Advertisement

Quality and Quantity

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 115–136 | Cite as

A critique of the use of triangulation in social research

  • Norman W. H. Blaikie
Article

Keywords

Social Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BabbieE.R. (1983). The Practice of Social Research (3rd Edn). Belmont. CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  2. BeckerH.S. and B.Geer (1957). “Participant observation and interviewing: a comparison”, Human Organization 16: 28–32.Google Scholar
  3. BednarzD. (1985). “Quantity and quality in evaluation research: a divergent view”, Evaluation and Program Planning 8: 289–306.Google Scholar
  4. BentonT. (1977). The Philosophical Foundations of the Three Sociologies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. BentonT. (1981). “Realism and social science” Radical Philosophy 27: 13–21.Google Scholar
  6. BhaskarR. (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. Hassocks: Hurvester.Google Scholar
  7. BhaskarR. (1979). The Possibility of Naturalism. Hassocks: Humanities.Google Scholar
  8. Blaikie, N.W.H. and S.J.G. Stacy (1984). “The generation of grounded concepts: a critical appraisal of the literature and a case study“, paper presented at the European Symposium on Concept Formation and Measurement, Rome.Google Scholar
  9. BlumerH. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. BritanG. (1978). “Experimental and contextual models of program evaluation”, Evaluation and Program Planning 1: 229–34.Google Scholar
  11. BryantC.G.A. 1985. Positivism in Social Theory and Research. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. BrymanA. (1988). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  13. BurgessR.G. (1982). Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  14. BurgessR.G. (1984). In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  15. CampbellD.T. and FiskeD.W. (1959). “Convergent and Discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix”, Psychological Bulletin 56: 81–105.Google Scholar
  16. CicourelA.V. (1973). Cognitive Sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  17. ClarkD. (1947). Plane and Geodetic Surveying for Engineers, Vol. 1 (4th Edn revised and enlarged by J. Glendenning). London: Constable.Google Scholar
  18. ClarkD. (1951). Plane and Geodetic Surveying for Engineers, Vol. 2. (4th Edn revised and enlarged by J. Glendenning). London: Constable.Google Scholar
  19. CuffE.C. and PayneG.C.F. (1979). Perspectives in Sociology. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  20. DenzinN.K. (1970a). The Research Act in Sociology: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  21. DenzinN.K. (ed.) (1970b). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  22. DouglasJ.D. (1971). “Understanding Everyday Life”, pp. 3–44. in J.D.Douglas (ed.) Understanding Everyday Life: Toward the Reconstruction of Sociological Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  23. DouglasJ.D. (1976). Investigative Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. ElliotJ. and C.Adelman (1976). Innovation at the Classroom Level: A Case Study of the Ford Teaching Project. Unit 28 of the Curriculum Design and Development Course. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  25. FieldingN.G. and J.L.Fielding (1986). Linking Data: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Research. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. FilsteadW. (1979). “Qualitative methods: a needed perspective in evaluation research”, pp. 33–48 in T.D.Cook and C.S.Reichardt (eds), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. FoxallH.G. (1957). Handbook for Practising Land and Engineering Surveyors. Sydney: The Institution of Surveyors, Australia.Google Scholar
  28. GiddensA. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretive Sociology. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  29. GilkD.C., K.Parker and G.Muligande (1986). “Integrating qualitative and quantitative survey techniques”, International Quarterly of Community Health Education 7: 181–200.Google Scholar
  30. GlaserB.G. and A.L.Strauss (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  31. GreeneJ. and C.McClintock (1985). “Triangulation in evaluation: design and analysis issues”, Evaluation Review 9: 523–45.Google Scholar
  32. GubaE.G. and Y.S.Lincoln (1981). Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. HalfpennyP. (1979). “The analysis of qualitative data”, The Sociological Review 27: 799–825.Google Scholar
  34. HalfpennyP. (1982). Positivism and Sociology. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  35. HammersleyM. and P.Atkinson (1983). Ethnography: Principles and Practice. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  36. HaralambosM. (1980). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. Slough: University Tutorial Press.Google Scholar
  37. HarréR. (1970). Principles of Scientific Thinking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. HarréR. (1972). Philosophies of Science. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. HarréR. (1986). Varieties of Realism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. HeilmanJ. (1980). “Paradigmatic choices in evaluation methodology”, Evaluation Review 4: 693–712.Google Scholar
  41. HovlandC.I. (1959). “Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change”, American Psychologist 14: 8–17.Google Scholar
  42. HughesJ. 1980. The Philosophy of Social Research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  43. IanniF.A. and M.T.Orr (1979). “Towards a rapprochement of quantitative and qualitative methodologies”, pp. 87–97. in T.D.Cook and C.S.Reichardt (eds), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Jick, T.D. (1979a). Process and Impacts of a Merger: Individual and Organizational Perspectives. Doctoral dissertation, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  45. JickT.D. (1979b). “Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action”, Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 602–611.Google Scholar
  46. JickT.D. (1983). “Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action”, pp. 135–148. in J.vanMaanen (ed.). Qualitative Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. JohnsonT., C.Dandeker and C.Ashworth (1984). The Structure of Social Theory. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. KeatR. and J.Urry (1975). Social Theory as Science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  49. KidderL.H. (1981). “Qualitative research and quasi-experimental frameworks”, pp. 226–56. in M.B.Brewer and B.E.Collins (eds), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  50. KidderL.H. (1987). “Qualitative and quantitative methods: when stories converge”, New Directions in Program Evaluation 35: 57–75.Google Scholar
  51. KnappM.S. (1979). “Ethnographic contributions to evaluation research”, pp. 118–39 in T.D.Cook and C.S.Reichardt (eds), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. KolevzonM.S., R.G.Green, A.E.Fortune and N.R.Vosler (1988). “Evaluating family therapy: divergent methods, divergent findings”, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 14: 277–86.Google Scholar
  53. KuhnT.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. LouisK.S. (1982). “Multisite/multimethod studies”, American Behavioral Scientist 26: 6–22.Google Scholar
  55. MadeyD.L. (1982). “Some benefits of integrating qualitative and quantitative evaluation”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 4: 223–36.Google Scholar
  56. McCallG. and J.Simmons (eds) (1969). Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and Reader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  57. McClintockC. and J.Greene (1985). “Triangulation in practice”, Evaluation and Program Planning 8: 351–7.Google Scholar
  58. OuthwaiteW. (1983a). “Toward a Realist Perspective”, in G.Morgan (ed.). Beyond Methods: Strategies for Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. OuthwaiteW. (1983b). Concept Formation in Social Science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  60. OuthwaiteW. (1987). New Philosophies of Social Science: Realism, Hermeneutics and Critical Theory. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  61. PattonM.Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. PhillipsB. (1985). Sociological Research Methods: An Introduction. Homewood. Ill.: Dorsey.Google Scholar
  63. ReichardtT.S. and T.D.Cook (1979). “Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods”, pp. 7–32 in T.D.Cook and C.S.Reichardt (eds), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Ritzer G. (1975). Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  65. SayerA. (1984). Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  66. SchutzA. (1962). Collected Papers, Vol. 1 (edited by M.Natanson) The Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  67. SchwartzH. and J.Jacobs (1979). Qualitative Sociology: A Method to the Madness. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  68. SieberS.D. (1973). “The integration of fieldwork and survey methods”, American Journal of Sociology 78: 1335–9.Google Scholar
  69. SilvermanD. 1985. Qualitative Methodology and Sociology: Describing the Social World. Aldershot, Hants: Gower.Google Scholar
  70. SmartB. 1976. Sociology, Phenomenology and Marxian Analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  71. SmithH.W. 1975. Strategies of Social Research: The Methodological Imagination. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  72. SmithJ.K. 1983. “Quantitative versus qualitative research: an attempt to clarify the issues”, Educational Researcher 12(3): 6–13.Google Scholar
  73. TrendM.G. 1979. “On the reconciliation of qualitative and quantitative analysis: a case study”, pp. 68–86 in T.D.Cook and C.S.Reichardt (eds), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  74. TrowM. (1957). “Comment on ‘Participant observation and interviewing: a comparison’”, Human Organization 16: 33–35.Google Scholar
  75. VidichA.J. and G.Shapiro (1955). “A comparison of participant observation and survey data”, American Sociological Review 20: 28–33.Google Scholar
  76. WebbE.J., D.T.Campbell, R.D.Schwartz and L.Sechrest (1966). Unobtrusive Measures: Non-reactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  77. WernerO. and D.T.Campbell (1973). “Translating, working through interpreters and the problem of decentering”, in R.Naroll and R.Cohen (eds), A Handbook of Method in Cultural Anthropology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  78. WestP. (1979). “An investigation into the social construction and consequences of the label epilepsy”, The Sociological Review 27: 719–741.Google Scholar
  79. WilliamsR. (1976). “Symbolic interactionism: fusion of theory and research”, pp. 115–138 in D.C.Thorns (ed.). New Directions in Sociology. Totowa, NJ: Rowan & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  80. WilsonT.P. (1971). “Normative and interpretive paradigms in sociology”, pp. 57–79 in J.D.Douglas (ed.) Understanding Everyday Life: Toward the Reconstruction of Sociological Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  81. ZelditchM. (1962). “Some methodological problems of field studies”, American Journal of Sociology 67: 566–76.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norman W. H. Blaikie
    • 1
  1. 1.Victoria University of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations