Triangulation in Organizational Research: Validating Knowledge in Human Competence at Work

Introduction

Good research practice obligates the researcher to triangulate, that is, to use multiple methods, data sources, and researchers to enhance the validity of research findings. Regardless of which philosophical, epistemological, or methodological perspectives an evaluator is working from, it is necessary to use multiple methods and sources of data in execution of a study in order to withstand critique by colleagues (Mathison, 1988). Methodological triangulation is the most discussed type of triangulation and refers to the use of multiple methods in the examination of a social phenomenon. Psychologists have long used Denzin’s notion of within-method triangulation in assessing psychological traits. Multiple scales comprise a psychological assessment such as an intelligence test in an effort to assess the different aspects of intelligence (Mathison, 1988).

In social science, triangulation is defined as the mixing of data or methods so that diverse viewpoints or standpoints cast light upon a topic. The mixing of data types, known as data triangulation, is often thought to help in validating the claims that might arise from an initial pilot study (Olsen, 2004). In social research, triangulation is used in a less literal sense, for it involves the use of multiple methods and measures of an empirical phenomenon in order “to overcome problems of bias and validity” (Blaikie, 1991, p. 115; Blaikie, 2000, p. 262-269; Scandura & Williams, 2000) for improving the validity of research or evaluation findings (Miles & Huberman, 1984, p. 235). It is essentially a strategy that will aid in the elimination of bias and allow the dismissal of plausible rival explanations such that a truth proposition about some social phenomenon can be made (Campbell & Fiskem 1959; Denzin, 1978, 1989; Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 1966). Historically, triangulation is a new concept in the social science repertoire dating back to a paper published by Campbell and Fiske in 1959.

A central focus for researchers within management and organizational sciences is producing knowledge about human action and activities in organizations. Traditionally, according to Sandberg (2005), knowledge has been produced from quantitative or qualitative approaches within the positivistic research tradition. However, during the past three decades, interest in qualitative approaches based on the interpretive research tradition has steadily increased in management and organizational sciences (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 1999; Prasad & Prasad, 2002; Zald, 1996), as well as within social sciences more generally (Atkinson, Coffey, & Delamont, 1003; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Flick, 2002; Lincoln & Denzin, 2003; Schwandt, 1994). The strong growth of interpretive approaches mainly stems from a dissatisfaction with the methods and procedures for producing scientific knowledge within positivistic research.

Advocates of interpretive approaches claim that those methodological procedures and claims for objective knowledge have significant theoretical limitations for advocating our understanding of human and organizational phenomena (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 1999; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, 2000; Lincoln & Denzin, 2003; Prasad & Prasad, 2002; Sandberg, 2001).In so doing, this chapter will cover the founding purpose of triangulation, as well as the five types of triangulation (Cox & Hassard, 2005, p. 110-111) in organizational research. This chapter will also cover the positivist view and the postmodernism and post-positivism paradigms of triangulation as well as the types of knowledge derived from the usage of triangulation in organizational research. This chapter will conclude with how triangulation validate knowledge in human competence within an organizational setting.