5.3 The methodological choice in this thesis
5.3.2 Triangulation
Triangulation aims to reveal complementarity, convergence and dissonance among the findings (Farmer, Robinson, Elliott, & Eyles, 2006). The use of triangulation in research has mixed views. Some scholars argue that triangulation is just for increasing the broader and deep understanding of the study phenomenon (Hussein, 2009). Other
119
scholars have argued that triangulation increases the study’s accuracy, in this case, triangulation is one of the validity measures (Carter, Bryant-Lukosius, DiCenso, Blythe,
& Neville, 2014; Guion, Diehl, & McDonald, 2011; Hussein, 2009). Creswell and Miller (2000) define triangulation as a validity procedure in the quest for convergence among diverse sources of information to form thoughts or categories in a study. These views imply that triangulation combines two or more theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches, investigators, data sources, and analytical methods to study the same phenomenon. These lead to types of triangulation; which are, methodological triangulation, investigator triangulation, theoretical triangulation, analysis triangulation and data triangulation (Carter et al., 2014; Denzin, 1989). In this case, when a researcher employs more than one type of triangulation in a single study, then multiple triangulations is said to have been employed (Polit & Hungler, 1995).
5.3.2.1 Types of triangulation a) Data triangulation
Data sources triangulation is the use of multiple data sources in the same study for validation purposes. According to Turner and Turner (2009), three types of data triangulation exist, namely, time, space and person. These types of data triangulation come as a consequence of the idea that data robustness may differ based on the time of the data collection, the participants in the data collection process and the data collection setting (Begley, 1996).
b) Theoretical triangulation
Theoretical triangulation refers to using multiple theories in the same study to support or refute findings since several theories assist researchers in seeing the problem at hand using multiple lenses (Hussein, 2009). Both related and competing theories use the formulated hypotheses to provide a broader and more in-depth understanding of the research problem at hand (Banik, 1993).
c) Investigator triangulation
This triangulation method uses more than two researchers in any of the research stages in the same study. It involves using multiple observers, interviewers, or data analysts in the same study for confirmation purposes (Hales, 2010; Turner & Turner, 2009).
120 d) Analysis triangulation
Analysis triangulation or data analysis triangulation is the use of more than two methods of analysing the same set of data for validation purposes (Flick, 2004). In addition to validation purposes, analysis triangulation can be described further as the use of more than two methods of data analysis in qualitative and quantitative paradigms within the same study for both validation and completeness purposes. In other words, whenever a researcher uses both qualitative and quantitative data in the same study, then more than two methods are needed in the analysis towards attaining data validation within the single paradigm; further extending the analysis between the two paradigms for completeness purposes.
e) Methodological triangulation
Methodological triangulation or mixed-methods/multimethod research uses more than one kind of method to study a phenomenon (Bekhet & Zauszniewski, 2012; Casey &
Murphy, 2009; Risjord, Moloney, & Dunbar, 2001). Two types of methodological triangulation exist, which are "across method/between-method" and "within method".
"Across-method" studies combine quantitative and qualitative techniques of data collection (Casey & Murphy, 2009; Hussein, 2009). Qualitative methods are explanatory and textual and include passive observation, participant observation and open-ended interviews (Risjord et al., 2001). Quantitative methods include statistical analysis of outcomes or questionnaires, collected by standardised scales or measures and expressed numerically (Risjord et al., 2001). Different scholars use diverse nomenclature in referring to within-method triangulation, which includes mixed-mode research (De Leeuw & Hox, 2008), multimethod research (Niglas, 2004), and monomethod multi-strand research design (Saunders et al., 2012). Irrespective of any criticism and terminology, this research strategy enjoys the advantages of triangulation.
Within-method studies use two or more data-collection procedures, quantitative or qualitative, but not both. For example, on one hand, collecting quantitative data using two methods, such as survey questionnaires, and a pre-existing database; on the other hand, collecting qualitative data using participant observation and interviews (Casey &
Murphy, 2009; Denzin, 1989). Methodological triangulation is beneficial in confirming findings, more comprehensive data, increased validity and enhanced understanding of the studied phenomenon (Bekhet & Zauszniewski, 2012; Casey & Murphy, 2009;
Risjord et al., 2001).
121
Vaivio and Sirén (2010) are of the view that combining multiple research methods to investigate management accounting phenomena was advanced by Birnberg, Shields, and Young (1990). Examining the strengths and weaknesses of survey, field, and experimental methods, they opined that no research method dominates on the criteria that they lay out, thereby supporting the use of multiple methods in accounting research.
Abernethy, Chua, Luckett, and Selto (1999), while clarifying the trade-offs that exist in experimental, field research, and survey, concluded that it is possible to overcome some of the limitations of these different methods by methodological triangulation. The purpose of triangulation is to extract the strengths and diminish the weaknesses in both approaches within a single study (Jick, 1979; Sharif & Armitage, 2004; Yeasmin &
Rahman, 2012).
While many researchers have used well-established methodological triangulation, there are few published examples of its use to enhance studies till date in accounting discipline (Lukka, 2010). However, several previous studies have investigated audit committee attributes and RAM using monomethod mono-strand design, that is, either the traditional quantitative design or the conventional qualitative design. This study used methodological triangulation (within-method triangulation) to examine how the audit committee attributes impact RAM in listed companies in Nigeria.
5.3.2.2 Weaknesses of triangulation
Triangulation uses resources, such as time, effort, and funds extensively. It involves the time devoted to collect and analyse different types of data required for the study, the need to include or engage research assistance, and the general coordination of the entire research process. Despite these disadvantages, the use of methodological triangulation is significant in a wide range of research (Garforth & Kerr, 2010; Hussein, 2009;
Weyers, Strydom, & Huisamen, 2008).