Triangulation of research methods in social phenomena research: anamorphic objection

Abstract

Starting from the problems of bias and validation in combining different research methods and methodologies, the paper discusses the advantages and shortcomings of triangulation. The triangulation concept which involves the use of more than one method to obtain records from more than one source is critically analyzed, and particularly the justification of defining the goal of triangulation as a process that is used to better understand social phenomena by looking at them from more than one perspective. The author points out the importance of the awareness that triangulation does not necessarily lead to an attempt to support the findings, taking into account the four concepts: triangulation as validation check, continuous triangulation, triangulation as a search for the completeness of information/image and triangulation as epistemological dialogue. To solve the problem of the corresponding metaphor and analogy with the original meaning of triangulation, the author suggests an anamorphic paradigm: different methods are combined as a product of different theoretical traditions, and their combination can add depth and scope, but not accuracy; a clearer picture (and this is only possible to achieve, not accuracy) is obtained by choosing the appropriate perspective, angle, and point of view.

Keywords

• combination of methods
• methodological pluralism
• triangulation
• anamorphosis