Triangulation in research: two confusions

Summary

This paper urges that the use of the metaphor of triangulation in the explication of research methods (especially in education) may be of fundamentally two types, underlying all further typologies. The first is triangulation between methods, in which mutual validation is sought. But, against this practice, it is urged that one cannot be sure that the different methods address one and the same issue. The second variety is triangulation within a method. Here the data are built‐up from inputs of various perspectives: hence one issue is addressed. But this version fails to provide the sort of mutual support integral to the metaphor of triangulation. So neither version can possibly achieve what it hopes, or claims. Indeed, John Elliott, a defender of triangulation, now seems to be acknowledging this conclusion. Hence care is needed in the use of the term ‘triangulation’ in research: its value is easy to overestimate.