{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013143483023001095, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.977099236641221, '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}}
Enlightened Eclecticism or Hazardous Hotchpotch? Mixed Methods and Triangulation Strategies in Comparative Public Policy Research

This article discusses the trend toward triangulation and mixing methods in comparative public policy research and proposes criteria for further such endeavors, especially regarding the sophistication of the respective (qualitative and quantitative) parts, the way the different analyses are combined, and the aspects of the social world as well as the statements about them political researchers are interested in. It draws on both the current methodological debates and a review of relatively recent contributions to the comparative public policy literature employing several methods. The final recommendation is to consider thoroughly whether to engage in triangulation, and if doing so, to use tailor-made triangulation strategies fitted to the research questions and interests.