The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using triangulation to validate themes in qualitative studies
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide instructional guidance on how to increase validity and reduce subjectivity in qualitative studies, such as grounded theory. The paper also demonstrates how different techniques can help management research by including informants/managers in a time efficient way. Design/methodology/approach: This paper describes how three complementary triangulation methods can be used for validation and exploration of concepts and themes in qualitative studies. Tree graphs, concept mapping, and member checking are applied in a managerial case study, complementing a conventional grounded theory approach. Findings: The paper suggests that naturalistic inquiries, such as grounded theory and thematic analysis, can use mixed methods and multiple sources and coders in order to offset biases and to validate and sort findings. The case study presents three different perspectives on how an organization comprehends diversity as a strategic issue. Originality/value: The paper suggests a mixed methods design that addresses some of the potential shortcomings often found in grounded theory and other qualitative studies, their theory development and their documentation of processes. It positions the approach over the range of the triangulation literature and it argues that it is important to be aware of different triangulation mindsets, and these they are not necessarily contradictory.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990) · Qualitative Sociology · doi:10.1007/bf00988593 · Cited by 11,133
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103 · cited 4×
“Subjectivity accompanies all data interpretation (Greene and McClintock, 1985; Jick, 1979) and even before interpretation, such as aggregation of data (McGrath, 1982).”
BackgroundInfluentialStrategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737011003255 · Cited by 5,687
From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not
Suddaby, R. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083020 · Cited by 2,859 · cited 1×
“For example, within grounded theory the interest is not in the stories and narratives themselves, rather these are means of eliciting information (Suddaby, 2006), since the objective is to “lift” data to a conceptual level.”
BackgroundEly, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667087 · Cited by 2,433 · cited 3×
“These questions are often prevalent even when we read excellent and frequently cited studies, such as Ely and Thomas (2001); how did the authors arrive from the data to the concepts and further on to the aggregated dimensions?”
BackgroundArgonauts of the Western Pacific
Malinowski, B. (2002) · doi:10.4324/9780203421260 · Cited by 2,160
A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis
Aronson, J. (1995) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/1995.2069 · Cited by 1,758 · cited 2×
“…incorporated contemporary interpretive approaches applied for example by Gioia et al. (1994), Isabella (1990), and Jehn (1997); thematic analysis (Aronson, 1994; Kets de Vries and Miller, 1987); multidimensional scaling (MDS) models (Jackson and Trochim, 2002); and ethnographic decision maps…”
BackgroundMethodMultiparadigm perspectives on theory building
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1990.4310758 · Cited by 1,426
What Differences Make a Difference?: The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x · Cited by 1,276
Denzin, N. (2001) · doi:10.4135/9781412984591 · Cited by 915
Ethnographic Decision Tree Modeling
Gladwin, C. H. (1989) · doi:10.4135/9781412984102 · Cited by 230
Cited by
Denzin’s Paradigm Shift: Revisiting Triangulation in Qualitative Research
Fusch, P., Fusch, G. E., & Ness, L. R. (2018) · Journal of Social Change · doi:10.5590/josc.2018.10.1.02 · Cited by 551
Schiff, D. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00270-2 · Cited by 489
“Within-method triangulation across multiple documents (Jonsen and Jehn 2009) and the use of direct quotes as descriptive evidence provide rich support to demonstrate claims, supporting their credibility, dependability, and transferability.”
MethodThe determinants of organizational change management success: Literature review and case study
Errida, A., & Lotfi, B. (2021) · International Journal of Engineering Business Management · doi:10.1177/18479790211016273 · Cited by 399
A Reviewer’s Guide to Qualitative Rigor
Nowell, B., & Albrecht, K. (2019) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muy052 · Cited by 185
The perception of the poor: Capturing stereotype content with different measures
Lindqvist, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2017) · Nordic Psychology · doi:10.1080/19012276.2016.1270774 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Jonsen, K., & Jehn, K. A.
- Venue
- Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2009-08-21
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-150
- ISSN
- 1746-5648 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2069548922
- Cited by
- 514
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 42.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
