Skip to main content
Log in

A critique of the use of triangulation in social research

  • Published:
Quality and Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • BabbieE.R. (1983). The Practice of Social Research (3rd Edn). Belmont. CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • BeckerH.S. and B.Geer (1957). “Participant observation and interviewing: a comparison”, Human Organization 16: 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • BednarzD. (1985). “Quantity and quality in evaluation research: a divergent view”, Evaluation and Program Planning 8: 289–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • BentonT. (1977). The Philosophical Foundations of the Three Sociologies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • BentonT. (1981). “Realism and social science” Radical Philosophy 27: 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • BhaskarR. (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. Hassocks: Hurvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • BhaskarR. (1979). The Possibility of Naturalism. Hassocks: Humanities.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • BlumerH. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • BritanG. (1978). “Experimental and contextual models of program evaluation”, Evaluation and Program Planning 1: 229–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • BryantC.G.A. 1985. Positivism in Social Theory and Research. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • BrymanA. (1988). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • BurgessR.G. (1982). Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • BurgessR.G. (1984). In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • CampbellD.T. and FiskeD.W. (1959). “Convergent and Discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix”, Psychological Bulletin 56: 81–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • CicourelA.V. (1973). Cognitive Sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • ClarkD. (1947). Plane and Geodetic Surveying for Engineers, Vol. 1 (4th Edn revised and enlarged by J. Glendenning). London: Constable.

    Google Scholar 

  • ClarkD. (1951). Plane and Geodetic Surveying for Engineers, Vol. 2. (4th Edn revised and enlarged by J. Glendenning). London: Constable.

    Google Scholar 

  • CuffE.C. and PayneG.C.F. (1979). Perspectives in Sociology. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • DenzinN.K. (1970a). The Research Act in Sociology: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • DenzinN.K. (ed.) (1970b). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • DouglasJ.D. (1976). Investigative Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • FieldingN.G. and J.L.Fielding (1986). Linking Data: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Research. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • FoxallH.G. (1957). Handbook for Practising Land and Engineering Surveyors. Sydney: The Institution of Surveyors, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • GiddensA. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretive Sociology. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • GlaserB.G. and A.L.Strauss (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • GreeneJ. and C.McClintock (1985). “Triangulation in evaluation: design and analysis issues”, Evaluation Review 9: 523–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • GubaE.G. and Y.S.Lincoln (1981). Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • HalfpennyP. (1979). “The analysis of qualitative data”, The Sociological Review 27: 799–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • HalfpennyP. (1982). Positivism and Sociology. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • HammersleyM. and P.Atkinson (1983). Ethnography: Principles and Practice. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • HaralambosM. (1980). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. Slough: University Tutorial Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • HarréR. (1970). Principles of Scientific Thinking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • HarréR. (1972). Philosophies of Science. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • HarréR. (1986). Varieties of Realism. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • HeilmanJ. (1980). “Paradigmatic choices in evaluation methodology”, Evaluation Review 4: 693–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • HovlandC.I. (1959). “Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change”, American Psychologist 14: 8–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • HughesJ. 1980. The Philosophy of Social Research. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • JickT.D. (1979b). “Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action”, Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 602–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • JohnsonT., C.Dandeker and C.Ashworth (1984). The Structure of Social Theory. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • KeatR. and J.Urry (1975). Social Theory as Science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • KidderL.H. (1987). “Qualitative and quantitative methods: when stories converge”, New Directions in Program Evaluation 35: 57–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • KuhnT.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LouisK.S. (1982). “Multisite/multimethod studies”, American Behavioral Scientist 26: 6–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • MadeyD.L. (1982). “Some benefits of integrating qualitative and quantitative evaluation”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 4: 223–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCallG. and J.Simmons (eds) (1969). Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and Reader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClintockC. and J.Greene (1985). “Triangulation in practice”, Evaluation and Program Planning 8: 351–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • OuthwaiteW. (1983a). “Toward a Realist Perspective”, in G.Morgan (ed.). Beyond Methods: Strategies for Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • OuthwaiteW. (1983b). Concept Formation in Social Science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • OuthwaiteW. (1987). New Philosophies of Social Science: Realism, Hermeneutics and Critical Theory. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • PattonM.Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • PhillipsB. (1985). Sociological Research Methods: An Introduction. Homewood. Ill.: Dorsey.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ritzer G. (1975). Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. Allyn & Bacon.

  • SayerA. (1984). Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • SchutzA. (1962). Collected Papers, Vol. 1 (edited by M.Natanson) The Hague: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • SchwartzH. and J.Jacobs (1979). Qualitative Sociology: A Method to the Madness. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SieberS.D. (1973). “The integration of fieldwork and survey methods”, American Journal of Sociology 78: 1335–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • SilvermanD. 1985. Qualitative Methodology and Sociology: Describing the Social World. Aldershot, Hants: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • SmartB. 1976. Sociology, Phenomenology and Marxian Analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • SmithH.W. 1975. Strategies of Social Research: The Methodological Imagination. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • SmithJ.K. 1983. “Quantitative versus qualitative research: an attempt to clarify the issues”, Educational Researcher 12(3): 6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • TrowM. (1957). “Comment on ‘Participant observation and interviewing: a comparison’”, Human Organization 16: 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • VidichA.J. and G.Shapiro (1955). “A comparison of participant observation and survey data”, American Sociological Review 20: 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • WestP. (1979). “An investigation into the social construction and consequences of the label epilepsy”, The Sociological Review 27: 719–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • ZelditchM. (1962). “Some methodological problems of field studies”, American Journal of Sociology 67: 566–76.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blaikie, N.W.H. A critique of the use of triangulation in social research. Qual Quant 25, 115–136 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145701

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145701

Keywords

Navigation