Synthese 196 (8):3067-3081 (2019)

Authors
Liam Kofi Bright
London School of Economics
Remco Heesen
University of Western Australia
Abstract
Social 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.
Keywords philosophy of social science  methodological triangulation  formal epistemology  voting theory  W. E. B. Du Bois
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2016, 2019
DOI 10.1007/s11229-016-1294-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Philosophy of Natural Science.Carl Gustav Hempel - 1966 - Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
Philosophy of Natural Science.Carl G. Hempel - 1967 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 18 (1):70-72.
Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem.Christian List & Robert E. Goodin - 2001 - Journal of Political Philosophy 9 (3):277–306.
The Robust Volterra Principle.Michael Weisberg & Kenneth Reisman - 2008 - Philosophy of Science 75 (1):106-131.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (3):635-663.
Do Collaborators in Science Need to Agree?Haixin Dang - 2019 - Philosophy of Science 86 (5).

View all 14 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-09-07

Total views
274 ( #35,440 of 2,456,077 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #38,759 of 2,456,077 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes