Преузмите комплетан рад/Downloads


Аутор/Author: Предраг Ж. Живковић


УДК 303.7.032.4



Ап­стракт: У ра­ду се, по­шав­ши од про­бле­ма при­стра­сно­сти и ва­ли­да­ци­је у ком­би­но­ва­њу раз­ли­чи­тих ис­тра­жи­вач­ких ме­то­да и ме­то­до­ло­ги­ја, рас­пра­вља о пред­но­сти­ма и не­до­ста­ци­ма три­ан­гу­ла­ци­је. Кри­тич­ки је ана­ли­зи­ран кон­цепт три­ан­гу­ла­ци­је ко­ји под­ра­зу­ме­ва ко­ри­шће­ње ви­ше од јед­не ме­то­де ра­ди до­би­ја­ња еви­ден­ци­је из ви­ше од јед­ног из­во­ра, а на­ро­чи­то оправ­да­ност де­фи­ни­са­ња ци­ља три­ан­гу­ли­са­ња као по­ступ­ка ко­ји се ко­ри­сти  да би се дру­штве­ни фе­но­ме­ни бо­ље раз­у­ме­ли та­ко што ће се са­гле­да­ти из ви­ше од јед­не пер­спек­ти­ве. Аутор је ука­зао на ва­жност све­сти о то­ме да се три­ан­гу­ла­ци­ја не сво­ди ну­жно на по­ку­шај да се пот­кре­пе на­ла­зи, и то има­ју­ћи у ви­ду че­ти­ри кон­цеп­та: три­ан­гу­ла­ци­ја као про­ве­ра ва­лид­но­сти, не­пре­ки­ну­та три­ан­гу­ла­ци­ја, три­ан­гу­ла­ци­ја као тра­га­ње за ком­плет­но­шћу ин­фор­ма­ци­ја/сли­ке и три­ан­гу­ла­ци­ја као епи­сте­мо­ло­шки ди­ја­лог. За раз­ре­ше­ње про­бле­ма од­го­ва­ра­ју­ће ме­та­фо­ре и ана­ло­ги­је са из­вор­ним зна­че­њем три­ан­гу­ла­ци­је, аутор је пред­ло­жио ана­мор­фич­ку па­ра­диг­му: раз­ли­чи­те ме­то­де се удру­жу­ју као про­из­вод раз­ли­чи­тих те­о­риј­ских тра­ди­ци­ја, те њи­хо­во ком­би­но­ва­ње мо­же до­да­ти ду­би­ну и оп­сег, али не и тач­ност; ја­сни­ја сли­ка (а то је је­ди­но мо­гу­ће до­сти­ћи, не и тач­ност) до­би­ја се из­бо­ром од­го­ва­ра­ју­ће пер­спек­ти­ве, угла и тач­ке по­сма­тра­ња.


Кључ­не ре­чи: ком­би­но­ва­ње ме­то­да, ме­то­до­ло­шки плу­ра­ли­зам, три­ан­гу­ла­ци­ја, ана­мор­фо­за.



Summary: Starting from the problems of bias and validation in combining different research methods and methodologies, the paper discusses the advantages and shortcomings of triangulation. The triangulation concept which involves the use of more than one method to obtain records from more than one source is critically analyzed, and particularly the justification of defining the goal of triangulation as a process that is used to better understand social phenomena by looking at them from more than one perspective. The author points out the importance of the awareness that triangulation does not necessarily lead to an attempt to support the findings, taking into account the four concepts: triangulation as validation check, continuous triangulation, triangulation as a search for the completeness of information/image and triangulation as epistemological dialogue. To solve the problem of the corresponding metaphor and analogy with the original meaning of triangulation, the author suggests an anamorphic paradigm: different methods are combined as a product of different theoretical traditions, and their combination can add depth and scope, but not accuracy; a clearer picture (and this is only possible to achieve, not accuracy) is obtained by choosing the appropriate perspective, angle, and point of view.


Key words: combination of methods, methodological pluralism, triangulation, anamorphosis.



Becker, H. S. (1970). Life history and the scientific mosaic. In H. S. Becker: Sociological Work. Chicago: Aldine.

Becker, H. S. & Geer, B. (1957). Participant observation and interviewing: a comparison. Human Organization, 16, 28–32.

Blaikie, N. W. H. (1991). A critique of the use of triangulation in social research. Quality and Quantity, 25(2), 115–136.

Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Allen and Unwin.

Bryman, A. (2004). Triangulation. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman & T. F. Liao (eds.): Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113.

Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix’. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.

Cicourel, A. V. (1974). Cognitive Sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Cicourel, A. V., Jennings, K. H., Jennings, S. H., Leiter, K. C. W., MacKay, R., Mehan, H. & Roth, D. H. (1974). Language Use and School Performance. New York: Academic Press.

Clark, M. (1990). Nietzsche on Truth and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clifford, J. & Marcus, G. (eds.): Writing Culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley CA, University of California Press.

Denzin, N. K. (1970). The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldine.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) (2005). Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry, Third edition. Thousand Oaks CA, Sage

Elliott, J. (1976). Developing hypotheses about classrooms for teachers practical constructs: an account of the Ford Teaching Project’. Interchange, 7(2). Reprinted in S. Kemmis et al. (eds.): The Action Research Reader. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press, 1982.

Elliott, J. & Adelman, C. (1976). Innovation at the Classroom Level: a case study of the Ford Teaching Project, unit 28 of Curriculum Design and Development. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Erzberger, C. & Kelle, U. (2003). Making inferences in mixed methods: the rules of integration. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds.): Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks CA, Sage.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott (1992). The Great Gatsby: the authorized text. London: Abacus.

Flick, U. (1992). Triangulation revisited: strategy of validation or alternative?. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22(2), 175–197.

Flick, U. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardoff & I. Steinke (eds.): A Companion to Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Frank, G. (1979). Finding the common denominator: a phenomenological critique of life history method. Ethos, 7(1), 68–94. Reprinted in N. Fielding (ed.): Interviewing, Volume 1, London, Sage, 2003.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gorard, S. & Taylor, C. (2004). Combining Methods in Educational and Social Research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Habermas, J. (2003). Truth and Justification. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Halfpenny, P. (1982). Positivism and Sociology. London: Allen and Unwin.

Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s Wrong with Ethnography?. London: Routledge.

Hammersley, M. (1995). The Politics of Social Research. London: Sage.

Hammersley, M. (1996). The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. In J. T. E. Richardson (ed.): Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social  Sciences. Leicester, British Psychological Society.

Hammersley, M. (2003a). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: methods or paradigms?. Discourse and Society, 14(6), 751–781.

Hammersley, M. (2003b). Recent radical criticism of interview studies: any implications for the sociology of education?. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(1), 119–126.

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kelle, U. (2001). Sociological explanations between micro and macro and the intergration of qualitative and quantitative methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line journal], 2(1). Available at http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm.

Langlois, Ch. V. & Seignobos, Ch. (1898). Introduction to the Study of History. English translation. London: Duckworth, 1913.

Leach, E. (1957). The Epistemological Background to Malinowskiʼs Empiricismʼ. In R. Firth (ed.): Man and Culture: an evaluation of the work of Bronislaw Malinowski. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Lincoln, Y. S. (1990). The making of a constructivist: a remembrance of transformations past. In E. G. Guba (ed.): The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park, CA, Sage.

McPhee, G. (1992). Triangulation in research: two confusions. Educational Research, 34(3), 251–259.

Maso, I. (2001). Phenomenology and ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland & L. Lofland (eds.): Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage.

Massey, A. (1999). Methodological triangulation, or how to get lost without being found out. In A. Massey & G. Walford (eds.): Studies in Educational Ethnography, Vol. 2, Explorations in methodology. Stamford CT: JAI Press.

Moran-Ellis, J., Alexander, V. D., Cronin, A., Dickinson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J. & H. Thomas (2006). Triangulation and integration: processes, claims and  implications. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 45–59.

Murphy, E., Dingwall, R., Greatbatch, D., Parker, S. & Watson, P. (1998). Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technology Assessment, 2, 16, 1–260. Retrieved August 17, 2002 from the World Wide Web http://www.hta.nhsweb.nhs.uk/execsumm/summ216.htm.

Perlesz, A. & Lindsay, J. (2003). Methodological triangulation in researching families: making sense of dissonant data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(1), 25–40.

Ribbens McCarthy, J., Holland, J. & Gillies, V. (2003). Multiple perspectives on “family” lives of young people: methodological and theoretical issues in case study research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(1), 1–23.

Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: a method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.): Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage (First edition).

Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: a method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.): Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Sadler, T. (1995). Nietzsche: truth and redemption. London: Athlone Press.

Sale, J., Lohfeld, L. H. & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity, 36, 43–53.

Seale, C. (1999). The Quality of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Sieber, S. D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1335–1339.

Silverman, D. (1983). Qualitative Methodology and Sociology. Aldershot: Gower.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage.

Smith, J. K. & Hodkinson, P. (2005). Relativism, criteria, and politics. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.): Handbook of Qualitative Research, Third Edition. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Strenski, I. (1982). Malinowski: Second Positivism, Second Romanticism. Man, 17,  766–777.

Trow, M. (1977). Comment on “Participant observation and interviewing: a comparison”. Human Organization, 16, 33–5.

Van den Berg, H. (1996). Frame analysis of open interviews on interethnic relations. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique, 53, 5–32.

Warnke, G. (1987). Gadamer: hermeneutics, tradition and reason. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D. & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive Measures: nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.


Zelditch, M. (1962). Some methodological problems of field studies. American Journal of Sociology, 67, 566–576.