This article explores the deployment of triangulation in the service of uncovering subjugated knowledge and promoting social change for women and other oppressed groups. Feminist approaches to mixed methods praxis create a tight link between the research problem and the research design. An analysis of selected case studies of feminist praxis explores the specific reasons feminist researchers employ triangulation, and the strengths and weaknesses they encountered in the process of implementing a mixed methods design.
AllenD. (2009). From boundary concept to boundary object: The practice and politics of care pathway development. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 354-361.
2.
BahlS.MilneG. R. (2006). Mixed methods in interpretive research: An application to the study of the self concept. In BelkR. W. (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing (pp. 198-218). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
3.
BrymanA. (2008). Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantitative and qualitative research? In BergmanM. M. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 89-100). London, England: SAGE.
4.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
5.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. I.GutmannM.HansonW. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
DenzinN. K. (1970). Strategies of multiple triangulation. In DenzinN. K. (Ed.), The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (pp. 297-313). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
7.
DenzinN. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction (3rd ed.). Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8.
EichlerM.LapointeJ. (1985). On the treatment of the sexes in research. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
9.
FlickU. (1992). Triangulation revisited: Strategy of validation or alternative?Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22, 175-197.
10.
GiddingsL. S. (2006). Mixed methods research: Positivism dressed in drag?Journal of Research in Nursing, 11, 195-203.
11.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-74.
12.
HarawayD. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575-599.
13.
HardingS. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
14.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2007). Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2010a). Feminist approaches to mixed methods research: Linking theory and praxis. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 169-192). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2010b). Mixed method research: Merging theory with practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
17.
LöwyI. (1992). The strength of loose concepts-boundary concepts, federative experimental strategies and disciplinary growth: The case of immunology. History of Science, 30, 371-396.
18.
MillerS. I.GattaJ. L. (2006). The use of mixed methods models and designs in the human sciences: Problems and prospects. Quality & Quantity, 40, 595-610.
19.
NightingaleA. (2003). A feminist in the forest: Situated knowledges and mixing methods in natural resource management. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 2(1), 77-90.
20.
NightingaleA. (2003). Nature-society and development: Social, cultural and ecological change in Nepal. Geoforum, 34(4), 525-540.
21.
NightingaleA. (2006). The nature of gender: Work, gender, and environment. Society and Space, 24, 165-185.
22.
PerleszA.LindsayJ. (2003). Methodological triangulation in researching families: Making sense of dissonant data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(1), 25-40.
23.
SaleJ. E. M.LohfeldL. H.BrazilK. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43-53.
24.
SandelowskiM.VolisC. I.KnaflG. (2009). On quantizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208-222.
25.
SealeC. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London, England: SAGE.
26.
SherifC. W. (1987). Bias in psychology. In HardingS. (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (pp. 37-56). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
27.
TuanaN. (1988). The weaker the seed: The sexist bias of reproductive theory. Hypatia, 3, 147-171.
28.
VikströmL. (2003). Different sources, different answers: Aspects of women’s work in Sundvall, Sweden, 1860-1893. Interchange, 34, 241-259.
29.
VikströmL. (2010). Identifying dissonant and complementary data on women through the triangulation of historical sources. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13, 211-221.
