ABSTRACT
Mixed methods research emerged during a period in social science methodology that emphasized the importance of paradigms. Although the concept of paradigms as worldviews was popularized by the work of Thomas Kuhn starting in the 1960s, almost all of the work on this subject in the social sciences has followed an alternative version based on the philosophy of science. This approach compares paradigms according to their stances on ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology. The current chapter continues that tradition by using this framework to make systematic comparisons across four major paradigms in mixed methods: pragmatism, critical realism, transformative-emancipatory, and dialectical pluralism. Among the four paradigms, pragmatism is unique for its rejection of ontology and epistemology in favor of an emphasis on action as the basis for knowledge. Next, in contrast to classical realism, critical realism recognizes the inevitable “theory ladenness of facts,” so that all observations are influenced by personal history and prior beliefs, rather than allowing objective, direct reports of reality. For the transformative-emancipatory version of paradigms, the distinguishing feature is a primary goal of joining with research participants to achieve improvements in their lives. Finally, for dialectical paradigms, and dialectical pluralism in particular, the primary emphasis is on working across differences at both the practical and the paradigmatic level. Although the early history of different social science paradigms emphasized their incompatibility over ontological and epistemological, contrasts, the field of mixed methods research has responded to its multiple paradigms options by emphasizing their compatibility on methodological grounds. There is thus an acceptance that mixed methods researchers are free to choose their preferred paradigm, without entering into arguments about whether that paradigm is superior to others.
