Mixed Methods: In Search of a

Paradigm
RalphHall
TheUniversityofNewSouthWales

ABSTRACT
Thegrowthofmixedmethodsresearchhasbeenaccompaniedbyadebateovertherationalefor
combiningwhathaspreviouslybeenregardedasincompatiblemethodologies.Thedebatehas
focusedonwhatparadigmsareinvolvedinmixedmethodsresearch.Fourdominantparadigmsare
identified,namelypostpositivism,constructivism,transformativeandpragmatismandthree
approachestoincorporatingtheseinmixedmethodsresearchoutlined.Oftheseasingleparadigm
isproposedasthemostappropriateapproach.Existingsingleparadigms,however,donotprovide
anadequaterationaleformixedmethodsresearch.Bothtransformativeandpragmaticparadigms
haveseriouslimitations.Arealistperspective,itisargued,overcomestheselimitationsandprovides
asatisfactoryparadigmformixedmethodsresearch.
Keywords:Mixedmethods,paradigm,researchmethods

INTRODUCTION
Mixedmethodsresearchhasbeenestablishedasathirdmethodologicalmovementoverthepast
twentyyears,complementingtheexistingtraditionsofquantitativeandqualitativemovements
(Tashakkori&Teddlie,2003,Teddlie&Tashakkori,2009).Thisdevelopmenthasbeenaccompaniedbya
searchforanappropriateparadigmtoprovidealegitimationfortheuseofmixedmethodscomparable
totheparadigmsthathavebeenwidelyacceptedasjustifyingtheuseofquantitativeandqualitative
methodsseparately.
Thetermmixedmethodshascometobeusedtorefertotheuseoftwoormoremethodsina
researchprojectyieldingbothqualitativeandquantitativedata(e.g.Cresswell&PlanoClark,2007;
Greene,2007;Teddlie&Tashakkori,2009).Combinationsofmethodswhichyielddataofthesamekind
arereferredtoasmultimethods(Teddlie&Tashakkori,2009).Multimethodsdonothavethesame
paradigmaticproblemasdomixedmethodssincetheycanadopttheparadigmappropriatetothesingle
typeofdatabeingcollected.
Theparadigmproblemformixedmethodsarisesbecauseofthesocalledparadigmwarsofthe1970s
and80swherethepositivistparadigmofquantitativeresearchcameunderattackfromsocialscientists
supportingqualitativeresearchandproposingconstructivism(orvariantsthereof)asanalternative
paradigm(Reichhardt&Rallis,1994).
Whathasconsequentlybeenseenasaproblemformixedmethodsresearchersisfindingarationalefor
combiningqualitativeandquantitativedatainthefaceofseeminglyincompatibleparadigms

2
underpinningthem.Indeedithasbeenclaimedthatmixedmethodsarenotpossibleduetothe
incompatibilityoftheparadigmsunderlyingthem(e.g.Guba&Lincoln,1994).
Todealwiththisproblemarangeofalternativeapproacheshavebeendeveloped(Tashakkori&Teddlie,
2003;Cresswell&PlanoClark,2007).Theseapproachescanbeclassifiedintothreebasiccategories:a
paradigmaticstance,multipleparadigmapproachandthesingleparadigmapproach.Thefirstofthese
simplyignoresparadigmaticissuesaltogether;thesecondassertsthatalternativeparadigmsarenot
incompatibleandcanbeusedintheoneresearchprojectandthethirdclaimsthatbothquantitative
andqualitativeresearchcanbeaccommodatedunderasingleparadigm.
Inthispaperitwillbearguedthatasingleparadigmcanindeedprovideajustificationformixed
methods.Existingsingleparadigmapproacheswillbeoutlinedandevaluatedandanalternative
presented.Itwillbefurtherarguedthatconstructivismisnotthesingleparadigmunderpinning
qualitativeresearchnorisiteventhedominantone.
Adoptionofasingleparadigmforallmethodswillenableintegrationofresearchfindingsanddispense
withtheunhelpfulconflictthathasplaguedsocialresearch.

PARADIGM ISSUES
Paradigmsplayanimportantroleinthemixedmethodsliteratureforreasonsoutlinedabove.The
termhasbeenadaptedfromKuhn(1962,1970)butasMorgan(2007)pointsoutithasbeengiven
atleastfourdifferentmeaningsinthisliterature.Thesehavebeenidentifiedasaworldview;an
epistemologicalstance;assharedbeliefsamongacommunityofresearchersandasmodel
examplesofresearch.AlthoughMorgan(2007)arguesthatthethirdoftheseisclosesttowhat
Kuhndefinedasaparadigmhedoesacknowledgethatthesecondmeaning,namelyaparadigmas
anepistemologicalstancehasbeenthemostcommonlyusedmeaningindiscussionsofsocial
sciencemethodology.
Itis,however,thefirstofthesemeaningsthathasbeenadoptedbysomeofthemajorwritersinthe
field.Teddlie&Tashakkori(2009,p84)defineaparadigmasaworldview,togetherwiththe
variousphilosophicalassumptionsassociatedwiththatpointofview.LikewiseCreswell&Plano
Clark(2007,p21)refertoaparadigmasaworldview.SimilarlyGreene(2007)usestheterm
mentalmodelinmuchthesamewayasaworldview.
Accordingtotheseauthorsaworldviewconsistsofstancesadoptedoneachoftheelements
(Cresswell&PlanoClark,2007)ordimensionsofcontrast(Teddlie&Tashakkori,2009)comprising
ontology,epistemology,axiologyandmethodology.UsingthesedimensionsCresswell&Plano
Clark(2007)identifyfourworldviewsandTeddlie&Tashakkori(2009)identifyfive,theonly
differencebeingtheseparationofpositivismandpostpositivismbyTeddlie&Tashakkoributnot
byCresswell&PlanoClark.Therearesofewdifferencesbetweenpositivismandpostpositivism
thattreatingthemasdistinctworldviewsishardlywarranted.Indeedpostpositivismmodifies
someoftheexcessesofpositivismsuchastheclaimthatresearchmustbevaluefree,sothatitcan
beregardedasthesuccessorofpositivism.
Thefourcommonlyagreedworldviewsarethenpostpositivism,constructivism,transformativeand
pragmatism.Oftheseonlythetransformativeandpragmatismworldviewsareseentobe
compatiblewithmixedmethodsresearch.Positivismanditssuccessorpostpositivismareclosely
identifiedwithquantitativeresearchandconstructivismwithqualitativeresearch,makingneither
particularlysuitableformixedmethodsresearch.
Harrits(2011)hasproposedtwofurtherparadigmsformixedmethodsresearch,whichherefersto
asnestedanalysisandpraxeologicalknowledge.Hisuseofthetermparadigmdoesnot,however,

3
correspondwiththeworldviewuseadoptedbytheauthorsdiscussedabove,butrather,
correspondsmorecloselywithMorgans(2007)fourthuse,namelyasmodelexamplesofresearch.
Underthisusageofthetermtherewouldbeverymanyparadigmsinmixedmethodsresearch
alone,givingthetermamuchmorespecificmeaningthanthatgenerallyusedintheliteratureon
mixedmethods.

PARADIGM OPTIONS IN MIXED METHODS RESEARCH

Therearethreepossiblepositionsmixedmethodsresearcherscantaketoadoptingaparadigmto
underpintheirresearch.Thesearetheaparadigmaticstance,themultipleparadigmstanceandthe
singleparadigmstance(TheoriginalsixstancesofTeddlie&Tashakkori,2003)havebeenreduced
tothreebygroupingseveralunderthemultipleparadigmstance).
Theaparadigmaticstancesidestepstheparadigmissuebyignoringit.Teddlie&Tashakkori
(2003)citePattons(1990)claimthatmethodologyisindependentoftheepistemologythatgave
risetoit.Thiscanbetrueonlyinaverygeneralsenseinthat,say,empiricismmandatessomekind
ofobservationalmethodbutitdoesnotspecifyanyparticularmethod.Itis,however,atthepoint
ofinterpretationoftheinformationgainedbyusingaresearchmethodthatepistemologyplaysa
role.Itisdifficulttoseeaconstructivist,forexample,conductingasurveyandanalyzingthedata
usingamultipleregressionanalysis.Epistemologyandmethodologyarerelatedinthatthe
epistemologicalpositionadoptedconstrainsthetypeofdataconsideredtobeworthcollectingand
inthewaythatdataistobeinterpreted.
Theparadigmaticstanceadoptedbyaresearchermaynotbemadeexplicit.Indeed,inmostcases
researchersgetonwiththeresearchwithoutregardtotheirparadigmaticposition,whichisleft
implicit.Thisdoesnotmeanthattheydonthaveone.Onlythattheydontarticulateitintheir
researchpapers.
ThismeansthattheaparadigmaticstancesupportedbyPattoncantbesustainedasaviable
approachtojustifyingmixedmethodsresearchsincenoresearchisparadigmfree.
Themultipleparadigmstanceclaimsthatresearcherscandrawonmorethanoneparadigmintheir
research.ThistakesthreeformsoutlinedbyTeddlie&Tashakkori(2003),namelythe
complementarystrengthsthesis,thedialecticalthesisandthemultipleparadigmsthesis.
Thecomplementarystrengthsthesiskeepsthemethodsseparatesoastodrawonthestrengthsof
each(Morse,2003).Thedialecticalthesis(Greene,2007;Greene&Caracelli,2003)claimsthat
insightscanbegainedfrommixingmentalmodelswhereamentalmodelisthesetof
assumptions,understandings,predispositions,andvaluesandbeliefswithwhichallsocialinquirers
approachtheirwork(Greene,2007,p12).Themultipleparadigmthesis(Cresswell&PlanoClark,
2007)contendsthatthemixedmethodsdesigndeterminestheappropriatenessofparadigm
choice.Thatis,thatsomeparadigmsareappropriateforsomedesignsbutnotothers.The
researcherneedstothenchoosetheparadigmmostsuitedtotheresearchdesignbeing
implemented.
Aproblemwiththeseapproachesisthatitisnotmadeclearwhichparadigmsaretobemixedand
howthemixingistobedone.Thisisparticularlysowithparadigmsforwhichtherehasbeena
historyofantagonismandforwhichclaimsofincompatibilityhavebeenmade.So,forexample,
mixingpostpositivismandconstructivismintheonestudywouldseemtobeproblematicgiven
theircontradictoryontologicalandepistemologicalassumptions.
Thethirdparadigmaticpositionthatcanbetakenbymixedmethodsresearchersisthesingle
paradigmapproach.Inthisstance,researchersadoptasingleparadigmthatencompassesboth

4
qualitativeandquantitativeresearchmethods.Twosuchparadigmshavebeenidentifiedas
contendersforthisapproach,namelypragmatismandthetransformativeapproach.Theformer
hasbeenadvocatedbyanumberofmixedmethodsresearchers(e.g.Johnson&Onwuegbuzie,
2004;Maxcy,2003;Morgan,2007)andthelatterbyMertens(2003).Thisapproachatleastin
principleovercomestheprobleminherentinthemultipleparadigmapproachofthedifficulties
involvedinattemptingtointegrateparadigmsbasedonfundamentallydifferentassumptions.

SINGLE PARADIGM OPTIONS FOR MIXED METHODS RESEARCH

Pragmatismhasgainedconsiderablesupportasastanceformixedmethodsresearchers(Feilzer,
2010;Johnson&Onwuegbuzie,2004;Maxcy,2003;Morgan,2007).Itisorientedtowardsolving
practicalproblemsintherealworld(Feilzer,2010,p8)ratherthanonassumptionsaboutthe
natureofknowledge.ItisderivedfromthewritingsofPeirce,DeweyandJamesinthe19thand
early20thcenturiesandRortyinthelate20thcentury.
TheearlyformulationsofpragmatismbyJamesandDeweywerecriticizedbyRussell(1910,1945)
onanumberofgrounds,butparticularlyonthedifficultyofdeterminingwhatworks.Whilethis
criticismwasleveledatJamespragmatictheoryoftruthitisrelevanttotheuseofpragmatismin
mixedmethodsresearchbecauseitassumesthattheusefulnessofanyparticularmixedmethods
designcanbeknowninadvanceofitbeingused.Thechoiceofamixedmethodsresearchdesignis
basedonanumberofconsiderationsincludingtheresearchquestionsandthepurposeofthe
research.Thequestionofwhetheramixedmethodsdesignworksornotcanonlybedecidedonce
theresearchproductiscompletedandthefindingsinterpreted.Pragmatismdoesnotenterintothe
choiceofmixedmethodsnorjustifyitsuse.
ThetransformativeemancipatoryparadigmproposedbyMertens(2003)asaparadigmformixed
methodsresearchplacescentralimportanceonthelivesandexperiencesofmarginalizedgroups
suchaswomen,ethnic/racialminorities,membersofthegayandlesbiancommunities,peoplewith
disabilities,andthosewhoarepoor.(Mertens,2003,p139140).Thisfocusoftheparadigmlimits
itsapplicationtoonlyasmallrangeofsocialscientificresearch.AsTashakkoriandTeddlie(2003b,
p680)pointoutthetransformativeemancipatoryorientationmightbebetterconceptualizedasa
purposeofaresearchproject.
Neitheroftheseparadigmscanencompassthewiderangeofmixedmethodsresearchcurrently
employed.AsBergman(2011,p101)pointsoutitistimetobringinasecondgenerationof
theoreticalconsiderationsabouttheshapeandreasonsformixedmethodsresearch.Whatis
neededisaparadigmthatdoesnotlimittherangeoftopicstoberesearched,northemethodsthat
canlegitimatelybeusedtoconductresearchandcanaccommodatethemixingofqualitativeand
quantitativemethodsinuse.
AcandidateforsuchaparadigmistherealistperspectiveusedintheevaluationfieldbyPawson&
Tilly(1997)andbyHenry,Julnes&Mark(1998)andextendedtootherareasbySayer(2000).
Whilstrealismisanontologicalpositionusuallyassociatedwithpositivismandpostpositivismitis
bynomeansconfinedtothesepositionsastheseapplicationshaveshown.
Pawson&Tilly(1997)developedwhattheycalledascientificrealistapproachtoevaluationin
whichmixedmethodsplayaprominentroleintheconductofevaluation.
Henry,Julnes&Mark(1998)developedanemergentrealistparadigmforevaluationinwhichthey
arguethattheobjectivesoftheirapproachwilloftenbestbeservedbyacombinationof
quantitativeandqualitativemethods.(p19).

5
Sayer(2000)usesBhaskars(1975)approachofcriticalrealismtodevelopaparadigmforsocial
science.ThisapproachaccordingtoSayeriscompatiblewithawiderangeofresearchmethods
includingbothqualitativeandquantitative.
Whattheseapproacheshaveincommonisaversionofrealismthatrecognizesthecomplexityof
socialphenomenabyenablingaroleforvaluesandinterpretivemeaningwhileatthesametime
acceptingexplanationasalegitimategoalofsocialresearch.

CONCLUSION
Paradigmissuesareamajorconcerninmixedmethodsresearch.Choiceofanappropriate
paradigmisseenasanecessarysteptojustifytheuseofmixedmethods.Yetthereisstill
disagreementoverwhatconstitutesanappropriateparadigmorparadigms.
Threeapproachestoparadigmchoicehavebeenidentifiedhere,namelytheaparadigmatic
approach,themultipleparadigmapproachandthesingleparadigm.Oftheseithasbeenargued
thatthesingleparadigmstanceistheonlydefensibleapproach.However,existingsingle
paradigmsdonotprovideasatisfactorybasisforallmixedmethodsresearch.Pragmatismfailsto
giveacoherentrationaleformixedmethodsduetoitslackofacleardefinitionofwhatworks.The
transformativeemancipatoryparadigmislimitedtoasmallsubsetofallsocialresearchandforthis
reasoncannotbeconsideredasaparadigmformixedmethods.
Arealistapproachhasbeensuggestedasanalternativesingleparadigm.Thisapproachhasbeen
appliedwidelyinthefieldofprogramevaluationaswellasinotherareasofsocialresearch.Itdoes
notsufferfromthelimitationsofthepragmatismandtransformativeparadigmsdiscussedabove,
andsupportstheuseofmixedmethods.Ithasthepotentialwithfurtherdevelopmenttoprovidea
muchneededparadigmformixedmethodsresearch.

REFERENCES
Bergmann,M.M.(2011).Thepolitics,fashions,andconventionsofresearchmethods.JournalofMixed
MethodsResearch.5,99102.
Bhaskar,R.(1975).ARealistTheoryofScience.Leeds:LeedsBooks.
Cresswell,J.W.,&V.L.PlanoClark.(2007).DesigningandConductingMixedMethodsResearch.
ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.
Feilzer,M.Y.(2010).Doingmixedmethodsresearchpragmatically:Implicationsfortherediscoveryof
pragmatismasaresearchparadigm.JournalofMixedMethodsResearch.4.616.
Greene,J.C.(2007).MixedMethodsinSocialInquiry.SanFrancisco,CA:JohnWiley&Sons.
Greene,J.C.,&Caracelli.(2003).Makingparadigmaticsenseofmixedmethodspractice.InTashakkori,
A.,&C.Teddlie(Eds.),HandbookofMixedMethodsinSocialandBehavioralResearch.
ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.
Guba,E.G.,&Lincoln,Y.S.(1994),Competingparadigmsinqualitativeresearch.InDenzin,N.K.,&Y.S.
Lincoln(Eds.),HandbookofQualitativeResearch.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.
Harrits,G.S.,(2011).Morethanmethod?:Adiscussionofparadigmdifferenceswithinmixedmethods
research.JournalofMixedMethodsResearch,5,150166.
Johnson,R.B.,&A.J.Onwuegbuzie.(2004).Mixedmethodsresearch:Aresearchparadigmwhosetime
hascome.EducationalResearcher.33,1426.

6
Kuhn,T.S.(1962).TheStructureofScientificRevolutions.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Kuhn,T.S.(1970).TheStructureofScientificRevolutions.(2ndedition).Chicago:UniversityofChicago
Press.
Henry,G.T.,G.Julnes&M.M.Mark(Eds.).(1998).Realistevaluation:Anemergingtheoryinsupportof
practice.NewDirectionsforEvaluation,No.78,SanFrancisco,CA:JosseyBassPublishers
Maxcy,S.J.(2003).Pragmaticthreadsinmixedmethodsresearchinthesocialsciences:thesearchfor
multiplemodesofinquiryandtheendofthephilosophyofformalism.InTashakkori,A.,&C.
Teddlie(Eds.),HandbookofMixedMethodsinSocialandBehavioralResearch.ThousandOaks,
CA:SagePublications.
Mertens,D.M.(2003).Mixedmethodsandthepoliticsofhumanresearch:thetransformative
emancipatoryperspective.InTashakkori,A.,&C.Teddlie(Eds.),HandbookofMixedMethodsin
SocialandBehavioralResearch.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.
Morgan,D.L.(2007).Paradigmslostandpragmatismregained.Methodologicalimplicationsof
combiningqualitativeandquantitativemethods.JournalofMixedMethodsResearch,1,48
76.
Morse,J.(2003).Principlesofmixedmethodsandmultimethodresearchdesign.InTashakkori,A.,&C.
Teddlie(Eds.),HandbookofMixedMethodsinSocialandBehavioralResearch.ThousandOaks,
CA:SagePublications.
Patton,M.Q.(1990),QualitativeEvaluationandResearchMethods(2ndedition).NewburyPark,CA:
SagePublications.
Pawson,R.,&N.Tilly(1997).RealisticEvaluation.London:SagePublications.
Reichhardt,C.S.,&Rallis,S.F.(1994).Qualitativeandquantitativeinquiriesarenotincompatible:Acall
foranewpartnership.InReichhardt,C.S.,&S.F.Rallis(Eds.)Thequalitativequantitative
debate:Newperspectives.SanFrancisco:JosseyBass.
Russell,B.(1910).PhilosophicalEssays.London.
Russell,B.(1945).AHistoryofWesternPhilosophy.ForageVillage,MA:Simon&Schuster.
Sayer,A.(2000).RealismandSocialScience.London:SagePublications.
Teddlie,C.&A.Tashakkori.(2003).Majorissuesandcontroversiesintheuseofmixedmethodsinthe
socialandbehavioralsciences.InTashakkori,A.,&C.Teddlie(Eds.),HandbookofMixed
MethodsinSocialandBehavioralResearch.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.
Teddlie,C.&A.Tashakkori(2009).FoundationsofMixedMethodsResearch.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage
Publications.
Tashakkori,A.,&Teddlie,C.(2003b).Thepastandfutureofmixedmethodsresearch:Fromdata
triangulationtomixedmodeldesigns.InTashakkori,A.,&C.Teddlie(Eds.),HandbookofMixed
MethodsinSocialandBehavioralResearch.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.