Triangulation CGPT

 

The Value of Triangulation from an Interpretivist Perspective

Triangulation, broadly defined as the use of multiple data sources, methods, or perspectives to investigate a research question, is a particularly valuable strategy within interpretivist research paradigms. While triangulation is often associated with enhancing validity through convergence, its purpose within interpretivist inquiry is more nuanced: it supports the development of rich, multilayered understandings of socially constructed meanings (Denzin, 1978; Flick, 2004). In this study, which explores teacher readiness and the pedagogical integration of digital accessibility awareness into the Upper Key Stage 2 curriculum, triangulation strengthens the research by illuminating the complex and situated nature of professional knowledge, curriculum practice, and learner engagement.

Interpretivism assumes that reality is socially constructed and that knowledge is produced through interaction, reflection, and interpretation (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Schwandt, 2000). As such, triangulation is not intended to verify a single "truth" but to explore the diversity and complexity of meanings held by participants across different contexts and methods. In this study, data are drawn from teacher questionnaires (including open and closed questions), focus group discussions, lesson observations, and semi-structured interviews. The triangulation of these methods allows for the comparison and synthesis of multiple perspectives—highlighting not only where themes converge but also where they diverge, thus providing insight into the contingent and context-bound nature of teaching digital accessibility (Hitchcock & Onwuegbuzie, 2020).

Crucially, triangulation within an interpretivist paradigm supports the construction of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as a dynamic and situated form of teacher knowledge (Shulman, 1987). By drawing on both self-reported and observed data, the study can examine how teachers conceptualise digital accessibility, how they attempt to integrate it into practice, and how they reflect on learner responses. This multidimensional approach acknowledges that teachers’ pedagogical decisions are shaped not only by content knowledge, but also by their beliefs, professional identities, classroom experiences, and institutional constraints (van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998; Loughran, 2006). Triangulation thus enables the researcher to capture the dialogic and interpretive processes through which PCK is constructed in relation to a new, socially situated curriculum topic.

Moreover, triangulation supports emergent design, which is central to interpretivist research. As qualitative findings develop, new themes may surface—such as unexpected learner responses or tensions in curriculum enactment—which can then be traced and explored through other data sources (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For example, teacher comments in focus groups can be examined alongside classroom observations and learner feedback in interviews to generate a thick description(Geertz, 1973) of the pedagogical process, and to reveal how meaning is negotiated in practice.

Finally, interpretivist triangulation enhances trustworthiness by attending to credibility, transferability, and confirmability rather than traditional notions of objectivity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). In this study, the convergence of patterns across diverse data sets bolsters credibility, while the inclusion of varied voices—across roles, sites, and methods—supports a more holistic and transferable account of how digital accessibility awareness might be authentically and sustainably embedded within primary education.


References

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardoff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 178–183). Sage.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage.

Hitchcock, J. H., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2020). Developing mixed methods crossover analysis designs. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818822810

Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Sage.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Lit review sequence

Teach Access Repository and Facebook research link

Notes from original proposal