Mixed Methods Research? Which Paradigm to take?

During our course on Advanced Qualitative Research Methodologies , we interrogate different approaches to qualitative research using the OEPTMm (Ontology, Epistemology. Paradigm, Theoretical Perspective, Methodology, methods) Framework . Mixed methods research was one of the approaches that were uncovered during the course.
Before writing this blog, I came upon a post entitled “In search of pragmatism and mixed methods” by Christina K. Pikas, a science and engineering librarian and a doctoral student in information studies. Her viewpoint resonates well with mine as I am also now at the crossroads of decision-making of the research design. I am thinking that at the end of the course, which technically ends this evening, that I will be able to make up my mind on which paradigm or viewpoint I will take.

She wrote about her 2 types of professors who seemed to have purists’ views of their paradigms towards research. The qualitative purists are passionate about constructivism and reject positivism. Positivism stems from a belief that an understanding of phenomena is solely grounded on scientific methods with no value judgements. It emphasises observable, empirical facts that excludes metaphysical speculation about origins and ultimate causes. The other group, the quantitative purists perceive that their social science inquiry is the ideal for research. These 2 groups of purists advocate the “incompatibility thesis” (cited by Howe, 1988 in Johnson & Onwuegbuzie (2004) and strongly argue that there should be no integrating of the 2 research methods within a single study.

The third group of professors with the “third research paradigm” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) conduct mixed methods using well-integrated, methodological diverse research effort ( Raudenbush, 2005). Raudenbush argues that to decide on which is the effective research regimes is to ask the question “what works” and to be clear” how our efforts can be integrated to support the broad goal of discovering and warranting the best practice” (p. 27).

I share the same sentiments as Christina that “people haven't completely made peace with mixed methods”. Though the professors in my faculty (division) seem open-minded and willing to take the pluralist position in accepting mixed methods, they largely use quantitative methods themselves and are typically fascinated with numbers. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie (2004) offers taking the pragmatic approach to better understand real-world phenomena which includes psychological, social and educational phenomena. Mixed methods research offers a more workable solution by putting together the insights from both the qualitative and quantitative paradigms. Pragmatism is an ontology that can help bridge the conflicting philosophies and epistemologies of these 2 approaches.

In short, I am a converted pragmatist like Christina….!! Do post your comments below…

Details of Christina’s Blog
Posted on: June 28, 2009 11:01 AM, by Christina Pikas
In search of pragmatism and mixed methods
http://scienceblogs.com/christinaslisrant/2009/06/in_search_of_pragmatism_and_mi.php

References:
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2005). Learning from attempts to improve schooling: The contribution of methodological diversity. Educational Researcher, 34(5), 25-31.