The purpose of this article is to explore investigator triangulation (IT), a collaborative strategy with potential for mixed methods research (MMR). A critical review of the literature was conducted to identify IT’s core elements and its use in MMR. Five databases, 2 MMR journals, and 13 MMR texts were searched for evidence of IT according to preestablished inclusion criteria. IT descriptions and applications were inconsistent and lacked detailed reporting. Incongruence between IT procedures and associated claims were present. IT was generally limited to single-strand data analysis and was used predominantly to reduce researcher bias. IT’s potential as a generative and pragmatic research strategy used to engage with tensions emerging through diversity in MMR is explored and reporting guidelines are presented.
Al-HamdanZ.AnthonyD. (2010). Deciding on a mixed-methods design in a doctoral study. Nurse Researcher, 18(1), 45-56.
2.
AzulaiA.RankinJ. (2012). Triangulation in Canadian doctoral dissertations on aging. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6, 125-140.
3.
BazeleyP. (2009). Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203-207. doi:10.1177/1558689809334443
4.
BegleyC. (1996). Using triangulation in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24, 122-128.
5.
BergmanM. (2008). Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
BrymanA. (2006). Integrating qualitative and quantitative research. How is it done?Qualitative Research, 6, 97-113. doi:10.1177/1468794106058877
7.
BrymanA. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22. doi:10.1177/2345678906290531
8.
BurnsN.GroveS. (2001). The practice of nursing in research: Conduct, critique, and utilization (4th ed.). Collingwood, Ontario, Canada: W. B. Saunders.
9.
CameronR. (2009). A sequential mixed model research design: Design, analytical and display issues. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3, 140-152.
10.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. doi:10.1037/h0046016
11.
CowmanS. (1993). Triangulation: A means of reconciliation in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 788-792.
12.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95-108. doi:10.1177/1558689808330883
13.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
CrooksV.SchuurmanN.CinnamonJ.CastledenH.JohnstonR. (2011). Refining a location analysis model using a mixed methods approach: Community readiness as a key factor in siting rural palliative care services. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(1), 77-95. doi:10.1177/1558689810385693
15.
DellingerA.LeechN. (2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 309-332. doi:10.1177/1558689807306147
16.
DenscombeM. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270-283. doi:10.1177/1558689808316807
17.
DenzinN. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
18.
DenzinN. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
19.
DenzinN. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
EllingsonL. (2009). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
FarmerT.RobinsonK.ElliottS.EylesJ. (2006). Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 16, 377-394. doi:10.1177/1049 732305285708
24.
FieldingN. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124-136. doi:10.1177/1558689812437101
25.
FieldingN. G.FieldingJ. L. (1986). Linking data: The articulation of qualitative and quantitative methods in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
FlickU.Garms-HomolvaV.HerrmannW.KuckJ.RohnschG. (2012). “I can’t prescribe something just because someone asks for it . . .”: Using mixed methods in the framework of triangulation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 97-110. doi:10.1177/1558689812437183
28.
GrantM.BoothA. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471- 1842.2009.00848.x
29.
GreeneJ. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
30.
GreeneJ.CaracelliV.GrahamW. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
31.
HalcombE.AndrewS. (2005). Triangulation as a method in contemporary nursing research. Nurse Researcher, 13(2), 71-81.
32.
HammersleyM. (2008). Troubles with triangulation. In BergmanM. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 22-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
HemmingsA.BeckettG.KennerlyS.YapT. (2013). Building a community of research practice: Intragroup team social dynamics in interdisciplinary mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 261-273. doi:10.1177/1558689813478468
34.
Hesse-BiberS. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
35.
Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (2013). Coming at things differently: Future directions of possible engagement with mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 103-109. doi:10.1177/1558689813483987
36.
HeyvaertM.HannesK.MaesB.OnghenaP. (2013). Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(4), 302-327. doi:10.1177/1558689813479449
37.
HoweK. (2012). Mixed methods, triangulation, and causal explanation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 89-96. doi:10.1177/1558689812437187
38.
ImE.CheeW. (2002). Issues in protection of human subjects in internet research. Nursing Research, 51, 266-269.
39.
JickT. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
40.
JohnsonR. B.ChristensenL. B. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA.TurnerL. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224
42.
JohnstoneL. (2007). Weighing up triangulating and contradictory evidence in mixed methods organizational research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 1(1), 27-38.
43.
KennettD.O’ HaganF.CezerD. (2008). Learned resourcefulness and the long-term benefits of a chronic pain management program. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(4), 317-339. doi:10.1177/1558689808319732
44.
KimchiJ.PolivkaB.StevensonJ. S. (1991). Triangulation: Operational definitions. Nursing Research, 40, 364-366.
45.
KuligJ. C.AndrewsM. E.StewartN. J.PitbladoR.MacLeodM. L. P.BenthamD.. . .SmithB. (2008). How do registered nurses define rurality?Australian Journal of Rural Health, 16, 28-32. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1584.2007.00947.x
46.
KuuselaM.VainiomäkiP.KivirantaA.RautavaP. (2013). The missing evaluation at the end of GP’s consultation. International Journal of Family Medicine, Article ID 672857. doi:10.1155/2013/672857
47.
LeechN.DellingerA.BrannaganK.TanakaH. (2010). Evaluating mixed research studies: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 17-31. doi:10.1177/15586898 09345262
48.
LeechN.OnwuegbuzieA. (2010). Guidelines for conducting and reporting mixed research in the field of counseling and beyond. Journal of Counselling and Development, 88(1), 61-69.
49.
LundeA.HeggenK.StrandR. (2013). Knowledge and power: Exploring unproductive interplay between quantitative and qualitative researchers. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 197-210. doi:10.1177/1558689812471087
50.
LoH. (2009). Utilizing computer-mediated communication tools for problem-based learning. Educational Technology and Society, 12(1), 205-213.
51.
MaxwellJ. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 475-482. doi:10.1177/1077800410364740
52.
MertensD. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
MitchellE. (1986). Multiple triangulation: A methodology for nursing science. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 18-26.
54.
MorganD. (1998). Practical approaches for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 362-374. doi:10.1177/104973239800800307
55.
MorganD. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 47-76. doi:10.1177/2345678906292462
56.
MorseJ. M.NiehausL. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
57.
NiedermannK.HammondA.ForsterA.de Bie ProfR. (2010). Perceived benefits and barriers to joint protection among people with rheumatoid arthritis and occupational therapists. A mixed methods study. Musculoskeletal Care, 8, 143-156. doi:10.1002/msc.177
58.
O’CathainA.MurphyE.NichollJ. (2008). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or dysfunctional? Team working in mixed-methods research. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 1574-1585. doi:10.1177/1049732308325535
59.
OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2012). Introduction: Putting the mixed back into quantitative and qualitative research in educational research and beyond: Moving towards the radical middle. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6, 192-219.
60.
OnwuegbuzieA.CollinsK. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qualitative Report, 12, 281-316.
61.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
62.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.LeechN. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8, 375-387. doi:10.1080/13645570500402447
63.
PattonM. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34, 1189-1209.
64.
PattonM. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65.
Plano ClarkV. L.CreswellJ. W. (2008). The mixed methods reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
66.
RedfernS. J.NormanI. J. (1994). Validity through triangulation. Nurse Researcher, 2(2), 41-56.
67.
SandelowskiM. (1995). Triangles and crystals: On the geometry of qualitative research. Research on Nursing and Health, 18, 569-574.
68.
SchroepferT. A.SanchezG. V.LeeK. J.MatloubJ.WaltzA.KavanaughM. (2009). Community readiness assessment: The scoring process revisited. Journal of Community Practice, 17, 269-290.
ShihF. J. (1998). Triangulation in nursing research: Issues of conceptual clarity and purpose. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28, 631-641.
71.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2008). Quality of inferences in mixed methods research. In BergmanM. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications (pp. 101-119). London, England: Sage.
73.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
74.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
75.
ThurmondV. (2001). The point of triangulation. Clinical Scholarship, 33, 253-258.
76.
ThurstonW. E.CoveL.MeadowsM. (2008). Methodological congruence in complex and collaborative mixed method studies. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 2(1), 2-14.
77.
TorranceH. (2012). Triangulation, respondent validation, and democratic participation in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 111-123. doi:10.1177/1558689812437185
78.
WebbE. J.CampbellD. T.SchwartzR. D.SechrestL. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
79.
WheeldonJ. (2010). Mapping mixed methods research: Methods, measures, and meaning. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 87-102. doi:10.1177/1558689809358755
WolfF. (2010). Enlightened eclecticism or hazardous hotchpotch? Mixed methods and triangulation strategies in comparative public policy research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 144-167. doi:10.1177/1558689810364987
82.
YoungsH.Piggot-IrvineE. (2012). The application of a multiphase triangulation approach to mixed methods: The research of an aspiring school principal development program. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(3), 183-198. doi:10.1177/1558689811420696
