The Triangulation of Researcher Interpretations of Interview
Data: Cross- Gender Friendships
John Williams
Mary Ruth Hawkins
Marilyn Lichtman
Virginia Tech
Qualitative researchers face the challenge of interpreting
and making sense of their data. When a single researcher plans
and conducts a study, the potential bias introduced to
interpretation of data by the single researcher must be
addressed. This would be analogous to the "Hawthorne effect" of
experimental research. In addition to this, various
qualitative analysis techniques such as content analysis (Holsti,
1968) suffer from unclear procedural guidelines as to how data
are to be disassembled into categories or concepts (Miles, 1979)
and then reassembled into research-defined themes (Jorgenson,
1989). Another source of interpretive bias may thus be introduced
by the way in which researchers structure their analysis. This
would be analogous to the "internal validity" of experimental
research. Assuming that a rigid set of analytical "rules"
could be generated and applied through an agreed-upon research
paradigm (a la Berg, 1989), readers of research reporting such
qualitative analyses must still contend with the consistency that
would be observed if another researcher used the same rules to
analyze another sample. This would be analogous to the
"reliability" of conventional measurement theory. One recent
paradigm suggested to overcome some of these sources of
interpretive error in qualitative research is a semi-structured
approach (McCracken, 1988) in which a pre-specified set of
guidelines is stated by the qualitative analyst and allowed to
vary as the analysis proceeds to adjust interpretation
interactively while researcher learning takes place. A
modification of this paradigm to include multiple researchers and
multiple data sources focusing on a unified topic has been used
by Lichtman (1991). This study reports the use of multiple
researchers and analytical approaches to a set of interview data
describing adult perceptions of cross gender friendship to
develop a research paradigm for qualitative research which
attempts to overcome the limitations of dependency on single
researcher reliability and single perspective analysis. With
three researchers, we developed a triangulation method containing
sequential steps of analysis beginning with independence and
concluding with group synthesis. Methodology
Interviews were conducted by graduate students enrolled in a
research methods course. They used an open-ended style for
interviewing a convenience sample of male and female peers,
friends, and relatives who participated voluntarily. Forty-four
individuals provided responses that were entered as text into a
data base manager for content analysis.
Analysis was divided into three segments. In the first, the
junior male researcher agreed to develop a data dictionary with
male and sociological themes . The junior female researcher
agreed to develop an independent data dictionary with female and
psychological themes.
In the second segment, text responses from the interviews
were used to independently quantify and synthesize common themes
emerging from the respondent interviews by the junior male and
female researchers. Each used their own analytical strategy (See
Appendix One below). From the themes, hypotheses were generated
about the characteristics of cross-sex friendships and reported
separately by the junior researchers to the senior female
researcher.
In the third segment, the senior female researcher reviewed
the independent reports and original respondent text to verify
the existence of themes claimed by the junior researchers. All
three researchers then met in a focus group to develop a
synthesis of the topic, "cross gender friendship defined".
The senior researcher then integrated all three views of the
topic into a single unifying model describing the major
components of cross-gender friendship (See Figure One.). An
estimate of the reliability of content analyses used to generate
definitional themes was computed using rank order correlation of
the primary keywords generated by each junior researcher. All
three researchers then re-grouped and developed a model for the
research paradigm reported below.
Results
The junior male researcher focused on these major questions
in his summary of the interview content:
1.What is it about society that affects cross-gender
friendships? 2.What Defines a Cross-gender Friend?
3.What Defines Relationships?
4.What relationships are acceptable and unacceptable?
5.How are cross-gender friendships judged?
6.What opportunities exist for the development of
Cross-Gender Friendships? 7.What strengthens and weakens
Cross-Gender friendships? 8.What family characteristics
affect Cross-Gender Friendship? 9.How Does sexuality affect
Cross-Gender Friendships? 10.What ends cross-gender
friendships?
He summarized his findings in terms of sociological and male
themes.
"This analysis of interview data on the topic of cross gender
friendship suggests that there is a sociological component of
the interpersonal relationship we call friendship. People
carry norm values given to them by their society and use
these to view potential friends. They also carry with them
the perceptions of their family and other friends. They judge
others by these values and shape their own activities and
acceptance criteria by them. The respondents in this study
reinforce this view of cross gender friendship initiation and
maintenance.
Overlain on this large scale perspective is the sub-group
view of males. With their additional set of normative values
and sexual behaviors, they must contend with additional
challenges to cross gender friendship. It seems that some aspects
of being an "Iron John" male (e.g., innate competitiveness)
may work against the formation of cross gender friendships,
while others, like the development of greater sensitivity to
surroundings, may work for them. It remains for we males to sort
out our priorities and merge our needs within the constraints
of extant societal expectations and the needs of our would-be
friends if we are indeed to cross the gender gap" (Williams,
1991).
The junior female researcher developed the following
psychological and female themes for analysis:
"Quotations were grouped around the following thematic
content areas which illustrate the dialectical nature of
responses: (a) expressiveness/instrumentality, (b)
sexual/Platonic relationships, and (c) supportive/conflictual
relationships. Comments were not separated by gender"
(Hawkins, 1992).
She summarized her findings in the following text:
"The ambiguous nature of friendship in general and cross-sex
friendship in particular poses an interesting research
challenge. Further exploration of the topic from a life
course perspective adds the potential for important historical
data uncommon to most current studies of this multidimensional
concept. For a review of methodology used in friendship
studies, see Matthews (1986).
The unique characteristics of our research design have
allowed multiple levels of analysis. A women's psychological
view focused upon the dialectical nature of cross-sex friendship
as revealed in recent literature and as lived experience of the
researcher and interviewees. Paradoxical pairs of themes emerged
as follows: (a) Expressive/Instrumental, (b) Sexual/Platonic,
and
(c) Supportive/Conflictual. Three final quotes effectively
summarize this study and serve once again to illustrate its
dialectical and dynamic character: "Everyone is different,
and every relationship is different. Since we are responding
and interacting, our feelings are different for each other. When
we learn to be comfortable in cross-sex friendships, we will
be more comfortable with ourselves."
"We have the POTENTIAL for friendships, but that's
interactive and depends upon the personalities. It may or
may not happen."
"Male/female issues--that's CONFUSION for me!" " (Hawkins,
1992).
The senior female researcher integrated these two
perspectives into a consensus view of cross-gender friendship by
relating definitions and commonalities of themes across the
independent reports. Her integrated report (Lichtman, 1992) is
summarized below.
Integrating Disparate Views
"Can we reach a consensual view on an interpretation of any
topic? And do we want to? We ask ourselves: can we reach a
consensual view on a topic that so intimately connects the
voices of males and females when we represent only one view
or the other? We are especially aware of how our experiences as
men and women influence our interpretations about a topic
that intimately connects men and women."
Definitions
Our working definition went something like this. "A
cross-gender friendship is a close friendship with someone of the
opposite sex with whom you are not romantically involved."
From whose viewpoint? What we come to see, as we each look at
the data, is that a single definition does not emerge. Rather,
we construct a definition from our data along multidimensional
lines. We have come to see that we can categorize the
definitions we heard along several dimensions.
Our informants considered the nature of the relationship. Of
necessity, a friendship involves another person (in this case a
person of the opposite sex). So to consider a friendship in the
abstract, without considering the relationship with another human
being, is not possible.
Another dimension we uncovered relates to the impact of
society--its rules, regulations, expectations, culture--on the
nature of such a friendship. Romantic involvement. We learned
from our informants that romantic involvement as a construct has
many meanings. Those who speak of becoming best friends with
former spouses, those who speak of holding hands or kissing or
physical touching, those who speak of touching (e.g. he touches
my heart), those who speak of a chemistry, and those who include
the sexuality--each of these speak of their relationship with
another and respond to our questions.
What do you mean by friendship? We are left with only the
informants' interpretations of what they mean by close
friendship. They speak about close friendship in ways that to
me seem to be acquaintances. When pushed, they maintain their
position, however. Commonalities. Whether we speak of the data
from a psychological perspective or a sociological perspective,
we are able to organize and identify themes that permeate
responses.
Sexuality. There appears to be an explicit or implicit
understanding that cross-sex friendships lose that status if a
boundary is crossed. The boundary usually refers to sexual
intercourse. We speak of how cross-sex friendships have all the
components of sexuality (kissing, touching, a feeling of
intimacy, pleasure) without regular intercourse. Support and
conflict. We find both supporting issues and conflicting issues
regarding the nature of the friendship. For example, in speaking
about the relationship of one's spouse to the cross-gender
relationship, some of our informants report spouses as being
supportive or encouraging of the relationship. Others speak of
quite the opposite; they continue a cross-sex friendship even
though their spouses are against them. Expressiveness. A third
commonality relates to how such friendships are expressed,
enacted, or implemented. Such friendships usually begin because
two individuals are in a circumstance where they meet" (Lichtman,
1992).
In addition to the integrated qualitative synthesis of
researcher themes into a single definitional scheme representing
the triangulation of the content analyses above, a Spearman rank
order correlation of primary keywords used by the junior
researchers was computed to estimate the consistency of their
categorization of content themes. A Spearman's rho of .58 (Rank
N=9) suggests that two or more independent content analyses may
be expected to converge to a moderate degree. Summary
We address in this paper an approach to understanding and
interpreting a complex social phenomenon--the development and
maintenance of cross-gender friendship. Our data collection and
synthesis utilized multiple researchers and methods of analysis
to attempt to address the issues of bias and consistency
underlying any foray into the qualitative research field.
An initial level of interpretation was developed from two
intentionally different perspectives: A feminine psychological
perspective and a masculine sociological perspective. We drew
together our individual interpretations after several discussions
and reinterpretations. What emerged from our multiple and
semi-structured approach to the definition of cross-gender
friendship is a both/and perspective to an understanding of
interview data.
It acknowledges the strengths of the individual researcher's
view while at the same time seeking to develop a framework under
which various views can be consistently accommodated.
We urge you to peruse multiple layers. We have found it
rewarding, thought- provoking, and valuing. A suggested research
plan for future triangulation of qualitative data is presented in
Table One.
Table One. A proposed qualitative research strategy.
Actor(s) Action
Result 1. All researchers
Initial research question
raised
Stimulus for research
activity
2. Independent researchers
1 & 2
Collate data; develop
research themes; analyze
content of data
Independent reports of
results
3. Researcher 3
Synthesizes independent
themes into a framework
A tentative report
4. 3 researchers
Review, discuss and
synthesize all reports into
proposed framework
A single internally
reviewed research report
5. All researchers
Peer review report; suggest
different and new
directions for research
An externally interpreted
and critiqued report
6. 3 researchers
Re-synthesize report to
account for internal and
external challenges
A "final" report
7. All researchers
Review final report and
integrate into research
field
A new research question ?
References
Berg, B. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the social
sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hawkins, M. R. (1992). A Synthesis of Cross-Gender Relationships:
Female- centered/psychological-based. Paper presented at the 1992
Conference on Qualitative Research in Education, January 1992,
Athens, GA.
Holsti, O. R. (1968). Content Analysis. In Gardner, L. and E.
Aaronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology. Reading,
MSA: Addison-Wesley.
Jorgenson, D. L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology
for human studies. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications.
Lather, P. (1990). Reinscribing otherwise: The play of values in
the practices of the human sciences. In E. Guba, ed., The
Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 315-332.
Lichtman, M. L. (1992). The Triangulation of Researcher
Interpretation of Interview Data: Cross-Gender Friendships.
Paper presented at the 1992 Conference on Qualitative Research in
Education, January 1992, Athens, GA.
Lichtman, M. L. (1991). Seeing data through multiple eyes.
Unpublished paper presented at the 1992 Conference on Qualitative
Research in Education, Athens, GA.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Beverly Hills, CA.:
Sage Publications.
Miles, M. B. (1979). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance:
The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,
590-601.
Williams, J. (1992). A Synthesis of Cross-Gender Relationships:
Male-centered/sociological- based. Paper presented at the 1992
Conference on Qualitative Research in Education, January 1992,
Athens, GA.
Appendix One
Outlines of analytical strategies used by the independent junior
researchers:
Outline of Methodology:
A Female, Psychological View
Mary Ruth Hawkins
I.Integration of Perspectives
A. Intrapsychic
B. Interpersonal
II.Triangulation of Attributes
A. Interests
1. Cognitive
2. Conative
B. Experiences
1. Friendships
2. Data Analysis
a. Individual
b. Group
C. Skills
1. Negative Case Analysis
2. Literature Review
3. Content Analysis of Data
a. Data Dictionary
b. Summary File of Quotes
c. Synthesis of Themes
d. Creation of Working Paper
e. Modification of Perspective
Outline of Methodology
A Male, Sociological View
John Williams
I.Establish a data dictionary
a. Review background literature for key terms
b. Review thesauri for key terms and related terms
c. Examine interview text and record key terms
II.Organize key terms into conceptual themes
a. Search data base for key terms in each concept
b. Count frequency of occurrence of each term
c. Aggregate counts under each theme to quantify
"importance" d. Search for contextual meaning of key terms
with connectors (-) and eliminate redundant concepts and
terms
e. Finalize data dictionary
III.Synthesize themes under research topic
a. Extract sections of interview text illustrating themes
b. Aggregate text sections under appropriate theme (-)
categories with keyword counts and terms
c. Interpret the association between text sections along (-)
male/female and positive/negative sociological continua
IV. Synthesis of divergent views
a. Produce and share written report with others
b. Integrate divergences into sociological and male themes
c. Submit synthesis report to peer review