{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035838150289017344, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020809248554913295, 'mean_word_length': 4.623376623376624, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Response to David Morgan on Triangulation

David Morgan ’ s analysis of the concept of triangulation (Morgan, 2019) raises some important issues for mixed methods researchers. I agree with Morgan ’ s general critique of this concept, and his account of the origin of the term ’ s use in social science provides a valuable clari ﬁ cation of its history. 1 However, neither Morgan ’ s analysis, nor the earlier discussion of this concept by Fetters and Molina-Azorin (2017), makes the important point that “ triangulation ” , aside from its original use in surveying, is a metaphor . Like all metaphors, triangulation provides some insights into the phenomena to which it ’ s applied, while ignoring or obscuring other insights (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 2003). This in itself is suf ﬁ cient reason to abandon triangulation as a technical term in the social sciences. 2