Quality & @iantity 23: 115-136, 1991.

115
@ 1991 Kfuwer A~~~ernic Publishers. Printed in the ~etherfa~~s.

A critique of the use of triangulation in social research

NORMAN W. H. BLAIKIE
Victoria University of Technology, RMIT Campus G.P.O. Box 2476V, Melbourne, Vie. 3001,
Australia

Introduction

It has become an accepted practice to use some form of triangulation in

social research, and introductory textbooks on research methods frequently
advocate its use in some form (see, for example, Smith, 1975; Babbie, 1983;
Phillips, 1985).
Discussions about whether and how to combine social research methods
go back to debates about the use of surveys and fieldwork (e.g., Vidich and
Shapiro, 1955; Zelditch, 1962; McCall and Simmons, 1969; Sieber, 1973), or
the use of interviews and participant observation (e.g., Becker and Geer,
1957; Trow, 1957). More recently, the debates about the relationship be-
tween qualitative and quantitative methods, particularly in evaluation re-
search, have advocated a combination of methods (e.g., Britan, 1978; Reich-
ardt and Cook, 1979; Ianni and Orr, 1979; Trend, 1979; Filstead, 1979;
Knapp, 1979; Schwartz and Jacobs, 1979; Heilman, 1980; Patton, 1980;
Kidder, 1981, 1987; Guba and Lincoln, 1981; Louis, 1982; Madey, 1982).
These debates have led to a renewed interest in the use of triangulation
(e.g., Greene and McClintock, 1985; McClintock and Greene, 1985; Fielding
and Fielding, 1986; Gilk ef al., 1986; Kolevzon er al., 1988; Bryman, 1988).
Even recent texts on ethnography have argued for its use (e.g., Hammersley
and Atkinson, 1983; Burgess, 1984).
The common theme in discussions of triangulation has been the desire to
overcome problems of bias and validity. It has been argued that the defici-
encies of any one method can be overcome by combining methods and thus
capitalizing on their individual strengths. However, the use of triangulation
has been plagued with a lack of awareness of the different and incommensur-
ate ontological and epistemological assumptions associated with various theo-
ries and methods. While some combinations of methods have been used with
common ontologies and epistemologies, serious problems have been created,
although not usually recognized, when methods based on different assump-
tions have been used.
116 Norman W. H. Blaikie

This paper examines the origins and use of triangulation in social research,
it explores the use of triangulation in navigation and surveying and how this
differs from its use in social research, it outlines a framework of methodolog-
ical perspectives in order to identify the major differences in ontology and
epistemology, and it then examines the problems which the use of triangu-
lation has produced. Some suggestions are made about what needs to be
done to overcome these problems.

The origins of triangulation in social research

The use of triangulation, or multiple measures, has been advocated in the

social sciences for nearly three decades. Building on the ideas of Campbell
and Fiske (1959), Webb et al. (1966) wished to overcome the complacent
dependence on single operational definitions of theoretical concepts, and to
supplement the use of the interview or questionnaire with unobtrusive mea-
sures that do not require the cooperation of the respondent and that do
not themselves contaminate the response (1966: 2). In claiming that all
research methods are biased, they argued for the use of a collection of
methods (multiple operationalism) which they believed would reduce the
effect of the peculiar biases of each one. Thus, Webb et al. advocated the
use of a triangulation of measurement processes in the search for the validity
of theoretical propositions. When a hypothesis can survive the confrontation
of a series of complementary methods of testing, it contains a degree of
validity unattainable by one tested within the more constricted framework
of a single method (1966: 174).
Denzin (1970a: 13) also argued for the use of multiple methods in the
analysis of the same empirical events, and claimed that each method reveals
different aspects of empirical reality.

No single method is always superior. Each has its own special strengths
and weaknesses. It is time for sociologists to recognise this fact and to
move on to a position that permits them to approach their problems with
all relevant and appropriate methods, to the strategy of methodological
triangulation (Denzin, 1970b: 471).

Denzin has taken the work of Campbell and Fiske, and Webb et al., as his
starting point and has shared their concern with bias and validity. However,
he has gone beyond their use of multiple methods in the study of the same
object, to advocate the use of multiple triangulation which involves a variety
of data sources, investigators, theories and methodologies.2 Denzin also