This article advances the conditional incompatibility thesis, which when left unaddressed, poses challenges to the pragmatic maxim as a guiding framework for mixed methods research. The conditional incompatibility thesis stands in opposition to two claims, the first pertaining to the position that incompatibility can be avoided by adherence to a “whatever-works” maxim. Also questioned is the claim that quantitative and qualitative data are inherently incompatible. Arguing that there are conditions under which incompatibility occurs, we illustrate within the context of latent variable modeling how particular techniques, methods, and/or decisions fail to be philosophically neutral. Offered are methods through which researchers can be more mindful of, and thus transparent about, the influence of philosophical perspectives in their work.
BagozziR. P. (2007). On the meaning of formative measurement and how it differs from reflective measurement: Comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007). Psychological Methods, 12, 229-237.
2.
BandalosD. L.Boehm-KaufmanM. R. (2009). Four common misconceptions in exploratory factor analysis. In LanceC. E.VandenbergR. J. (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 61-87). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BernsteinR. J. (1992). The resurgence of pragmatism. Social Research, 59, 813-840.
4.
BiestaG. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 95-118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BollenK. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 605-634.
6.
BollenK. A. (2007). Interpretational confounding due to misspecification, not type of indicator: Comment on Howell, Brievik, and Wilcox (2007). Psychological Methods, 12, 219-228.
7.
BorsboomD. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
9.
BrymanA. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
10.
CherryholmesC. H. (1999). Reading pragmatism. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
11.
ColtmanT.DevinneyT. M.MidgleyD. F.VenaikS. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1250-1262.
12.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. London, England: Sage.
13.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
CrockerL.AlginaJ. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
15.
CrottyM. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
De AyalaR. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
17.
DenscombeM. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270-283.
18.
DenzinN. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80-88.
19.
DiamantopoulosA.RieflerP.RothK. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 12, 1203-1218.
20.
EdwardsJ. R.BagozziR. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155-174.
21.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 pt. 2), 2134-2156.
22.
GergenK. J. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context. American Psychologist, 56, 803-813.
23.
GorsuchR. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
25.
GreeneJ. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.
26.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation No. 74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27.
GreeneJ.HallJ. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieA. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 119-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
GriceJ. W. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological Methods, 6, 430-450.
HaigB. D. (2005). Exploratory factor analysis, theory generation, and scientific method. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 303-329.
31.
HansonW. E.CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.PetskaK. S.CreswellJ. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 224-235.
32.
HempelC. (1999). A critique of operationalism. In KleeR. (Ed.), Scientific inquiry: Readings in the philosophy of science (pp. 45-54). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33.
HoodS. B. (2013). Psychological measurement and methodological realism. Erkenntnis, 78, 739-761.
34.
HorwichP. (1982). Three forms of realism. Synthese, 51, 181-201.
35.
HoweK. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10-16.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
38.
KamataA.BauerD. J. (2008). A note on the relation between factor analytic and item response theory models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15, 136-153.
39.
LeplinJ. (1986). Methodological realism and scientific rationality. Philosophy of Science, 53, 31-51.
40.
LeplinJ. (1997). A novel defense of scientific realism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
41.
LincolnY. S. (2009). “What a long strange trip it’s been . . . ”: Twenty-five years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 1-7.
42.
MacKenzieS. B. (2003). The dangers of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 323-326.
43.
MartelaF. (2015). Fallible inquiry with ethical ends-in-view: A pragmatist philosophy of science for organizational research. Organization Studies, 36, 537-563.
44.
MaxcyS. 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. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 51-90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
MaxwellJ. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3-11.
46.
MertensD. M. (2012). What comes first? The paradigm or the approach?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 255-257.
47.
MorganD. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and qualitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.
48.
MoustakasC. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
MulaikS. A. (1987). A brief history of the philosophical foundations of exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 267-305.
50.
MulaikS. A. (1990). Blurring the distinctions between component analysis and common factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 53-59.
51.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B.CollinsK. M. T. (2009). Call for mixed analysis: A philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3, 114-139.
52.
PodsakoffN. P.ShenW.PodsakoffP. M. (2006). The role of formative measurement models in strategic management research: Review, critique and implications for future research. In KetchenD. J.BerghD. D. (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol. 3, pp. 197-252). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
53.
PsillosS. (1999). Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. New York, NY: Routledge.
54.
SalmonW. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55.
ThompsonB. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
56.
van FraassenB. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
57.
WidamanK. F. (1993). Common factor analysis versus principal components analysis: Differential bias in representing model parameters?Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 263-311.
58.
WilligC. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and methods. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
59.
WoodwardJ. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
