Triangulation, Bricolage
and the Taverner Way
If I asked you to sit back and think back to when you first came
into contact with market research (a longer think for some of you,
a relatively shorter think for me), I wonder how many of you would
remember when and how you first became aware of the distinction
between qualitative and quantitative research?
For me, it was evident when I was signed up for two AMSRS courses,
respectively titled “Introduction to Quantitative Research”
and “Introduction to Qualitative Research”. I found
that most of the attendees had already fallen into one camp or the
other within their first years in the industry.
This distinction puzzled me, as at Taverner I have not had need
to ‘choose sides’. My training has its roots in both
research methodologies with researchers who use both quant, qual
and other investigative methods according to need. However, I have
come to understand that an individual using a combination of methodologies
in a single project is more the exception that the rule.
The distinction between qualitative and quantitative is something
which has become ingrained in our industry. There have been innumerable
tentative gestures towards bridging the divide, but most of these
have not created any new ripples in the market research ocean. Even
if some companies offer both quantitative and qualitative services,
often this would involve a ‘quantie’ doing his or her
half then handing over to a ‘quallie’ or vice versa.
Well, as we all know, times are a-changing. In all fields, specialisation
is giving way to a demand for flexibility and multi-skilling. Researchers
are no longer data-crunchers; they are investigators, interpreters
and advisors.
The need for more certainty and in many cases a better use of the
data or information available has led to a new way of thinking about
research: triangulation.
Owing its origins to the field of physics, triangulation has been
sneaking into areas as varied as management, marketing intelligence
and education. It’s presence has been felt in market research
in two ways: firstly as a way of validating qualitative research
findings and secondly as a rationale for encouraging researchers
to become equally proficient in the use of both qualitative (insights
and understanding) and quantitative methodologies (measurement).
Were you to undertake a literature search on the subject you will
find an increasing number of papers espousing triangulation. Holtzhausen
(2001) succinctly defines triangulation as:
“The conscious combination of quantitative and qualitative
methodologies as a powerful solution to strengthen a research design
where the logic is based on the fact that a single method can never
adequately solve the problem of rival causal factors”
As I read this a bell immediately rang in my mind. In research terms,
triangulation is essentially the practice of selecting a suite of
methods that will best suit the needs of a particular project, whether
this be several qualitative techniques, several quantitative techniques
or a combination of both. Wasn’t this just a new term for
what Taverner has been quietly doing all along ? But I jump ahead
of myself….
My reading then directed me to two of the latest buzzwords straight
off the plane from the UK: bricoleur and bricolage. According to
McLeod (2000), bricoleur is a French term describing ‘a handyman/woman,
a Jack/Jill of all trades’. A multi-skilled bricoleur produces
bricolage, which is a ‘complex, dense, reflexive, collage
like creation’ (McLeod, 2000). The image of the stereotypical,
bespectacled (and dare I say anal?) researcher with his/her stack
of numbers goes out the window. The researcher as bricoleur is a
many-skilled individual drawing on any and all methodologies at
his/her fingertips, to produce a story which delivers targeted information
and tailored solutions to clients.
From my point of view, this is definitely a more glamorous way of
describing what I am and what I do. It also supports what I see
as the researchers’ role in creativity – which some
in the communication industry might dispute. By its very nature,
being a bricoleur demands creativity. Choosing a combination of
just the right research instruments to dissect a problem down to
its roots and constructing a solution from the ensuing findings
requires a lot of imaginative thinking.
It’s not hard to see the links between bricolage and triangulation,
and to a global paradigm-shift occurring throughout the fields of
social science and research in general. Goldman and O’Neil
(2001) envisioned a ‘dream team’ of researchers who
are equally proficient in quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
I will point out that this has always been the Taverner Way. Long
before the times-were-a-changing Taverner recognised that qualitative
and quantitative methods should be complimentary rather than exclusive.
Using an integrated approach, our researchers utilise all qualitative
and quantitative methodologies as appropriate for any one assignment.
Each approach supplements the other in eliciting a growing data
bank of information for our clients. This prevents any key insights
from being lost in translation as often happens when the two stages
of a research project are handled by different individuals or different
companies (Goldman and O’Neil, 2000).
Furthermore, all research undertaken by Taverner covers not only
the issues at hand, but also the industry and product, the business
aims, the competitive environment, the client and consumer culture
and any underlying factors and concerns surrounding the research.
This multi-faceted approach to research is in itself a method of
triangulation, allowing Taverner’s researchers to present
a complete ‘picture’ to our clients. The end product
we produce is therefore made more meaningful, transferable and actionable.
Now that I have managed to work in a bit of self-spruiking, I’ll
end by inviting you to give us a call at Taverner, and we’ll
put you through to a bricoleur.
Lisa Lee
December 2005
References
Goldman, A., O’Neil, E. (2001) ‘The
Dream Team: Qualitative and Quantitative Integrated !!’, Imprints,
September 2001, pp36-38.
Holtzhausen, S (2001) ‘Triangulation as a
powerful tool to strengthen the qualitative research design: The
Resourse-based Learning Career Preparation Programme (RBLCPP) as
a case study’, Higher Education Close Up Conference 2, 16-18
July 2001, Lancaster University
McLeod, J. (2000), ‘Qualitative Research
as Bricolage’, Qualitative inquiry in action: researcher as
bricoleur, Society for Psychotherapy Research Annual Conference,
22 June 2000
|
