Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Christ, T. W. (2014). Scientific-based research and randomized controlled trials, the “Goldd?ey=Eiurc? Alternative paradigms and mixed methodologies. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 72–80.

Abstract: This article addresses three controversial issues related to mixed methods research and policy. First, “Scientific-Based Research” promoted by “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) reinforces diametrically opposed paradigmatic views and research methodologies. As policy, NCLB prioritizes specific methodologies prescribing what counts as scientific evidence. Second, from a critical stance, federal policies shape and control decisions that funding agencies make regarding methodologies (Randomized Controlled Trials—Gold Standard). Third, top-down policies are currently framed in postpositivist ontological and epistemological conceptions and should include constructivist, critical, transformative, and emancipatory paradigms supporting alternative methodologies. This article challenges current practices of prioritizing specific research methodologies used to evaluate interventions. As an alternative, logical purpose statements and research questions should be the standard used to guide decisions about appropriate methodologies and procedures.

Journal Article 2: Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.

Abstract: The purposes of this article are to position mixed methods research (mixed research is a synonym) as the natural complement to traditional qualitative and quantitative research, to present pragmatism as offering an attractive philosophical partner for mixed methods research, and to provide a framework for designing and conducting mixed methods research. In doing this, we briefly review the paradigm “wars” and incompatibility thesis, we show some commonalities between quantitative and qualitative research, we explain the tenets of pragmatism, we explain the fundamental principle of mixed research and how to apply it, we provide specific sets of designs for the two major types of mixed methods research (mixed-model designs and mixed-method designs), and, finally, we explain mixed methods research as following (recursively) an eight-step process. A key feature of mixed methods research is its methodological pluralism or eclecticism, which frequently results in superior research (compared to monomethod research). Mixed methods research will be successful as more investigators study and help advance its concepts and as they regularly practice it. 

Journal Article 3: Sommer Harrits, G. (2011). More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods, 5, 150–166.

Abstract: This article challenges the idea that mixed methods research (MMR) constitutes a coherent research paradigm and explores how different research paradigms exist within MMR. Tracing paradigmatic differences at the level of methods, ontology, and epistemology, two MMR strategies are discussed: nested analysis, recently presented by the American political scientist Evan S. Lieberman, and praxeological knowledge, inspired by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. These strategies address two different epistemological problems, namely, the problem of causal inference and the problem of double hermeneutics. Consequently, the research designs as well as the understandings of the “qualitative component” differ noticeably. Realizing such differences at the ontological, epistemological, and methodological level contributes to discussions on how to move forward MMR, embracing differences instead of imposing homogeneity.