The Importance of Triangulating Data from Different Research Methods - Essay Example

The Importance of Triangulating Data from Different Research Methods

Introduction

Modern criminology has shifted its focus from the offender as the sole responsible entity behind any crime. Instead it has brought other aspects under the scanner for a closer scrutiny with the development psychology as a potential apparatus for the analysis of crime and framing of crime control mechanisms. These aspects include the sociological study of the background of a crime, delving deeper into the societal facts that contribute to the occurrence of crime. In this kind of highly specialized approach, not only psychology but also sociology is an area for effective analysis because a crime takes place within a social relation after all. So the society is believed to play an important role in the materialization of crime. Wilson and Kelling in their Broken Windows Theory have dealt with the responsibility of society in the containment of crime (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003). Braithwaite has spoken about the incorporating reintegrative shaming. But almost all of these theories has faced harsh criticism form some reason or the other. If Braithwaith’s assumption of the offender being responsible member has aroused suspicions regarding the offender’s worldview, the intense police patrolling in civil society have been considered as an addition to the already existing atrocities of police. In this modern era, when the concern over justice has annexed with the anxiety to control crime, the application of any one theory appears to be injudicious. That is why today criminology has assumed the form of social research and it seeks to pay equal heed to all the possible measures to crack crime and at the same time they try to cater justice to all the concerned parties in a criminal case. It is for this purpose that different kinds of data are used today in the criminological research as a whole and sometimes within a particular contextual criminological research. “The use of different types data within one study to open up varying facets of crime and also to improve validity is known as data triangulation” (Jupp, 1989, p.72).

The data triangulation research is a rather intricate and inclusive way of dealing with criminological research. While discussing on Webb, Prafullah Padhy (2006) remarks, “the most fertile search for validity comes from a combined set of different measures” (Padhy, 2006, p.22). In this connection, Padhy (2006) studies the development of this triangulating process in criminology as an attempt to incorporate theoretical perspective. The key feature of this data triangulation is the gathering of data from different resources. As a consequence, it uses both the qualitative and quantitative research techniques. Moreover, in the academic discussion of triangulation, there have been a couple of traditions or theories to say more precisely. These are positivism and interactionism. The formulation of these theories is the result of shift in the perspective of criminologists. While positivism is aimed at explaining the cause of crime and prediction about future pattern of crime, interactionism is more broad and comprehensive in that it looks at the role of human as an agent of crime, his consciousness and interpretation of his activity in the society. In this theoretical approach, the present state of crime-ridden society is viewed as a “product of social interaction” (Padhy, 2006, p.20). It also tends to examine the constructed nature of crime because according to the basic assumption at the heart of this theory, a symbolic interaction between the individual and the norms, values and directives of society. Data triangulation needs the collection of information from various sources because of this complexity that lies behind the occurrence of crime. Another important aspect of data triangulating method is that it there is no clear division between quantitative data analysis and qualitative data analysis, for the data collected for such purpose can come from a wide range of fields. A social survey meant to draw information on the current crime rate and public opinion through interviews and structured questions can have materials both for qualitative and quantitative analysis both of which are essential for investigation. Crime is a subject that is not only relevant to academic research but also to the government.

Denzin, who is the major propounder of data triangulation, argues that triangulation is necessary because of the “shifting nature of the social world and the biases that arise from the sociologist’s choice of theories, methods and observers provide difficulties…” (Padhy, 2006, p.23). According to him, the only out of this pass is tom recognize the difficulties and use “multiple strategies of triangulation as the proffered line of action”. Triangulation seems to be the only way to overcome the intrinsic biases that stems from single method, single observer, and single theory studies” (Padhy, 2006, p.23). Denzin prescribes two methods of triangulation—within method triangulation and cross-method triangulation. The use of a number of research strategies within a large research method is referred to as within-method triangulation. On the other hand the use of different methods to explain a single phenomenon is known as cross-method triangulation. The cross-method triangulation is more helpful in research because it is able to account for the weakness and strength of different methods. Moreover, various methods have varied methodological assumption and theories. So the utilization of maximum numbers of theory at the same research can enhance their applicability (Jupp, 1989, p.74).

According to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000), any research methods serve as ‘filters through the environment is selective experienced’ (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000, p.112). And therefore these methods are never ‘atheoretical’ and ‘neutral’ in there representation of facts. If exclusively one single method is followed the findings can be biased or partial and therefore misrepresentation of the reality which the researcher is investigating. Unlike in the natural sciences, in the examination of behavior, especially abnormal behavior, one method may not give reliable information and cross-method examination is inevitable in this case. Objective and essentially true results can only be achieved only “when different methods of data collection yield substantially the same the same the results” (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000, p.112). Cross-method examination is helpful because if the methods are contrasting but submitting the same result, the findings can be more accurate. Validity of a result depends on the nature and the scope of analysis. The use of contrasting methods reduces the chance that the consistent results in repeated examination would be considered owing to the similarity of the methods used

Data triangulation is a sort of solution of the dialectic between the quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis. It becomes important to use more that any one method in order to see how two different traditions value each other. The root problem lies in the fact that one tradition attaches certain assumptions on to the other traditions but more important than that is to configure how one tradition can benefit from the incorporation of another tradition. Fielding and Schreier (2001) have observed that the contention revolving round the choice and advocacy of quantitative or qualitative research has been built into the general operational method and assumption of these two methods. They argue that while, the qualitative researchers had trouble in using quantitative data in certain cases in order to validate their findings, the advocates of quantitative approach has never thought abstract ratiocination viable (Fielding and Schreier, 2001). It is all about validity that any research tries to ensure. In course of discussing the combined use of qualitative and quantitative approaches, Fielding and Schreier point to Kelle and observe that in practice the original connotation of the term triangulation has been lost. But in the present criminological research there are three distinct meanings of triangulation. The first meaning is the mutual validation of results collected by following different methods. The second one aims at a more complete picture of the crime in question. In the third place, triangulation seeks to gain any understanding that is relevant to the phenomenon. As for the applicability of these methods, Fielding and Schreier (2001) argue that only the Kelle’s observation does not involve triangulation only at the level of methodology and epistemology but triangulation needs to be applied in the use of various theories. Thus it becomes clear that the qualitative research is given equal, if not more, importance in sociological research. In this context it should be brought in mind that Fielding and Schreier are not concerned with crime in the accepted sense of the term but they are merely delineating on the sociological research in general, which can well be extended into criminology because in the present society crime is not only a matter of legal proceeding. This notion will be brought to a detailed analysis as the paper follows. Most of the theories at vogue today take society and its structure for the investigation of crime first and then active role of individual, offender. The justice system of today does not primarily and solely aim at bringing the criminal under the judge’s eye but it tries to take measure to regulate and reduce the crime rate.

Victor Jupp (1989) notes two aspects of such validity. One is external and the other is internal. External validity signifies the extent to which the conclusions drawn can be generalized on people and even on other contexts and other periods and professional standpoints. As regards the internal validity “it is necessary to ensure that the accounts reported is an accurate representation of the fence’s perception, meanings, definitions and actions” (Jupp, 1989, p.74). Jupp exemplifies the triangulating method by taking up Klocker’s The Professional Fence (1974), in which Klocker used a variety of methods and resources in order to be certain that his findings were valid in both the senses. The author reports that the interview of the fence was complimented with the interviews of fence’s relatives, friends. The fence’s dealings with the thieves and customers were observed. This kind application of a wide range of methods is necessary on two grounds. First, the enterprise of criminology represents plurality of problems. Because of this plurality, a sufficiently wide range of methods of data collection is essential. The second reason is even more important. Today a criminal act is not a single dimensional issue—only to be recorded in the official statistics. But rather a criminal act has multiple dimensions pertaining not only to the perpetrator but also to the victim. The current state of criminology is more so because today a criminal activity is not judged by its reason alone, but the social process is scrutinized, which has triggered the act, As referred to earlier the interactionist or the constructivist view of sociology looks at crime as a social construct where the criminal is not the sole responsible instrument of the crime. The different social forces also play a great role. That theory can explain a criminal act is not entirely an objectionable notion. Attention can be drawn to the “different aspects of crime and criminal justice system, which are worthy of investigation” (Jupp, 1989, p.74). Different theories prescribe for data collection from different sources. For an explanatory analysis of this proposition, Jupp discusses four distinct theories of data collection and sociological theories applied in criminology for a triangular analysis of crime. The first of these theories is based on individual predisposition of crime. In this theory of criminology is largely influenced by psychology. The primary reason of crime is taken to be within the individual and for this purpose the attitudinal pattern and behavior of the offender are investigated for finding out the root of crime. Another feature of this branch of criminology is that it picks up the age-old debate between nature and nurture. As far as nature is concerned, the proponents of this theory believe that certain have innate capabilities to inflict crime and disorderly behaviors. They also believe that the constellation of personality types can lead a child to inculcate aggressive behavior. On the side of nurture, most important ingredient in the growth criminal nature is believed to be the socialization of an individual. In a survey of this type, data are collected from the socialization of the offender, his family background ands then these data are related to the subsequent criminal act. He observation of the personality differences among a group of individuals serves to explain the fact that the psychological make up of an individual is responsible for his or her criminal activity. According to Jupp, “statistical correlations are sought between data about an individual’s make up or background and subsequent crime” (Jupp, 1989, p.78).

The second criminological theory is based on sociological determinants. In this study the focus is on the social group and the individual and it is the interaction between the society and the individual. Consequently, crimes are not viewed as arising from the individual’s psychology, but from the interaction between the society and offender. Correspondingly, a crime is considered as a social phenomenon than individual aberration and is investigated with reference to the statistics of such other crimes in the society. In simple terms, a crime may be explained as arising from the “discrepancy between aspirations which were culturally induced and which could not be realistically achieved by legitimate means” (Jupp, 1989, p.79). As a result the crime is not judged at the level of individual but at the level of society--- the individual’s crime is considered to a part of a larger series of similar crimes within that particular society. As a method of data collection an examination detailed interviews are conducted among the members of the society in question because the focus is on “interaction and transmission of criminal values”. The third method followed in criminology for triangulation is based on micro-sociology. Micro-sociologist approach is less deterministic in the sense that they do not try to locate the responsibility of crime either in the individual or in the society. It sees crime as a product generated from a particular interaction in a particular context. This method focuses on the “social meanings and definitions of individuals and upon the ways in which these are expressed in interactions between law enforcement agents and those who subsequently are labeled as criminals” (Jupp, 1989, p.79). In this theory the individuals are not considered as predestined creatures, but as active agents who involve in framing their own world. It is also assumed that social construction is the outcome of the meaning and significance that individual attaches to social events, situations. This theory is more dynamic because it observes two facets of social construction. First there is no consensus regarding the construction of a social world and secondly, a social construction is not static—it is always being reworked and reconfigured in ever changing social contexts. In order to make a criminological research, the micro-sociologists have extended the domain of criminology to the investigation of the law enforcing policies and also those who are involved in the practice of justice system and the legislature itself. It is clear from scrutiny of this method that the statistical data cannot be used for the crime investigation. Therefore more experimental and observational method is followed for data generation. The fourth method discussed by Jupp is based on historical and structural intersection. Though this method shares much of its characteristics with the micro-sociologists, it differs in then context of power relation as a background to the social interaction. “Power relation between the criminal and the law enforcer are traced back to fundamental economic and class relation in society” (Jupp, 1989, p. 81). This theory exercises its analysis in the context of what is meant by criminal. In other words, the law enforcement is seen, as essentially means of control and the role of the state in setting the definition of criminal activity are responsible to a large extent for the crime as presented by official statistics. From this elaborate analysis one can conclude that the for a comprehensive analysis aimed at the reduction of crime than the simple punishment of the offender, different perspectives are to be taken to look at the same issue. Collection of data from various sources may not suffice but a single statistical report should be analyzed from different viewpoints. The benefit of such cross-verification is that it can help the researcher to explore not only new ways of evaluating crime but also to find out truths that lie behind criminal activity.

Conclusion

Sometimes the statistic from the official records is not accurate because they do not reflect the exact rate of crime or the full significance of the crime. The reason as sorted out by him is the police generally act only after a formal complaint has been lodged. When official records are taken to be the only means of collecting data, a large fraction of crime is unknown. In order to dispel this uncertainty in criminological research regarding the actual figure of crime rate, Brewer talks of another method of data collection, which he calls the criminal victimization survey (Brewer, 2005, p.4). In it a large number of interviewees were selected from a particular social group and interviewed about a crime that might have taken place in the recent past. The survey reveals that quite a number of crimes are reported, which were not reported earlier. Thus this method taken up by Brewer proved to be more appropriate in unfolding a relatively more reliable result. Similar traits can be followed in the different methods applied to the criminological research. There are flaws in different methods but the flaws are not identical. In Brewer’s words, “the diversity of imperfection allows us to combine methods, not only to gain their individual strength but also to compensate for their particular faults and limitations” (Brewer, 2005, p.3). The principle on which this triangulation rests is overcome the problems of a particular criminological research with an “arsenal of methods that have non-overlapping weaknesses in addition to their complementary strengths” (Brewer, 2005, p.4). This principle is instantiated with the preceding experimentation, where the criminal victimization survey was discordant with the official records taken from the police. Brewer had been more circumspective in his argument on the compatibility of multi-method research technique. According to him cross-method analysis can be faulty too because of the existence of some undetected error. A successful triangulation demands careful, application of each method in relation to the practicality of other methods, but at the same time the purpose of the research should be borne into mind.