jeromedelisle.org

A research paradigm represents s a “worldview” which includes beliefs and values and a set of assumptions. It is a “shared understandings of reality.” Research pardigms are also models or frameworks upon a worldview or belief system about the nature of knowledge and existence. 

Thomas Kuhn used the term paradigm in two ways-

1.  a particular way of thinking that is shared by a community of scientists in solving problems in their field
   

2.  the “commitments, beliefs, values, methods, outlooks and so forth shared across a discipline”

Valuing mixed & multiple methods for educational policy research in the Caribbean: Illustrative cases privileging epistemological diversity (unpublished manuscript-Jerome De Lisle)

Read-

• Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76. HERE
  

• Christ, T. W. (2013). The worldview matrix as a strategy when designing mixed methods research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7(1), 110-118. HERE

• Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?. Journal of mixed methods research, 2(1), 7-22. HERE
  

• Shannon-Baker, P. (2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(4), 319-334. HERE

• Maxwell, J. A., & Mittapalli, K. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, 145-168. HERE
  

  

Several philosophical stances will support the efficient mixing of methods (Greene, 2007).  Boucher (2014) defined a philosophical stance as a pragmatically justified perspective and way of seeing the world.  Greene (2008) described new emergent paradigms that support mixing as an alternative paradigm stance.  

Three of the most useful stances for mixing are dialectical pluralism, pragmatism, and critical realism (Christ, 2013). 

Dialectical pluralism is not a single perspective, but instead is a metaparadigm carefully listening to and engaging with several “other’ paradigms.  Therefore, it is ontologically pluralist in character, using dialecticism to tease apart differences in methods and methodologies.  Johnson (2012) detailed the protocol of use for individual and team researchers as follows: (1) dialectically listening to differences; (2) combining competing ideas and values; (3) explicitly considering different epistemological values from stakeholders and researchers; (4) ethically conducting the research; (5) disseminating findings locally and broadly; and (6) formatively evaluate outcomes.

Pragmatism has been considered as the most popular single paradigm stance for mixing methods in the global North (Christ, 2013).  In some fields, such as program evaluation, researchers have long been prone to mix methods using the criteria of practicality, contextual responsiveness and consequences - the hallmark of pragmatism as a philosophical epistemology.  Datta (1997) presents a framework for adopting pragmatism using four key questions: (1) Can salient evaluation or research questions be adequately answered? (2) Can the design be successfully carried out considering the resources and skills available? (3) Are design trade-offs optimized? (4) Are the results usable?

Hall (2013) employed Deweyan pragmatism when framing a philosophical approach to mixing.  The primary criterion for legitimation in this variant is intelligent action, with truth linked to action, continuously tested and substantiated.  Intelligent action means that different methods are used insightfully to attend to specific issues and events.  This process requires problem identification, consideration of various lines of action, and recognition that inquiry takes place within a community of people.  From the standpoint of Deweyan pragmatism, the focus of mixing is on theoretical assumptions, methodological traditions and techniques because pragmatism is itself a paradigm.  Building upon Deweyan pragmatism, Morgan (2014) outlined a five step model for conducting inquiry.  The steps are (1) selecting a problem, (2) reflecting on the choice of the problem, (3) conceptualizing a potential research design, (4) reflecting on the choice of methods, and (5) conducting the research.

Read Morgan's work on pragmatism

A third paradigm stance that facilitates mixing is critical realism.  This stance has been adopted by several researchers in management accounting in particular, and business education in general (Modell, 2009, 2010; Mingers, Mutch, & Wilcocks, 2013; Syed, Mingers, & Murray, 2010).

Critical realism is a paradigm-bridging approach seeking middle ground between positivism and constructivism.  This philosophical position acknowledges the impossibility of fully capturing reality because researchers’ perceptions are always shaped by their resources and interests.  

Reality is neither easily apprehended nor reducible to perceptions or experiences.  However, it is still possible to obtain feedback from some aspects of the observable world (the empirical rather than the actual or real) (McEvoy & Richards, 2006).  This is described as the intransitive nature of reality.

The advantages of critical realism for conducting educational policy research in particular is (1) the acceptance of causality as recurring processes and mechanisms and (2) the understanding of diversity and difference in a study population (Maxwell, 2012a, 2012b).  

Wynn and Williams (2012) have identified five principles in conducting studies in critical realism: (1) identifying and abstracting events from experiences, (2) explicating events, (3) using retroduction, (4) seeking empirical coronation for proposed mechanisms; and (5) employing multiple approaches to support causal analysis.  Although the law-like regularities proposed by positivism are rejected; the focus is on recurring processes by which structures, actions and contexts come to be generated (Maxwell, 2004; Wynn & Williams, 2012).

Conversation on Paradigms