In an article in this journal, Rhineberger, Hartmann, and Van Valey (2005), discussed the mixed methods approach known as triangulation, arguing that the meaning and uses of triangulation need to be consistently applied and more adequately described in published articles. The authors presented two models of triangulation found in their extensive literature review. In this paper, I review triangulation designs used in applied research and propose a third and distinct model called the “iterative model.” This model employs triangulation to gain increasing clarity and understanding of the complex issues involved in applied social research. Clearly defined and collectively understood models of triangulation help applied researchers better integrate triangulated sources and convey their methods across disciplinary boundaries.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarbourRosaline S.BarbourMichael2003. “Evaluating and Synthesizing Qualitative Research: The Need to Develop a Distinctive Approach.”Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice9, 2:179–86.
2.
BeckerHoward S.1998. Tricks of the Trade: How to Think about Your Research While You're Doing It.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BluthenthalRicky N.WattersJohn K.1995. “Multimethod Research from Targeted Sampling to HIV Risk Environments” Pp. 212–230 in Qualitative Methods in Drug Abuse and HIV Research, edited by LambertElizabeth Y.AsheryRebecca S.NeedleRichard H.. NIDA Research Monograph, #157 NIH Publication No. 95–4025. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
4.
BoeriMiriam Williams2004. “Hell, I'm an Addict but I Ain't No Junkie. An Ethnographic Analysis of Aging Heroin Users.”Human Organization63. 2: 236–45.
5.
BoeriMiriam Williams2002. “I'm an Addict but I Ain't No Junkie” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Sociology, Georgia State University.
6.
BoeriMiriam WilliamsSterkClaire E.ElifsonKirk W.2006a. “Baby Boomers Drug Users: Career Phases, Social Control and Social Learning Theory.”Sociological Inquiry76, 2: 264–91.
7.
CaudleS.1994. “Using Qualitative Approaches.” Pp 69–95 in Handbook of Practical Evaluation edited by WholeyJ. S.HatryH. P.NewcomerK. E.. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
CharmazKathy1983. “The Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and Interpretation.” Pp. 109–126 in Contemporary Field Research: A Collection of Readings, edited by EmersonR.N.. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
9.
CreswellJohn W.1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
DenzinNorman1970. The Research Act.Chicago: Aldine.
11.
DenzinNormanLincolnYvonne1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
GlaserBarney G.StraussAnslem1967. Discovery of Grounded Theory.New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
13.
HansenDortheMaycockBruceLowerTony2001. ““Weddings, Parties, Anything.'; A Qualitative Analysis of Ecstasy Use in Perth, Western Australia.”. International Journal of Drug Policy12: 181–99.
14.
HuntGeoffrey P.Joe-LaidlerKarenEvansKristy2002. “The Meaning and Gendered Culture of Getting High: Gang Girls and Drug Use Issues.”Contemporary Drug Problems29, 2: 375–415.
15.
KoesterStephen1995. “Applying the Methodology of Participant Observation to the Study of Injection-Related HIV Risks.” Pp. 85–97 in Qualitative Methods in Drug Abuse and HIV Research, edited by LambertElizabeth Y.AsheryRebecca S.NeedleRichard H.. NIDA Research Monograph, #157 NIH Publication No. 95–4025. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
16.
LaRossaRalph2005. “Grounded Theory Methods and Qualitative Family Research.”Journal of Marriage and Family67: 837–57.
17.
LempertRichardMonsaKarl1994. “Cultural Differences and Discrimination: Samoans before a Public Housing Eviction Board.”American Sociological Review59: 890–910.
LoflandJohnSnowDavidAndersonLeonLoflandLyn H.2006. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis.Belmont: CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
20.
MalterudKristi2001. “Qualitative Research: Standards, Challenges, and Guidelines.”The Lancet.358:483–88.
21.
NichterMarkQuinteroGilbertNichterMimiMockJeremiahShakibSohaila2004. “Qualitative Research: Contributions to the Study of Drug Use, Drug Abuse and Drug Use(r)-Related Interventions.”Substance Use & Misuse39, 10–12: 1907–69.
22.
PachA.IIIMichaelGorman E.2002. “An Ethno-epidemiological Approach for the Multi-site Study of Emerging Drug Abuse Trends: The Spread of Methamphetamine in the United States of America.”Bulletin on NarcoticsVol LIV: Mos. 1 and 2.
RhinebergerGayleM.HartmannDavid J.Van ValeyThomas L.2005. “Triangulated Research Designs: A Justification?”Journal of Applied Sociology/Sociological Practice: A Journal of Applied and Clinical Sociology 22, 1/7, 1: 56–66.
25.
SnowDavid A.AndersonLeon1993. Down on Their Luck: A Study of Homeless Street People.Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
Sterk-ElifsonClaire1995. “Women and Drug Use: The Application of Qualitative Research Methods.” Pp. 65–83 in Qualitative Methods in Drug Abuse and HIV Research, edited by LambertElizabeth Y.AsheryRebecca S.NeedleRichard H.. NIDA Research Monograph, #157 NIH Publication No. 95–4025. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
27.
StraussAnslemCorbinJuliet1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
TrotterARobertT.1995. “Drug Use, AIDS, and Ethnography: Advance Ethnographic Research Methods Exploring the HIV Epidemic.” Pp. 38–64 in Qualitative Methods in Drug Abuse and HIV Research, edited by LambertElizabeth Y.AsheryRebecca S.NeedleRichard H.. NIDA Research Monograph, #157 NIH Publication No. 95–4025. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
29.
Van MaanenJohn1983. Qualitative Methodology.London: Sage.
30.
YinRobert1998. “The Abridged Version of Case Study Research: Design and Method.” Pp. 229–260 in Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, edited by WholeyJoseph S.HatryHarry P.NewcomerKathryn E.. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
