Use when using multiple data sources, methods, investigators, or theories to enhance the credibility and depth of qualitative findings.
Triangulation uses multiple vantage points to strengthen interpretation. It can deepen understanding—but it is not a mechanical “more is always better” rule, and it does not automatically produce a single “true” reality.
Denzin distinguished these modes as ways to overcome partiality of single methods/sources. Contemporary writers emphasize triangulation for , not only convergence.
Data triangulation: Build an evidence table linking claim → supporting excerpts across sources → disconfirming evidence searched.
Investigator triangulation: Use structured coding comparisons, reconciliation sessions, and documented rule changes for the codebook.
Methodological triangulation: Pre-specify integration points (joint displays, threading narratives with descriptive statistics) so mixing is analytic, not decorative.
GT already “triangulates” through constant comparison across incidents. Adding sources should serve theoretical sampling aims: elaborate categories, conditions, and consequences. Avoid importing a fixed multi-method plan that steers analysis away from emergent core categories.
Triangulation assumes a somewhat realist stance when framed as convergence. Constructivist researchers may prefer crystallization metaphors: multiple facets refract light differently. Also, triangulation increases cost, time, and IRB complexity—justify it analytically.
For a finding F:
| Source type | Evidence snippet ID | Supports? | Notes / tensions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interview | P12: 00:18:22 | Yes | Describes mechanism |
| Document | Policy §4.2 | Partial | Official vs practiced gap |
| Observation | Site visit 3 | No | Suggests alternative routine |