Mixed Methods Research Paradigms

A research paradigm is a foundational framework that guides how research is conducted. It reflects the researcher’s beliefs about the nature of reality (ontology), how knowledge is created and understood (epistemology), and the methods used to gather and analyze data (methodology). These beliefs shape the way researchers design, execute, and interpret studies.

Introduction

A mixed methods research paradigm is a comprehensive belief system underpinning how research is conceptualized and conducted. It emerged from the philosophy of science and represents a framework for understanding and inquiring about the world. Paradigms guide researchers in identifying appropriate questions, methods, and interpretations, forming the foundation for scientific inquiry.

The concept of a research paradigm gained prominence in the mid-20th century with the works of Thomas Kuhn. In his seminal book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), Kuhn described paradigms as universally recognized scientific achievements that guide researchers in solving problems. He also highlighted that paradigms evolve through "paradigm shifts"—periods when new ones replace prevailing frameworks due to anomalies that the existing paradigm cannot explain.

Since Kuhn's work, paradigms have been applied broadly across disciplines, influencing research approaches in natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. The division into qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods paradigms reflects their adaptation to various domains.

Choosing a research paradigm significantly influences every aspect of a study, from question formulation to data interpretation. While positivism excels in establishing causality, interpretivism uncovers nuanced meanings, pragmatism prioritizes actionable outcomes, critical theory drives social change, and mixed methods bridge diverse perspectives. Each paradigm offers unique strengths and is suited to particular research goals and contexts, underscoring the importance of aligning methodological choices with the nature of the inquiry.

Research paradigms guide the research process and define its structure. They establish the philosophical foundation for the study. Paradigms determine how researchers view reality and approach knowledge. They ensure coherence between the research problem and the chosen methods. Researchers use paradigms to enhance rigor and validity. They provide clear guidelines for collecting and analyzing data. Paradigms also influence ethical decision-making and interpretation of results. They help researchers maintain transparency and reflect on their assumptions. Research grounded in a paradigm can achieve greater clarity and relevance, providing meaningful contributions to knowledge and practice.

The paradigm debate

The paradigm debate in mixed methods research emerged in the 1970s and 1980s when qualitative researchers challenged the dominance of quantitative approaches (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). The core issue was the belief that qualitative and quantitative research are rooted in fundamentally different philosophical assumptions. Qualitative research aligns with constructivist or interpretivist paradigms, focusing on subjective experiences and context, while quantitative research is linked to positivist or post-positivist paradigms, emphasizing objectivity, measurement, and generalizability. This raised a key question: could these seemingly incompatible paradigms be effectively combined within a single study?

This debate created two opposing camps: purists and pragmatists. Purists (Rossman & Wilson, 1985) argued that mixing methods compromised the integrity of both, as each was based on distinct epistemological and ontological foundations. In contrast, pragmatists believed methodological choices should be guided by research questions, not rigid philosophical boundaries. They argued that combining methods could offer a more comprehensive understanding of research problems.

The debate peaked in 1994 at the American Evaluation Association meeting, where strong arguments were presented on both sides. However, scholars like Denzin and Lincoln (2005) and Mertens and Tarsilla (2015) began to challenge strict boundaries between paradigms. They suggested that qualitative and quantitative methods could be connected to different worldviews without causing methodological conflict, encouraging more flexible research approaches.

As mixed methods research gained popularity, new perspectives emerged. Situationalists adapted their methods based on specific research contexts, while pragmatists emphasized practicality, focusing on how well methods addressed research questions rather than adhering to philosophical purity. This shift highlighted the value of combining methods to strengthen research outcomes.

Eventually, the debate subsided with the acceptance of pragmatism as a philosophical foundation for mixed methods research. Scholars like Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) promoted pragmatism, focusing on practical solutions over strict paradigmatic adherence. Greene and Caracelli (1997) also emphasized the importance of being explicit about when and why different paradigms are applied. This resolution led to a more integrated, flexible approach to research that values the complementary strengths of both qualitative and quantitative methods.

Mixed methods research paradigms

A framework is essential for understanding how philosophy fits into the design of a mixed methods study. Crotty’s (1998) conceptualization provides a useful structure for positioning philosophy within research design. According to Crotty, there are four key elements involved in developing a research proposal or study: philosophical assumptions, theoretical lens, methodology, and methods. These elements are interconnected, with each level building on the previous one.

At the broadest level are the philosophical assumptions, which include fundamental beliefs about knowledge, known as epistemology, and the nature of reality, referred to as ontology. These assumptions guide how researchers understand the world and determine how knowledge is generated. For example, researchers may adopt a postpositivist belief in an objective reality that can be measured, or a constructivist belief that reality is subjective and shaped by personal experiences.

These philosophical assumptions inform the use of a theoretical lens or stance, which shapes the research focus and interpretation. Theoretical lenses can be drawn from social science theories (like critical theory) or emancipatory perspectives (such as feminist or racial theories). The lens provides a way to frame the research problem, interpret findings, and understand the social or cultural context of the study.

The theoretical lens then influences the methodology, which refers to the overall strategy or plan of action used in the study. Methodology includes the research design—whether it’s qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. In mixed methods research, methodology is particularly significant because it integrates qualitative and quantitative approaches to address complex research questions. Mixed methods are often considered not just as a method but as a methodology because they guide the entire research process, from data collection to interpretation.

Finally, the methodology informs the methods, which are the specific techniques or procedures used to collect, analyze, and interpret data. This includes activities like conducting interviews, distributing surveys, or using statistical analysis. In mixed methods research, these techniques are combined to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem.

Philosophical assumptions in research

At the core of mixed methods research are philosophical assumptions or worldviews that guide the inquiry. Terms like paradigm (from Thomas Kuhn, 1970) and worldview are often used interchangeably to describe these guiding beliefs. A paradigm refers to a set of shared beliefs, values, and practices within a scholarly community. However, the term worldview is often preferred in mixed methods research because it reflects broader beliefs about knowledge, not limited to specific academic disciplines.

There are four key worldviews commonly associated with mixed methods research:

• Postpositivism: Often linked with quantitative research, this worldview emphasizes determinism (cause-and-effect relationships), reductionism (focusing on specific variables), and hypothesis testing to refine theories.
• Constructivism: Associated with qualitative research, constructivism focuses on the subjective experiences of individuals. Knowledge is co-constructed through social interactions and shaped by personal histories and contexts.
• Transformative worldview: Rooted in social justice and advocacy, this worldview addresses issues like empowerment, marginalization, and inequality. Researchers adopting this stance work collaboratively with marginalized communities to promote social change.
• Pragmatism: Closely tied to mixed methods research, pragmatism focuses on the practical application of research. It emphasizes the importance of the research question over rigid methodological rules, promoting a flexible, problem-solving approach that uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to address real-world issues.

These worldviews differ in terms of key philosophical assumptions, including ontology (the nature of reality), epistemology (how knowledge is created), axiology (the role of values in research), methodology (the process of conducting research), and rhetoric (the language used in research). For instance, postpositivists believe in a single, objective reality that can be measured, while constructivists see reality as multiple and shaped by personal experiences. Transformative researchers view reality through the lens of social and cultural identities, while pragmatists are flexible, acknowledging both singular and multiple realities depending on the research context.

Methodologically, postpositivists work from the top down, starting with theories and hypotheses, then testing them through data collection. In contrast, constructivists work from the bottom up, using participants’ perspectives to develop broader themes and theories. Transformative researchers engage in collaborative, participatory research with stakeholders, while pragmatists combine inductive and deductive approaches, integrating qualitative and quantitative data to find what works best.

Crotty’s framework helps position philosophical assumptions as the foundation for research design. By understanding how worldviews, theoretical lenses, methodology, and methods are interconnected, researchers can create robust, coherent mixed methods studies that address complex research questions effectively.

Worldviews and mixed methods research

In mixed methods research, worldviews play a critical role in shaping how researchers design and conduct their studies. A worldview (or paradigm) refers to the fundamental beliefs and assumptions that guide how researchers understand reality, generate knowledge, and determine the purpose of their inquiry. Mixed methods researchers must be explicit about their worldview because it influences their methodological choices, data collection, and analysis. There are four broad stances that researchers commonly adopt when applying worldviews to mixed methods studies: (1) using one best worldview, (2) adopting a dialectical perspective that combines multiple worldviews, (3) selecting worldviews based on the study context and design, and (4) aligning with the worldview of their scholarly community.

One “best” worldview for mixed methods

Many mixed methods scholars argue that pragmatism is the most suitable worldview for mixed methods research. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003a) identified pragmatism as the dominant paradigm embraced by mixed methods researchers because it allows for the integration of both qualitative and quantitative methods within a single study. Pragmatism focuses on “what works” to address the research problem rather than adhering to strict philosophical boundaries. Key principles of pragmatism include:

• Prioritizing the research question over rigid methodological or philosophical commitments.
• Combining quantitative and qualitative methods without the need to resolve philosophical contradictions.
• Rejecting the dichotomy between postpositivism and constructivism.
• Abandoning metaphysical debates about “truth” and “reality” in favor of practical, real-world problem-solving.

Another prominent worldview is the transformative paradigm, introduced by Mertens (2003). This paradigm focuses on social justice, equity, and the empowerment of marginalized groups. Transformative researchers aim to challenge systems of oppression and create a more democratic society through their research. This worldview is particularly relevant for studies addressing issues of race, gender, disability, and economic inequality, emphasizing that knowledge is not neutral but shaped by power dynamics in society.

Dialectical perspective: Combining multiple worldviews

Some researchers adopt a dialectical perspective, which allows for the integration of multiple worldviews within a single study. This approach recognizes that different paradigms offer contradictory yet valuable insights that can coexist in dialogue. Scholars like Greene (2007) and Greene & Caracelli (1997) argue that rather than forcing researchers to choose between paradigms, it’s more productive to embrace the tensions and contradictions that arise when combining them. This perspective values the dynamic interplay of ideas, which can lead to new understandings that might not emerge from a single paradigm.

Building on this idea, Johnson (2013) proposed the concept of dialectical pluralism, which emphasizes:

Respectful engagement with diverse worldviews, disciplines, and stakeholders.
Values-driven research that reflects both the researcher’s and the participants’ perspectives.
Collaboration grounded in fairness, justice, and equality to foster mutual understanding.

Worldviews based on study context and design

Another approach suggests that researchers should select worldviews based on the specific context of their study and the type of mixed methods design they are using. This stance offers flexibility, allowing researchers to shift between paradigms as needed. For example:

• A study might begin with a quantitative survey grounded in a postpositivist worldview, focusing on objective measurement and hypothesis testing.
• The same study might follow up with qualitative focus groups rooted in a constructivist worldview, exploring participants’ subjective experiences to explain the survey results.
• When integrating both phases, researchers might adopt a dialectical or pragmatic stance to interpret the findings cohesively.

This approach aligns with Maxwell’s (2011) view that paradigms are tools that can be creatively adapted to fit different research situations. Researchers are encouraged to be explicit about the worldviews they adopt and to explain how these paradigms shape their methodological choices.

Worldviews shaped by the scholarly community

Lastly, some researchers align their worldview with the shared beliefs and practices of their scholarly community. Drawing on Kuhn’s (1970) concept of paradigms, Morgan (2007) emphasized that paradigms are often shaped by communities of researchers who share common values, research questions, and methodological preferences. For example:

• In health services research, mixed methods may be influenced by evaluation frameworks like formative and summative assessments.
• In educational research, mixed methods might reflect a combination of quantitative assessments and qualitative case studies to address learning outcomes.

This community-based perspective acknowledges that researchers often adopt worldviews based on their disciplinary norms, professional networks, and the expectations of their academic field.

Conclusion

In mixed methods research, worldviews are not rigid prescriptions but flexible frameworks that guide researchers in making methodological decisions. Whether adopting a pragmatic, transformative, dialectical, or community-driven approach, researchers must be explicit about their philosophical assumptions and how these influence their study design. By recognizing the dynamic relationship between worldviews, context, and methodology, mixed methods researchers can create robust, adaptable, and socially relevant research designs.

References

1. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
2. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage Publications.
3. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
4. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5. Mertens, D. M., & Tarsilla, M. (2015). Mixed methods and credibility of evidence in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2015(138), 77–87.
6. Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 627–643.
7. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.