In the mixed methods research (MMR) literature, the term paradigm is used in a number of ways to support very different accounts. This article aims to contribute to the ongoing dialogue about the relationship between MMR and paradigms by analyzing two main claims discussed in the literature: (a) MMR is a new paradigm and (b) MMR mixes different paradigms. Focusing on the notion of paradigms used to support each claim, it clarifies why MMR can be considered a new paradigm and discusses conditions under which it is possible to mix two or more paradigms within a single study. This clarification promotes a more clear-cut use of concepts such as paradigms and worldviews in the literature.
BergmanM. M. (2010). On concepts and paradigms in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(3), 171-175. doi:10.1177/1558689810376950
2.
BiddleC.SchafftK. A. (2015). Axiology and anomaly in the practice of mixed methods work: Pragmatism, valuation, and the transformative paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(4), 320-334. doi:10.1177/1558689814533157
3.
BirdA. (2000). Thomas Kuhn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
BrymanA. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22. doi:10.1177/2345678906290531
5.
CrasnowS. (2015). Feminism, causation, and mixed methods research. In Hesse-BiberS. N.JohnsonB. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 637-651). Oxford Library of Psychology, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
CreswellJ. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
CreswellJ. W.TashakkoriA. (2008). Editorial: How do research manuscripts contribute to the literature on mixed methods?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(2), 115-120. doi:10.1177/1558689808315361
11.
DenscombeM. (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.
DenzinN. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 419-427. doi:10.1177/1077800410364608
13.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2011). Preface. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. ix-xvi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
DonmoyerR. (2006). Take my paradigm . . . please! The legacy of Kuhn’s construct in educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 11-34. doi:10.1080/09518390500450177
15.
FeilzerY. M. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 6-16. doi: 10.1177/1558689809349691
16.
FreshwaterD.CahillJ. (2013). Paradigms lost and paradigms regained. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(1), 3-5. doi:10.1177/1558689812471276
17.
GreeneJ. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 93-99.
18.
GreeneJ. C. (2015). Preserving distinctions within the multimethod and mixed methods research merger. In Hesse-BiberS. N.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 606-615). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
19.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-2015). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
HackingI. (2001). The social construction of what?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
HaigB. D.EversC. W. (2016). Realist inquiry in social science. Los Angeles: Sage.
23.
HemmingsA.BeckettG.KennerlyS.YapT. (2013). Building a community of research practice: Intragroup team social dynamics in interdisciplinary mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 261-273. doi:10.1177/1558689813478468
24.
Hesse-BiberS. (2012). Feminist approaches to triangulation: Uncovering subjugated knowledge and fostering social change in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 137-146. doi: 10.1177/1558689812437184.
25.
HunterA.BrewerJ. (2003). Multimethod research in sociology. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 577-594). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
JohnsonR. B. (2011). Do we need paradigms? A mixed methods perspective. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(2), 31-40.
27.
JohnsonR. B. (2012). Dialectical pluralism and mixed research. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 751-754. doi:10.1177/0002764212442494
28.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014
29.
JohnsonR. B.RussoF.SchoonenboomJ. (2017). Causation in mixed methods research: The meeting of philosophy, science, and practice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1558689817719610
30.
KuhnT. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
LakatosI. (1968). Criticism and the methodology of scientific research. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 69, 149-186.
32.
LeckenbyD.Hesse-BiberS. (2007). Feminist approaches to mixed-methods research. In Hesse-BiberS.LeavyP. (Eds.), Feminist research practice (pp. 249-292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412984270.
33.
LyndR. S.LyndH. M. (1929). Middletown: A study in [contemporary] American culture. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.
34.
LyndR. S.LyndH. M. (1937). Middletown in transition. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.
35.
MastermanM. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In LakatosI.MusgraveA. (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 59-89). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
36.
MaxwellJ. A. (2016). Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 12-27. doi:10.1177/1558689815571132
37.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 145-168). Sage.
38.
MayoE. (1993). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York, NY: Macmillan.
39.
MertensD. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 135-166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
MertensD. M.Hesse-BiberS. (2013). Mixed methods and credibility of evidence in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2013(138), 5-13. doi: 10.1002/ev.20053
41.
MorganD. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76. doi:10.1177/2345678906292462
42.
MoussaH. (1992). The social construction of women refugees: A journey of discontinuities and continuities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
43.
PawsonR. (2013). The science of evaluation: A realist Manifesto. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
PhillipsD. C.BurbulesN. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. In Philosophy, theory, and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
45.
RoethlisbergerF. J.DicksonW. J. (1964). Management and the worker: An account of a research program conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago, by F. J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson, with the assistance and collaboration of Harold A. Wright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
RossmanG. B.WilsonB. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9, 627-643. doi:10.1177/0193841X8500900505
47.
SharrockW. W.ReadR. J. (2002). Kuhn: Philosopher of scientific revolutions. Malden, MA: Polity.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2010). Epilogue: Current developments and emerging trends in integrated research methodology. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 803-826). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed-methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
UprichardE.DawneyL. (2016). Data diffraction: Challenging data integration in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1558689816674650
54.
WoodE. J. (2003). Insurgent collective action and civil war in El Salvador. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
55.
ZachariadisM.ScottS.BarrettM. (2013). Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3): 855-879. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.3.09
