The mixed methods approach has emerged as a ``third paradigm'' for social research. It has developed a platform of ideas and practices that are credible and distinctive and that mark the approach out as a viable alternative to quantitative and qualitative paradigms. However, there are also a number of variations and inconsistencies within the mixed methods approach that should not be ignored. This article argues the need for a vision of research paradigm that accommodates such variations and inconsistencies. It is argued that the use of ``communities of practice'' as the basis for such a research paradigm is (a) consistent with the pragmatist underpinnings of the mixed methods approach, (b) accommodates a level of diversity, and (c) has good potential for understanding the methodological choices made by those conducting mixed methods research.
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Brown, J.S. (1999). What is a community of practice? Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www.co-i-1.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/definitions.shtml
3.
Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Unwin Hyman.
4.
Bryman, A. (2004). Triangulation. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113.
6.
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
7.
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.
8.
Cherryholmes, C.H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher, 14, 13-17.
9.
Collins, K.M.T., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Sutton, I.L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed-methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 67-100.
10.
Cook, T. D., & Reichardt, C. S. (Eds.). (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
Coxon, A.P. (2005). Integrating qualitative and quantitative data: What does the user need? Forum: Qualitative Social Research (FQS), 6(2). Retrieved May 2005 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-05/05-2-40-e.htm#lit
12.
Creswell, J.W. (1999). Mixed-method research: Introduction and application (pp. 455-472). In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy. New York: Academic Press.
13.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Creswell, J.W., Tashakkori, A., Jensen, K.D., & Shapley, K.L. (2003). Teaching mixed methods research: Practices, dilemmas, and challenges (pp. 619-638). In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Datta, L. (1994). Paradigm wars: A basis for peaceful co-existence and beyond. In C. S. Reichardt & S. F. Rallis (Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives (pp. 53-70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Denzin, N.K. (1970). Strategies of multiple triangulation (pp. 297-313). In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological method. New York: McGraw-Hill.
18.
Giddings, L.S. (2006). Mixed-methods research: Positivism dressed in drag? Journal of Research in Nursing, 11(3), 195-203.
19.
Greene, J.C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.
20.
Greene. J.C., Benjamin, L., & Goodyear, L. (2001). The merits of mixing methods in evaluation. Evaluation, 7(1), 25-44.
21.
Greene. J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 11, 255-274.
22.
Greene, J.C., Kreider, H., & Mayer, E. (2005). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in social inquiry (pp. 274-281). In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences. London: Sage.
23.
Gorard, S. (with Taylor, C.). (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research . Maidenhead: Open University Press .
24.
Guignon, C.B. (1991). Pragmatism or hermeneutics? Epistemology after foundationalism. In D. R. Hiley, J. F. Boham, & R. Shusterman (Eds.), The interpretive turn: Philosophy, science, culture (pp. 81-101). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
25.
Hammersley, M. (1989). The dilemma of qualitative method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago tradition. London: Routledge.
26.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What's wrong with ethnography?London: Routledge.
27.
Hammersley, M. (2005). What can the literature on communities of practice tell us about educational research? Reflections on some recent proposals. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 28(1), 5-21.
28.
Hardy, M. A., & Bryman, A. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of data analysis. London: Sage.
29.
Harvey, L. (1987). Myths of the Chicago school. Aldershot: Gower.
30.
Hodkinson, P. (2004). Research as a form of work: Expertise, community and methodological objectivity. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 9-26.
31.
Holmes, C. (2006, July 10-12). Mixed(up) methods, methodology and interpretive frameworks. Paper presented at the Mixed Methods Conference, Cambridge.
32.
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
33.
Johnson-Lenz, P., & Johnson-Lenz, T. (1999). Awaking technology. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from http://www.co-i-1.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/definitions.shtml
34.
Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher , 33(7), 14-26.
35.
Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research . Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
36.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (First published 1962)
37.
Lasswell, H.D. (1961). The qualitative and quantitative in political and legal analysis. In D. Lerner (Ed.), Quantity and quality: The Hayden colloquium on scientific method and concept. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
38.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning-Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Layder, D. (1993). New strategies in social research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
40.
Layder, D. (1998). Sociological practice: Linking theory and social research. London: Sage.
41.
Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Maxcy, S.J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism (pp. 51-90). In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
Mayo, E. (2003). The human problems of an industrial civilization . London: Routledge. (First published 1933 by Macmillan, New York)
44.
Meyer, J. (2005). Health research. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 8-9). London : Sage.
45.
Mitchell, J., Wood, S., & Young, S. (2001). Communities of practice: Reshaping professional practice and improving organisational productivity in the vocational education and training sector. Melbourne: Australian National Training Authority.
46.
Morgan, D.L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.
47.
Morse, J. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design (pp. 189-208). In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 357-387.
49.
Pring, R. (2000). Philosophy of educational research. London: Continuum.
50.
Rallis, S.F., & Rossman, G.B. (2003). Mixed methods in evaluation contexts: A pragmatic framework (pp. 491-512). In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
Reichardt, C.S., & Rallis, S.F. (1994). The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives . New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 1-98.
52.
Rocco, T.S., Bliss, L.A., Gallagher, S., & Perez-Prado, A. (2003). Taking the next step: Mixed methods research in organizational systems. Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 21(1), 19-29.
53.
Roethlisberger, F.J., & Dickson, W.J. (2003). Management and the worker. London: Routledge (First published 1939 byHarvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
54.
Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
55.
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism and truth. In Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
Silverman, D. (1985). Qualitative methodology and sociology: Describing the social world. Aldershot: Gower .
57.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook . London: Sage.
58.
Somekh, B. (2005). Educational research. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 7-8). London : Sage.
59.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J.W. (2007a). The new era of mixed methods . Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3-7.
60.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J.W. (2007b). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207-211.
61.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
63.
Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R.D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Non-reactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
64.
Wenger, E. (1998a). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 1-8. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from http://www.co-i-1.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml
65.
Wenger, E. (1998b). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66.
Wenger, E., & Snyder, W.M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier . Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-145.
