Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:58:18.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Triangulation and Validity of Network Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

By
Andreas Wald
Edited by
Silvia Domínguez  and
Betina Hollstein
Andreas Wald
Affiliation:
European Business School Paris
Silvia Domínguez
Affiliation:
Northeastern University, Boston
Betina Hollstein
Affiliation:
Universität Bremen
Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter deals with the potentials of triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data and methods in network analysis by pursuing two interrelated aims: first, to clarify under which circumstances a triangulation-based research strategy should be pursued and, second, to demonstrate how triangulation can be applied for network data collection and analysis. The relevance of the topic is due to the observation that a narrow focus on either a qualitative or a quantitative research strategy does not capitalize on the full explanatory potential as it systematically excludes certain insights and aspects of the phenomenon under investigation. For certain research questions and phenomena it can be useful and necessary to overcome these limitations (Hesse-Biber 2010). This approach follows the assumption that a method is not wrong or right per se. However, it can be more or less appropriate for specific research aims and settings. Different methodological approaches elaborate on different aspects of reality and are therefore dependent upon the research question (Bryman 2007). Therefore, I will not refer to the fundamental debate between quantitative and qualitative purists (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004). Likewise, I do not discuss the relationship between research methodology, ontology, and epistemology in greater detail. From an ontological point of view, the necessary precondition for applying data triangulation is a very moderate positivistic position that is also in line with the assumptions of Grounded Theory and moderate (social) constructivist approaches (Sale et al. 2002). Triangulation can be used to learn more about an objective reality, but also for investigating the social construction of meaning and perceptions.

Type
Chapter
Information
Mixed Methods Social Networks Research
Design and Applications
 , pp. 65 - 89
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnekow, Karola and Wald, Andreas. (2014). “Triangulation.” In Qualitative Netzwerkanalyse. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungen, edited by Hollstein, B. and Straus, F.. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
Brandes, Ulrik, Raab, Jörg, and Wagner, Dorothea. 2001. “Exploratory network visualization: Simultaneous display of actor status and connections.” Journal of Social Structure 2.Google Scholar
Bryman, Alan. 2007 “The research question in social research: What is its role?”International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10:5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, Jeffrey. 2003 “Movement in context: Thick networks and Japanese environmental protest.” Pp. 204–29 in Social Movements and Networks. Relational Approaches to collective Action, edited by Diani, Mario and McAdam, Doug. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 1992. Structural Holes. The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 2005. Brokerage and Closure. An Introduction to Social Capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. and Schøtt, Thomas. 1985. “Relation contents in multiple networks.” Social Science Research 14:287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, Ronald S., Jannotta, Joseph E., and Mahoney, James T.. 1998. “Personality correlates of structural holes.” Social Networks 20:63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Donald T. and Fiske, Donald W.. 1959. “Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.” Psychological Bulletin 56:81–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caracelli, Valerie J. and Greene, Jennifer C.. 1993. “Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs.” Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15:195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carley, Kathleen. 2003. “Dynamic network analysis in dynamic social network modeling and analysis: Workshop summary and papers.” Pp. 133–45 in Committee on Human Factors, National Research Council, edited by Breiger, Ronald, Carley, Kathleen, and Pattison, Philippa. Washington DC: The National Academies.Google Scholar
Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Creswell, John W. and Clark, Vicki L. Plano. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Alain, Degenne and Forsé, Michel. 1999. Introducing Social Networks. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Denzin, Norman 1978. The Research Act. A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, Mustafa. 1997. “Manifesto for a relational sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 103(2):281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franke, Karola, Wald, Andreas, and Bartl, Katinka. 2006. Die Wirkung von Reformen im Deutschen Forschungssystem. Eine Studie in den Feldern Astrophysik, Nanotechnologie und Mikroökonomie. Speyerer Forschungsberichte Nr. 245, Deutsches Forschungsinstitut für öffentliche Verwaltung. Speyer.Google Scholar
Freeman, Linton C. 2005. “Graphic techniques for exploring social network data.” Pp. 248–69 in Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis, edited by Scott, John and Carrington, Peter J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Früh, Werner 2001. Inhaltsanalyse. Theorie und Praxis. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
Greene, Jennifer C. 2007. Mixed Methods in SocialIinquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Greene, Jennifer C., Caracelli, Valerie J., and Graham, Wendy F.. 1989. “Toward a conceptual framework for mixed- method evaluation designs.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11:255–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene N. 2010. Mixed Methods Research: Merging Theory with Practice. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hollstein, Betina. 2003. “Netzwerkveränderung verstehen. Zur Integration von struktur- und akteurstheoretischen Perspektiven.” Berliner Journal für Soziologie 13:153–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollstein, Betina 2011. “Qualitative approaches.” Pp. 404–16 in Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis, edited by Scott, John and Carrington, Peter J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hollstein, Betina and Straus, Florian, eds. 2006. Qualitative Netzwerkanalyse. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, Kenneth R. 1988. “Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard.” Educational Researcher 17:10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, Dorthea, ed. 2007. New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. Disciplinary Approaches, Interfaces and Integration. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Jansen, Dorthea. 2008. “Research networks – Origins and consequences: First evidence from a study of astrophysics, nanotechnology and micro-economics in Germany.” Pp. 209–30 in Scientific Competition, edited by Albert, Max, Schmidtchen, Dieter, and Voigt, Stefan. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Jansen, Dorthea, ed. 2010. Governance and Performance in the German Public Research Sector: Disciplinary Differences. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, Dorthea, Heidler, Richard, and Görtz, Regina von. 2010. “Knowledge production and the structure of collaboration networks in two scientifc fields.” Scientometrics 83:219–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, Dorthea, Wald, Andreas, Franke, Karola, Schmoch, Ulrich, and Schubert, Torben. 2007. “Drittmittel als Performanzindikator der wissenschaftlichen Forschung. Zum Einfluss von Rahmenbedingungen auf Forschungsleistung.” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 59:125–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. Burke and Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J.. 2004. “Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come.” Educational Researcher 33(7):14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. Burke, Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., and Turner, Lisa A.. 2007. “Toward a definition of mixed methods research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1:112–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadushin, Charles. 2002. “The motivational foundations of social networks.” Social Networks 24:77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Robert L., and Antonucci, Toni C.. 1980. “Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles, and social support.” Pp. 383–405 in Life-Span Development and Behavior, edited by Baltes, Paul B. and Brim, Orvile G.. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Koehly, Laura M. and Pattison, Philippa. 2005. “Random graph models for social networks: Dependence graphs, and p*.” Pp. 162–91 in Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis, edited by Carrington, Peter J., Scott, John, and Wasserman, Stanley. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krackhardt, David. 1990. “Assessing the political landscape: structure, cognition, and power in organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35:342–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, Klaus. 2003. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lamnek, Siegfried 1993. Qualitative Sozialforschung. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
Laumann, Edward O., Marsden, Peter V., and Prensky, David. 1989. “The boundary specification problem in network analysis.” Pp. 61–87 in Research Methods in Social Network Analysis, edited by Freeman, Linton C., White, Douglas W., and Rommey, Kimball. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas 1994. “The Modernity of Science.” New German Critique 61: 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, Peter V. 2005. “Recent developments in network measurement.” Pp. 8–30 in Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis, edited by Carrington, Peter J., Scott, John, and Wasserman, Stanley. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moffatt, Suzanne, White, Martin, Mackintosh, Joan, and Howel, Denise. 2006. “Using quantitative and qualitative data in health services research – What happens when mixed methods findings conflict?”BMC Health Service Research 8:6–28.Google Scholar
Moody, James, McFarland, Daniel, and Bender-deMoll, Skye. 2005. “Dynamic network visualization.” American Journal of Sociology 110:1206–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, Janice M. and Niehaus, Linda. 2009. Mixed Method Design. Principles and Procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Burke Johnson, R.. 2006. “The validity issue in mixed research.” Research in the Schools 13:48–63.Google Scholar
Pappi, Franz U. and Henning, Christian. 1999. “The organization of influence on the ec’s common agricultural policy: A network approach.” European Journal of Political Research 36:257–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfenning, Uwe 1995. Soziale Netzwerke in der Forschungspraxis: Zur theoretischen Perspektive, Vergleichbarkeit und Standardisierung von Erhebungsverfahren sozialer Netzwerke. Zur Validität und Reliabilität von egozentrierten Netz- und Namensgeneratoren. Darmstadt: DDD.Google Scholar
Sale, Joanna E. M., Lohfeld, Lynne H., and Brazil, Kevin. 2002. “Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research.” Quality and Quantity 36:43–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarantakos, Sotirios. 2005. Social Reseach. Houndmills: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, John. 2000. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. 2nd ed. London/ New Dehli: Sage.Google Scholar
Snijders, Tom A., Steglich, Christian E.G., and Bunt, Gerhard G. van de. 2010. “Introduction to actor-based models for network dynamics.” Social Networks 32:44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, Florian 2002. Netzwerkanalysen. Gemeindepsychologische Perspektiven für Forschung und Praxis. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Straus, Florian and Höfer, Renate. 1998. “Die Netzwerkperspektive in der Praxis. ” Pp. 77–95 in Netzwerkinterventionen, edited by Röhrle, Bernd, Sommer, Gert, and Nestmann, Frank. Tübingen: dgvt-Verlag.
Teddlie, Charles and Yu, Fen. 2007. “Mixed methods sampling. A typology with examples.” Journal of Mixed Methods 1:77–100.Google Scholar
Trotter, Robert T. 1999. “Friends, relatives and relevant others: Conducting ethnographic network studies.” Pp. 1–50 in Mapping Social Networks, Spatial Data, and Hidden Populations. Ethnographers Toolkit, edited by Schensu, Jean J., LeCompte, Magaret D., Trotter, Robert T., Cromley, Ellen K., and Singer, Merril. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
Uzzi, Brian 1996. “The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect.” American Sociological Review 61:674–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wald, Andreas 2007. “Effects of ‘Mode 2’-related policy on the research process. The case of publicly funded German nanotechnology.” Science Studies 20:24–49.Google Scholar
Wald, Andreas, Franke, Karola, and Jansen, Dorothea. 2007. “Governance reforms and scientific production. Evidence from German Astrophysics.” Pp. 213–32 in New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. Disciplinary Approaches, Interfaces and Integration, edited by Jansen, Dorothea. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Stanley and Faust, Katherine. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman, Barry. 1988. “Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance.” Pp. 19–61 in Social Structures: A Network Approach, edited by Wellman, Barry and Berkowitz, S.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whyte, William F. 1943. Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×