Introduction to Triangulating Data

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter introduces the final section of the volume, which profiles findings of the MYPLACE project derived from the triangulation of primary empirical data. Mixed method research is now widely used and its capacity to enhance understanding of social phenomena is increasingly accepted. Yet, mixing methods is simultaneously ‘old’ and ‘emergent’, remaining burdened by controversy and difficulty. This chapter outlines how mixed methods were used in the MYPLACE project; specifically, how quantitative (survey) and qualitative (semi-structured interview) data were collected, integrated and triangulated. Drawing on the findings of subsequent chapters in this section of the volume, this introduction discusses the main objectives and added value of employing triangulation of data and suggests ways in which different forms of triangulation may be applied in future analyses.

References

  1. Allaste, A. A. & Ferrer‐Fons, M. (2014). WP6: Mapping activism, MYPLACE Deliverable 6.1: 14 local (case study) level reports mapping and typologising youth activism based on outputs from WP4 and WP5—overview report. http://www.fp7-myplace.eu/documents/deliverables/D6%201%20Overview%20report.pdf.
  2. Allaste, A. A., Nugin, R., Pirk, R. & Taru, M. (2013). WP5: Interpreting participation (interviews), MYPLACE Deliverable 5.3: Country-based reports on interview findings—Estonia. http://www.fp7-myplace.eu/documents/D5.3%20Estonia.pdf.
  3. Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. In R. Buber, J. Gadner, & L. Richards (Eds.), Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Bergman, M. M. (2008). The straw men of the qualitative–quantitative divide and their influence on mixed methods research. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busse, B., Hashem-Wangler, A., & Tholen, J. (2013). WP5: Interpreting participation (interviews), MYPLACE deliverable 5.3: Country‐based reports on interview findings—Germany—Bremen. http://www.fp7-myplace.eu/documents/D5.3%20Bremen.pdf.
  7. Busse, B., Hashem-Wangler, A., & Tholen, J. (2015). Two worlds of participation: Young people and politics in Germany. The Sociological Review, 63, 118–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins, K. M., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 267–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Fetters, M. D. (2016). Haven’t we always been doing mixed methods research? Lessons learned from the development of the horseless carriage. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fine, G. A., & Elsbach, K. D. (2000). Ethnography and experiment in social psychological theory building: Tactics for integrating qualitative field data with quantitative lab data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(1), 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grimm, R., & Pilkington, H. (2015). Loud and proud: Youth and the politics of silencing. The Sociological Review, 63(S2), 206–230.Google Scholar
  14. Guderjan, M. (2014). WP6: Mapping activism, MYPLACE Deliverable 6.1: 14 local (case study) level reports mapping and typologising youth activism based on outputs from WP4 and WP5 United Kingdom (Coventry and Nuneaton). http://www.fp7-myplace.eu/documents/deliverables/D6%201%20UK.pdf.
  15. Guderjan, M., & Grimm, R. (2013). WP5: Interpreting participation (interviews), MYPLACE Deliverable 5.3: Country-based reports on interview findings—Germany (Rostock/Jena). http://www.fp7-myplace.eu/documents/D5.3%20Jena.pdf.
  16. Hammersley, M. (2008). Troubles with triangulation. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47(2), 659–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hesse-Biber, S. (2010a). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  19. Hesse-Biber, S. (2010b). Emerging methodologies and methods practices in the field of mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 415–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hesse-Biber, S., & Johnson, R. B. (2013). Coming at things differently: Future directions of possible engagement with mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ivankova, N., & Kawamura, Y. (2010). Emerging trends in the utilization of integration designs in the social, behavioral and health sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), The Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies in social science research. In A. Tashakkor & C. Teddlie (Eds.), The Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Levinsen, K., & Yndigegn, C. (2015). Political discussions with family and friends: Exploring the impact of political distance. The Sociological Review, 63(S2), 72–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maxwell, J. A. (2016). Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mertens, D. M., & Hesse-Biber, S. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods research: Provocative positions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moran-Ellis, J., Alexander, V. D., Cronin, A., Dickinson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J., et al. (2006). Triangulation and integration: Processes, claims and implications. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mustapić, M. (2015). Interes za povijest i kultura sjećanja mladih u Zagrebu: “…hmm…povijest…pa zanima me, ali …me i ne zanima…”, [‘Interest in History and Cultural Memory of Youth in Zagreb: “…hmm…history…well, it interests me, but then…it doesn’t interest me…”). In V. Ilišin, A. Gvozdanović, & D. Potočnik (Eds.), Demokratski potencijali mladih u Hrvatskoj [Democratic Potential of Youth in Croatia]. Zagreb: IDIZ.Google Scholar
  28. MYPLACE. (2011). Memory, youth, political legacy and civic engagement. Homepage concept & objectives work packages—What the project is doing. http://www.fp7-myplace.eu/workpackages.php.
  29. O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Integration and publications as indicators of “yield” from mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ozoliņš, G. (2013). WP5: Interpreting participation (interviews), MYPLACE deliverable 5.3 Country-based reports on interview findings—Latvia. http://www.fp7-myplace.eu/documents/D5.3%20Latvia.pdf.
  31. Ponterotto, J. G., Mathew, J. T., & Raughley, B. (2013). The value of mixed methods designs to social justice research in counseling and psychology. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 5(2), 42–68.Google Scholar
  32. Sale, J. E., & Brazil, K. (2004). A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Quality and Quantity, 38(4), 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sipos, F., & Pilkington, H. (2015). WP5: Interpreting participation (interviews), MYPLACE deliverable 5.4: Cross-national report. http://www.fp7-myplace.eu/documents/D4_6/D5.4Crossnational%20report%20final.pdf.
  34. Small, M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Sociology, 37(1), 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100.Google Scholar
  37. Uležić, S., & Ferrer‐Fons, M. (2013). WP5: Interpreting participation (interviews), MYPLACE deliverable 5.3: Country‐based reports on interview findings—Spain. http://www.fp7-myplace.eu/documents/D5.3%20Spain.pdf.
  38. Wisdom, J. P., Cavaleri, M. A., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Green, C. A. (2012). Methodological reporting in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods health services research articles. Health Services Research, 47(2), 721–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yndigegn, C. (2013). WP5: Interpreting participation (interviews), MYPLACE deliverable 5.3: Country‐based reports on interview findings—Denmark. http://www.fp7-myplace.eu/documents/D5.3%20Denmark.pdf.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ivo Pilar Institute of Social SciencesZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations