RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

TRIANGULATION 143
testing of theories among different people, as in
Piagetian and Freudian psychology; or they may
measure differences between populations by using
several different measuring instruments. We have
addressed cultural validity earlier.
Social scientists are concerned in their research
with the individual, the group and society. These
reflect the three levels of analysis adopted by
researchers in their work. Those who are critical
of much present-day research argue that some
of it uses the wrong level of analysis, individual
when it should be societal, for instance, or limits
itself to one level only when a more meaningful
picture would emerge by using more than one
level. Smith (1975) extends this analysis and
identifies seven possible levels: the aggregative
or individual level, and six levels that are more
global in that ‘they characterize the collective as a
whole, and do not derive from an accumulation of
individual characteristics’ (Smith 1975). The six
levels include:
group analysis: the interaction patterns of
individuals and groups
organizational units of analysis: units which
have qualities not possessed by the individuals
making them up
institutional analysis: relationships within and
across the legal, political, economic and
familial institutions of society
ecological analysis: concerned with spatial
explanation
cultural analysis: concerned with the norms,
values, practices, traditions and ideologies of a
culture
societal analysis: concerned with gross factors
such as urbanization, industrialization, education,
wealth, etc.
Where possible, studies combining several levels
of analysis are to be preferred. Researchers are
sometimes taken to task for their rigid adherence
to one particular theory or theoretical orientation
to the exclusion of competing theories. Indeed
Smith (1975) recommends the use of research to
test competing theories.
Investigator triangulation refers to the use
of more than one observer (or participant) in
a research setting. Observers and participants
working on their own each have their own
observational styles and this is reflected in the
resulting data. The careful use of two or more
observers or participants independently, therefore,
can lead to more valid and reliable data (Smith
1975), checking divergences between researchers
leading to minimal divergence, i.e. reliability.
In this respect the notion of triangulation
bridges issues of reliability and validity. We have
already considered methodological triangulation
earlier. Denzin (1970b) identifies two categories
in his typology: ‘within methods’ triangulation and
‘between methods’ triangulation. Triangulation
within methods concerns the replication of a study
as a check on reliability and theory confirmation.
Triangulation between methods involves the use
of more than one method in the pursuit of a
given objective. As a check on validity, the
between methods approach embraces the notion
of convergence between independent measures of
the same objective (Campbell and Fiske 1959).
Of the six categories of triangulation in Denzin’s
typology, four are frequently used in education.
These are: time triangulation with its longitudinal
and cross-sectional studies; space triangulation as
on the occasions when a number of schools in
an area or across the country are investigated in
some way; investigator triangulation as when two
observers independently rate the same classroom
phenomena; and methodological triangulation. Of
these four, methodological triangulation is the
one used most frequently and the one that possibly
has the most to offer.
Triangular techniques are suitable when a more
holistic view of educational outcomes is sought
(e.g. Mortimore et al.’s (1988) search for school
effectiveness), or where a complex phenomenon
requires elucidation. Triangulation is useful when
an established approach yields a limited and
frequently distorted picture. Finally, triangulation
can be a useful technique where a researcher is
engaged in a case study, a particular example of
complex phenomena (Adelman et al.1980).
Triangulation is not without its critics. For
example, Silverman (1985) suggests that the very
notion of triangulation is positivistic, and that
Chapter 6