 1991.

@ 1991 Kfuwer A~~~ernic Publishers. Printed in the ~etherfa~~s.

115

A critique of the use of triangulation in soc ial research

NORMAN W. H. BLAIKIE

Victoria University

of

Technology, RMIT Campus G.P.O. Box 2476V, Melbourn e, Vie. 3001,

Australia

Introduction

It has become an accepted practice to use some form of triangulation in

social research, and introductory textbooks on research methods frequently

advocate its use in some form see, for example, Smith, 1975; Babbie, 1983;

Phillips, 1985).

Discussions about whether and how to combine social research methods

go back to debates about the use of surveys and fieldwork e.g., Vidich and

Shapiro, 1955; Zelditch, 1962; McCall and Simmons, 1969; Sieber, 1973), or

the use of interviews and participant observation e.g., Becker and Geer,

1957; Trow, 1957). More recently, the debates about the relationship be-

tween qualitative and quantitative methods, particularly in evaluation re-

search, have advocated a combination of methods e.g., Britan, 1978; Reich-

ardt and Cook, 1979; Ianni and Orr, 1979; Trend, 1979; Filstead, 1979;

Knapp, 1979; Schwartz and Jacobs, 1979; Heilman, 1980; Patton, 1980;

Kidder, 1981, 1987; Guba and Lincoln, 1981; Louis, 1982; Madey, 1982).

These debates have led to a renewed interest in the use of triangulation

e.g., Greene and McClintock, 1985; McClintock and Greene, 1985; Fielding

and Fielding, 1986; Gilk ef al., 1986; Kolevzon er al., 1988; Bryman, 1988).

Even recent texts on ethnography have argued for its use e.g., Hammersley

and Atkinson, 1983; Burgess, 1984).

The common theme in discussions of triangulation has been the desire to

overcome problems of bias and validity. It has been argued that the defici-

encies of any one method can be overcome by combining methods and thus

capitalizing on their individual strengths. However, the use of triangulation

has been plagued with a lack of awareness of the different and incommensur-

ate ontological and epistemological assumptions associated with various theo-

ries and methods. While some combinations of methods have been used with

common ontologies and epistemologies, serious problems have been created,

although not usually recognized, when methods based on different assump-

tions have been used.


2/22

116

Norman W. H. Blaikie

This paper examines the origins and use of triangulation in social research,

it explores the use of triangulation in navigation and surveying and how this

differs from its use in social research, it outlines a framework of methodolog-

ica l perspectives in order to identify the major differences in ontology and

epistemology, and it then examines the problems which the use of triangu-

lation has produced. Some suggestions are made about what needs to be

done to overcome these problems.

The origins of triangulation in social research

The use of triangulation, or multiple measures, has been advocated in the

social sciences for nearly three decades. Building on the ideas of Campbell

and Fiske 1959), Webb

et al.

1966) wished to overcome the complacent

dependence on single operational definitions of theoretical concepts, and to

supplement the use of the interview or questionnaire with unobtrusive mea-

sures that do not require the cooperation of the respondent and that do

not themselves contaminate the response 1966: 2). In claiming that all

research methods are biased, they argued for the use of a collection of

methods multiple operationalism) which they believed would reduce the

effect of the peculiar biases of each one. Thus, Webb et al. advocated the

use of a triangulation of measurement processes in the search for the validity

of theoretical propositions.

When a hypothesis can survive the confrontation

of a series of complementary methods of testing, it contains a degree of

validity unattainable by one tested within the more constricted framework

of a single method 1966: 174).

Denzin 1970a: 13) also argued for the use of multiple methods in the

analysis of the same empirical events, and claimed that each method reveals

different aspects of empirical reality.

No single method is always superior. Each has its own special strengths

and weaknesses. It is time for sociologists to recognise this fact and to

move on to a position that permits them to approach their problems with

all relevant and appropriate methods, to the strategy of methodological

triangulation Denzin, 1970b: 471).

Denzin has taken the work of Campbell and Fiske, and Webb et al., as his

starting point and has shared their concern with bias and validity. However,

he has gone beyond their use of multiple methods in the study of the same

object, to advocate the use of multiple triangulation which involves a variety

of data sources, investigators, theories and methodologies.2 Denzin also


3/22

Triangulation 117

allowed for within-method triangulation - using various strategies within one

method, such as a survey questionnaire with different scales measuring the

same empirical uniP3 - and between or across-method triangulation which

combines dissimilar methods to measure the same unit. Denzin preferred

the latter because the flaws of one method are often the strengths of

another, and by combining methods, observers can achieve the best of each,

while overcoming their unique deficiencies 1970a: 308). Thus, the effec-

tiveness of triangulation rests on the assumption that the methods or stra-

tegies used will not share the same biases; their assets will be exploited and

their liabilit ies neutralized Jick, 1983: 138).

Denzins views on triangulation have been very influential in encouraging

social researchers from a variety of traditions to use a combination of meth-

ods and observers in the name of reducing bias and improving validity. His

disciples have, however, adopted his arguments uncritically; it is only recently

that his views have been challenged e.g., Silverman, 1985; Fielding and

Fielding, 1986).

Theoretical triangulation does not necessarily reduce bias, nor does meth-

odological triangulation necessarily increase validity. Theories are gen-

erally the product of quite different traditions, so when they are combined

one may get a fuller picture, but not a more objective one. Similar ly,

different methods have emerged as a product of different theoretical tra-

ditions, and therefore combining them can add range and depth, but not

accuracy. In other words, there is a case for triangulation, but not the one

Denzin makes Fielding and Fielding, 1986: 33).

Triangulation defined

Neither Denzin nor his mentors acknowledged the source of the triangulation

metaphor. However, later supporters of his position have identified its origin

in navigation, military strategy and surveying Smith, 1975: 273; Jick, 1983:

136; Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983: 198).

For someone wanting to locate their position on a map, a single landmark

can only provide the information that they are situated somewhere along

a line in a particular direction from the landmark. With two landmarks,

however, their exact position can be pin-pointed by taking bearings on

both landmarks; they are at the point where the two lines cross. In social

research, if one relies on a single piece of data there is the danger that

undetected error in the data-production process may render the analysis


4/22

118 Norman W. H. Bla ikie

incorrect. If, on the other hand, diverse kinds of data lead to the same

conclusion, one can be a little more confident in that conclusion. This

confidence is well founded to the degree that the different kinds of data

have different types of error built into them Hammersley and Atkinson,

1983: 198).

As we shall see, this statement reveals some of the fallacies in the analogy.

In order to explore this further, a closer examination of the use of triangu-

lation in surveying is required.

Triangulation is used in plane and geodetic surveying as an economical

way of fixing positions on the earths surface.6 In geodetic surveying,

t)riangulation is the method of location of a point from two others of

known distance apart, given the angles of the triangle formed by the three

points. By repeated application of the principle, if a series of points form

the apices of a chain or network of connected triangles of which the

angles are measured, the lengths of all the unknown sides and the relative

positions of the points may be computed when the length of one of the

sides is known Clark, 1951: 145).

This kind of triangulation can be distinguished from both intersection and

resection which are used mainly in plane table surveying. Intersection is

used to locate topographical features by observing them from a number of

known positions, thus forming-a triangle in which one side and the adjacent

angles are known and allowing the position of the third point to be plotted

or calculated. Resection is used to fix an unknown position by measuring,

from it, the angles subtended between at least three known positions, or,

less commonly, the true bearings to two known positions.

Whereas resection and intersection are relatively imprecise methods of

fixing positions when more accurate methods cannot or need not be used,

triangulation is an efficient method, of adequate precision, which avoids

excessive and perhaps impossible linear measurement in large scale situ-

ations. None of these methods inherently produce more precise results than

some single method; they produce appropriate results in particular circum-

stances. It is possible in a network of triangles to have more than the

minimum measurements to fix a position, and thus allow for greater accuracy

through a more complex use of the method of least squares for adjusting

errors. However, given the level of sophistication of the measuring instru-

ments used, only minimum measurement is needed to fix unknown positions

at an appropriate level of accuracy. Al l measurement is of the same kind

and is based on a common ontology and epistemology.


5/22

Triangulation 119

For the most part, the use of the triangulation metaphor in social research

has distorted its use in surveying. For example, in research on school

classrooms, it has been suggested that triangulation means three points of

view.

Triangulation involves gathering accounts of a teaching situation from

three quite different points of view; namely those of the teacher, his pupils,

and a participant observer. . . . Each point of the triangle stands in a

unique epistemological position with respect to access to relevant data

about a teaching situation. . . . By comparing his own account with ac-

counts from the other standpoints a person at one point of the triangle

has an opportunity to test and perhaps revise it on the basis of more

sufficient data Ell iot and Adelman, 1976: 74).

This use of the metaphor implies three different observers looking at some

phenomenon from three vantage points and subsequently cross-checking

their observations in order to produce a more accurate picture. The nearest

that triangulation in surveying could come to this view is of three observers

at the points of a triangle observing each others position, with the

same

kind

of instruments. There can be no concept of all three observing a common

phenomenon. Other uses in social research similar ly distort the original

meaning of triangulation.

Methodological perspectives in sociology: A framework for analysis

A discussion of triangulation in sociological research is complicated by the

pluralistic nature of contemporary sociology, by its variety of theoretical and

methodological perspectives or paradigms. As we shall see, triangulation is

regarded differently by adherents to the various perspectives. Therefore,

before examining the ontological and epistemological issues in the use of

triangulation in sociology, it will be necessary to lay out a framework of

methodological perspectives.

Our task is further complicated by the fact that there have been a variety

of attempts to characterize these perspectives, with a resulting diversity of

schemes. The purposes of these schemes vary and are not all relevant to

our present concerns. The following framework draws mainly on Johnson et

al.

1984), Halfpenny 1979), Giddens 1976), Keat and Urry 1975),

Outhwaite 1983a, 1983b, 1987) and Bhaskar 1975, 1979), but the final

descriptions are my own.

The methodological perspectives are defined in terms of their ontology


6/22

120


and epistemology, and include reference to the logic of theory construction,

what counts as data, explanations and theory, criteria of validity, and views

on the particular nature of social reality and the relationship between the

natural and social sciences. The cluster of characteristics produced from these

criteria constitutes a set of ideal types.

Positivism

Posit ivism entails an ontology of events; reality is seen to be constituted of

atomistic, discrete and observable events. Human activity is understood as

observable behaviour taking place in observable, material circumstances.

The world is depicted as a concatenation of antecedent variables which

operate in a law-like manner to produce these events. Social reality is viewed

as a complex of casual relations between events based on an emerging

patchwork of relations between variables. The causes of human behaviour

are regarded as being external to the individual.

In its epistemology, knowledge is seen to be derived from sensory experi-

ence by means of experimental or comparative analysis, and concepts and

generalizations are shorthand summaries of particular observations. A corre-

spondence is posited between sensory experiences and the objects of those

experiences, and between constant conjunctions of such objects of experience

events) and causal laws. These laws are identical with empirical regularities.

Positivism includes two kinds of logic of inquiry: the inductivist and the

hypothetico-deductivist.

Data

are sets of values on sets of variables;

explana-

tions consist of causal relations between variables; and theory consists of

interrelated sets of causal laws.

Validity

is based on experience/observation,

although this may have to be controlled by means of experiments or statistical

manipulation. Positivists believe in the unity of

the sciences.

Interpretivism

Interpretivism entails an

ontology

in which social reality is regarded as the

product of processes by which social actors negotiate the meanings for actions

and situations. Human experience is characterized as a process of interpreta-

tion rather than sensory, material apprehension of the external physical

world, and human behaviour depends on how individuals interpret the con-

ditions in which they find themselves. Therefore, social reality is not some

thing that may be interpreted in different ways; it is those interpretations.

In its epistemology, knowledge is seen to be derived from everyday mean-

ings and interpretations. At one level, knowledge is derived from a descrip-


7/22

Triangulation 121

tion of these everyday meanings and interpretations. At another level, knowl-

edge is gained by both entering the everyday social world in order to grasp

the socially constructed meanings, and then reconstructing these meanings

in sociological language; sociological constructs are generated from everyday

social constructs. The fundamental epistemological principle is that the inte-

grity of the phenomenon should be retained.

The logic is based on the everyday processes by which individuals make

sense of their own social world. It has the appearance of being inductive but

is more correctly described as a double hermeneutic Giddens, 1976) or as

dialogical Blaikie and Stacy, 1984). The data of Interpretive sociology are

intentional or every-day rule-governed behaviour and the intersubjective

meanings of actions and situations; explanations consist of descriptions in

terms appropriate to the actors culture; and theory consists of the cultural

rules or norms that constitute the meaningfulness of interaction. Val idity is

based on convention - negotiated agreements between social actors - and

the willingness of social actors themselves to find an account of their world

acceptable. Interpretivism rejects any notion of a methodological unity of

the sciences.

Realism3

In the Realist ontology, the ultimate objects of scientif ic inquiry are con-

sidered to exist and act independently of scientists and their activity. A

distinction is made between the domains of the empirical, the actual and the

real. The empirical is made up of experiences of events through observation:

the actual includes events whether observed or not; and the real consists of

the processes that generate events. It is an ontology of intransitive structures

and mechanisms which are distinguished from transitive concepts, theories

and laws that are designed to describe them. The social world is viewed as

an objective, material structure of relations which is not accessible to direct

observation.

The aim of Realist science is to explain observable phenomena with refer-

ence to the underlying structures and mechanisms which constitute reality.

Hence, epistemology is based on the building of models of such mechanisms,

such that if they were to exist and act in the postulated way, they would

account for the phenomenon being examined. These models constitute hypo-

thetical descriptions which, it is hoped, wil l reveal reality: reality can only

be known by constructing ideas about it. This is an epistemology of laws as

expressing tendencies of things as opposed to the conjunctions of events of

Positivism).


8/22

122


The

logic

is one of retroduction in contrast to induction or deduction),

based on the use of analogy and metaphor.

Data

are the various surface

features of the social world;

explanations

consist of transformations which

map these features on to underlying real structures; and

theory

is about

underlying structural relations.

Validity

is based on the criterion that if it

works it must be true. Realism regards the relationship between social science

and its objects of study as being quite different from the relationship between

the natural sciences and their objects.

Science

is unified in its method but

differentiated in its objects.

While these methodological perspectives are regarded as being incompat-

ible, they cannot be regarded as three exclusive boxes into which all social

research can be classified. Rather, while they identify the central features of

the major theoretical and methodological traditions within social science,

they highlight the tensions and dilemmas associated with all attempts to

understand and explain social life. Each perspective represents a strategic

bias, but theorizers and researchers, operating essentially within one perspec-

tive, appear to be unable to avoid addressing elements of the other perspec-

tives in order to resolve the internal tensions in their work. Hence, according

to Johnson

et al.

1984, p. 22-3), the perspectives must be considered as a

complex set of relationships. This argument, however, should not be used

to support sloppy meta-theoretical thinking.

Problems

The inappropriateness of the triangulation metaphor for soc iological

research

As we have seen, the adoption of the triangulation analogy in Posit ivistic

and Interpretive sociology is based on the view that it is a method for

overcoming problems of bias and validity. However, the ontological and

epistemological incompatibility of some methods is usually ignored.

In its use in surveying, the various measurements are not only of the same

kind, but they also share a common ontology. Normally, any position re-

quires only the minimum number of measurements to fix it. Insofar as

triangulation may incorporate an excess of measurements to fix a position -

for example, through an extended network of triangles - it simply allows for

a more precise adjustment of errors due to the limitations of the instru-

ments and the observers, and the vagaries of such factors as air temperature

and pressure. However, such gains are usually small and have nothing to do


9/22

Triangulation 123

with the reconciliation of the so-called bias of a number of different methods

of measurement.

Therefore, the use of the triangulation analogy in social research is mislead-

ing: it has usually been concerned with reducing error or bias rather than

simply establishing the existence of some phenomenon, or values on some

variable; it advocates the combination of different methods rather than the

use of a single method; and it ignores the ontological and epistemological

issues which the use of multiple methods can entail and which are absent in

its use in surveying.

The meaning of consistencylconvergence or its absence

In claiming for triangulation the possibil ity of more valid measurement, the

advocates need to be able to interpret both convergence of results, or the

lack of such convergence, which follows from the use of different methods

or data sources. If they work with a Posit ivist ontology, convergence could

be interpreted as each measure being relatively unbiased, but lack of conver-

gence leaves open the question of which measures might be biased. If they

work with an Interpretive ontology, with data from different social actors or

groups, convergence may mean that consensus exists on how reality is

viewed, or that a common social reality is shared, while a lack of convergence

may reflect legitimate and different views of reality, or the habitation of

different social worlds. Such differences cannot be used to attribute bias to

any method, If the advocates work with a Realist ontology, there is no way

that the validity of any empirical data can be established; all measurement

has to be directed and interpreted by the constructed model of reality being

used. In the end, the degree to which any model is a valid representation of

reality will be a matter of judgment.

While acknowledging that it is difficult to decide whether or not results

have converged, Jick 1983) went on to argue that

t)he process of compiling research material based on multi-methods is

useful whether there is convergence or not. . . . Overall, the triangulating

investigator is left to search for a logical pattern in mixed-method results.

His or her claim to validity rests on judgment. . . . One begins to view the

researcher as builder and creator, piecing together many pieces of a com-

plex puzzle into a coherent whole Jick, 1983: 144).

The conclusion to be drawn from this discussion is that, regardless of the

methodological perspective adopted, decisions about the relative merits of

different sources of data can only be settled in the context of some theory;

and the choice and application of the theory is a matter of judgment.


10/22

124 Norman W. H. Blaikie

Different views of what it means to combine methods

The recognition of the existence of methods with different ontologies is

a matter of methodological perspective. This is analogous to Halfpennys

argument that conceptions of what is qualitative about social data, and what

is regarded as problems and potentialities for the analysis of qualitative data,

depends on the sociological perspective within which that research is located

1979: 801, 806). For example, while Positivists may consider that qualitative

data can be converted into quantitative data, that qualitative data are incom-

plete quantitative data, genuine Interpretivists regard qualitative data as

authentic data in their own right.

The ontological problems of combining different methods, particularly

quantitative and qualitative methods, is not an issue for Positivists; all meth-

ods are interpreted within a consistent ontology of variables and causal

relationships. Positivists do not recognize the Interpretive ontology as apply-

ing to qualitative methods; when qualitative methods are used, the data can

be translated into variables and quantified. There is likely to be a very

limited concern with socially constructed meanings, and, where there is,

these meanings will be conceived differently than they would be by an

Interpretivist: they will be translated in the same way.

F)rom the perspective provided by the positivist approach, data that are

qualitative in the sense of describing actors meanings are data about

mental states or events that cause the people under study to behave the

way they do. The problem that data thus conceived present for positivists

is that of obtaining reliable measures of these states or events, and the

solution frequently offered is triangulation. . . . However), m)eanings of

actions are not the same as the mental states of the actors Halfpenny,

1979: 815-816).

Therefore, Positivists and Interpretivists conceive and act on subjective

data differently.

The genuine Interpretivist wil l not find triangulation, as expounded by

Denzin for example, an attractive proposition; issues of bias and validity

have different meanings from those presented by the Positiv ists. With an

ontology that allows for multiple realities Schutz, 1962). and an epistemol-

ogy that recognizes that accounts of any social world are relative in time and

space, and to the observer, the use of multiple data sources and multiple

observers does not solve the problems posed by the Posit ivists. Interpretivists

do not share the same concerns, i.e., they are not likely to use triangulation

to reduce bias and increase validity. In addition, Blumer 1969) has argued


11/22

Triangulation 125

that the participant observation/case study method is both the necessary and

sufficient method for symbolic interactionist research Williams, 1976: 127).

It is only recently that these issues have been recognised by some practi-

tioners for example, Guba and Lincoln, 1981; Smith, 1983a, 1983b: Bednarz,

1985; Greene and McClintock, 1985).

W)e suggest that triangulation is possible only within paradigms, that any

effort to compare or integrate findings from different methods requires

the prior adoption of one paradigm or the other, even when . . . the

methods themselves are linked to and implemented within alternative

paradigms Greene and McClintock, 1985: 541).

Invariably, this paradigm is Posit ivism, as is the case for the integration of

qualitative and quantitative methods generally.

The incompatibility of absolutist and relativist ontologies.

There is a tendency amongst the advocates of triangulation, both Posit ivists

and Interpretivists, to assume an absolute reality, with each method providing

a view of some aspect of it. Even the position advocated recently by Fielding

and Fielding 1986) is essentially Positivist and therefore absolutist.

The Positivist approach to triangulation can be illustrated in a study con-

ducted by Jick 1979a; reported in Jick, 1979b and 1983) on the effects of

organizational mergers on employees. He wished to document and examine

the sources and symptoms of anxiety associated with job insecurity. A tri-

angulation approach was adopted covering both feelings and behaviour,

direct and indirect reports, obtrusive and unobtrusive observation.

The research package used in the investigation of the dynamics of

anxiety and job insecurity included many standard features. Surveys were

distributed to a random sample of employees. They contained a combi-

nation of standard and new indices related to stresses and strains. To

complement these data, a subsample was selected for the purpose of

semistructured, probing interviews. The survey also contained items re-

lated to the symptoms of anxiety as weil as projective measures. These

were developed to be indirect, nonthreatening techniques. In addition to

self reports, interviews were conducted with supervisors and coworkers to

record their observations of employees anxiety Jick, 1983: 140-141).

An unobtrusive measure was also used. based on the use by employees of

an archives library, in order to compare current news reports and memoranda


12/22

126


regarding the organizations future with past pronouncements. Jick assumed

that

m)ost employees were apparently seeking information to relieve their

anxiety about the uncertain shape of things to come. Hence these vis its to

the archives were treated as expressions of employee anxiety, a thermo-

meter of anxiety level in the organization. The search for information

seemed to represent an attempt to reduce uncertainty. It was hypothesized

that the more people who visited the archives to use the files, the higher

the anxiety level Jick, 1983: 141).

This study is typical of a Positivists use of triangulation in which quantitative

and qualitative methods are combined, although, in contrast to most other

uses of combined methods, Jick saw quantitative results supplementing quali-

tative data. It is also typically Positivistic in the way in which qualitative data

are used within Posi tivistic assumptions. For example, assumptions were

made about the meaning of employee vis its to the archives. It turned out

that those employees who were shown to be most stressed by self reports,

were least like ly to visi t the archives. The disconfirmation of the hypothesis

was later explained in terms of level of education; the poorly educated

tending to rely more on oral communication than written documents. How-

ever, another possible explanation is that those who used the archives were

trade union leaders or polit ical activists who happened to be better educated.

Without a truly Interpretive approach to this problem, no adequate under-

standing can be achieved. Changing the assumptions, and introducing new

variables and correlations, is like trying to navigate in a fog.

Therefore, while Positivists can work with consistent ontological and epis-

temological assumptions in combining quantitative and qualitative methods,

their uses of qualitative methods tend to be restricted and thus fail to achieve

their full potential.

Confusion of perspectives

The discussion of these four problems reveals a great deal of ignorance

or misunderstanding about the significance of the role of methodological

perspectives in social research generally, and in the use of triangulation in

particular. The orthodox use of triangulation, derived mainly -from Denzin,

has perpetuated a great deal of confused claims for research in which it has

been used.

In spite of the fact that Denzin accepted the symbolic interactionists


13/22

Tria~g~l~~io~ 127

position that social reality is a social process and that it therefore changes

over time, he also adopted an absolutist view of reality in terms of the

notion of common units of observation which are social objects in the

environment of the scientist Denzin, 1970a: 298). He considered that each

method reveals different aspects of reality.

Denzin created many dilemmas for himself in consciously or unconsciously

trying to marry Interpretive and Posit ivist ontologies and epistemologies. In

his eclecticism and concern with the reunification of symbolic interactionism,

Denzin adopted essentially Positivistic assumptions under an Interpretive

umbrella. He abdicated the Interpretivist concern for the primacy of mean-

ing in favour of a Positivist concern for validity and bias.

From the point of view of what he would regard as a genuine Interpretivist

position, Douglas 1971) has crit icized the waywardness of many interac-

tionists on the issue of ontology.

The genera1 problem of the interactionist tradition of thought and research

is that its practitioners have rarely seen clearly and consistently the funda-

mental theoretical and methodological differences between a positivistic

absolutist) sociology and a phenomenological or existential sociology. As

a result, their works are repeatedly vitiated by allowing positivistic methods

and ideas to dominate and distort the phenomenological strain of Meads

own works. This is seen especially in their immediate and persistent con-

cern with the causation of items of behaviour . . . , the easy use of

modified ideas of hypothesis testing and verification, the imposition of

ideas of self-lodging on the social actors, and the immediate and unex-

pected) translation of everyday statements into abstract, theoretical state-

ments. , . . T)here remains a great difference between taking everyday life

as the primary reality but partially studying this reality with conventional

absolutist methods and ideas) and systematically studying it in such ways

as to consistently retain the integrity of the phenomena Douglas, 1971:

18).

In his critique of Denzins style of symbolic interactionism, Silverman 1985)

noted Denzins use of method triangulation to

overcome partial views and present something like a complete picture.

Underlying this suggestion is, ironically, . . . elements of a positivist frame

of reference which assumes a single undefined) reality and treats accounts

as multiple mappings of this reality.

For an interactionist, . . . without bias there would be no phenomenon.

Consequently, . . . actions and accounts are situated. The sociologists


14/22


role is not to adjudicate between participants competing versions but to

understand the situated work that they do. . . . Of course, this does not

imply that the sociologist should avoid generating data in multiple

ways. . . . The mistake only arises in using data to adjudicate between

accounts Silverman, 1985: 105-106).

As followers of Denzins approach to triangulation, Hammersley and Atkin-

son have perpetuated this same confusion in their discussion of validity in

ethnography, but at least they have suggested that o)ne should not . . .

adopt a naively optimistic view that the aggregation of data from different

sources will unproblematically add up to produce a more complete picture

1983: 199). They have recognized that differences between sets of data

derived from different sources, or by different methods, may be important

and illuminating, but they are ultimately concerned with some notion of

absolute truth.

D)ata must never be taken at face value. It is misleading to regard some

as true and some as false. Rather, . . . what is involved in triangulation

is not just a matter of checking whether inferences are valid, but of

discovering which inferences are valid Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983:

200).

An example of the reluctance of an Interpretivist to accept accounts at face

value can be found in Wests 1979) research on the labeling of epilepsy. He

wished to uncover the subjective reality relating to troubles experienced

by parents with an epileptic child. In order to overcome his uneasiness in

accepting parental accounts at face value, he undertook two sub-studies to

test their validity; an observational study of doctor-patient interaction in out-

patient clinics to validate parental perceptions of doctors, and a street-

survey of the knowledge, ideas, and images of epilepsy of the general public

to validate the views parents had about epilepsy before their childs first

seizure.

The kind of dilemma faced by West is, on the one hand, trying to retrieve

what really happened, and, on the other hand, analysing how understanding

is constructed and conveyed by social actors, in the light of whatever it was

that they understood to have happened. As Halfpenny 1979) has observed,

West was trying to be both an ethnomethodologist and a Denzinian interpre-

tivist. In the latter he is caught up in both Posit ivist and Interpretive perspec-

tives.

West is concerned to validate parents accounts of their perceptions of


15/22

Triangulation 129

doctors by triangulation. . . . Here, from a positivist perspective, West

seems concerned to establish an accurate measure of the parents mental

images of doctors. . . .

But Wests work can also be seen to be informed

by the interpretive approach. From the interpretive perspective, doubts

about accepting accounts at face value are due, firstly, to recognizing

that the parties to an interaction have differential power to enforce their

definition of the situation at the expense of the definitions of other parties.

It is here that triangulation becomes relevant within the interpretivist

approach, as a means of sustaining the plausibil ity and thereby increasing

the credibil ity of the definitions of the situation of the less powerful.

Also, within the perspective of the interpretivist approach, doubts about

accepting accounts at face value are, secondly, doubts about having

grasped the culturally appropriate meanings of the actions under study

Halfpenny, 1979: 820).

In contrast to these confused uses of triangulation, Cicourel 1973) has

advocated a specific use in ethnomethodology that is internally consistent; it

is very different from its use by either Positivists, so-called Interpretivists,

or ethnomethodologists such as West. Cicourel called this indefinite triangu-

lation which was devised to reveal the irreparable but practical nature of

accounts used by subjects and researchers 1973: 124). In essence, this

use of triangulation involves subjects, researcher and typists, using audio

recordings and transcripts of conversations to produce a variety of versions

of the original interaction. The indefinite triangulation notion attempts to

make visible the practicality and inherent reflexivity of everyday accounts

Cicourel, 1973: 124).

Cicourel il lustrated this procedure by gathering information on the lan-

guage acquisition of young children in the home setting. Mother and child

were tape recorded for one hour during lunch. The tape was transcribed

verbatim and the transcript read by the mother while listening to the tape:

her comments were recorded to produce another version. The typist listened

to the tape again and described what she thought was going on: she corrected

her original transcript where she felt this was necessary. Phonetic tran-

scription produced another version.

With a number of different versions of an interaction scene, the problem is

deciding which version captures the childs language, the childs referencing

ability, the parents constructions, and so on.

The reader could now say that we should simply combine the different

versions to produce the best one possible, but the point is that different

versions could have been produced indefinitely by simply hiring different


16/22

130 Norman W. H. Blaikie

typists and providing the mother with different transcripts Cicourel, 1973:

124).

This use of triangulation is consistent with the ontological and epistemological

assumptions of ethnomethodology. But the question arises as to why it should

be called triangulation,

The question of whether it is possible to combine methods from different

methodological perspectives is now being examined more seriously. For

example, in his critique of attempts to integrate quantitative and qualitative

methods, Smith 1983) supported the view that research undertaken from a

quantitative Positivist) perspective is different from that using an interpre-

tive perspective.

Each approach sponsors different procedures and has different epistemo-

logical implications. One approach takes a subject-object position on the

relationship to subject matter; the other takes a subjective position. One

separates facts and values, while the other perceives them as inextricably

mixed. One searches for laws, and the other seeks understanding. These

positions do not seem to be compatible given our present state of thinking

Smith, 1983: 12).

Thus, the quantitative-qualitative debate has forced researchers to address

the epistemological question of what counts as knowledge. If researchers

do not discuss this question, they are forfeiting any participation in determin-

ing the basis for the authority of their knowledge Smith, 1983: 12-13). In

the context of evaluation research, Bednarz 1985) has argued that

there is reason to believe that qualitative and quantitative approaches

cannot be synthesized because they occupy alternative - rather than comp-

lementary - philosophical spaces. . . . Any synthesis must necessarily adopt

the perspective of one or the other, so that any effort to reach a middle

ground does so only in terms of a single perspective Bednarz, 1985: 289-

90).

With reference specifically to the use of triangulation, he stated that

successful cross-philosophy triangulation is not possible, because of the

necessity of subsuming one approach to another. . . . Nor can the re-

searcher pick one aspect of an approach and one from another without

making - explic itly or implicitly - commitments regarding these matters

Bednarz, 1985: 304).


17/22

Triangulation 131

Conclusion

It should be clear from the above analysis that triangulation is much more

problematic for eclectic Interpretivists, unreflective ethnographers, and way-

ward ethnomethodologists than it is for Posit ivists, or possibly for Realists;

it has no relevance for genuine Interpretivists and ethnomethodologists. The

failure to recognize the implications of using incompatible ontologies and

epistemologies has led either to a muddy confusion about bias and validity in

the case of eclectic Interpretivists) or false pretensions about what combining

quantitative and qualitative methods means in the case of the Positivists).

It should also be clear that triangulation means many things to many people

and that none of the uses in sociology bears any resemblance to its use in

surveying.

It is legitimate, and it may be useful, to use multiple methods within a

particular methodological perspective e.g., in the development of attitude

scales), or different data sources, provided they are used consistently within

one perspective Bednarz, 1985: 304), but it is not legitimate, and it creates

considerable confusion, to use methods drawn from different methodological

perspectives. However, this leaves open the possibi lity of using different

methods sequentially, such that each in turn provides a basis for the develop-

ment of subsequent stages of the research process see, for example, Zeld-

itch, 1962; Sieber, 1973; Ianni and Orr, 1979; Madey, 1982: Burgess, 1984).

But as Greene and McClintock have pointed out, this can hardly be called

triangulation as the methods are deliberately interactive, not independent,

and they are applied singly over time so that they may not be measuring the

same phenomenon 1985: 525).

All this suggests a need:

1) for a moratorium on the use of the concept of triangulation in social

research:

2) to identify appropriate and inappropriate combinations of methods and

data sources, in light of the incommensurability of ontological and epis-

temological assumptions of methodological perspectives; and,

3) to develop suitable new labels for these appropriate combinations.

Notes

Various other terms have been used to refer to the same procedure, e.g.. multiple oper-

ationalism (Webb

et

al., 1966), combined operations (Stacey. 1969). mixed strategies

(Douglas. 1976). and multi ple strategies (Burgess. 1982. 1984).


18/22


* Denzin used the terms method, methodology and methodological interchangeably thus

failing to distinguish betwee n tech niques of data gathering and the critical exa mination of the

methods wh ich are claimed to produce val id kno wledge.

s This term of Denzins seem s to imply a concern with variables rather than social processes.

4 The fallacies of this argumen t will be taken up later.

The author is a registered land surveyor and a membe r of the New Zealand Insti tute of

Surveyors. He practiced in New Zealand and Malaysia for 16 years before taking up sociology

as a career.

Surveying is the art of making such measurem ents of the relative posit ions of points on the

surface of the earth that, on drawing them down to scale, natural and art if ic ial features may be

exhibited in their correc t horizontal and vertical relationships (Clark , 1946: 1). The A rt of

Surveying comprises the making of measurem ents on a large scale with a faci l i ty and accuracy

which require special training. (I t) comprises the selection of the mea surements to be made and

the method of making them w ith a view to their use in solving problems of various kinds, usual ly

in connec tion with th e definition of boundaries of land or the design of engineering wo rks

(Foxal l , 1957: 4). There is no such thing as absolute m easuremen t; al l observations are subject

to unavoidable deviations from accuracy due to imperfections in instruments. l imitat ions in

power of observations, etc. Errors need to be distinguished from mistake s.

Geodetic surveying is concerned with the precise measurement of the posit ions on the earths

surface of a syste m of widely separated points. The relative posit ions of these points in terms

of distance and direction, and their absolute position in term s of latitude, longitude and elevation

above mean sea level, provide a framewo rk of controls in which more local ized fo rms of

surveying and engineering can take place.

s Plane tabl ing is a method of surveying by which maps are created through the simultaneous

use of field observ ations and plotting. It wa s employe d exten sively for recording topographical

features.

See, for example, Ritzer (1975). Kea t and Urry (1975). Smart (1976). Benton (1977), Cu ff

and Payne (1979). Haralambos (1980). Hughes (1980). and Johnson et al . (1984).

I Johnso n er al. (1984) addres sed the theoretical fragme ntation in sociology by developing a

matrix o f solutions to the fundamental ontological and epistemological questions. This matrix

consisted of four categories: empiricism. subjectivism, substantialism and rational ism.

They argued for a synthesis and pointed to the work of Giddens (1976) and Bhaskar (1979) as

the mo st recent inf luential mov es in this direction. Halfpenny (1979) developed his schem e as

a basis for an analysis of the relationship betwe en qu alitative and quantitative data. He identified

four broad approac hes: positivist, interpretivist. ethnome thodology and structu ralist.

My category of posit iv ism is similar to empiricism and posit iv ist: interpretivism is

similar to subje ctivism and interpretivist: (with ethnom ethodology included as a sub-

type) : and realism is similar to substa ntialism and structu ralist. As the use of triangulation

has been confined to positivism and interpretivism , the realism type will receive only

limited attention , and Johns ons er a/.~ rationalist catego ry is not included in the tex t.

For a discussion of the variet ies of posit iv ism. see. for example. Halfpenny (1982) and Bryant

(1985).

*This description applies to the herme neutic and sym bolic interaction ist versions of interpretiv-

ism. but less consistently to ethnomethodology. While some analysts have kept symbolic interac-

t ionism and ethnomethodology as separate perspectives (for example, Cu ff and Payne. lY7Y:

Halfpe nny, 1979: and Bedna rz,l985), in this analysis they have been kept together on the

grounds that the differences between them are much less than between the perspectives o f

Posit iv ism, Interpretivism and Real ism.

This description is based mainly on Bhaskars work (1975. lY79). including reviews by Outhwa-

ite (1983a, 1987). Other versions o f realist social scienc e can be found in Harre (lY70. 1972,

1986), Keat and Urry (1975). Benton (1977, 1981) and Sayer (1984).

The use of triangulation in surveying assu me s positions are fixed on a horizontal plane or on

a spherical su rface. It could be argued tha t if applied within the Realist p erspe ctive. triangulation


19/22

Triangulation 133

should oc cur vertically as it is the nature o f underlying structu res that is of conce rn. P erhaps

the analogy of depth sounding would be more a ppropriate.

Hovland (1959) has argued that di f ferences in results from experimental and survey studies

of att itude change can be accounted for in a way tha t does not require a judgment of bias of

either method. Rather, the differences were due to different definit ions of comm unication

situations and differences in the type of comm unicator, audience, and the kind of issue uti lised.

How ever, his comparisons were between different studies rather than the use of the two method s

within the same study.

IhThis is an inherent problem for the Real ist perspective. regardless of issues associated with

triangulation.

While this is not uncomm on for fol lowers of the Iowa School of symbo lic interactionism

(Douglas, 1971; Wilson, 1971: Wil l iams. 1976), i t can also be found in the method advocated

by interpretivists such as Glaser and Strauss (1967).

*The same can be said of the method of back translation used in the anthropological analysis

of tex ts or dialogue (Werner and Cam pbell, 1973: Fielding and Fielding. 1986).

References

Babbie, E.R. (1983). The

Practice of Socia l Research

(3rd Edn). Belmont. CA: Wadsworth.

Becker, H.S . and B. Geer (1957). Partic ipant observation and interviewing: a comparison.

Human Organization 16: 28-32.

Bedn arz, D. (1985). Qua ntity and quality in evaluation research : a divergent view . Elsahration

and Program Planning 8: 289-306.

Benton, T. (1977).

The Philosophical Foundations of the Three Sociologies.

London: Routledge

Kegan Paul.

Benton, T. (1981). Real ism and social science,

Radical Philosophy 27: 13-21.

Bhaskar, R. (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. Hassocks: Harvester .

Bhaskar, R. (1979). The Possibiliry of Naturalism. Hassocks: Humani t ies.

Blaikie, N.W .H . and S.J.G. Stacy (1984). The generation of grounded concepts: a cri t ical

appraisal of the l iterature and a case study. paper presented at the European Symp osium

on Concep t Formation and Measurem ent, Rom e.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cli f fs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .

Britan, G. (1978). Experime ntal and contex tual mod els of program evaluation, Et,ahratiorr

and Program Planning 1: 229-34.

Bryant, C.G .A. 1985. Positivism in Socia l Theory and Research. London: Macmil lan.

Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and Quality in Socia l Research. London: Al len Unw in.

Burgess, R.G. (1982). Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. London: Allen

Unwin.

Burgess, R.G. (1984). In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research. London: Al len Unw in.

Cam pbell , D.T . and Fiske, D.W . (1959). Convergent and Discriminant val idation by the

mult i trai t-mult imethod matrix, Psychological Bulletin 56: 81-105.

Cicourel, A.V. (1973). Cognitive Sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Clark, D. (1947). Plan e and Geodetic Surveying for Engineers. Vol. I . (4th Edn revised and

enlarged by J. Glendenning). London: Con stable.

Clark, D. (1951).

Plan e and Geodetic Surveying for Engineers, Vol.

2. (4th Edn revised and

enlarged by J. Glendenning). London: Con stable.

Cu ff, E.C . and Payne, G.C .F. (1979).

Perspectives in Sociology.

London: Al ien and Unw in.

Denzin, N.K. (1970a). The Research Act in Sociology: A Theoretical Introduction to Socio logical

Methods.

London: Butterworths.

Denzin, N.K. (ed.) (1970b).

Sociolo gical Methods: A Sourcebook.

London: Butterworths.

Douglas, J.D . (1971). Understanding Everyday Life, pp. 3-44 in J.D . Douglas (ed.)

Under-


20/22

134 Norman W. H. Blaik ie

standing Everyday Life: Toward the Reconstrzzction of Sociolo gical Know ledge. London: Rout-

ledge Kegan Paul.

Douglas, J .D.

(1976). fnvestigative Socia l Research.

Beverly Hi l ls, CA: Sage.

El l iot, J. and C. Adelman (1976). Innovation at the Classroom Level: A Case Stzrdy of the Ford

Teaching Project. Unit 28 of the Curriculum Design and Development Course. Mil ton Keynes:

Open University Press.

Fielding, N.G . and J.L. Fielding (1986). Linking Data: Qualitative and Qzrantitative Me/hods in

Social Research.

Beverley Hi l ls, CA: Sage.

Filstead , W . (1979). Qualitative me thod s: a needed perspective in evaluation research, pp.

33-48 in T.D . Cook and C.S. Reichardt (eds). Qztalitatibfe and Quantitative Methods in

Evaluation Research.


Foxal l . H.G. (1957). Handbook for Practising Land and Engine ering Surveyors. Sydney: The

Insti tution of Surveyors, A ustral ia.

Giddens. A. (1976). New Rzrles of Socio logical Method: A Positive Critiqzre of Interpretive

Sociology. London: Hutchinson.

Gilk, D .C ., K. Parker and G. Muligande (1986). Integrating qual i tat ive and quanti tative survey

techniques, fnternation al Quarterly of Commzmity Health Educatio n 7: 181-200.

Glaser. B.G . and A.L. Strauss (1967). The Discovery of Grozmded Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Research.

London: Weidenfeld Nicolson.

Greene, J. and C. McC lintock (1985). Triangulation in evaluation: design and analysis issues.

Evaluation Review 9: 523-45.

Guba, E .G. and Y.S . Lincoln (1981).

Effective Evahzation.

San Francisco: Jossey-B ass.

Halfpenny, P. (1979). The analysis of qual i tat ive data,

The Sociological Review 27: 799-825.

Halfpenny, P. (1982). Positivism and Sociology. London: Al len Unw in.

Ham mersley, M. and P. Atkinson (1983). Ethnography: Principles and Practice. London: Tavis-

tack.

Haralambos, M. (1980). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. Slough: University Tutorial Press.

Harre, R. (1970). Princ iples of Scientific Thinking. Chicago: U niversity of Chicago Press.

Harre, R. (1972). Philoso phies of Science. London: Oxford University Press.

Harre, R. (1986). Varieties of Realism. Oxford: Blackwell .

Hei lman, J. (1980). Paradigmatic choices in evaluation methodology,

Evaluation Review 4:

693-712.

Hovland. C. I. (1959). Reconci l ing confl icting results derived from experimental and survey

studies of att i tude change,

American Psychologist

14: 8-17.

Hughes, J. 1980. The Philosophy of Socia l Research. London: Longman.

Ianni, F.A . and M.T . Orr (1979). Towards a rapprochement of quanti tative and qual i tat ive

methodologies, pp. 87-97 in T.D . C ook and C.S . Reichardt (eds), Qzralitative and Quantitat-

ive Methods in Evalua tion Research.


Jick, T.D . (1979a). Process and Impacts of a Merger: Individzzal and Organizationa l Perspectives.

Doctoral dissertation, New York State School of Industrial and Labor R elations, C ornel l

University.

Jick , T. D. (1979b). Mixing qualitative and quan titative me thod s: triangulation in action,

Administrative Science Qzrarterly 24: 602-61 I.

Jick , T. D . (1983). Mixing qualitative and quan titative me thod s: triangulation in action. pp.

135-148 in J. van Maanen (ed.). Qualitative Methodology. Beverly Hi l ls, CA: Sage.

Johnson, T., C. Dandeker and C. Ashworth (1984). The Strzzctzrre of Soc ial Theory. London:

Macmil lan.

Keat, R. and J. Urry (1975). Socia l Theory as Science. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.

Kidder, L. H. (1981). Qualitative research and quasi-experime ntal fram ew orks , pp. 226-56

in M.B . B rewer and B.E. Col l ins (eds),

Scientific Inquiry and rhe Socia l Sciences.

San Francis-

co: Jossey-Bass.

Kidder, L.H. (1987). Qual i tative and quanti tative method s: when stories converge, New

Directions in Program Evalua tion 35: 57-75.

Knapp, M S. (1979). Ethnographic contributions to evaluation research . pp. 118-39 in T. D.


21/22

Triangulation 13.5

Cook and C.S. Reichardt (eds).

Qztal i tat i r,e and @ranri tarive Methods in E\,aluat iorr Research.

Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.

Kolevzon. M.S., R.G. Green, A.E. Fortune and N.R. Vosler (1988). Evaluati ng family

therapy: divergent methods. divergent findings, Jmtrnal

of

Mari tal and Fami ly Therapy 14:

277-86.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Srvucrure of Scienrific Reb aolurion s. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Louis, K.S. (1082). Multis ite/multi method studies. American Behavioral Scient is t 26: 6-22.

Madey, D.L. (1982). Some benefits of integratin g qualitativ e and quantitative evaluation.

Educational Evaluat ion and Pol icy Analys is 4: 223-36.

McCall, G. and J. Simmo ns (eds) (1969). Issttes

in Parricipanr Obserrsarion: A Text and Read er.

Readi ng, MA: Addison-Wesley.

McClintock, C. and J. Greene (1985). Triangula tion in practice. E\~aluarion and Program

Plann ing 8 : 351-7.

Outhwaite, W. (lY83a). Toward a Realist Perspective.

in G. Morgan (ed.). Beyond Methods:

Strategies for Social Research.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Outhwaite. W. (1983b). Concepf Formarion in Social Science. London: Routledge Kegan

Paul.

Outhwaite. W. (1987). New Phi losophies of Sorial Science: Real ism, Hermeneutics and Cri t ical

Theory.

London: Macmillan.

Patton, M.Q. (1980).

QuaLi tal ive Evaluat ion Methods.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Phillips, B. (1985).

Sociological Research M ethods: An Introducrion.

Homew ood. Ill.: Dorsey.

Reichardt, T.S. and T.D. Cook (1979). Beyond qualitativ e versus quantitative methods, pp.

7-32 in T.D. Cook and C.S. Reichardt (eds), Qual i raf i \se and Quanti rat i \se Methods in Evalu-

at ion Research. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.

Ritzer G. (1975). Sociology: A Malriple Paradigm Science. Allyn Bacon.

Sayer, A. (1984). Method in Social Science: A Real is t Approach. London: Hutchinson.

Schutz, A. (1962). Col lecred Papers. V ol . 1 (edited by M. Natanson). The Hague: Nijhoff .

Schwartz. H. and J. Jacobs (1979). Qual i rat i re Sociology: A Method to the Madness. New York:

Free Press.

Sieber. S .D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods,

American Journal of

Sociology 78:

1335-9.

Silverman, D. 1985.

Qual i tat ive Methodology and Sociology: Describing the Social World.

Alder-

shot, Hants: Gower.

Smart, B. 1976. Sociology, Phenom enology and Marxian Analys is. London: Routledge Kegan

Paul.

Smith H.W. 1975. Strategies of Social Research: The Method ological Imagina t ion. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-H all.

Smit h, J.K. 1983. Quantitative versus qualitat ive research: an attempt to clarify the issues,

Educational Researcher 12(3): 6-13.

Trend, M.G. 1979. On the reconciliation of qualitativ e and quantitative analysis: a case study,

pp. 68-86 in T.D. Cook an d C.S. Reichardt (eds),

Qual i tari rte and Quanti fat i r~e Merhods in

Evaluat ion Research. Beverly Hills, C A: Sage.

Trow. M. (1957). Comme nt on Particip ant observation and interviewin g: a comparison .

Huma n Organizat ion 16: 33-35.

Vidich , A.J. and G. Shapir o (1955). A comparison of participant observation and survey

data, American Sociological Review 20: 28-33.

Webb, E.J., D.T. Cam pbell , R.D. Schwartz and L. Sechrest (1966). Unobrrusire Measures:

Non-reactive Research in the Soc ial Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Werner, 0. and D.T. Camp bell (1973). Translating, working through interpreters and the

problem of decentering, in R. Naroll and R. Cohen (eds).

A Handbook o f Merhod in

Cul tural Anthropology. New York: Colu mbia University Press.

West, P. (1979). An investigation into the social construction and consequences of the labe l

epilepsy, The Sociological Review 27:71Y-741.


22/22

136


Will iams, R. (1976). Symbolic interaction m: fusion of theory and research, pp. 1 S-138 in

D.C. Thorns (ed.) . New

Directions in Sociology.

Totow a. NJ : Rowa n Litt lef ield.

Wilson, T.P . (1971). Normative and interpretive paradigms in sociology. pp. 57-79 in J.D .

Douglas (ed.). Understanding Everyday Life: Toward the Reconstnrction of Sociol ogical

Knowledge. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.

Zelditch, M. (1962). Some methodological problems of f ield studies. American Journal of

Sociology 67: 566-76.

blaikie triangulation

Documents