The aim of this paper is to answer the following question: the triangulation method has been used in administration researchs from a multiparadigmatic perspective, generating conversations between paradigms? Or it has been used simply in order to perform a "convergent" validation between the methods? To answer this question, we used a database with 174 papers of three Annals of EnAnpad that used the triangulation. These papers were analyzed qualitatively to verify how the triangulation was conducted to investigate whether the combination was only at the method level, or if it reached at the paradigm level. The position adopted by the researchers in this paper is one that defends the importance of paradigmatic conversation for dealing with social phenomena that are characteristic in researchs in administration. The results showed that combination of methods has been adopted mainly in the purpose of convergent validation without discussions between different worldviews and different scientific knowledge views. What is noticed is its application mainly in studies which predominates, in epistemological terms, a positivist view and, in methodological terms, a nomothetic approach.
triangulation; method; administration; paradigms; convergent validation
