In the classic version of triangulation, both studies address the same research question. The best known source on triangulation and trustworthiness is Lincoln & Guba (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Their approach is based on earlier work by Denzin.

Conducting both interviews and observations certainly could help improve the trustworthiness of your results. More recently, the value of triangulation has also been expanded to including adding richness and complexity to your results.

David:

Thank you for promptly responding to my question. But, could you comment on whether you can collect the observation data without having to add a separate research question for this data?

Many thanks,

Debra

In the classic version of triangulation, both studies address the same research question. The best known source on triangulation and trustworthiness is Lincoln & Guba (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Their approach is based on earlier work by Denzin.

As far as I'm concerned, you do not need to add a new RQ if your sole purpose of triangulation is to double (triple) check your results by means of richer and more detailed data. And it definetely contributes to the trustworthiness (Qual) and the crediblity and validity (Quan) of the study (and results) since you are able to get at the answer to one question via using two (three) methods.

Apart from Guba and Lincoln (1985) and Denzin (1970, 1978), you can also refer to Campbell and Fiske (1959) and Webb (1966) as the researchers having first applied and developed the notion.

Interesting question with comprehensive discussions. I am following

I believe you can. For instance, it can be discussed as insights that emerge as you carry out the research.

Hi Debra,

I agree with all previous commentators and would add that observational data can be usefully used both in your 'background to the study' discussions and in any closing remarks about 'what next'.

Hi Debra,

I see you are in Trinidad and Tobago. I was in Tobago in December last, great place and lovely people. Good luck with your studies.

Hi Debra,

I too want to reinforce what some of the very senior people have commented above and also would like to add some of my opinion.

As a researcher, in our study, we may have many research questions. Triangulation as a method, both quantitative and qualitative (ideally) validates the study. Different triamgulation methods can be used to double check the research direction. Though same triangulation method may validate more than one research question, as a researcher, I suggest that you make a excel sheet with each research question as a row and keep ticking the once that are getting double checked through triangulation.

Then, if any research question stays unticked, you may explore more triangulation methods to validate your study.

I also keep in mind that triangulation ensure research neutrality and so its good to have all research questions backed up with multi method triangulation.

All the Best for your study,

Regards.

Rohita Dwivedi

Qualitative data is suppose to be subjective providing deep and rich insight to lived experiences and how those experiences are interpreted by those that lived them.

Triangulation in qualitative research can be accomplished in many ways, such as you suggest interviews and observations, also through other forms of primary, secondary, tertiary data without the need of developing additional research questions unless you are using grounded theory, then the research reveals the research questions through discovery and saturation of the questions.

Hi Debra, I think as already discussed it depends on how you use observation data to further explain and validate the results.Especially the emergent and variant themes in a naturalistic study which is what Dr Morgan was alluding to.In my view the depth will come from enriching the results with value additional to the convergent results.

You do not need to add a separate research question to say, your triangulation observation data; for instance, a simple example might be if you have asked respondents about hand-washing practices in a hospital, you can triangulate this data by next observing the hand-washing practices of these respondents----you do not need to ask another question.

Triangulation adds depth and understanding to your research - your topic is the same, your questions are the same - initially. By triangulating, you can encounter that your research focus may shift in order to better understand a phenomenon (see e.g. Mayring). You ask for one thing (to validate your data), you get two: validating and research focus.

Yes I believe you can. In interview we mostly use open ended questions. I think if some close ended questions are used to supplement the open ended questions, we can collect data without using any additional questions. Furthermore, it will make your data collection more reliable.