Philosophical arguments are expected to provide the foundation of research and should be mentioned when reporting research. This study explores the presentation of philosophical assumptions in 1,026 mixed methods research (MMR) articles from the field of education. Eighty-one papers (7.9%) provided philosophical commitments, and 31 distinct stances were claimed. Philosophy was presented with different roles, including that philosophical stance can direct the decision to use mixed methods or result from that choice. This article contributes the field of MMR by highlighting an oversight in the reporting practices of the MMR community. Possible causes for the findings include weaknesses in research education and knowledge. Alternative models of the research process may be required to accurately match descriptions of research practice.
AliseM. A.TeddlieC. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809360805
2.
AnafS.SheppardL. A. (2007). Mixing research methods in health professional degrees: Thoughts for undergraduate students and supervisors. Qualitative Report, 12(2), 184-192.
3.
BrymanA. (2006a). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877
4.
BrymanA. (2006b). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(2), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570600595280
5.
BrymanA. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge.
8.
CollinsK. M. T.OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (2012). Securing a place at the table. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 849-865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433799
9.
CreamerE. G. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Sage.
10.
CreswellJ. W. (2015). Revisiting mixed methods and advancing scientific practices. In Hesse-BiberS. N.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 57-71). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.013.39
11.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
12.
DenscombeM. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808316807
FàbreguesS.ParéM.-H.MenesesJ. (2019). Operationalizing and conceptualizing quality in mixed methods research: A multiple case study of the disciplines of education, nursing, psychology, and sociology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 424-445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817751774
15.
FettersM. D.Molina-AzorinJ. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817714066
16.
FrelsR. K.NewmanI.NewmanC. (2015). Mentoring the next generation in mixed methods research. In Hesse-BiberS. N.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 333-353). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.013.21
17.
FrelsR. K.OnwuegbuzieA. J.LeechN. L.CollinsK. M. (2014). Pedagogical strategies used by selected leading mixed methodologists in mixed research courses. Journal of Effective Teaching, 14(2), 5-34.
18.
GageN. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4-10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018007004
19.
GhiaraV. (2020). Disambiguating the role of paradigms in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 11-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818819928
20.
GreeneJ. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 93-98.
21.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1997(74), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1068
22.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
23.
GreeneJ. C.HallJ. N. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 119-144). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n5
24.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. Jossey-Bass.
25.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 30(4), 233-252. https://doi.org/10.2307/30219846
26.
GuettermanT. C. (2017). What distinguishes a novice from an expert mixed methods researcher?Quality & Quantity, 51(1), 377-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0310-9
27.
GueuletteC.NewgentR.NewmanI. (2001). How much of qualitative research is really qualitative? In HashwayR. M. (Ed.), Annals of the association for the advancement of educational research and the National Academy for Educational Research (pp. 299-308). University Press of America.
28.
HarritsG. S. (2011). More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 150-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811402506
29.
HathcoatJ. D.MeixnerC. (2017). Pragmatism, factor analysis, and the conditional incompatibility thesis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(4), 433-449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815622114
30.
HathcoatJ. D.MeixnerC.NicholasM. C. (2018). Ontology and epistemology. In LiamputtongP. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 99-116). Springer.
31.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2015a). Introduction: Navigating a turbulent research landscape. In Hesse-BiberS. N.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. xxxiii-liii). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
32.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2015b). Mixed methods research: The “thing-ness” problem. Qualitative Health Research, 25(6), 775-788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315580558
33.
IvankovaN. V.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Teaching mixed methods research: Using a socio-ecological framework as a pedagogical approach for addressing the complexity of the field. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(4), 409-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1427604
JohnsonR. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607692
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TurnerL. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
38.
LangackerR. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
39.
LeavyP. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Press.
40.
LeechN. L.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2010). Epilogue: The journey: From where we started to where we hope to go. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(1), 73-88. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2010.4.1.073
41.
MatthewsB.RossL. (2010). Research methods: A practical guide for the social sciences. Pearson Education.
42.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-168). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n6
MertensD. M. (2010). Philosophy in mixed methods teaching: The transformative paradigm as illustration. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(1), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2010.4.1.009
45.
Molina-AzorinJ. F.FettersM. D. (2020). Virtual special issue on “Paradigms in mixed methods research.”Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819894741
NiglasK. (1999, September). Quantitative and qualitative inquiry in educational research: Is there a paradigmatic difference between them?Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001487.htm
49.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.LeechN. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447
50.
PallasA. M. (2001). Preparing education doctoral students for epistemological diversity. Educational Researcher, 30(5), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030005006
PlowrightD. (2013). To what extent do postgraduate students understand the principles of mixed methods in educational research?International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7(1), 66-82. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2013.7.1.66
54.
SchoonenboomJ. (2019). A performative paradigm for mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 284-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817722889
55.
ScottD.UsherR. (2011). Researching education: Data, methods and theory in educational enquiry (2nd ed.). Continuum.
56.
Shannon-BakerP. (2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(4), 319-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815575861
57.
SperberD.WilsonD. (1998). The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In CarruthersP.BoucherJ. (Eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes (pp. 184-200). Cambridge University Press.
58.
SymondsJ. E.GorardS. (2010). Death of mixed methods? Or the rebirth of research as a craft. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(2), 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790.2010.483514
59.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage.
60.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage.
61.
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. 13-50). Sage.
62.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
63.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 1-41). Sage.
64.
TimansR.WoutersP.HeilbronJ. (2019). Mixed methods research: What it is and what it could be. Theory and Society, 48(2), 193-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09345-5
65.
TruscottD. M.SwarsS.SmithS.Thornton-ReidF.ZhaoY.DooleyC.WilliamsB.HatL.MatthewsM. (2010). A cross-disciplinary examination of the prevalence of mixed methods in educational research: 1995-2005. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(4), 317-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570903097950
