Vindicating methodological triangulation

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 Thanks to Natalie Ashton, Seamus Bradley, Clark Glymour, Chike Jeffers, Aidan Kestigian, Erich Kummerfeld, Christian List, Wendy Parker, Kevin Zollman, two anonymous reviewers, and audiences in Munich and London for helpful comments. RH 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. B Remco Heesen [email protected] Liam Kofi Bright [email protected] Andrew Zucker [email protected] 1 Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA, UK 2 Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, Baker Hall 161, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA 3 Department of Mathematical Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Wean Hall 6113, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA