Data validation through triangulation

Triangulation is the use of more than one method to validate data collected for an investigation of a particular study. Defining triangulation, Denzin refers to it as “comparison of data relating to the same phenomenon but deriving from different phases of the fieldwork, different points in the temporal cycles occurring in the setting, or, as in respondent validation, the accounts of different participants in the setting” (Denzin, 1978:198). There are several types of triangulations: data triangulation, investigator triangulation, theory triangulation and methodological triangulation. In data triangulation, one uses data that was collected from multiple sources; in investigator triangulation, it is the cross-checking of the same data received from a multiple sources and in methodological triangulation, it is the use of several methods to study the same data. Similarly, in doing theory triangulation, one uses more than one theory to analyse the collected data. There is also environmental triangulation which is closely related to the environmental conditions that are associated with the physical location of the place where the study is being done. For example, in environmental triangulation it could be the study of one place or similar places in different locations in

different periods of time or during different months of the same or different years (Denzin, 1978).

It should be noted that although triangulation is often used as a way to validate data or add credibility to one’s findings, there are also scholars who, for example, question whether triangulation can yield the desired result. Although in a physical science study such as land surveying, triangulation could be successfully used to locate a position “from two others of known distance apart, given the angles of the triangle formed by the three points” (Clark 1951:145, in Blaikie, 1991:118), it does not mean that similar or matching identification can be made in a social science study whose evidence may not be as empirical and as precise as it is in a physical science. Hence, in social science one cannot count on the certainty that physical science gives (Massey & Walford, 1999; Blaikie, 1991).

For the data collection, I selected only the radio staff who were employed at the stations during the time of my visits. As the staff for the interviews were “purposively and carefully selected for their knowledge” (Pranee, 2009: 21), I believe their answers to be authoritative and reliable as the main source of information for my research. There is however, good reason to believe that being current staff currently employed, their opinions would be ‘coloured’ with their work experiences and hence would be biased and may not always reflect the truth. Therefore, it could be argued that if I had used former staff who had previously worked at the station, they would speak out more independently given the fact that they no longer had any attachment to the stations and hence would be in a better position to speak out and give a neutral view. Their opinions too could be disputed on grounds that there may have been interviewees who left the station with bitter feelings. They would have stronger opinions and hence would be biased in favour of their ‘good old days’ at the station.

Assuming that the old and current staff would give different view points in a discussion about the radio, I decided that I should use old and current staff as a source to ‘triangulate each other’s knowledge to strengthen my collected data. Hence, having obtained all the information from the current staff, I then formed a small core discussion group with whom I

could comfortably discuss my notes and the general observations I had made during the interviews. In this sense, through the use of a selected focused group that included people whose views were not necessarily the same, I was re-checking, correcting, discussing and adding relevant information to what I had collected from my interviews. As Pranee (2009) notes multiple methods can be used for a “methodological triangulation” (Pranee, 2009:26).

Therefore, my exercise was, in many ways, an exercise that was aimed at verifying my data through a multi-method approach; an approach that included on one hand ‘in-depth interviewing’ and on the other hand, a ‘focused group’. I should note here that my interviewees were quite informative and authoritative in their knowledge. Hence, I had full satisfaction that the data I had collected was quite accurate. Hence, my use of a methodological triangulation was not necessarily aimed at doubting or disregarding their credibility, the aim was simply to use it as a means to share my findings with them and get their thoughts and observations so that I gained a better perspective and good understanding of the radio station and hence, a stronger authentication of the data I had collected and the observations I had made through my interviews.

Here, I should also note that the “focus group’ was not gathered for the purpose of doing a Focused Group Interview. It was rather a “group of people gathered together to discuss a focused issue of concern” (Pranee, 2009: 69) and in this case, to get their stamp of approval to my findings. By doing this, I would be able to ascertain that the information collected from the different sources was true and relevant with regard to the station in question. Furthermore, it was also an opportunity to “cross-check the consistency of perspectives and statements of certain individuals (Simons, 2009:49). The ‘focus group’ for RS and KCR consisted of two current staff, two current volunteers and two old staff. A group of about six people is regarded as the right size to “generate interest and maintain an active discussion” (Pranee, 2009:73). At SCR, however, the ‘group’ consisted of three people only. One was a full time staff, the other a volunteer and the third a former staff. Being a very small station that had very few staff, I had to settle for a group of three members.

In addition to discussing my findings with a core group of people, I cross-checked and compared notes I had gathered from the different interviewees. Sands and Roer-Strier (2006) suggest “researchers may triangulate transcriptions of different interviewees about the same topics” (Sands and Roer-Strier (2006:238-9). In this sense, my comparison was also an exercise that helped me to conduct further triangulation by identifying any similarities or differences, by way of facts, opinions and observations. Hesse-Biber and Levy (2005:651) note any similarity that one finds in one’s research helps to add “improved reliability”.