07 junio 2005

errores en la triangulación metodológica

Escrito por Gloria Gómez Diago (gracias)

Siguiendo la estela del post que publicaba Daniel (17/03/05) "Triangulación Metodológica en investigación empírica" en esta ComuniSfera, trascribo los errores que Alexander Massey (1999:1 ) comenta que suelen cometerse cuando se aplica esta metodología de investigación.
El texto en el que los explica se llama "Methodological Triangulation,Or How To Get Lost Without Being Found Out" .
Los errores son 7:
Type A
Using a second method to 'prove' the truth of a first method, rather than simply define it as true.
Type B
Claiming that agreement between the results of two methods 'proves' the validity of the second method as well as the first (the principle of mutual confirmation, also known as 'arguing in a circle').
Type C
Taking answers that look the same to mean the same thing.
Type D
Assuming that the researcher can accurately convert a qualitative statement by a respondent in such a way as to plot it on the same place in a scale as a respondent would if asked (a development from Error Type C).
Type E
Assuming that propositions and answers derived from different methods can converge or diverge (i.e. 'agree' or 'disagree').
Type F
Believing that the 'strengths' of one method can offset the 'weaknesses' of another, leading for some researchers to the illusion of a problem of how to prioritise the findings resulting from different data sources (the 'weighting problem').
Type G
Comparing the results of two samples as though they belong to the same population when there is no methodological or statistical demonstration that they do(1)

Y retomamos la pregunta: ¿permite alcanzar una coherencia transdisciplinar o simplemente interdisciplinar?

¿intertransdiplinar?
Publicar un comentario