TRIANGULATION AND MEASUREMENT
The idea of triangulation is very much associated with measurement practices in
social and behavioral research. An early reference to triangulation was in relation to
the idea of UNOBTRUSIVE METHOD proposed by Webb et al. (1966), who suggested,
“Once a proposition has been confirmed by two or more independent measurement
processes, the uncertainty of its interpretation is greatly reduced. The most
persuasive evidence comes through a triangulation of measurement processes” (p. 3).
Thus, if we devise a new survey-based measure of a concept like emotional labor, our
confidence in that measure will be greater if we can confirm the distribution and
2
correlates of emotional labor through the use of another method, such as structured
observation. Of course, the prospect is raised that the two sets of findings may be
inconsistent, but as Webb et al. observed, such an occurrence underlines the problem
of relying on just one measure or method. Equally, the failure for two sets of results
to converge may prompt new lines of inquiry relating to either the methods concerned
or the substantive area involved. A related point is that even though a triangulation
exercise may yield convergent findings, we should be wary of concluding that this
means that the findings are unquestionable. It may be that both sets of data are
flawed.