SECRETARIO DE DESARROLLO SUSTENTABLE DEL MUNICIPIO DE QUERÉTARO

Triangulation is a technique to improve validity and reliability of qualitative research. This is achieved by using more than one data collection method in the study of human behaviour (Burns, 2000; Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007). According to Denzin and Lincoln (2005) ―triangulation is the process of using multiple perceptions to clarify meaning, verifying the repeatability of an observation‖. Triangulation in this study is achieved in this study through the perceptions of the boys, teachers and the headteacher as well as following up on questionnaires and interviews with boys. Repeatability is not applicable in this research as I am using a case study of a particular school through the use of questionnaires and interviews and not observation. In this study the African-Caribbean boys view point was investigated to help understand their underachievement. Scott and Usher (1999) also assert that the use of different forms of data can increase the credibility of the qualitative study. Triangulation essentially means combining two or more views, approaches or methods in an investigation in order to get a more accurate picture of the phenomena (Taylor, Gibbs and Lewins 2005).

The case study in this research used data collection methods such as questionnaires, a sociogram and interviews. Yin (2009) is of the view that case study methodology can

168

combine different research methods and gives opportunities for triangulation, which in turn can increase its validity and reliability.

According to Creswell (1994) the idea of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in a single study owes much to linking paradigms to methods and combining research designs in all phases of a study. He goes on to argue that the concept of triangulation was based on the assumption that any bias inherent in particular data sources, investigator, and method would be neutralised when used in conjunction with other data sources, investigators and methods. I do not agree. Bias may be heightened because of the different views of participants. Triangulation, in the classic sense is a way of seeking convergence of results and is complimentary and overlapping in assisting to find out the different facets of a phenomenon. I do not agree with this because triangulation may not necessarily assist in establishing emerging facets of the phenomenon and a further method of validation such as respondent validation may be necessary to validate. For example the headteacher or students can look at the transcript of interviews to confirm what was said. Mason (2004) argues the logic of triangulation means different research methods or data sources can be used to investigate the same phenomena; and in the process the efficacy or validity can be judged about the different methods and sources by comparing the products. Mason (2004) goes on to say that if you measure the same phenomenon from different angles or positions, you will get an accurate reading or measurement of it. According to Mason (2004) this can be problematic because, different methods and data sources are likely to throw light on different social or ontological phenomena or research questions (or provide different versions or levels of answer). The author also suggests this implies that in the social world there is one, objective and knowable social reality, and all that social researchers have to do, is to work out what are the most appropriate triangulation points to measure it by. Mason (2004) asserts ―this is a view with which many researchers in the qualitative tradition would of course take issue‖ (p.190).

The view of Mason (2004) is that it is not straight forward to use the products of different methods or sources to corroborate each other. Triangulation in this sense is likely to become very confused about matters of validity because there will be more

169

than one data set which may seem to be pointing in different directions, Mason (2004) asserts though, that the concept of triangulation – conceived as multiple methods – encourages the researcher to approach their research questions from different angles, and to explore their intellectual puzzle in a rounded and multi-faceted way. This she argues does enhance validly in the sense that it suggests that social phenomena are a little more than one-dimensional and that a study has accordingly managed to grasp more than one of those dimensions. To conclude, Mason (2004) suggests that the general message is that you should not expect the use of multiple methods or triangulation to provide an easy or well trodden route to the demonstration of validity of methods.

The view held by Taylor, Gibbs and Lewins (2005) is that natural science findings are validated by their repeated replication. The authors assert that if a second investigator cannot replicate the findings when they repeat the experiment then the original results are questioned. The view is that if the research cannot be replicated then the original results are deemed flawed and invalid. According to Taylor, Gibbs and Lewins (2005) in social research there are two problems. First there is no widespread agreement about whether there can be any procedures that ensure research and analysis produces the right answers. Secondly, the problem with qualitative research is that replication is seldom possible and in most cases does not make much sense. This is because respondents in qualitative research will rarely say or do exactly the same thing twice. Therefore whether results have been successfully replicated is always a matter of interpretation. I have discussed the steps taken to validate the findings of this study in Chapter Six.