Trinity Is Still My Name: Renewed Appreciation for Triangulation and Methodological Diversity in Public Administration

• Author: Jeremy L. Hall,R. Paul Battaglio
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13010
• Date: 01 November 2018
• Published date: 01 November 2018

Trinity Is Still My Name: Renewed Appreciation forTriangulation and Methodological Diversity in PublicAdministration 825

As editors, we are often asked about the

nascent and growing trends in public

administration research. While more

time (and space) would be needed to adequately

address this question, the current issue gives us

the opportunity to speak to one of the recent

trends we feel is increasingly important to our

discipline—methodological diversity. Perusing

the articles in this issue gives us some idea of

the increasing breadth of empirical approaches

scholars in public administration are employing to

elucidate many of the field’s persistent paradigms.

Indeed, public administration research is vested in

the application of multiple empirical approaches

to particular research questions. Taking on

research questions often involves the use of both

quantitative and qualitative data in a variety of

mixed methodological approaches. Mixed method

approaches have the advantage of providing

a more holistic view of social science research

while pointing out the shortcomings of more

narrow designs used to gauge behavior within

organizations, and among citizens and politicians

(Newman, Cherney, and Head 2016; Pandey 2017;

Raimondo and Newcomer 2017). Recent work has

taken stock of the use of mixed method approaches

through research syntheses of public administration,

public management, and meta-analyses of research

questions of both observational and experimental

data (Hendren, Luo, and Pandey 2018; Raimondo

and Newcomer 2017).

Typically, methodological diversity involves the use

of multiple approaches to provide a more robust

understanding of a specific phenomenon. These

approaches may take the form of surveys used

to collect observational or administrative data,

structured interviews, and randomized control

trials, to name just a few. The crux is employing

two or more sources in order to validate data used

in answering a research question, or triangulation.

Triangulation is the sine qua non of social science

research.

The Holy Trinity: Triangulation in the Social

and Behavioral Sciences

While triangulating methodological approaches has

been a fixture of social science research for more

than five decades (Campbell and Fiske 1959), the

concept seems to have been rediscovered by public

administration scholars in recent years. Indeed,

scholars are eschewing simple analyses of quantitative

and qualitative data in favor of robust mixed methods

designs for autonomous research paradigms (Johnson,

Onwuegbuzie, and Turner 2007). A new generation

of scholars are cognizant of the potential for positive

bias associated with quantitative research, and the

potential for methodological sophistication to mask

or reveal relationships among variables. Scholars

are increasingly questioning whether quantitative

and qualitative approaches alone are capable of

answering many of the pressing questions in public

administration. Alternatively, public administration

scholars suggest using quantitative and qualitative

approaches in combination as a means for providing a

better understanding of research questions, especially

some of the more complex phenomena of human

behavior (Creswell and Plano Clark 2017; Molina-

Azorín and Cameron 2010; Molina-Azorίn 2011).

The use of triangulation in social science research

raises a number of important questions. There are

numerous barriers to the use of mixed methods that

need to be weighed against the potential benefits.

For example, mixed methods designs often come

with a high price tag in terms of the amount of time

and effort involved as well as resources dedicated

to answering the particular research question under

consideration (Creswell and Plano Clark 2017;

Molina-Azorίn 2011). As funding for research,

particularly social science research, is increasingly

scarce for American universities, public administration

scholars in the United States may find themselves at a

disadvantage relative to their European counterparts

where institutions are enjoying a renaissance in

funding for practical and applied research projects.

A more epistemological issue is the risk of blending

R. Paul Battaglio

University of Texas at Dallas

Jeremy L. Hall

University of Central Florida

Trinity Is Still My Name: Renewed Appreciation

forTriangulation and Methodological Diversity in

PublicAdministration

Editorial

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 78, Iss. 6, pp. 825–827. © 2018 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13010.