This article introduces a performative paradigm for mixed methods research based on Andrew Pickering’s performative view of research. This paradigm is compared with three existing mixed methods paradigms: the dialectic stance, critical realism, and pragmatism. The performative paradigm assumes the existence of multiple realities that can be known in various ways. In a research inquiry, researchers create new, unknown worlds, which they subsequently investigate. Through research, an ever-higher degree of objectivity is obtained in successive “mangles,” rounds of feedback, in which the researcher listens to the created world’s feedback and adapts his or her research models accordingly. Across and within research inquiries, many and various kinds of mangles can be combined, including mangles qualitative and mangles quantitative in nature.
AberleD. F. (1960). The influence of linguistics on early culture and personality theory. In DoleG. E.CarneiroR. L. (Eds.), Essays in the science of culture in honor of Leslie A. White (pp. 1-29). New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell.
2.
BazeleyP. (2012). Integrative analysis strategies for mixed data sources. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 814-828. doi:10.1177/0002764211426330
3.
BazeleyP.KempL. (2012). Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 55-72. doi:10.1177/1558689811419514
4.
BrymanA. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22. doi:10.1177/2345678906290531
5.
ButlerJ. (1993). Bodies that matter. On the discursive limits of sex. London, UK: Routledge.
6.
CampbellD. T. (1978). Qualitative knowing in action research. In BrennerM.MarshP.BrennerM. (Eds.), The social contexts of method (pp. 184-209). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
7.
CampbellD. T. (1988). Methodology and epistemology for social sciences: Selected papers. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48, 2134-2156. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12117
11.
GlewweP.KremerM.MoulinS. (2009). Many children left behind? Textbooks and test scores in Kenya. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(1), 112-135. doi:10.1257/app.1.1.112
12.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13.
GreeneJ. C. (2015). Preserving distinctions within the multimethod and mixed methods research merger. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 606-615). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hesse-BiberS. (2012). Weaving a multimethodology and mixed methods praxis into randomized control trials to enhance credibility. Qualitative Inquiry, 18, 876-889. doi:10.1177/1077800412456964
16.
JohnsonR. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11, 156-173. doi:10.1177/1558689815607692
17.
JohnsonR. B.SchoonenboomJ. (2016). Adding qualitative and mixed methods research to health intervention studies: Interacting with differences. Qualitative Health Research, 26, 587-602. doi:10.1177/1049732315617479
18.
LincolnY. S. (2010). “What a long, strange trip it’s been …”: Twenty-five years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 3-9. doi:10.1177/1077800409349754
19.
MaxwellJ. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
MaxwellJ. A.ChmielM.RogersS. (2015). Designing integration in mixed method and multi-method research. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonB. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research (pp. 223-239). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
MorganD. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48-76. doi:10.1177/2345678906292462
23.
MorganD. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 1045-1053. doi:10.1177/1077800413513733
24.
NichollsD. (2017). Qualitative research. Part 1: Philosophies. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 24(1), 26-33. doi:10.12968/ijtr.2017.24.1.26
25.
O’CathainA.MurphyE.NichollJ. (2010). Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. British Medical Journal, 341, c4587. doi:10.1136/bmj.c4587
26.
PickeringA. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
PopperK. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London, UK: Routledge.
28.
PutnamH. (1981). Reason, truth and history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
PutnamH. (1987). The many faces of realism. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
30.
SankeyH. (2004). Scientific realism and the God’s eye point of view. Epistemologia, 27, 211-226.
31.
SchoonenboomJ.JohnsonR. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie [Cologne Journal for Sociology and Social Sociology], 69(Suppl. 2), 107-131. doi:10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1
32.
WallaceA. F. C. (1970). Culture and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
33.
WittgensteinL. (1953). Philosophical investigations (AnscombeG. E. M., Trans.). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
34.
YinR. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
