Using triangulation to validate themes in qualitative studies

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.

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.

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.

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.