Mixed Method Triangulation: Theory and Practice Compared.

How nursing science researchers conducting mixed method triangulation are using the heterogeneity of irrelevancy assumption in practice was studied. Seven questions were developed to reflect the implications for practice of the heterogeneity assumption. Answers to these questions were obtained from 23 written cases (14 articles, 1 presentation, and 8 dissertations) of mixed method triangulation in nursing science published or conducted during 1980 through 1990. Data were analyzed using techniques from grounded theory. Primary analysis consisted of open coding and constant comparison to develop conceptual labels and more abstract conceptual categories related to each question. A second analysis involving selective coding and constant comparison is incomplete, but was intended to develop the hypothesis regarding the core nature of mixed method triangulation in nursing science. Results suggest that nursing science researchers are practicing a form of triangulation that does not conform to the directives and constraints of the heterogeneity of irrelevancy assumption. The concept of triangulation that they are practicing may be driven more by substantive than methodological concerns. Examples of rationales for method selection, meta-outcomes, and resolutions of divergent results may provide guidelines for practitioners of mixed method triangulation. An appendix lists the five mixed method purposes defined by J. C. Greene and others (1989). There is a list of 46 references. (SLD)