Using Triangulation and Crystallization to Make Qualitative Studies Trustworthy and Rigorous

Abstract

Qualitative research is often criticized for lacking rigor and consisting of opinions that result from researcher bias. But like well-designed quantitative research, qualitative studies can be trustworthy. Qualitative researchers generally agree that some practices, such as triangulation, can be used to increase the credibility of the kind of research they conduct. Unfortunately, many researchers are confused about or unaware of the different types of triangulation strategies, leading them to write papers without accurately identifying which ones they used. Triangulation is also a contested approach for many qualitative researchers because it is oftentimes associated with a post-positivist paradigm. Unlike quantitative researchers, many qualitative researchers rely on an interpretive paradigm. In this paper, I clarify how four different types of triangulation strategies differ from each other and how triangulation can be used to increase the rigor, credibility, and trustworthiness of qualitative studies. I also discuss how qualitative researchers can deal with the concerns related to the use of triangulation and explain the advantages and limitations of using crystallization as an alternative approach.