There are no items in your cart
Add More
Add More
| Item Details | Price | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Tue Dec 30, 2025
Picture this: it’s 1978, and Norman Denzin publishes The Research Act. He introduces “triangulation” as a method to strengthen findings, utilize multiple methods, and gain a more comprehensive picture of reality. Sounds straightforward, right?
Fast forward a few decades, and we’ve got a sprawling methodological landscape where “triangulation” isn’t enough. Scholars like Jennifer Greene and John Creswell began emphasizing integration, actually linking the qualitative and quantitative strands, rather than running them in parallel.
Why the shift? Because triangulation implied you were looking for a single, converging truth. However, as social science grappled with complexity and subjectivity, researchers recognized that methods could be employed for complementarity, development, or even contradiction, rather than just confirmation.
Enter multi-method research, which might never cross paradigms at all, and mixed data, which might not involve multiple methods in the first place. These distinctions sharpened as the field matured, especially through works like Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry (Greene, 2007) and Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).
Today, debates over terminology aren’t just academic squabbles. They affect how studies are reviewed, funded, and taught. Mixed methods isn’t inherently “better” than multi-method, but knowing which you’re doing, and saying so precisely, shows respect for the craft.
So, whether you’re building a dissertation design or reviewing someone else’s, remember: triangulation was the spark, integration is the engine, and clarity is the fuel.
Launch your Graphy