Denzin’s Paradigm Shift: Revisiting Triangulation in Qualitative Research" by Patricia Fusch,

Gene E. Fusch, and Lawrence R. Ness

Introduction

The essay discusses the continuing relevance of Denzin's approach to triangulation in

qualitative research. Triangulation, which involves using multiple sources of data, is presented as
an approach to promote social change, mitigate bias, and enhance data saturation. The authors
critique other researchers who have proposed alternative approaches to triangulation that appear
to merely rename Denzin's original concepts rather than offering new outcomes. The intended
audience is novice researchers and doctoral students who can benefit from clarity on common
misconceptions about triangulation.

Qualitative methodology is often used to address social change, although most research doesn't
specifically study social change. Qualitative researchers accept that they cannot separate
themselves from the research, bringing their personal experiences, values, and perspectives.
Denzin (1978) argued that researchers bring personal beliefs and the social and political
environment, making value-free research impossible. Qualitative researchers bring their bias to
the research, share it with the reader, and strive to mitigate it to correctly interpret the participant.
Social science questions like "Can social science be objective?" and "Whose truth? Whose
perspective of validity?" are relevant. Some qualitative researchers use postpositivist terms like
reliability and validity, while others use dependability, credibility, transferability, and
confirmability. Regardless of the paradigm (postpositivist, postmodernist, or other), it is vital to
address one's position and show how the trustworthiness of the research will be ensured.

The overall purpose of any study is to answer the research question. This is accomplished
through a literature review, an empirical study to gather evidence, and comparing findings to
existing knowledge and the conceptual framework. One approach to mitigate bias is through
triangulation: multiple sources of data. In qualitative research, triangulation adds depth to the
data collected. This rich, in-depth data supports a direct link between triangulation and data
saturation. Denzin (2011) suggested reframing triangulation as crystal refraction, like looking
through a crystal to perceive all facets, to extrapolate meaning from the data and mitigate bias.
This is especially important when using multiple data collection techniques to understand the
meaning participants use to frame their world. Using strategies like Denzin's triangulation can
assist in understanding the "other". A researcher's cultural and experiential background contains
biases, values, and ideologies influencing the interpretation of results.

Qualitative Research and Triangulation

The application of triangulation (multiple sources of data) can enhance the reliability of study
results and enable data saturation. Denzin (1989) noted that triangulation involves using multiple
external data collection methods for the same events, which can be enhanced by multiple
external analysis methods. Triangulation is a method by which a researcher analyzes data and
presents results for others to understand the experience of a common phenomenon.
A qualitative researcher seeks to define and interpret unclear phenomena using nonnumerical
methods focusing on meaning and insight. Exploratory research designs are used to clarify
ambiguity, discover multiple realities, and find ideas for future research. Qualitative techniques
help interpret the ambiguities that exploratory designs address. Exploratory research can involve
interpretations from unstructured interviews, in-depth interviews, and direct observation. It is
used when the problem statement is unclear.

Subjectivity is present in qualitative research. The concept of "I am a fieldnote" or "I am the
research instrument" highlights the self in qualitative research. Researchers bring their personal
milieu and values, demonstrating subjectivity and relationships between insider/outsider and
researcher/participant. Some view this subjectivity as a strength, others as a weakness. These
relationships are present in all social research, intentionally and unintentionally. Qualitative
researchers have an obligation to change the world and make a positive difference, confronting
injustice and being open to change and transformation. This is referred to as the promise of
qualitative inquiry: promoting social change by increasing knowledge, challenging
conventions, and knowing with others as well as about them. It is the ability to promote social
change through emancipatory action.

To enhance social change through research, interpretations must represent those of the
participants, not just the researcher. There is no universally accepted design for data collection,
and the researcher plays a central role in the data collection phase. It is challenging to account for
using a personal lens, especially as novice researchers may assume they have no bias. However,
both participant and researcher bias/worldview are present in all social research. This highlights
why it is important to triangulate in qualitative research.

Denzin’s Paradigm Shift: Triangulation in Qualitative Research

Triangulation is important for data analysis in empirical studies. The validity of the process can
be enhanced by triangulation. The importance of triangulation cannot be underestimated for
ensuring reliability and validity of data and results.

External validity refers to the ability of a study's conclusions to be transferred to other studies,
regardless of populations, settings, or times. Qualitative researchers often prefer the concept of
transferability over the positivist concept of generalizability. Transferability should be left to
the reader and future researchers to determine. Construct validity exists if inferences can be tied
to the study's conceptual framework. Threats to construct validity include researcher bias and
relying on a single measurement instrument. Construct validity is proven by using multiple
sources of data (triangulation), preserving the chain of evidence, and allowing key informants
to review the data. External validity is demonstrated by the study's ability to be replicated,
known as transferability.

Mitigating bias occurs through the appropriate data collection method for the study design.
Understanding others' perspectives can be difficult. The better a researcher recognizes their
personal view and lenses, the better they can interpret others' behavior and reflections.
Methodological triangulation (multiple methods of data collection) helps mitigate researcher
bias. Looking at data from multiple perspectives assists in mitigating the potential to see data
from only one view. Using triangulation, like multiple data sources, contributes to the reliability
of results and saturation of data. A case study design with at least two data collection methods is
an example of methodological triangulation.

Qualitative researchers have concerns about validity. Reliability includes the ability of
instruments to elicit responses that remain constant over time. The concept of triangulation
originated from the geometrical method used in ship navigation to locate a position by drawing
intersections from three known points. Campbell and Fiskel (1959), and later Webb et al. (1966),
introduced the idea of triangulating multiple data sources to enhance research validity.

Four Types of Triangulation

Building on the idea of triangulating multiple data sources, Denzin (1970, 1978) developed four
types of triangulation for qualitative researchers to enhance objectivity, truth, and validity
(dependability and credibility) in social research. Denzin (1989) suggested:

 Data triangulation: Correlating people, time, and space.

 Investigator triangulation: Correlating findings from multiple researchers.
 Theory triangulation: Using and correlating multiple theoretical strategies.
 Methodological triangulation: Correlating data from multiple data collection methods.

Data Triangulation

Data triangulation is often confused with methodological triangulation, particularly by students.

Denzin (2009) described data triangulation in terms of people, time, and space. These are data
points, not methods to generate data. They are interrelated and ongoing. Each data point
represents different data of the same event, seeking commonalities within dissimilar settings.
Data points take place over time to observe ongoing interactions.

Investigator Triangulation

This involves more than one investigator or researcher exploring the phenomenon. Denzin
(2009) clarified this does not include coders, graduate assistants, or data analysts; the persons
with the best skills should be closest to the data. Bias is mitigated by different investigators
observing the same data who may not agree on its interpretation.

Theory Triangulation

This involves applying different and alternative theories to the data set. One views the data
through a theoretical lens and contradictory theories. Another approach is to let the raw data
suggest a new theory to the researcher. The goal is to widen one's theoretical lens through a
process that expands knowledge.

Methodological Triangulation
Denzin (1970, 1978) noted that methodological triangulation can be within-method or between-
method (across method). The generally understood type is within-method, using multiple data
sources within one design. Examples include triangulating data from interviews, focus groups,
and observations in a qualitative case study or ethnography (within-method). Triangulating data
from quantitative and qualitative techniques in a mixed-methods study is between-method. A
challenge with within-method triangulation is that inherent flaws in one method are still present.
Denzin (2009) stated the ideal application is between-method triangulation to account for flaws
and deficiencies. Between-method triangulation combines the strengths of different methods. In-
depth understanding of the phenomenon is the goal; validity is not always enhanced.

Figure 1 shows the four types of triangulation.

The Importance of Triangulation

The importance of triangulation cannot be underestimated for ensuring the reliability and validity
of the data and results. This occurs when data is accurate and truthful, inferences have a
reasonable probability of occurring and can be tied back to the conceptual framework, and
conclusions are transferable to other studies regardless of context. The study design is crucial for
answering the research question. Researcher bias/worldview is a concern for both the researcher
and the participant. Using an interview protocol is important to mitigate bias, especially if the
researcher is part of the studied population. Miscommunication can arise from
misunderstandings, particularly during interviews where cultural differences can manifest.

It is impossible to remove all bias as a human being. Bias is mitigated as best as possible through
strategies such as using an interview protocol, member checking, data saturation, and others to
mitigate the use of a personal lens during data collection. Driving participants to predetermined
conclusions is something to avoid. With oneself as a lens, a researcher observes and interacts
with culture members to understand it and disseminates interpretations to those outside the
culture.Rich data is characterized by quality (many-layered, intricate, detailed, nuanced), while
thick data is characterized by quantity (a lot of data). One can have thick data that is not rich, or
rich data that is not thick. The challenge is to have both.

Methodological Triangulation: Mixed Methods and Blended Designs

Methodological triangulation adds depth to the data collected and is perhaps the most frequent
type used by students. It is especially important in qualitative designs using multiple data
collection techniques to understand participants' worldviews. Options for methodological
triangulation include interviews, focus groups, direct observation, document analysis, participant
observation, and field notes.

Mixed Methods

Mixed methods uses between-method triangulation, combining quantitative and qualitative

methods. A mixed-methods design can offer rich data, facilitate data saturation, and provide a
comprehensive presentation of results. However, it involves significant complexity in data
collection methods, more so than other designs. It requires knowledge of both quantitative and
qualitative designs, which novice researchers may lack.

Sometimes, a mixed-methods strategy begins with a qualitative framework to refine questions

for the quantitative phase. One design is typically dominant over the other. Mixed-methods
research in the abstract differs from its field application. It may start with qualitative methods to
narrow a problem, followed by quantitative methods to answer the research question, or vice
versa. Mixed methods is often described as methodological pluralism, offering a broader
perspective than monomethods (qualitative or quantitative alone). Denzin (2012) was critical of
mixed methods, calling it "naïve postpositivism," although his stance seems to have softened.

Blended Design

Blended designs combine different qualitative designs, such as an ethnographic case study or
a narrative case study design. While mixed methods is not inherently difficult, the chosen
approach should answer the research question. Blended designs and mixed methods are often
confused. A blended design stays within the same method, while a mixed-methods approach
uses two methods, making it more complicated. A mixed-methods design still reflects either a
quantitative or qualitative framework, as the mindsets differ. This complexity is why mixed
methodology is often discouraged for novice researchers.Students might confuse blending with
mixed methods. However, blending can involve combining a phenomenological interview design
with a case study approach. Another way to blend is using a mini-ethnographic case study
design, which offers the benefits of ethnography within a case study protocol, making it more
feasible for students with limited time and finances.Blended designs are often not mentioned to
students due to confusion with mixed methods, but they are an excellent way to obtain rich and
thick data. They can be an alternative when students are discouraged from phenomenological
studies. Presenting a blended design to a committee can be challenging. A phenomenological
case study can be viewed as a case study with phenomenological interviews or a
phenomenological study bounded by a case study design. Data saturation is easier with case
study designs than with phenomenology. Phenomenology can also be bounded by the sampling
method. Pairing ethnography with case study design is a good choice as the case study can limit
the time in the field, making it more pragmatic for novice researchers than traditional
ethnography, which can take years.

The Postparadigm Shift

Since Denzin first defined the four types of triangulation, there has been confusion between data
triangulation and methodological triangulation. Many authors have tried to expand on Denzin's
work by applying new names to his concepts or noting how triangulation appears to be a name
for mixed methods. For example, Guion, Diehl, and McDonald (2011) presented "environmental
triangulation," which upon careful reading, is a renaming of concepts within data triangulation.
Environmental triangulation involves multiple locations and settings, similar to Denzin's data
triangulation components of people, time, and space. Their discussion on data triangulation is
considered surface level and does not correctly define it, with much of it being better applied to
methodological triangulation. This underscores the importance of returning to the primary
source, Denzin's seminal work, to understand the concepts.
The Triangulation Confusion

Confusion, particularly between data triangulation and methodological triangulation, appears to

result from reading secondary data instead of primary sources. Following a chain of secondary
interpretations can lead to unclear and incorrect representations of Denzin's work. For instance,
Patton (2002) cited Denzin but interpreted data triangulation as using "a variety of sources" and
methodological triangulation as using "multiple methods". Yin (2014), citing Patton, noted
Patton discussed four types and identified data triangulation as being "of different sources" and
methodological triangulation as being "of methods". Yin elaborated on Patton's interpretation,
stating data triangulation is collecting information from multiple sources aimed at collaborating
the same finding. Yin provided examples of multiple sources for data triangulation (documents,
archival records, interviews, observations) which seem to contradict Denzin's
definitions.Reading concepts through a chain of interpretations rather than the seminal source
can add confusion to the literature. Returning to Denzin's (1989) definitions, data triangulation
has three subtypes: time, space, and persons, while methodological triangulation involves within-
method and between-method triangulations. The authors argue that researchers should identify
and critically read seminal sources to avoid creating more ambiguity.

Triangulation, Bias, and the Student Researcher

Denzin (2009) argued that no single method, theory, or observer can capture everything relevant
or important. Denzin (2006) stated that triangulation is the method where the researcher must
"employ multiple external methods in the analysis of the same empirical events". Triangulation
explores different levels and perspectives of the same phenomenon and is a method to ensure the
validity of study results. Novice researchers should be aware that triangulating data can
sometimes yield contradictory and inconsistent results. It is the researcher's responsibility to
make sense of these results for the reader and demonstrate the richness of the information
gleaned.

In dissertations and doctoral studies using multiple data collection methods, students often focus
only on interview data and neglect to demonstrate methodological triangulation by discussing
other data sources like document analysis, direct observation, or focus group data, separate from
participant interview data. Stavros and Westberg (2009) illustrated methodological triangulation
(within method) in a multiple case study to extend marketing theory. By corroborating data from
multiple perspectives to enhance understanding and verification within a multiple-case-study
paradigm, they revealed commonalities and some diversity, maximizing information depth and
increasing transferability for model development. They used semi-structured interviews,
observation of personnel and managerial functions, and review/analysis of historical and
secondary documents across six cases. From the perspective of doctoral program instructors,
participant storytelling can be problematic due to time constraints as participants can be
longwinded, and data can veer in unintended directions. Follow-up and probing questions are
important to keep the interview on track to collect data relevant to the research question.
Storytelling relates to the concept of crystallizing, recognizing multiple perspectives from which
to hear a story and understand the participant. Encouraging serendipitous results is also a good
idea. Storytelling is a technique used in qualitative research (like narrative design) and can be
utilized through McCormack's lens. The researcher acts as a lens, observing and interacting to
understand a culture, with storytelling being one method.

Informal conversations with participants should not be underestimated. Bernard (2011) stated
unstructured interviews have a clear plan but minimum control over informant responses. They
are scheduled yet open-ended and follow a script. This strategy can apply to informal
conversations that start casually and evolve into discussions about challenges and strategies.
Researchers can miss opportunities for valuable information by being too focused on collecting
predetermined data. Controlling participant responses should be avoided, as nuanced
conversations can yield important information.

Conclusion

The goal of research is to identify ways to improve the world. Popper (1963) suggested that new
theory that survives continual testing gets closer to the truth. Researchers extend knowledge or
confirm/disconfirm what is known. Every study contributes to the body of knowledge. Socrates'
method involved questioning everything to stimulate critical thinking. Students, as scholars, must
question what is presented to them in a reasoned and grounded manner to seek truth.
Understanding the uses and misuses of language in presenting ideas is important for participating
in debates about the future. Learning from mistakes and having a common understanding and
language for the future are also crucial. Students often feel their study must be earthshaking,
which is rarely the case for doctoral studies. However, every study adds a building block to
knowledge. A student's study might provide the missing piece for a new paradigm. Enhancing
the validity of study results through triangulation ensures that one's research contributes
meaningfully to existing knowledge.