Comparar métodos

	Entrevista em Profundidade Multiuso	Entrevista Aprofundada Triangulada
Área	Metodologia de survey	Metodologia de survey
Família	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Ano de origem	1980s–1990s (formalized in qualitative inquiry literature)	1978 (triangulation framework); in-depth interviewing ~1950s onward
Autor original	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
Tipo	Qualitative data collection technique	Qualitative data collection approach
Fonte seminal	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.
Outros nomes	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
Relacionados	5	4
Resumo	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.