Cited by 1,444Educational Research and MethodsQualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchQualitative Research Methods and Applications

Triangulation 2.0

Denzin, Norman K.·2012·Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Abstract

A third way of conceptualizing mixed methods research is proposed, one based on critical interpretive methodologies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1558689812437186

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Denzin, N. K.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Denzin, Norman K.
Venue
Journal of Mixed Methods Research
Published
2012-02-23
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
80-88
ISSN
  • 1558-6898 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-6901
OpenAlex
W2033195096
Cited by
1,444
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 315 · 2025: 202 · 2024: 111 · 2023: 98 · 2022: 120 · 2021: 117 · 2020: 107 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 2
FWCI
145.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Mixed Methods Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Keywords
triangulation, mixed methods, research design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review