Skip to content
Vindicating Methodological Triangulation episode artwork

Jan 12, 2015

Vindicating Methodological Triangulation

from MCMP – Philosophy of Science

Remco Heesen (Carnegie Mellon) gives a talk at the MCMP Colloquium (8 January, 2015) titled "Vindicating Methodological Triangulation". Abstract: Social scientists use many different methods, and there are often substantial disagreements about which method is appropriate for a given research question. A proponent of methodological triangulation believes that if multiple methods yield the same answer that answer is confirmed more strongly than it could have been by any single method. Methodological purists, on the other hand, believe that one should choose a single appropriate method and stick with it. Using formal tools from voting theory, we show that triangulation is more likely to lead to the correct answer than purism, assuming the scientist is subject to some degree of diffidence about the relative merits of the various methods. This is true even when in fact only one of the methods is appropriate for the given research question.

Episode details come from the podcast's RSS feed.

Embed this episode

Ready to play

Vindicating Methodological Triangulation

No transcript yet.

Requests help us decide what to transcribe next.

Frequently asked questions

When was this MCMP – Philosophy of Science episode published?

This episode was published on January 12, 2015.

Can I download this MCMP – Philosophy of Science episode?

Yes. Use the download control on the episode player to save the publisher-provided media file.