{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01440922190201729, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.472049689440993, '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}}
Weighing up triangulating and contradictory evidence in mixed methods organisational research

Abstract This paper explores the role of the context-familiar researcher in the interpretation of research data, specifically in terms of applying a transparent process to weighing up triangulating evidence in mixed methods research. It is erroneous to assume that all research data will converge on an undisputable ‘truth’ or ‘fact’, but few writers on the concept of data triangulation offer advice on how researchers might handle conflicting evidence in their research projects. Furthermore, little appears to be written about whether or not some evidence in a study employing multiple sources can assume greater importance as evidence than other data. In other words, are all data equal? In this paper, I critically reflect on how I applied trustworthiness principles that are implicitly reflexive to resolve these issues in a research project undertaken in the professional health services context in which I have extensive prior experience.