Triangulation

Data triangulation is important in quantitative research as the technique helps establish reliability and validity during data collection and analysis (Creswell, 2020; Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). Triangulating data validates the responses received using multiple data collection processes (Jick, 1979) and to overcome biases and problems that might arise from a single perspective. Taylor and Bogdan (1998) argued triangulation validates insights gathered from different sources of data and from different participants. Hale, Treharne, and Kitas, (2008) and Jonsen and Jehn (2009) found that when issues are explored from several perspectives, triangulation enhances the validity of the research effort. Shank (2006) maintained that stronger evidence of the validity of the findings results in higher confidence when different perspectives are woven together, as in the present study.

In the present study the term triangulation was used to refer to the use of different data collection techniques: interviews, observations, and materials, as well as data depicting different perspectives of faculty and students. The purpose of this triangulation was to facilitate a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study and to make assertions regarding the nature of the target phenomenon. Triangulation strengthens credibility and dependability, which are parallels to reliability and internal validity (Merriam, 1998:207). The descriptions and interpretations in the present study were used to emphasise the voices and actions of participants and to construct meaning or social reality (some examples about how interpretations and conclusions were reached can be found in Appendix. M: Interpretations and Conclusions).

3.13.1 Audit trail. As the term implies, in this technique, the researcher maintains written details about different aspects of the research process. This technique can be of great value, particularly in qualitative research, as it assists the researcher and assists with the issue of credibility and threats to validity (Merriam, 1998; Robson, 2002). Robson (2002:176) reported "whereas in traditional fixed design research (particularly in true experiments) threats to validity are essentially dealt with in advance as part of the design process, most threats to validity in flexible design research are dealt with after the research is in progress, using evidence that you collect after you have begun to develop a tentative account." This technique was implemented in the present study in several ways:

1. A personal journal of the procedures and issues related to the research was used by the researcher to aid the description of the research process with careful documentation of research activities.

2. The use of researcher journal of the activities of the research (Yin, 1989:41) was implemented.

3. A data base was developed. This included raw data such as observational notes and recording, audio taping, transcripts of interviews, materials, and documentation of the coding and other data analysis procedures.

4. Commentary about the researcher's personal thinking and position regarding the base and logic of the decisions taken. This approach involved justifying the judgements made throughout the research process and decisions made during social interactions.

3.13.2 Peer-debriefing and member check. In addition to the audit trail and the techniques described above, two other techniques were used to ensure that results were dependable: member check, and peer-debriefing. Member checking has two types: formal and informal. Member check is recommended in qualitative research to give power to the voices of the participants. Member check, as done in the present study, involves asking participants, either face-to-face or through distance communication, to comment on transcripts and interpretations (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998; Robson, 2002; Stake, 1995). Participants are offered an opportunity to provide critical observations and feedback and help triangulate researcher interpretations (Stake, 1995). This activity demonstrates to the participants that their perceptions and contributions are appreciated (Robson, 2002). Stake (1995) recommended that the participant be "asked to review the material for accuracy and palatability. [He or she] may be encouraged to provide alternative language or interpretation, but is not promised that that version will appear in the final report." Similarly, Lincoln and Guba, 1985: 314) agreed by stating "clearly, the investigator is not bound to honour all of the criticisms that are mounted, but he or she is bound to hear them and weight their meaningfulness." This tactic is considered to be the most essential technique for establishing credibility (Lincoln and Guba, 1985:314). In the

present study, member checking happened during the unstructured interviews when an immediate validity check was performed on student and faculty responses. Member check of the interpretation of data was not possible due to limited access to faculty and students.

Peer-debriefing involves academic discussions with other researchers interested in the research field and engaged in similar research inquiries. They can have valuable insights and can help guard against researcher bias (Robson, 2002). In the context of the present study, an article based on this study was published in one of the working papers volumes published by the University of Warwick in England where the study was offered for reaction to the work by one a colleagues of the researcher. In addition, dissertation supervisors assessed and commented on the different phases of the research and on the findings, interpretations, and conclusions through frequent meetings and email communications.

3.13.3 Negative case analysis and variation within the data. Negative case analysis is a technique to guard against researcher bias (Robson, 2002; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). In this study, the objective of using this technique was to ensure the researcher's subjectivity did not skew the analysis process and findings. The technique involves searching for instances that are not consistent with the interpretations until all known cases are accounted for in the data with no exception (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). This practice is necessary because it "forms the basis for analytic induction and negative case analysis. Negative case analysis requires that the researcher looks for disconfirming data in both past and future observations. A single negative case is enough to require the investigator to revise a hypothesis" (Lincoln and Guba, 1985: 310). Attention was paid to locating instances in the data that did not conform with the preliminary findings and interpretations. The raw data was

reviewed and consulted numerous times during this process. When there was variation within the data, the conclusions were based on the data, but the judgements made were more speculative.

3.14 Summary

This chapter was a recitation of the method of data collection and the design of the study. The setting and population were described, the process through which resulting data were analyzed to answer the research questions was summarized, and ethical considerations concerning the use of human subjects was defined. The following chapter is a recitation of the results.