विधियों की तुलना करें

	बहु-स्रोत गहन साक्षात्कार	त्रिकोणीय गहन साक्षात्कार
क्षेत्र	सर्वेक्षण पद्धति	सर्वेक्षण पद्धति
परिवार	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
उद्भव वर्ष	1980s–1990s (formalized in qualitative inquiry literature)	1978 (triangulation framework); in-depth interviewing ~1950s onward
प्रवर्तक	Grounded in qualitative traditions consolidated by Patton, Lincoln & Guba, and others	Norman K. Denzin (triangulation framework); in-depth interviewing practice is longstanding in qualitative research
प्रकार	Qualitative data collection technique	Qualitative data collection approach
मौलिक स्रोत	Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN: 978-0761919711	Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
उपनाम	multi-informant in-depth interview, multi-perspective qualitative interview, multiple-source IDI, multi-stakeholder in-depth interview	triangulated IDI, multi-source in-depth interview, triangulated qualitative interview, converging in-depth interview
संबंधित	5	4
सारांश	The multi-source in-depth interview is a qualitative data collection strategy in which extended, open-ended interviews are conducted with participants drawn from two or more distinct source groups — such as providers and clients, managers and staff, or experts and laypeople. Collecting data across diverse informant positions enriches description and enables the researcher to examine a phenomenon from multiple vantage points within a single study.	Triangulated in-depth interviewing applies Denzin's triangulation logic to the in-depth interview method by deliberately combining multiple sources of convergent evidence — different informants, interviewers, time points, or corroborating data types — to strengthen confidence in qualitative findings. Rather than relying on a single interview account, the researcher gathers rich, open-ended accounts from several vantage points and cross-checks them for consistency and divergence, treating agreement as corroboration and disagreement as analytically meaningful.