Paradigm Parley: A Framework for the Dialectic Stance

Abstract

Conceptual stances provide guidance to the mixed methods researcher as he or she makes decisions throughout the research process, including determining the dimensions of integration or levels at which mixing occurs. Only the dialectic conceptual stance specifically encourages mixing at the abstract paradigmatic level. This article outlines four characteristics of the dialectic stance and proposes a four-step analytic framework, Paradigm Parley. Each analytic step is illustrated with data from the author’s dissertation, a music education study investigating the teaching of middle school general music. The Paradigm Parley framework is one possibility for adopting the dialectic stance but requires additional testing by other scholars. Suggestions for implementing the framework or developing alternative analytic frameworks are offered to stimulate future scholarly dialogue.

Keywords

dialectic stance mixed methods analysis dialectic analysis middle school general music Paradigm Parley

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baxter

L. A.

Montgomery

B. M.

(1996). Relating dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bergman

M. M.

(2010). On concepts and paradigms in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(3), 171-175. doi:10.1177/1558689810376950

Biesta

(2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 95-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clandinin

D. J.

Connelly

F. M.

(2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cronenberg

(2016). Music at the middle: Principles that guide middle level general music teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1857495335).

Cronenberg

(2017). Making and receiving: Possibilities for middle school general music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (210-211), 81-99. doi:10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.210-211.0081

Cronenberg

(2018). Teaching general music to young adolescents: Findings from a survey of music teacher perspectives. International Journal of Music Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0255761418794728

10.

Danermark

Ekström

Jakobsen

Karlsson

J. C.

(1997). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London, England: Routledge.

11.

Denscombe

(2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270-283. doi:10.1177/1558689808316807

12.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13.

Dewey

(1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

14.

Elbaz-Luwisch

(1997). Narrative research: Political issues and implications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 75-83.

15.

Erickson

F. E.

(1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Wittrock

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). Old Tappan, NJ: Macmillan.

16.

Feilzer

M. 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. doi:10.1177/1558689809349691

17.

Fetters

M. D.

Molina-Azorin

J. F.

(2017). The Journal of Mixed Methods Research starts a new decade: The mixed methods research integration trilogy and its dimensions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(3), 291-307.

18.

Florczak

K. L.

(2014). Purists need not apply: The case for pragmatism in mixed methods research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 27, 278-282. doi:10.1177/0894318414546419

19.

Gadamer

H. G.

(2004). Truth and method ( Weinsheimer

Marshall

D. G.

, Trans., 2nd ed.). New York, NY: Continuum International.

20.

Greene

J. C.

(2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

21.

Greene

J. C.

(2015). Preserving distinctions within the multimethod and mixed methods research merger. In Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Johnson

R. B.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 606-615). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

22.

Greene

J. C.

Caracelli

V. J.

(1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-methods evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1997(74), 5-17. doi:10.1002/ev.1068

23.

Greene

J. C.

Hall

J. N.

(2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 119-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Headley

M. G.

(2016). What is symbolic mathematics language literacy? A multilevel mixed methods study of adolescents in a middle school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 10308492)

25.

Henry

(2005). An analysis of certification practices for music educators in the fifty states. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 14(2), 47-61.

26.

Hesse-Biber

S. N.

(2010). Feminist approaches to mixed methods research: Linking theory and praxis. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 169-192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Howe

K. R.

(1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10-16.

28.

Howes

L. M.

(2017). Developing the methodology for an applied, interdisciplinary research project: Documenting the journal toward philosophical clarity. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11, 450-468. doi:10.1177/1558689815622018

29.

Johnson

(2008). Living with tensions: The dialectic approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 203-207. doi:10.1177/1558689808318043

30.

Johnson

R. B.

(2015). Conclusions: Toward an inclusive and defensible multimethod and mixed methods science. In Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Johnson

R. B.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 688-706). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

31.

Johnson

R. B.

(2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156-173.

32.

Jones

(2015). Using a theory of practice to clarify epistemological challenges in mixed methods research: An example of theorizing, modeling, and mapping change in West African seed systems. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(3), 355-373. doi:10.1177/1558689815614960

33.

Leal

Engebretson

Cohen

Fernandez-Esquer

M. E.

Lopez

Wangyal

Chaoul

(2016). An exploration of the effects of Tibetan Yoga on patients’ psychological well-being and experience of lymphoma: An experimental embedded mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1558689816645005

34.

Maxwell

J. A.

Mittapalli

(2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

35.

McKeon

(1952). Philosophy and action. Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy, 62(2), 79-100.

36.

Mertens

D. M.

(2012). What comes first? The paradigm or the approach? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 255-257. doi:10.1177/1558689812461574

37.

Mertens

D. M.

Bledsoe

K. L.

Sullivan

Wilson

(2010). Utilization of mixed methods for transformative purposes. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 193-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Mirchandani

Vosko

L. F.

Soni-Sinha

Perry

J. A.

Noack

A. M.

Hall

R. J.

Gellatly

(2016). Methodological k/nots: Designing research on enforcement of labor standards. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1558689816651793

39.

Morgan

(2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.

40.

National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.

41.

Ollman

(2003). Dance of the dialectic: Steps in Marx’s method. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

42.

Shannon-Baker

(2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(4), 319-334. doi:10.1177/1558689815575861

43.

Smith

M. L.

(1997). Mixing and matching: Methods and models. New Directions for Evaluation, 74, 73-85.

44.

Teddlie

Tashakkori

(2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 1-41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

45.

Wasser

J. D.

Bresler

(1996). Working in the interpretive zone: Conceptualizing collaboration in qualitative research teams. Educational Researcher, 25(5), 5-15.

46.

Zhou

Hall

J. N.

(2016). Mixed methods papers in first-person and third-person: Writing voices in dialogue. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1558689816652755