While recent mixed methods publications advocate for researchers’ explicit discussion of their paradigmatic foundations, more guidance is needed regarding how these paradigms can be used. This article comparatively analyzes four major paradigmatic perspectives discussed in mixed methods literature: pragmatism, transformative-emancipation, dialectics, and critical realism. It offers a discussion of each perspective’s implications for mixed methods and how they can be used to influence research based on recent publications. While there are several similarities, such as emphasizing divergent results and allowing for researcher choice in methods, each perspective offers a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. Emphasizing how paradigms can be used then promotes more explicit engagement with them in future research.
AliseM. A.TeddlieC. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 103-126.
2.
ArnonS.ReichelN. (2009). Closed and open-ended question tools in a telephone survey about “the good teacher.”Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 172-196.
3.
BiestaG. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 95-118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
BismanJ. (2010). Postpositivism and accounting research: A (personal) primer on critical realism. Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 4(4), 3-25.
5.
BrymanA. (2006). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodologies, 9(2), 111-126.
6.
CanalesG. (2013). Transformative, mixed methods checklist for psychological research with Mexican Americans. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(1), 6-21.
7.
ChilisaB. (2005). Educational research within postcolonial Africa: A critique of HIV/AIDS research in Botswana. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18, 659-684.
8.
ClarkA. M.MacIntyreP. D.CruickshankJ. (2007). A critical realist approach to understanding and evaluating heart health programmes. Health (London), 11, 513-539.
9.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
DouglasF. C. G.GrayD. A.van TeijlingenE. R. (2010). Using a realist approach to evaluate smoking cessation interventions targeting pregnant women and young people. BMC Health Services Research, 10, 49.
12.
FeilzerM. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6-16.
13.
FrelsJ. G.FrelsR. K.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2011). Geographic information systems: A mixed methods spatial approach in business and management research and beyond. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5, 367-386.
14.
FreshwaterD.CahillJ. (2013). Paradigms lost and paradigms regained. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 3-5.
15.
GreeneJ. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation, Vol. 74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
18.
GreeneJ. C.HallJ. N. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 119-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
GubaE. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In GubaE. G. (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
HealyM.PerryC. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(3), 118-126.
21.
Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (2013). Coming at things differently: Future directions of possible engagement with mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 103-109.
22.
JensenD. (2008). Transferability. In GivenL. (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (p. 886). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
JohnsonR. B. (2011). Do we need paradigms? A mixed methods perspective. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(2), 31-40.
24.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. (2006). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
25.
JohnsonR. B.StefurakT. (2013). Considering the evidence-and-credibility discussion in evaluation through the lens of dialectical pluralism. New Directions for Evaluation, 138, 37-48.
MaxwellJ. A. (2011). Paradigms or toolkits? Philosophical and methodological positions as heuristics for mixed methods research. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(2), 27-30.
28.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
MertensD. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed method social & behavioral research (pp. 135-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
MertensD. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225.
MertensD. M. (2012). What comes first? The paradigm or the approach?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 255-257.
33.
ModellS. (2009). In defense of triangulation: A critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 20, 208-221.
34.
MorganD. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.
35.
MorseJ. M.NiehausL. (2009). Mixed methods design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
36.
O’CathainA. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Towards a comprehensive framework. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 531-555). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
SharpJ. L.MobleyC.HammondC.WithingtonC.DrewS.StringfieldS.StipanovicN. (2012). A mixed methods sampling methodology for a multisite case study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 34-54.
38.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
WienerC. (2007). Making teams work in conducting grounded theory. In BryantA.CharmazK. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 293-310). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
