Perspectives on the Role of Triangulation in Medicine and Health Care

Main Article Content

Charles J. Kowalski Adam J Mrdjenovich Richard W. Redman

Abstract

We consider the use of triangulation— the idea that we should examine a given phenomenon from a number of angles to get a “rounded appreciation” for the phenomenon in question— in health care. Viewing triangulation itself from a number of perspectives (e.g., related approaches, philosophical underpinnings, examples of applications), we argue that some form of triangulation will often prove useful to the researcher and clinician, though the approach has limitations and which form, if any, should be used in a given situation depends on context.

Keywords: Eclecticism, perspectivism, dialectics, scientism, EBM

Article Details

How to Cite
KOWALSKI, Charles J.; MRDJENOVICH, Adam J; REDMAN, Richard W.. Perspectives on the Role of Triangulation in Medicine and Health Care. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 1, jan. 2023. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/3563>. Date accessed: 23 may 2024.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. Midgley M. Gaia: The next Big Idea. Demos; 2001.
2. Midgley M. The Essential Mary Midgley. Psychology Press; 2005.
3. Midgley M. One world, but a big one. Journal of Consciousness Studies. 1996, 3(5-6): 500-14.
4. Fitzpatrick K. Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to Saving the University. Johns Hopkins University Press; 2019.
5. Eisler R. The Chalice and the Blade. Harper Collins; 1989.
6. Eisler R. The Power of Partnership. New World Library; 2002.
7. Eisler R, Loye D. The Partnership Way: New Tools for Living and Learning. Holistic Education Press; 1998.
8. Eisler R, Fry DP. Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future. Oxford University Press; 2019.
9. Kowalski CJ, Mrdjenovich AJ. Beware Dichotomies. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 2016; 59(4): 517-535.
10. Cheng E. X + Y: A mathematician’s manifesto for rethinking gender. Basic Books; 2020.
11. Kowalski CJ, Mrdjenovich AJ. Patient preference clinical trials: Why and when they will sometimes be preferred. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 2013; 56(1):18-35.
12. Hofstadter DR, Sander E. Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. Basic Books; 2013.
13. Schattschneider D. Escher’s Metaphors. Scientific American. 1994; 271(5): 66-71.
14. Hofstadter DR. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Basic Books; 1999.
15. Blackburn S. Truth. Oxford University Press; 2005.
16. Holt J. When Einstein Walked with Gödel. Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2018.
17. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 1959; 56(2):81-105.
18. Kowalski C, Pennell S, Vinokur A. Felicitometry: Measuring the “quality” in quality of life. Bioethics. 2008; 22(6): 307-13.
19. Kowalski CJ, Bernheim JL, Birk NA, Theuns P. Felicitometric hermeneutics: Interpreting quality of life measurements. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2012; 33(3): 207-220.
20. Eysenck HJ. Systematic Reviews: Meta-analysis and its problems. BMJ. 1994; 309(6957):789-792.
21. Ioanndis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Milbank Quarterly. 2016; 94(3): 485-514.
22. Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Stewart G. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature. 2018; 555(7695):175-82.
23. Webb EJ. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Rand McNally; 1966.
24. Denzin NK. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Routledge; 2009.
25. Sandelowski M. Triangles and crystals. On the geometry of qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health. 1995; 18(6): 569-74.
26. Blaikie NWH. A critique of the use of triangulation in social research. Quality and Quantity. 1991;25(2):115-136.
27. Fuller S. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge. University of Wisconsin Press; 1993.
28. Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 5th ed. Sage; 2018.
29. Wisdom J, Creswell JW. Mixed Methods: Integrative Quantitative and Qualitative Date Collection and Analysis While Studying Patient-Centered Medical Home Models. Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research Publication No. 13-0028-EF; 2013.
30. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed. Sage; 2011.
31. Shorten A, Smith J. Mixed Methods Research: Expanding the Evidence Base. Evidence Based Nursing. 2017; 20(3):74-5.
32. Doorenbos AZ. Mixed methods in nursing research: An overview and practical examples. The Japanese Journal of Nursing Research. 2014; 47(3): 207-217.
33. Pluye P, Hong QN. Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: Mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annual Review of Public Health. 2014; 35(1): 29-45.
34. Tariq S, Woodman J. Using mixed methods in health research. JRSM Short Reports. 2010; 4(6).
35. Kimchi J, Polvika B, Stevenson JS. Triangulation. Nursing Research. 1991; 40(6): 364-66.
36. Kellert SH, Longino HE, C Kenneth Waters. Scientific Pluralism. University Of Minnesota Press; 2006.
37. Nesse RM, Williams GC, Brown JM. Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine. Vintage Books; 1994.
38. Stange KC, Miller WL, Crabtree BF, O’Connor PJ, Zyzanski SJ. Multimethod research. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1994; 9(5): 278-82.
39. Kowalski CJ. A commentary on the use of multivariate statistical methods in anthropometric research. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 1972; 36(1):119-31.
40. Kowalski CJ, Mrdjenovich AJ. Clinical trials of new drug products: What gets compared to whom? American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine. 2015; 3(4):178.
41. Banks GC, Rogelberg SG, Woznyj HM, Landis RS, Rupp DE. Editorial: Evidence on Questionable Research Practices: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2016; 31(3): 323-38.
42. Frost N, Bowen C. Commentary: New Pluralistic Strategies for Research in Clinical Practice. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2011; 9(1): 27-31.
43. Frost N, Shaw RL. Evolving mixed and multi method approaches for psychology. In: Nagy S, R Burke Johnson, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Mixed and Multi Method Research. Oxford University Press; 2015: 375-92.

44. Moran-Ellis J, Alexander VD, Cronin A, et al. Triangulation and integration: Processes, claims and implications. Qualitative Research. 2006; 6(1): 45-59.
45. Reif S, Horgan CM, Ritter GA. Treatment Services: Triangulation of methods when there is no gold standard. Substance Use & Misuse. 2010; 46(5): 620-32.
46. Warner S, Spandler H. New Strategies for Practice-Based Evidence: A Focus on Self-Harm. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2011; 9(1):13-26.
47. Upshur REG, VanDenKerkhof EG, Goel V. Meaning and measurement: An inclusive model of evidence in health care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2001; 7(2): 91-6.
48. McHugh HM, Walker ST. “Personal Knowledge” in Medicine and the Epistemic Shortcomings of Scientism. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2015; 12(4): 577-85.
49. Kowalski CJ, Mrdjenovich AJ, Redman RW. Scientism recognizes evidence only of the quantitative/general variety. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2020; 26(2): 452-57.
50. Kowalski CJ. Pragmatic problems with clinical equipoise. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 2010; 53(2):161-73.
51. Kowalski CJ, Mrdjenovich AJ. Schemata, CONSORT, and the Salk Polio Vaccine Trial. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2017; 43(1): 64-82.
52. Kowalski CJ. The relationship between science and religion: Complexity rules the day, and many windows and maps are needed. Journal of Research in Philosophy and History. 2018; 1(1): 59.
53. Krieglstein WJ. Compassion. Rodopi; 2002.
54. Krieglstein WJ. Compassionate Thinking, An Introduction to Philosophy. Kendall Hunt; 2006.