Some may argue that triangulated research runs the risk of addressing a big amount of unfocused questions at once and makes it difficult for the researcher to sequence and arrange according to their primary and secondary importance (Olsen, 2004). In addition to that, using triangulation might make the research open to the risk of subjectivity, which is the ability of interpreting data by making judgement by using experience, beliefs, and feelings. Also, if systemic bias- which are external influences that might affect the accuracy of the results of an experiment or observation- is present during the conduction of research from the sources, the triangulated data would simply bear the illusion of credibility but will, in fact, not be credible on a scrutinized basis. Some may also argue that triangulation does not give an objective answer to an asked question, but instead gives two different sets of data which might as well have completely different meanings (Yeung,
Some may argue that triangulated research runs the risk of addressing a big amount of unfocused questions at once and makes it difficult for the researcher to sequence and arrange according to their primary and secondary importance (Olsen, 2004). In addition to that, using triangulation might make the research open to the risk of subjectivity, which is the ability of interpreting data by making judgement by using experience, beliefs, and feelings. Also, if systemic bias- which are external influences that might affect the accuracy of the results of an experiment or observation- is present during the conduction of research from the sources, the triangulated data would simply bear the illusion of credibility but will, in fact, not be credible on a scrutinized basis. Some may also argue that triangulation does not give an objective answer to an asked question, but instead gives two different sets of data which might as well have completely different meanings (Yeung,