There has been much debate about the role of paradigms in mixed methods research. In the face of past calls for each researcher to operate within a single paradigm, it turns out that some researchers/practitioners find many positive features in more than one paradigm. This “multiparadigmatic perspective” used in mixed methods research needs a systematic framework for the practice of engaging in difference. Also, individuals committed to a single paradigm need a philosophical/theoretical framework for working in multiparadigmatic teams. This article provides such a framework. It is a metaparadigm, and it is labeled dialectical pluralism 2.0 or more simply dialectical pluralism. The word “pluralism” refers to the acceptance and expectancy of difference in virtually every realm of inquiry, including reality, and the age-old word “dialectical” refers to the operative process which is both dialectical and dialogical. Dialectical pluralism provides a way for researchers, practitioners, clients, policy makers, and other stakeholders to work together and produce new workable “wholes” while, concurrently, thriving on differences and intellectual tensions.
BowersB.CohenL. W.ElliotA. E.GrabowskiD. C.FishmanN. W.SharkeyS. S.. . . KemperP. (2013). Creating and supporting a mixed methods health services research team. Health Services Research, 48, 2157-2180. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12118
2.
BrandomR. B. (Ed.). (2000). Rorty and his critics. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
3.
BroomA.ToveyP. (2007). The dialectical tension between individuation and depersonalization in cancer patients’ mediation of complementary, alternative and biomedical cancer treatments. Sociology, 41, 1021-1039.
4.
BuckG.CookK.QuigleyC.EastwoodJ.LucasY. (2009). Profiles of urban, low SES African American girls’ attitudes toward science: A sequential explanatory mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4), 386-410.
5.
ChilisaB.TshekoG. N. (2014). Mixed methods in indigenous research: Building relationships for sustainable intervention outcomes. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(3), 222-233.
6.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
CurryL. A.O’CathainA.Plano ClarkV. L.AroniR.FettersM.BergD. (2012). The role of group dynamics in mixed methods health sciences research teams. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 5-20.
FrommeD. K. (2011). Systems of psychotherapy: Dialectical tensions and integration. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
10.
GoertzenJ. R. (2010). Dialectical pluralism: A theoretical conceptualization of pluralism in psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28, 201-209.
11.
GreeneJ. C. (2002). With a splash of soda, please: Towards active engagement with difference. Evaluation, 8, 259-266.
12.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13.
GreeneJ. C. (2015). Preserving distinctions within the MMR merger. In Hesse-BiberS. J. N.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 606-615). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 5-18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15.
GreeneJ. C.HallJ. N. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral science (pp. 119-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
GubaE. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
HardingS. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
HemmingsA.BeckettG.KennerlyS. (2013). Building a community of research practice: Intragroup social dynamics in interdisciplinary mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 261-273.
19.
Hesse-BiberS. (2012). Feminist approaches to triangulation: Uncovering subjected knowledge and fostering social change in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 137-146.
20.
HoweK. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 42-61.
21.
JohnsonR. B. (2008). Living with tensions: The dialectic approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 203-207.
22.
JohnsonR. B. (2011a, May). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm to help us hear and “combine” our valued differences. Paper presented in plenary session at the Seventh International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
23.
JohnsonR. B. (2011b). Do we need paradigms? A mixed methods perspective. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(2), 31-40.
24.
JohnsonR. B. (2015). Toward an inclusive and defensible multi and mixed science. In Hesse-BiberS. J. N.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 688-706). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25.
JohnsonR. B.ChristensenL. B. (2014). Educational research methods: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TuckerS.IcenogleM. L. (2014). Conducting mixed methods research using dialectical pluralism and social psychological strategies. In LeavyP. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 557-580). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
27.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TurnerL. A. (2007). Toward a definition mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
28.
JohnsonR. B.StefurakT. (2013). Considering the evidence-and-credibility discussion in evaluation through the lens of dialectical pluralism. In MertensD.Hesse-BiberS. (Eds.), Mixed methods and credibility of evidence in evaluation (pp. 37-48). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
29.
KuhnT. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30.
KuhnT. S. (1970). Postscript—1969. In KuhnT. (Ed.), The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed., pp. 174-210). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
LincolnY. S.LynhamS. A.GubaE. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 97-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
MaxwellJ. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279-299.
33.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research: Linking theory to practice. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral science (pp. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
McNeelyC. L.ShockleyG. E. (2006). Deconstructing U.S. arts policy: A dialectical exposition of the excellence-access debate. Social Justice, 33, 45-62.
35.
MertensD. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225.
36.
MertensD. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford.
37.
MertensD. M. (2012). Transformative mixed methods: Addressing inequities. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 802-813.
38.
MitchellW. J. T. (1982). “Critical inquiry” and the ideology of pluralism. Critical Inquiry, 8, 609-618.
39.
MiyamotoY.RyffC. D. (2011). Cultural differences in the dialectical and non-dialectical emotional styles and their implications for health. Cognition & Emotion, 25, 22-39. doi:10.1080/02699931003612114
40.
MorganD. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
NewmanI.RidenourC. S.NewmanC.DeMarcoG. M. P.Jr. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 167-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (2006). The “validity” issue in mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
43.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
PengK.NisbettR. E. (2000). Dialectical responses to questions about dialectical thinking. American Psychologist, 55, 1067-1068. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.9.1067
45.
PhillipsD. C.BurbulesN. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
46.
PutnamH. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
RawlsJ. (1993). Political liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
48.
SandovalC. (2000). Methodology of the oppressed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
49.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
50.
SimpsonL. R. (2011). Dialectical behavior theory. In CapuzziD.GrossD. R. (Eds.), Counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 215-235). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
51.
StefurakT.JohnsonR. B.ShattoE. (2015). Mixed methods and dialectical pluralism. In JasonL. A.GlenwickD. S. (Eds.), Handbook of methodological approaches to community-based research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
52.
SuaresP. (2011). The Kyoto school’s takeover of Hegel: Nishida, Nishitani, and Tanabe remake the philosophy of spirit. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
53.
TeddlieC. B.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
WesthuesA.OchockaJ.JacobsonN.SimichL.MaiterS.JanzenR.FlerasA. (2008). Developing theory from complexity: Reflections on a collaborative mixed method participatory action research study. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 701-717.
55.
YangC. C.WanC. S.ChiouW. B. (2010). Dialectical thinking and creativity among young adults: A postformal operations perspective. Psychological Reports, 106, 79-92. doi:10.2466/PR0.106.1.79-92
56.
YardleyL.BishopF. (2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. In WilligC.Stainton-RogersW. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 352-369). London, England: Sage.
