Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHeesen, Remcoen
dc.contributor.authorBright, LKen
dc.contributor.authorZucker, Aen
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-06T11:42:16Z
dc.date.available2017-03-06T11:42:16Z
dc.identifier.issn0039-7857
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/262882
dc.description.abstractSocial scientists use many different methods, and there are often substantial disagreements about which method is appropriate for a given research question. In response to this uncertainty about the relative merits of different methods, W. E. B. Du Bois advocated for and applied “methodological triangulation”. This is to use multiple methods simultaneously in the belief that, where one is uncertain about the reliability of any given method, if multiple methods yield the same answer that answer is confirmed more strongly than it could have been by any single method. Against this, methodological purists believe that one should choose a single appropriate method and stick with it. Using tools from voting theory, we show Du Boisian methodological triangulation to be more likely to yield the correct answer than purism, assuming the scientist is subject to some degree of diffidence about the relative merits of the various methods. This holds even when in fact only one of the methods is appropriate for the given research question.
dc.description.sponsorshipRH and LKB acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation through grant SES 1254291. RH also acknowledges support from the Leverhulme Trust and the Isaac Newton Trust through an Early Career Fellowship.
dc.languageengen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.subjectphilosophy of social scienceen
dc.subjectmethodological triangulationen
dc.subjectformal epistemologyen
dc.subjectvoting theoryen
dc.subjectW. E. B. Du Boisen
dc.titleVindicating methodological triangulationen
dc.typeArticle
prism.publicationNameSyntheseen
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.8173
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-12-10en
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1007/s11229-016-1294-7en
rioxxterms.versionVoRen
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2016-12-10en
dc.contributor.orcidHeesen, Remco [0000-0003-3823-944X]
dc.identifier.eissn1573-0964
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen
pubs.funder-project-idLeverhulme Trust (ECF-2016-551)
pubs.funder-project-idIsaac Newton Trust (1608(ac))
cam.issuedOnline2016-12-30en
cam.orpheus.successThu Jan 30 12:57:04 GMT 2020 - The item has an open VoR version.*
rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate2100-01-01


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution 4.0 International