Introduction
As a postgraduate student I am encouraged to settle my assignment in research mode. Name it, qualitative, quantitative or mixed method, they shall all be my bread and butter. The most interesting part about doing research would be how we as a researcher try to convince our reader what we have written is valid and reliable. Of course the answer would rely on how you collect your data; the explanation on the procedures of your research is crucial to determine whether your research findings are strong or merely of undergraduate-level. This said, the triangulation done in your data collection and analysis processes must be well justified.
Definitions of triangulation
Now, let me reflect on my previous and present learning.
“I remember my professor in my alma mater highlighted that the word triangulation refers to an act of crossing data by using THREE methods or more. My professor in my present university also made a same remark. He told me that TRI means three and as a matter of fact it should be more than three…”
In one of the occasions, I disagreed with my lecturer on the issue of triangulation. Imagine if one is doing a simple research and use only two instruments or two groups of sample, will its validity and reliability subject to criticism? Then what is considered as solid in a simple research?.
With such disagreement I went to visit several prominent figures in the world of research; their books of course, I don’t have money to fly there and here. And voila! This is what I found
“triangulation may be defined as the use of TWO or more methods” (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007) in Research Methods in Education, 6th ed, Routledge
“making your research findings more reliable by collecting and analysing the data using MORE THAN ONE research method” (Wallace, 1998) in Action Research for language teachers, Cambridge.
This said, Triangulation is not as what we have thought; the ‘TRI’ does not refers to ‘Three’ at all. So why does it is called as triangulation?
Triangulation; a dichotomy of Shape and Word
I believe, our notion on the triangulation is influenced by the ‘triangular shape’ rather than understanding the true meaning of triangulation. So let’s put the ‘shape’ at one sight and focus our attention on a more pragmatic meaning of triangulation; definition that is more related to research based activities.
According to Macmillan online dictionary, the synonym for triangulation would be the process of deciding or agreeing of something (www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus-category/american/Choices-and-the-process-of-choosing). It also stresses on other meanings such as the process of decision making and an action of choosing after thinking carefully. This means, apart from triangular shape, triangulation can also be used to represent the process of finding answers for our research questions. So i would like to encourage everyone who is keen in doing research to look this issue from its synonym point of view rather than referring triangulation to the shape.
What is my footing?
The idea in this entry is not to label the use of three instruments or samples in research as wrong, but rather to highlight to those who keep thinking that triangulation is a matter of ‘three’, that using two instruments or samples in consolidating our findings is also acceptable. For example, my previous research was to investigate an indigenous student on why she wanted to learn English. I used merely Interview as an instrument with a variation of samples; the student, her dad, the teacher and two elders. Then I divided my samples into Primary and Secondary Samples. The research was a simple research yet provided a wonderful insight on Indigenous people education.
My current investigation, on the other hand, revolves around the needs of Native speakers to re-train our English teacher; do we need native-speakers to retrain our Malaysia English teachers? The perimeter of this research is big hence ample consideration is needed; I don’t want to upset the ministry or offended my colleagues, as well as the native speakers who currently doing their best to help us; even if I did, the findings will be properly justified. Here, do you think a single instrument is adequate to investigate this issue? In my opinion, No! What is applicable in previous research is not necessarily will concurrent with the new ones; it depends greatly on the sensitivity of the issue (a more sensitive issue requires a great consideration of planning).
Conclusion
1. In a nutshell, it’s not wrong to use two methods in triangulation. To quote my professor in Nottingham, “what you have quoted is true and acceptable provided it covers what it supposed to investigate”
2. The notion of Triangulation should be seen in terms of its synonym rather than the shape. If we continue to associate triangulation with shape, what would happen if someone used more than three methods?; Quadration? Pentation? Octation?
3. The number of instruments used in a research depends greatly on the sensitivity of the issue hence a less sensitive issue would only require (perhaps) a minimal procedure of triangulation.
just my two cents.
Acknowledgment:
Thank you to Dr Wan Muhammad Amirzal of UMT for his explanation.
KARYABATOR - TODAY IS WISER THAN YESTERDAY 
