Triangulation

An important design element in the research was triangulation (coined by Webb et al, 1966), which attempts to verify two reference points. Jick (1979: 603–604) suggests that ‘triangulation may be used not only to examine the same

phenomenon from multiple perspectives but also to enrich our understanding by allowing for new or deeper dimensions to emerge.’ Triangulation techniques are used to avoid reliance on one exclusive method or single observation that may distort the research, thereby enhancing confidence in the quality of research findings. Mathison (1988: 13) states that the benefits of triangulation are to ‘control bias and establish valid propositions.’ This research project recognises the benefits of triangulation not only for confirmation and corroboration, but for completeness, to fill in missing gaps in the data (Breitmayer et al, 1993). Cohen and Manion (2000: 254) also support this perspective of seeing triangulation as an ‘attempt to map out, or explain more fully, the richness and complexity of human behaviour by studying it from more than one standpoint.’ Altrichter et al (2008: 147) endorse this view, arguing that triangulation ‘gives a more detailed and balanced picture of the situation.’

179

Denzin (1970: 310) categorised four types of triangulation using ‘multiple

observers, theoretical perspectives, sources of data, and methodologies.’ He also considered triangulation of time (cross-sectional and longitudinal), space (e.g. using cross-cultural techniques) and combined levels of triangulation. In this study, theoretical triangulation has not been considered, as it appears problematic in reality. Methodological, co-coder, and data triangulation are applied here. Cohen and Manion (1989: 275) note that methodological triangulation is most frequently used in education.

McGrath (1981: 179) advises ‘one must use multiple methods selected from different classes of methods with different vulnerabilities.’ Jick (1979: 604) notes that the underlying assumption of triangulation is that one method alone is insufficient and ‘that the weaknesses in each single method will be compensated by the counterbalancing strengths of another’ that are complementary and provide a richer and more complete picture. This ignores, however, the potential for flaws in methods to be compounded within a package of research methods, thus diluting the benefits of triangulation.

It would seem from debates about triangulation that several scholars see its purpose as convergence and corroboration to reduce bias and increase accuracy. Others recognise the usefulness of the mechanism for revealing divergence and discrepancies and to allow for complexity and clarification. This thesis does not support the view that the purpose of triangulation is merely for convergence. Miles and Huberman (1984: 235) claim that ‘triangulation is supposed to support a finding by showing that independent measures of it agree with it or, at least, don’t contradict it.’ Creswell and Miller (2000: 126) focus on convergence, arguing that

180

triangulation is ‘a validity procedure where researchers search for convergence among multiple and different sources of information to form themes or categories in a study.’ This study prefers to adopt Patton’s (2002) view on the limitations of triangulation. He suggests that the technique should value discrepancies and treat them with caution. Patton observes that ‘[t]here is no magic in triangulation. The evaluator using different methods to investigate the same programme should not expect that the findings generated by those different methods will automatically come together to produce some nicely integrated whole.’ He makes an interesting point that the purpose of triangulation is ‘to study and understand when and why there are differences’ (ibid: 331). Points of difference and outliers are intrinsically interesting as ‘divergence can often turn out to be an opportunity for enriching the explanation’ (Phillips, 1971: 19). The approach here is in line with Duffy (1987) who proposes that triangulation is a vehicle that generates curious inconsistencies and contradictions for the researcher to interpret rather than representing an end in itself. Flick (1992) also suggests that triangulation for qualitative research results in further interpretations rather than the confirmation of one explanation.

The approach in this thesis is consistent with Buchanan and Dawson’s (2007) view that it is important for researchers to allow multiple voices from senior as well as junior employees from different data sources as a form of triangulation. Deans’ personal assistants were included amongst the respondents. ‘Between methods’ (Denzin 1978: 302) and ‘within-method’ (ibid: 301) triangulation are used in this thesis to enhance the quality of the research by corroborating, balancing, and enriching a range of evidence. Jick (1979: 603) observes that ‘“within-method” triangulation essentially involves cross-checking for internal consistency or

181

reliability while “between-method” triangulation tests the degree of external validity.’

Illustrations of triangulation in this thesis are provided in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Within-method triangulation: interviews

In this research project, some conflicting evidnce was collected using interviews based on different sources. For example, one dean denied he had ever accepted another deanship midway through his current tenure. He had withdrawn from the new job offer after it had been announced on the internet. Several other

interviewees confirmed that it had actually happened, noting how unsettling it had been. One very reliable respondent explained how he had dissuaded this person from taking up the position in a highly politicised national context.

INTERVIEWS: WITHIN METHOD

TRIANGULATION

Repeated formal 1-1 face-to-face interviews, self- reports with key subjects in

private and filmed

Informal conversations with colleagues of the key subjects about them during

conferences, in social situations

Formal interviews with colleagues about

182

Figure 10 outlines discrepancies found from triangulation within the method of interviews from different data sources in relation to the extent an individual chaired commitees effectively.

Figure 10: Between method triangulation: interviews

Essentially, triangulation in this study seeks to mitigate the various forms of bias that are listed in Table 14 with several examples from the data.

COMMITTEE CHAIRING, NEGOTIATING SKILLS

ONE DEAN self-report differed from

others’ observations Minutes of staff meetings

Interviews with the dean and his colleagues

183

Table 14: Potential sources of bias that triangulation seeks to mitigate Examples in this study of potential sources of bias

1. Inaccurate recollection (Huber and Power: 1985)

One respondent said that his manager often asked people whether they were drainers of energy or not: ‘are you a sponge or a spring?’ The manager honestly could not recall using this phrase.

2. Deliberate misinformation (Van Maanen, 1979)

One individual flatly denied he had ever applied for a job that others had said he had accepted and then withdrawn after it had briefly been announced on the internet.

3. Attribution bias (Martinko, 1995)

Several respondents portrayed some individual managers as being unalloyed heroes or failures. Yet the ‘hero’ had been banned for drink driving and the so-called ‘failure’ had initiated triple

accreditation, the first to be achieved globally.

4. Social desirability bias (Zerbem and Paulhus, 1987)

Following an interview, one of the managers was asked by email how he ran meetings. He gave a lengthy reply couched in favourable terms about how consultative he was and yet this had not been mentioned in the interview. Others said of him and one other manager that it was very important for them to feel liked but this attitude did help his ability to make decisions in meetings.

5. Retrospective sensemaking (Golden, 1992a)

Incidents such as merging two research groups may at the time have been risky and contentious but individuals were able to present a more coherent story in hindsight. One person had vehemently opposed a merger at the time but in retrospect considered it was absolutely the right decision.

6. Researcher bias (Barley, 1995)

There was a genuine sense of affection felt for the institution by interviewees in the second dataset which the researcher shared. The intensity of interviewing an incumbent in situ who was making radical changes and experiencing considerable antipathy made the researcher cautious. Working with one individual who was a committee chair and initially for a short time first supervisor of the researcher’s project, as well as head of the business school unit could have lead to accusations of bias because of the researcher’s multiple roles.

A final form of triangulation in this thesis is presented in Figure 11 which suggests an overall triangulated inquiry based on an overview of factors about which I can reflect as the researcher (Patton, 2002: 66) in terms of key questions,

184

In conclusion, Mathison (ibid: 17) is realistic about triangulation, suggesting that ‘we end up with data that occasionally converge, but frequently are inconsistent and even contradictory.’ Her response is that this ambiguity ‘places the

responsibility with the researcher for the construction of plausible explanations about the phenomena being studied.’

3. Evaluating the quality of the research