This study explores the concept of triangulation in organizational research, emphasizing its application as both a methodological tool and a conceptual mindset. The objective is to document, analyze, and categorize its usage across diverse organizational disciplines and methodologies. To achieve this, we conducted a systematic bibliometric review, analyzing 1,202 articles from 20 leading business journals. Via an inductive qualitative coding process, we examined how triangulation is reported, used, and justified in organizational studies. The findings reveal that triangulation is frequently mentioned but often lacks detailed justifications or explanations. The study identifies diverse practices, such as data triangulation, method triangulation, investigator triangulation and measures triangulation, with limited instances of theory or meta-triangulation. Furthermore, triangulation is frequently invoked as a simple tag word without explicit rationale. To create a standard for how to understand and apply triangulation, we propose an emergent framework categorizing triangulation based on the place(s) in the research timeline during which it might occur—research question, method choice, data collection, data analysis, findings. We discuss the implications of conceptualizing it as both a micro-methodology and mindset. Overall, this study provides a comprehensive framework that emphasizes the dual role of triangulation as a methodological practice and an epistemological stance, which offers a pathway to improve reliability and rigor in organizational research.
