The notion of triangulation constitutes a key component of mixed methods research but
has been contested on ontological and epistemological grounds, especially where this
entails integration of theories and/or methods rooted in different philosophical assumptions
(or paradigms). Drawing on critical realism, this paper addresses two criticisms of
the use of triangulation in mixed methods research straddling between the functionalist
and interpretive paradigms, namely (1) its propensity to suppress variations in situated
meanings and (2) its treatment of empirical observations as objectively verifiable rather
than inherently theory-related. The modified notion of triangulation advanced in this paper
counters these criticisms by re-conceptualizing it as firmly grounded in abductive reasoning.
This provides a foundation for maintaining researchers’ sensitivity to context-specific
variations in meanings in efforts to derive theory-related explanations. The possibilities
of using such a modified notion of triangulation in management accounting research are
illustrated through a review of two empirical studies straddling between the functionalist
and interpretive paradigms.