Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Although mixed methods research becomes increasingly popular, the issue that to what extent qualitative and quantitative research methods can be combined is insufficiently explored. To fill this gap, this critical literature review revisits the qualitative-quantitative debate between proponents and opponents of mixed methods research, examines the underlying philosophical assumptions held by two sides, and provides a new perspective to evaluate research combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. A brief review of the origin and development of mixed methods research is provided, followed by a presentation of the divergent opinions of proponents and opponents of mixed methods research and an illustration of why grounded theory, classified as a qualitative research method, can work well with quantitative studies. These ideas contribute to the conclusion rendered here: paradigmatic differences cannot be reduced to the simplistic duality of qualitative-quantitative debate, and the use of compatible paradigms is the key to mixing different research methods.

Keywords

mixed methods research paradigm (in)compatibility research philosophy

Introduction

Mixed methods research was initially defined as research designs that involved “at least one quantitative method (designed to collect numbers) and one qualitative method (designed to collect words), where neither type of method is inherently linked to any particular inquiry paradigm” (Greene et al., 1989, p. 256). During the 1990s, advocates of mixed methods research argued that this type of research had “evolved to the point where it is a separate methodological orientation with its worldview, vocabulary, and techniques” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, p. x). They further stated that mixed methods research represented the third research paradigm, which moved “past the paradigm war by offering a logical and practical method and system of philosophy” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 17). After 30 years of development, mixed methods research has been expanded into a distinct methodology that combines qualitative and quantitative research methods in a single study despite their different underlying principles (Creswell & Garrett, 2008; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Still, challenges remain concerning the paradigmatic incompatibility between qualitative and quantitative approaches and the incompatibility’s impact on the procedure of mixing (Bazeley, 2002; Bryman, 1984, 2006, 2007). With mixed methods research’s wide utility in various sectors of inquiry, however, practitioners have “neglected philosophy as a criterion of research quality” (Coates, 2021, p. 184) and ignored epistemology and ontology “in favor of a brute methodology” (Baškarada & Koronios, 2018, MMR section, para. 3). Therefore, it is imperative to revisit the incompatibility thesis in the realm of mixed methods research and scrutinize when and how to mix qualitative and quantitative research methods in order to improve the research quality and support well-reasoned research practices (Archibald et al., 2015; Bazeley, 2002; Bronstein & Kovacs, 2013). To address this concern, a critical literature review is conducted to retrieve and analyze the published literature on mixed methods research relating to the paradigmatic (in)compatibility between qualitative and quantitative approaches. This review is structured as follows: first described are the systematic review and thematic analysis of the relevant literature, then demonstrated is an overview of the main positions of proponents and opponents of mixed methods research, followed by a discussion about compatible paradigms as the key to mixing qualitative and quantitative research methods, and finally presented is the conclusion that reaffirms the essential role of philosophical assumptions in mixing different research methods.

Method

The procedure of selecting eligible literature is divided into identification, screening, and inclusion in line with the steps of reporting systematic reviews proposed by Page et al. (2021). During the identification phase, the literature search was applied to two electronic databases, the Web of Science Core Collection (the WOS Core Collection) and the Academic Search Complete (the ASC). The author searched within such sections as Title, Abstract, or Keywords and identified potential studies through using a combination of two or more search terms/keywords (“mixed methods,” “mixed-methods,” “qualitative and quantitative,” “epistemology,” “ontology,” “methodology,” and “paradigm”). To ensure a wide coverage of eligible literature, the search covered publications from 1980 up to the time of writing since mixed methods research has become a distinct approach in the 1980s (Archibald et al., 2015; Creswell & Garrett, 2008). Eventually, a total number of 1,558 records were retrieved from the search, consisting of 1,143 articles from the WOS Core Collection and 415 from the ASC. Then 334 duplicates were removed, leaving 1,224 records. During the screening stage, the author controlled for the quality of literature included in this review and set the peer-reviewed publications as the inclusion criterion. As a result, 111 conference proceedings were excluded as gray literature, which had not been published in a traditional format (Adams et al., 2017; Tong et al., 2020). The title of each remaining record (1,113 in total) was scrutinized and 303 articles were excluded since they had nothing to do with mixed methods research (e.g., “Compiled visualization with IPI method for analyzing of liquid-liquid mixing process” and “Exceptional events classification in warehousing based on an integrated clustering method for a dataset with mixed-valued attributes”).

Following the screening, 810 articles’ abstracts were read to ensure eligibility. Surprisingly, only 70 records were deemed relevant for their focus on when and how to mix qualitative and quantitative research methods at the epistemological, ontological, and methodological levels. The majority of peer-reviewed publications were excluded for their primary or full attention to (1) practicing mixed methods research as an approach to conduct empirical studies (e.g., “Adaptation in families of children with Down syndrome: A mixed-methods design”); (2) discussing how to implement mixed methods research in a given research field (e.g., “Applications of mixed-methods methodology in clinical pharmacy research”); and (3) presenting how to design mixed methods research without delving into the paradigmatic incompatibility between qualitative and quantitative research methods (e.g., “Designing mixed methods research by mixing and merging methodologies: A 13-step model”). These inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied to the full-text review during the inclusion phase. A total of 70 full-text articles were read for further evaluation, leaving 33 publications deemed eligible and included. Additionally, a systematic search of the included full texts’ reference lists was conducted to identify studies that may have been missed. Based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria listed above, 11 articles commonly cited across the included full texts were added into this review (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram of literature selection.

Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used for analyzing the contents of the included articles. The author read and re-read these articles to become familiar with their understandings of mixed methods research. Next, the coding was framed by two questions: (1) what were the views held by these articles regarding the mixing of qualitative and quantitative research methods and (2) what was the argumentation that underscored these views. As the coding proceeded, the included articles’ elucidation of mixed methods research converged to 11 categories under six themes (see Table 1). Then the author reviewed the themes with a research assistant who had read the included articles independently. Through discussion, the author and the research assistant negotiated different viewpoints of specific categories and themes and revisited the relevant articles for clarification when necessary. The process was repeated to ensure an agreement on the categories and themes to be eventually reached between these two researchers.

Table 1.

Categories and Themes Generated by the Thematic Analysis.

Themes	Categories	Sub-categories	Stance	Relevant literature
Research methods are not inherently tied to pre-existing paradigms	Aparadigmatic stance: The mixing is workable	The logic of justification differs from and does not indicate research methods	Proponents (18 articles)	Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998, 2003); Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie (2003); Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004); Teddlie and Tashakkori (2006)
		Research methods’ key components are not restricted to either paradigm		Bergman (2008a, 2008b); Hesse-Biber (2010); Symonds and Gorard (2010)
		Research is essentially both qualitative and quantitative		Niaz (2008)
		Choices of research methods are not determined by pre-existing paradigms		Greene et al., (1989); Philip (1998); Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998, 2003); Teddlie and Tashakkori (2006); Niaz (2008); Hesse-Biber (2010); Bazeley (2016)
Research methods cannot be separated from their corresponding paradigms	A purist perspective: The mixing is impossible	Incompatible paradigms inevitably lead to the incompatibility of research methods	Opponents (10 articles)	Howe (1988, 1992); Guba and Lincoln (1994);
	A moderate opposition: The mixing is nothing more than a form of triangulation	The quality of the mixing is under question due to incompatible philosophical positions	Opponents (10 articles)	Bryman (2006, 2007, 2017); Denzin (2012); Flick (2017); Baškarada & Koronios (2018); Coates (2021)
Pragmatism is embraced as the philosophical foundation of mixed methods research	Pragmatism as the third paradigm to reconcile the incompatibility of paradigms	The mixing can integrate different perspectives and approaches to offer better solutions	Proponents (9 articles)	Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003); Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004); Morgan (2007); Johnson et al. (2007); Greene (2008); Creswell and Garrett (2008); Glogowska (2011); van Griensven et al. (2014); Makrakis and Kostoulas-Makrakis (2016)
Pragmatism fails to provide a legitimate and solid philosophical base for mixed methods research	Pragmatism is captured by post-positivism	Mixed methods research is essentially a Trojan Horse for post-positivism	Opponents (6 articles)	Giddings and Grant (2007)
	Pragmatism does not offer exclusive benefits to mixed methods research	Advocates of the mixing take refuge in a freely and vaguely interpreted philosophical system		Bergman (2008a, 2008b)
	Pragmatism is not a methodology	Pragmatism cannot guide the mixing in advance		Denzin (2012); Allmark and Machaczek (2018); Baškarada and Koronios (2018)
Research methods can be combined to achieve various purposes	Mixed methods research, as a methodology, facilitates different paradigms’ dialogical engagement with each other	Different types of the mixing can better address research questions and generate new understanding and insights	Proponents (8 articles)	Morse (1991); Greene and Caracelli (1997); Greene et al. (1989); Greene (2006, 2008); Kelle (2006); McVilly et al. (2008); Lee & Smith (2012)
Concerns over typologies of mixed methods research	The mixing can only be feasible in the form of complementarity	Other combinations are not workable due to the incompatible philosophical worldviews	Opponents (8 articles)	Smith (1983); Rossman & Wilson (1985); Sale et al. (2002); Hathcoat & Meixner (2017)
	Standardized typology enforces unnecessary codification of different research methods	All social research methods are inherently mixed		Bazeley (2016); Timans et al. (2019)
	Integration is the real challenge for mixed methods research	Different research methods are not adequately integrated throughout the research		Bazeley (2016); Zhou & Wu (2020).

Arguments for and against Mixed Methods Research

This critical literature review revealed that arguments for and against mixed methods research centered on the (in)compatibility of paradigms associated with qualitative and quantitative research methods. The term, paradigm, was coined by Kuhn (1970) as a model of scientific practice shared and accepted by a community of practitioners. According to Guba and Lincoln (1994), a paradigm represents a worldview that “defines, for its holder, the nature of the ‘world,’ the individual’s place in it, and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts” (p. 107). Therefore, a paradigm aims to address three fundamental questions, including the ontological question concerning what reality is, the epistemological question regarding the relationship between reality and inquirers, and the methodological question respecting how inquirers know about reality (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2017; Crotty, 1998; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Scotland, 2012). Within a paradigm, the methodology is seen as the bridge that brings researchers’ “philosophical standpoint (on ontology and epistemology) and method (perspective and tool) together” (Smith & Sparkes, 2016, p. 6).

In the realm of social science research, qualitative and quantitative research are widely believed to be associated with different paradigms. Constructivism is generally seen as the overarching paradigm of qualitative research for its emphasis on multiple views of reality and researchers’ subjectivity-driven inquiries (Bryman, 2012; Guba & Lincoln, 1989, 1994; Lincoln et al., 2000; Patton, 2015; Petty et al., 2012; Smith & Sparkes, 2016; Timans et al., 2019). However, quantitative research is underpinned by (post-)positivism with the assumption that researchers should adopt meticulous measures to maintain objectivity and eliminate any possible biases in order to uncover objective and absolute reality existing out there (Bryman, 2012; Føllesdal, 1979; Hasan, 2016; Nagel, 1989; Smith & Sparkes, 2016; Timans et al., 2019). The paradigmatic differences between qualitative and quantitative research (see Table 2) have led to intense disagreements between their proponents and opponents, and the long-running debate is referred to as the paradigm war (Bryman, 2007; Coates, 2021; Denzin, 2010; Gage, 1989; Glogowska, 2011; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; van Griensven et al., 2014). Influenced by the paradigm debate, scholars articulated their different positions on mixed methods research. In this review, these articulations were found to concern three topics, including (1) whether research methods can be separated from their corresponding paradigms, (2) whether pragmatism can be a good reason for mixed methods research, and (3) whether qualitative and quantitative research methods can be combined without any concern.

Table 2.

Paradigmatic Differences Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research.

	Qualitative	Quantitative
Ontological orientation	Constructivism:Reality is socially constructed, context situated, and time-bounded, leading to multiple context-contingent versions.	(Post-)positivism:Reality is objective, timeless, and context-free, existing out there as external facts beyond inquirers’ reach or influence.
Epistemological orientation	Driven by their subjectivities, researchers interact with the researched phenomenon and stand inside the research process.	Holding an independent stance, researchers distance themselves from the researched phenomenon and search for objectivity as a regulatory ideal during the research process.
Methodological orientation	Researchers function as a research instrument and adopt the hermeneutic/dialectic approach to provide detailed contextualized descriptions of the researched phenomenon. Methods used include:• Participant observation;• In-depth interviewing;• Focus groups;• Discourse analysis;• Qualitative content analysis;• Narrative analysis, etc.	Researchers begin with hypotheses and theories and employ an experimental/manipulative approach to triangulate data, hoping to test out hypotheses to wider populations. Methods include:• Experiments;• Surveys;• Quantitative content analysis;• Structured interviewing;• Structured observation etc.

Can Research Methods be Separated from Their Corresponding Paradigms?

Some proponents of mixed methods research argue that scholars who hold the opposite opinions of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches confuse research methods with the logic of justification, an essential aspect of epistemology (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003). While admitting that researchers hold up to specific ontological and epistemological orientations, these proponents claim that the logic of justification does not “dictate what specific data collection and data analytical methods researchers must use” since research methods are not inherently tied to epistemology (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 15). Similarly, the second group of proponents contends that the key components of research methods, like data gathering tools, sample sizes, generalization, operationalizations, data types, and analytical techniques, are not intrinsically linked to either a qualitative or a quantitative paradigm, and many research is essentially a transaction between qualitative interpretations and quantified data (Bazeley, 2016; Bergman, 2008a, 2008b; Hesse-Biber, 2010; Niaz, 2008; Symonds & Gorard, 2010). Given this situation, there is no evidence for direct links between research methods and epistemology (Liu, 2015). Research methods’ dissociation from epistemology is underpinned by an aparadigmatic stance, which “disputes a strong relationship between philosophy and the research process” (Coates, 2021, p. 173). Mixed methods research practitioners taking the aparadigmatic stance reject the rigid incompatibility of paradigms in the Kuhnian sense and view research methods as tools needed to solve real-world problems (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Niaz, 2008; Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003; Symonds & Gorard, 2010). The aparadigmatic stance leads to the proposal that researchers’ choices of research methods are not determined by pre-existing incompatible paradigms but by research questions (Bazeley, 2016; Greene et al., 1989; Hesse-Biber, 2010; Niaz, 2008; Philip, 1998; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, 2003; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2006). With more freedom in choosing research methods, researchers can go beyond the current theoretical limits imposed by the vague grouping of established paradigms and make more powerful and fruitful contribution to research in general (Bergman, 2008a; Philip, 1998; Symonds & Gorard, 2010).

However, the idea of separating a research method from its corresponding epistemology is harshly criticized by some of the earliest opponents of mixed methods research, who argue that methodology cannot be separated from paradigms, and incompatible paradigms inevitably lead to the incompatibility of research methods (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Howe, 1988, 1992). From these opponents’ purist perspectives, qualitative and quantitative research methods rest on mutually exclusive ontological and epistemological assumptions about reality and knowledge creation, and paradigmatic differences are fundamental to the processes, outcomes, and the corresponding claims of inquiries following these two approaches. For these opponents, it is impossible to juxtapose a research method that embraces all versions of reality as equally truthful and meaningful with another research method that holds on to one single reality as truth. Given the incompatibility of paradigms, there is little room for collaboration or cooperation between qualitative and quantitative research methods. With the cessation of the paradigm war and the increasing popularity of mixed methods research, the second group of opponents calls for attention to philosophical positions marginalized by the quantitative research orthodoxy and expresses concerns over the quality of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches and inconsistent findings they may reveal (Baškarada & Koronios, 2018; Bryman, 2006, 2007, 2017; Coates, 2021; Denzin, 2012; Flick, 2017). In this view, multiple-strategy research or mixed methods research is nothing more than triangulation without a clear understanding of the underlying paradigm since the qualitative approach emphasizes “a relatively open-ended approach to the research process” that frequently “produces surprises, changes of direction and new insights” while the quantitative approach is “by no means a mechanical application of neutral tools that results in no new insights” (Bryman, 2006, p. 111).

Can Pragmatism be a Good Reason for Mixed Methods Research?

To justify mixed methods research, a group of scholars has embraced pragmatism as its philosophical foundation, developed by such writers as Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, George Herbert Mead, and John Dewey (Creswell & Garrett, 2008; Greene, 2008; Johnson et al., 2007; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Morgan, 2007; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). For example, Morgan (2007) drew on the core tenets of pragmatism and proposed to “concentrate instead on concepts such as ‘lines of action’ (from William James and George Herbert Mead) and ‘warranted assertions’ (from John Dewey), along with a general emphasis on ‘workability’ (from both James and Dewey)” (p. 66). Greene (2008) claimed that mixed methods research emphasized “the importance of the dynamic interplay between theory and practice or between thinking/knowing and acting/doing” and further argued that this view was “actually a hallmark of Deweyan pragmatism” (p. 8). As a leading philosophical partner for mixed methods research, pragmatism is commonly believed to offer an alternative paradigm that reconciles the incompatibility of qualitative and quantitative paradigms through integrating different perspectives and approaches in an eclectic manner to inform mixed methods inquiries and offer practice-oriented solutions (Creswell & Garrett, 2008; Glogowska, 2011; Johnson et al., 2007; Morgan, 2007; van Griensven et al., 2014). Grounded in pragmatism, mixed methods research is conceptualized in different ways. Rather than getting hung up on the metaphysical paradigm debate, proponents of pragmatism-grounded mixed methods research adopt a research question-centric approach to knowledge and attend to such practical issues as “how to conduct a mixed methods study, what dilemmas might emerge in doing so, or the practicalities of how to begin thinking about combining both quantitative and qualitative data in a study” (Creswell & Garrett, 2008, p. 328). These proponents further assert that mixed methods research can maximize the synergy and strength of qualitative and quantitative research methods while minimizing their potential weakness (Creswell & Garrett, 2008; Glogowska, 2011; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Makrakis & Kostoulas-Makrakis, 2016; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). In this view, mixed methods research is perceived to lie in the middle of a visualized continuum “with qualitative research anchored at one pole and quantitative research anchored at the other” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 15).

Many scholars raise concerns over mixed methods research’s pragmatic grounding illustrated above (Baškarada & Koronios, 2018; Bergman, 2008a, 2008b; Denzin, 2012; Giddings & Grant, 2007). Giddings and Grant (2007) asserted that pragmatism was captured by post-positivism that generated diverse modes of research inquiries marked by insufficient theoretical reflexivity and eventually guided practitioners to search for a single absolute truth. Given pragmatism’s value of getting things done rather than a preoccupation with epistemological integrity, the notion of mixed methods, in its essence, is nothing but a Trojan Horse for post-positivism (Giddings & Grant, 2007). Although embracing the idea of mixing research methods, Bergman (2008a) criticized advocates of pragmatism for taking refuge in a freely and vaguely interpreted philosophical system, which could benefit both mono method designs and mixed methods designs. Denzin (2012) offered a fiercer critique by describing that classic pragmatism developed by Peirce, James, Mead, and Dewey as a doctrine of meaning that focuses on how actors examine, inspect, and reflect upon the consequences of their actions. Since these meanings cannot be given in advance, classic pragmatism is not a methodology and therefore fails to provide a philosophical base for the mixing of qualitative and quantitative research methods, especially considering these two approaches’ paradigmatic differences (Allmark & Machaczek, 2018; Baškarada & Koronios, 2018; Denzin, 2012). Although pragmatist philosophies have been extended from classic pragmatism to neo-pragmatism marked by anti-realism and strong pluralism, the latter is not the version advocated by proponents of mixed methods research (Denzin, 2012). In this context, arguing for pragmatism’s legitimacy of being the philosophical foundation of mixed methods research “may be too much of a compromise” (p. 5).

Can Two Research Methods be Combined without Any Concern?

Looking beyond the irreconcilable paradigmatic differences, several proponents of mixed methods take a dialectical position, arguing that a dialogical engagement with different paradigms can better address research questions and generate new understanding and insights (Greene, 2006, 2008; Greene & Caracelli, 1997; Greene et al., 1989; Kelle, 2006; Lee & Smith, 2012; McVilly et al., 2008; Morse, 1991). Unlike the proponents in the aparadigmatic stance, practitioners in the dialectical stance recognize the importance and value of different traditional paradigms but claim that these paradigms, as historical and social constructs, can be embraced by a distinctive methodology termed mixed methods approach (Greene, 2008). In their influential work on typology schema of mixed methods designs, Greene et al. (1989) noted that qualitative and quantitative research methods could be combined to achieve the following purposes: (1) triangulation, which examines the convergence or corroboration of results from qualitative and quantitative research methods used to study the same phenomenon; (2) complementarity, which looks for enhancement, illustration, and elaboration of results from one method with results from the other (i.e., two approaches study the overlapping but different aspects of a phenomenon); (3) development, that uses results from one method to develop or inform the design of another method; (4) initiation, which detects paradox and contrast between two methods (often leading to the re-framing of research questions); and (5) expansion, which tends to increase the scope and range of a study by combining two approaches. Focusing on triangulation, Morse (1991) distinguished between simultaneous and sequential uses of qualitative and quantitative research methods to propose four mixed methods designs. Such mixing is deemed valuable and beneficial because “quantitative methods can give an overview about the domain under study and can describe its heterogeneity on a macro-level, whereas qualitative methods can be used to gain access to local knowledge of the field in order to develop theoretical concepts and explanations that cover phenomena relevant for the research domain” (Kelle, 2006, p. 309).

Rather than taking a purist stance, some opponents maintain that qualitative and quantitative approaches entail very different philosophical worldviews and therefore can only be combined for complementarity since the findings from one approach can provide additional insights to the other (Hathcoat & Meixner, 2017; Rossman & Wilson, 1985; Sale et al., 2002; Smith, 1983). Other combinations, such as cross-validation or triangulation, are impossible for mixed methods research in that qualitative and quantitative research methods represent two distinct worldviews (Rossman & Wilson, 1985; Sale et al., 2002). For example, qualitative research methods assume that the phenomenon investigated is subject to individuals’ interpretation and construction of the meanings involved (Sale et al., 2002); in contrast, quantitative research methods assume an external referent by which to compare the claim of truth (Smith, 1983). As a result, triangulation is not possible as the findings from qualitative and quantitative approaches do not converge to a single reality (Sale et al., 2002). In addition to the abovementioned paradigmatic incompatibility, a number of scholars expressed their concerns over practices of combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. Typologies of mixed methods research, according to Timans et al. (2019), standardize “methodological framework for combining methods” and this standardization “amounts to enforcing an unnecessary codification of aspects of research practices that should not be formally standardized” (p. 212). Similarly, Bazeley (2016) claimed that all social research methods were inherently mixed, and the real challenge was to “ensure integration of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the methods used during the analysis and writing processes” (p. 189). However, mixed methods research practitioners, limited by insufficient guidance in extant literature and time and budget constraints, feel struggled to reflect upon how to integrate qualitative and quantitative data at such earlier stages as data collection, data mixing, and data interpretation and only demonstrate the superficial merging of the data in the section of final discussion (Bazeley, 2016; Zhou & Wu, 2020).

Compatible Paradigms as the Key to Mixing Different Research Methods

The preceding debates about the validity and feasibility of mixed methods research reveal a taken-for-granted presumption that qualitative and quantitative research represent distant universes. As such, the central dispute between proponents and opponents of mixed methods research hinges on whether qualitative and quantitative research methods are mutually exclusive since they hold irreconcilable worldviews or incompatible paradigms. Holding on to the significance of paradigms in designing mixed methods research, this review argues that the qualitative-quantitative dichotomy cannot be equated to the duality of constructivism-(post-)positivism, in large part because of the diverse ideologies and paradigms within qualitative research methods. Guba and Lincoln (1994) noted four underlying paradigms within qualitative approaches: positivism, post-positivism, critical theory, and constructivism. In other words, not all qualitative research methods adopt the constructivism paradigm. Some qualitative methods are heavily influenced by the (post-)positivistic tradition and can be particularly powerful when combined with the quantitative approach. Therefore, the argument here is that qualitative and quantitative research methods can be combined but the key to the combination lies in the compatible paradigms. Taking grounded theory as a representative example, this review will discuss why and how it is compatible with the quantitative paradigm as follows.

Diverse Paradigms within Qualitative Research: The Case of Grounded Theory

As a qualitative methodology, grounded theory provides a systematic analysis of a phenomenon to inductively discover a theory that can explain the phenomenon and fits with empirical data (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Liu, 2015, 2017). This systematic methodology was first proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) as a response to quantitative researchers’ harsh critique of qualitative studies and evolved into two major variations during the following thirty years. The Glaserian version of grounded theory holds that an objective reality exists out there; researchers must be as objective and neutral as possible and must rely on systematic analyses to explore reality, and that the theory should fit the substantive empirical data (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Liu, 2015, 2017). Furthermore, Glaser (1978) argued that grounded theory should be able to explain, predict, and interpret what was happening in a specific area of interest. Taken together, the requirements that grounded theory should both “fit” and “work” constitute the notion of relevance, which is defined as a theory’s ability to grasp the core problems and processes of the subject under systematic investigation (Age, 2011; Liu, 2015, 2017). These core problems and processes emphasized by Glaser (1978) have two properties: (1) the theory can continue over time regardless of the continual variation in places; and (2) the theory can be found in different places at different times (as cited in Age, 2011). The emphasis on an objective and absolute reality, along with the ideas that neutral observation is possible and that theory is transcendent, links the Glaserian view to positivism, specifically the beliefs in an objective (and singular) truth derived from the empirical (and entirely neutral) falsification, and the establishment of facts (Popper, 1972). The version later developed by Strauss and Corbin (1998), also emphasizes external objective reality, unbiased data rendering, and theory verification. But their argument that human beings are active agents links the Straussian version to post-positivism (Charmaz, 2014; Liu, 2015, 2017).

Grounded theory has two features: constant comparative analysis and theoretical sampling (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The former characteristic entails an iterative process of concurrent data collection and analysis, which involves the systematic choice and study of several comparison groups (Cho & Lee, 2014; Liu, 2015, 2017). To put it differently, data analysis and data collection occur simultaneously and the analyzed data guides the following data collection (Liu, 2015, 2017). During the data analysis process, an incident is compared and contrasted with other incidents, empirical data with concepts, concepts with categories, and categories with categories in order to reach higher levels of abstraction and advanced conceptualizations (Cho & Lee, 2014; Liu, 2015, 2017). Strauss and Corbin (1998) provided detailed explanations of constant comparative analysis. The first step is open coding, which identifies and names phenomena (Liu, 2015, 2017). Researchers should be as open as possible to capture as many aspects as possible. Following opening coding, axial coding is conducted, a set of procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways after open coding to make new connections among categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Liu, 2015, 2017; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). A coding paradigm is proposed that involves condition, context, action/interaction strategies, and consequences. The goal of axial coding is to discover concepts or categories through considerable reduction and clustering. The third step is selective coding, in which one category is selected as the core category and other categories are related to it (Liu, 2015, 2017). The goal of selective coding is to generate a storyline along which everything else is draped. When the core categories are developed, the theory can be integrated.

Theoretical sampling is the process of collecting data for comparative analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Liu, 2015, 2017). It involves the recruitment of participants with different experiences so as to explore multiple dimensions of the social process under study (Cho & Lee, 2014; Liu, 2015, 2017). Intertwined with constant comparative analysis, theoretical sampling is conducted in terms of the dimensions of individuals’ experiences rather than their quantity (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Liu, 2015, 2017). During the process of constant comparative analysis, researchers encounter different dimensions and conduct the subsequent data collection following these dimensions (Liu, 2015, 2017). When no new dimensions emerge, the data collection reaches saturation and the sampling can be considered complete. Constant comparative analysis can be used to validate and verify the existing categories, concepts and dimensions. By doing so, researchers can study many more dimensions of a phenomenon. Although Glaser and Strauss diverge on how to conduct grounded theory, they both argue that an objective and singular reality exists and a systematic method should be relied on in order to discover a meaningful theory. The underpinning of (post-)positivism connects grounded theory to the quantitative approach (Johnson & Walsh, 2019).

Combining Grounded Theory with Quantitative Research Methods

Not every qualitative method can be combined with quantitative methods. However, as argued, grounded theory can be combined with quantitative research methods due to the paradigmatic compatibility. The reduction, clustering, and falsification emphasized in grounded theory make it a suitable partner for statistical analysis techniques that emphasize groupings, such as exploratory factor analyses and structural equation modeling.

Mixing with exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis is used to detect underlying patterns of a larger number of variables to determine whether information can be condensed into a smaller set of factors or components (Furr, 2011; Haig, 2005). The starting point of exploratory factor analysis is a correlation matrix that displays one variable’s correlation with the rest of the variables. The correlation detected here by exploratory factor analysis is similar to the constant comparative analysis utilized by grounded theory. These two methods aim to build connections among different variables or categories based on their correlation. When the connection among different categories is detected, grounded theory moves to the axial coding to establish the clusters. The reduction is heavily utilized in both processes. Different sub-categories are reduced to a smaller set of categories. For exploratory factor analysis, different variables will be condensed into different factors or components extracted from these variables. Those variables will be loaded into different factors and the clusters come into being. From the correlation matrix to the commonalities matrix and then to the rotated component matrix, variables that are poorly correlated with other variables are removed and analysis will be re-run until the remaining variables are heavily loaded to one factor. The process of exploratory factor analysis is also featured in reduction and clustering, which elevate the extracted factors or components to a higher level. The final factors are similar to the core concepts developed in the selective coding process of grounded theory. Besides the commonalities in terms of reduction and clustering, grounded theory and exploratory factor analysis also involve falsification, which is associated with the possibility of rejecting a null hypothesis. For grounded theory, codes are continuously included and compared with emerging concepts and categories to detect whether new dimensions should be captured (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Deduction and verification are heavily utilized by constant comparative analysis, especially in the version proposed by Strauss and Corbin (1998). The theoretical saturation indicates that the theory has covered all possible dimensions. Therefore, this theory is guaranteed to generate a model that closely fits empirical data. In terms of exploratory factor analysis, the significance level will be derived, from which researchers can conclude whether or not extracted factors significantly explain the variance of the chosen variables.

Because of the similarities presented above, grounded theory can be combined with exploratory factor analysis when designing studies. For example, Hsieh et al. (2013) designed a mixed methods study, using findings from the first author’s previous grounded theory research (Hsieh, 2010; Hsieh & Hong, 2010) to generate variables for the subsequent survey. During the qualitative part, the research team grouped 39 medical service providers’ views of medical interpreters into three categories (Patient ally, Health care professionals, and Provider proxy). Constrained by the qualitative interviewing, the research team “refrained from making specific claims about the relationship between the providers’ specialties, expectations, and other variables because such claims are best explained through quantitative analysis” (Hsieh et al., 2013, p. 561). To further examine these relationships, the research team developed an 18-item survey based on previous grounded theory research findings and recruited 293 providers from five specialties to participate in the survey, the second part of the study. Using exploratory factor analysis, the research team identified three components in the survey data that echoed providers’ three views of interpreters mentioned above. They further revealed that significant differences between different specialties were only shown on the component of patient ally. Through triangulating qualitative explorations through a quantitative investigation, the research team extended their prior qualitative research findings and proposed the future research directions to advance the field of bilingual health communication.

Mixing with structural equation modeling

In addition to exploratory factor analysis, structural equation modeling is another suitable quantitative research method that can be combined with grounded theory. As a combination of factor analysis, path analysis, and multiple regression analysis, structural equation modeling is used to construct latent variables and explore their interrelations by a series of observable variables situated in a causal relationship (Acun & Yilmazer, 2019; Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Salkind, 2010; Weston & Gore, 2006). The pre-condition for researchers to use structural equation modeling is to have an existing conceptual model or theory that is strong and clearly operationalized (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Starting from the exiting conceptual model or theory, structural equation modeling defines individual variables theoretically, proposes a measurement model to summarize the interrelationships among these variables, and tests this model via confirmatory factor analysis (Weston & Gore, 2006). Similar to exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis in structural equation modeling is characterized by reduction, clustering and falsification since it aims to verify how well the observed variables can be combined to indicate a smaller number of underlying hypothesized constructs or clusters termed latent variables with the highest factor loadings. Then a structural model is put forward to specify the hypothesized structural relationships among latent variables and this step is similar to the axial coding of grounded theory mentioned above. Therefore, structural equation modeling can be used to test how parsimoniously and accurately the associations observed in empirical data fit the structural relationships among variables.

The test-theory perspective, together with the emphasis on reduction, clustering, falsification, structural relationships, and fitting between data and theory, pairs structural equation modeling with grounded theory. Engaging in the constant interplay between data analyses and theory building, practitioners of grounded theory develop different categories, delineate their associations with each other, and arrange them based on these relations to create a conceptual framework that can explain the data and explain the phenomenon under study (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Based on the conceptual framework deriving from grounded theory, structural equation modeling can then be used to detect whether large amounts of newly recruited empirical data fit the current model. Combining grounded theory and structural equation modeling, Acun and Yilmazer (2019) designed a mixed methods research to understand the sound environment’s impact on visitors’ subjective museum experience in a historical museum. Guided by the Straussian version of grounded theory, seven core categories were generated and hierarchically patterned within a conceptual framework that explained how different factors influenced 15 interviewed visitors’ perception of the indoor soundscape of the museum. During the subsequent questionnaire survey, the conceptual framework created in the spirit of grounded theory was used as the basis to carry out structural equation modeling analysis. In addition to the demographic information, the remaining questions were designed based on findings from the qualitative part to ensure their associations with the aforementioned core categories. Through structural equation modeling, the conceptual framework generated by grounded theory was tested against the observed data from 113 questionnaires. The statistic results only supported the relevance of three core categories and the hypothesized structural relationships among them. Based on the refined conceptual framework, Acun and Yilmazer (2019) concluded that visitors’ positive interpretation of the sound environment (the central phenomenon under study as well as the first core category, Interpretation) could create a livable environment with a unique atmosphere (the second core category, Context), and such an atmosphere could increase these visitors’ interaction with the museum and more importantly positively affect their museum experience (the third core category, Outcomes).

Discussion

As noted above, there were 810 articles deemed eligible at the end of the screening stage, and this number decreased sharply to 33 at the beginning of the inclusion phase. Such an extremely high rate (95.9%) of exclusion partially reflects practitioners’ common neglect of philosophical assumptions when designing, implementing and reporting mixed methods research, as the recent literature disclosed (Baškarada & Koronios, 2018; Coates, 2021). The overlooked essential role of philosophical assumptions in mixing qualitative and quantitative research methods leaves room for the aparadigmatic stance, which dissociates the methods from epistemology and regards them as problem-solving tools merely determined by research questions. To justify the research question-centric approach, pragmatism is widely embraced as an alternative paradigm, proposing that “research questions can guide decision making and replace philosophy as the foundation of a study” (Coates, 2021, p. 173). However, pragmatism’s prioritization of research questions makes it a versatile match for both mono method designs and mixed methods research (Bergman, 2008a). The insufficient interpretation of pragmatism and the inadequate critical reflection on its different forms have raised researchers’ concerns over whether this philosophy should be taken as justification for using mixed methods research (Coates, 2021; Denscombe, 2008; Hesse-Biber, 2015).

In addition to those holding the aparadigmatic stance, many proponents of mixed methods research recognize the paradigmatic incompatibility between qualitative and quantitative research methods. As illustrated previously, one group of advocates turn to pragmatism for help, which is believed to reconcile the inter-paradigm incompatibility and maximize the synergy and strength of different research methods. The other group treats mixed methods research as a methodology, which is believed to better address research questions through facilitating different paradigms’ dialogical engagement with each other. Regarding what the synthesis exactly is and how it can be precisely conducted, the theorization presented above still remains ambiguous partially because the assumed inter-paradigm commensurability can be neither convincingly justified nor concretized in empirical studies (Baškarada & Koronios, 2018). Consequently, inconsistency and even contradiction are not uncommon in mixed methods research (Baškarada & Koronios, 2018; Pierre, 2014). Given the complexity of research needs and the lack of exemplars and guidance, practitioners from different research fields express their uncertainties in designing mixed methods research and struggle with maintaining the quality of integration within stringent budgets and time constraints (Corden & Hirst, 2008; Mayoh et al., 2012; Zhou & Wu, 2020). Against this backdrop, this review shares the same viewpoint with some published literature, stressing the absolute necessity of reporting the epistemological and ontological groundings in every mixed methods research to facilitate readers’ understanding and evaluation, reduce biases and guarantee the research quality (Baškarada & Koronios, 2018; Coates, 2021; Frels et al. 2015; Sommer Harrits, 2011).

Conclusion

To conclude, this review scrutinizes arguments for and against mixed methods research revolving around the ontological, epistemological, and methodological disputes along the following three dimensions. Regarding whether research methods can be separated from their corresponding paradigms, proponents of mixed methods research advocate research methods’ independent position while opponents of the mixing insist on qualitative and quantitative approaches’ inherent ties to distinct philosophical assumptions. In terms of whether pragmatism can be a good reason for mixed methods research, proponents embrace this concept as the third paradigm to reconcile the incompatibility of paradigms, but opponents refute this practicality-oriented approach for being essentially post-positivistic, vague, and methodologically unsatisfactory. When coming to whether research methods can be combined without any concern, proponents take a dialectical stance to promote diverse combinations of qualitative and quantitative approaches, whereas opponents believe in the hindrance of incompatible philosophical worldviews to the unconstrained mixing of different research methods and regard integration as the real challenge for mixed methods research.

Based on the critical review, the author argues for the essential role of philosophical assumptions in mixing qualitative and quantitative research methods. As Coates (2021) elucidated, the essential role means that philosophical assumptions should take precedence over research practices and “be communicated when reporting research” (p. 186). Given the essentiality of philosophical underpinnings discussed here, this review advocates mixed methods research but insists on taking the paradigmatic compatibility as the prerequisite for mixing different research methods. After revisiting the long-running paradigm debate, the author opposes the taken-for-granted equation between the qualitative-quantitative dichotomy and the duality of constructivism-(post-)positivism. Then, the author calls for further attention to heterogeneity within qualitative research methods, which represent a large collection of research methods under a convenient, though inadequate, heading (Bergman, 2008b, 2018). To justify the argumentation, the author takes grounded theory as a representative example and illustrates how its grounding in (post-)positivism and emphasis on researchers’ independent stance make this methodology a suitable partner for the quantitative approach when designing mixed methods research (Johnson & Walsh, 2019).

Considering the limited space, the two empirical studies selected for grounded theory’s mixing with quantitative research methods only exemplify an exploratory sequential approach in designing mixed methods research. This design is characterized by an initial implementation of qualitative data collection and analysis and a subsequent quantitative data collection and analysis (Creswell, 2003). Also, the literature beyond the two chosen electronic databases was not scrutinized, and the gray literature that may have yielded insights into mixed methods research was not consulted. Given these limitations, three suggestions are proposed to further advance the theorization of mixed methods research and support well-reasoned empirical research practices in the future. First, future research should explore other possible types of mixing grounded theory with the quantitative approach. Next, future research should broaden the scope of the literature search to include more publications pertinent to mixed methods research. Last but not least, future research should examine more qualitative research methods for the feasibility of partnering with qualitative research methods. For example, qualitative content analysis and behaviorist ethnography are rooted in (post-)positivism (Ahmad, 2007; Crede & Borrego, 2013; Mayring, 2014; Roy & Banerjee, 2012). Hence, these two qualitative research methods may have the potential to pair with specific quantitative research methods in mixed methods research.

Footnotes

Author Note

Yang (Vivian) Liu (PhD,University of Oklahoma,2017) majoring in intercultural communication,is working as an assistant professor in School of English and International Studies,Beijing Foreign Studies University. Dr. Liu has two research lines. One attends to the qualitative research methods,with the emphasis on how the qualitative approach can be better integrated into mixed research methods. The second focuses on the exploration of sojourners’ and immigrants’ Other-identity,which emerges from intercultural communication. Dr. Liu’s studies were published in both United States and China,and she has experiences both in academia and industries.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This article is funded by Humanities and Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (Grant number: 18YJCZH108) and Beijing Municipal Office of Philosophy and Social Science Planning (Grant number: 18JDXCB002).

ORCID iD

Yang Liu

References

Acun

Yilmazer

(2019). Combining grounded theory (GT) and structural equation modelling (SEM) to analyze indoor soundscape in historical spaces. Applied Acoustics, 155(1), 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.06.017

Adams

Smart

Huff

(2017). Shades of grey: Guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic literature reviews for management and organizational studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12102

Age

L. J.

(2011). Grounded theory methodology: Positivism, hermeneutics, and pragmatism. Qualitative Report, 16(6), 1599–1615.

Ahmad

N. H.

(2007). A cross cultural study of entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial success in SMEs in Australia and Malaysia (Doctor of Philosophy). University of Adelaide.

Allmark

Machaczek

(2018). Realism and pragmatism in a mixed methods study. The Journal of Advanced Nursing, 74(6), 1301–1309. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13523

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Archibald

M. M.

Radil

A. I.

Zhang

Hanson

W. E.

(2015). Current mixed methods practices in qualitative research: A content analysis of leading journals. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(2), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691501400205

Baškarada

Koronios

(2018). A philosophical discussion of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research in social science. Qualitative Research Journal, 18(1), 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-17-00042

Bazeley

(2002). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Paper presented at the 1st international conference: Qualitative research in Marketing and Management, Vienna, Austria.

10.

Bazeley

(2016). Mixed or merged? Integration as the real challenge for mixed methods. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 11(3), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-04-2016-1373

11.

Bergman

M. M.

(2008a). Introduction: Whither mixed methods? In Bergman

M. M.

(Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications (pp. 8–16). SAGE.

12.

Bergman

M. M.

(2008b). The straw men of the qualitative-quantitative divide and their influence on mixed methods research. In Bergman

M. M.

(Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications (pp. 18–31). SAGE.

13.

Bergman

M. M.

(2018). The century of migration and the contribution of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(4), 371–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818801737

14.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

15.

Bronstein

L. R.

Kovacs

P. J.

(2013). Writing a mixed methods report in social work research. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(3), 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512471564

16.

Bryman

(1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A question of method or epistemology? The British Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/590553

17.

Bryman

(2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877

18.

Bryman

(2007). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570600595280

19.

Bryman

(2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

20.

Bryman

(2017). Quantitative and qualitative research: Further reflections on their integration. In Brannen

(Ed.), Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 57–78). Routledge.

21.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.

22.

Cho

J. Y.

Lee

E. H.

(2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1–20.

23.

Coates

(2021). The prevalence of philosophical assumptions described in mixed methods research in education. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(2), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820958210

24.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.

25.

Corbin

J. M.

Strauss

(2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE.

26.

Corden

Hirst

(2008). Implementing a mixed methods approach to explore the financial implications of death of a life partner. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808316808

27.

Crede

Borrego

(2013). From ethnography to items: A mixed methods approach to developing a survey to examine graduate engineering student retention. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812451792

28.

Creswell

J. W.

(2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE.

29.

Creswell

J. W.

Garrett

A. L.

(2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28(3), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v28n3a176

30.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

31.

Crotty

M. J.

(1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. SAGE.

32.

Denscombe

(2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808316807

33.

Denzin

N. K.

(2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364608

34.

Denzin

N. K.

(2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186

35.

Flick

(2017). Mantras and myths: The disenchantment of mixed-methods research and revisiting Triangulation as a perspective. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416655827

36.

Føllesdal

(1979). Hermeneutics and the hypothetico-deductive method. Dialectica, 33(3–4), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1979.tb00759.x

37.

Frels

R. K.

Newman

(2015). Mentoring the next generation in mixed methods research. In Hesse-Biber

Johnson

R. B.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. Oxford University Press.

38.

Furr

(2011). Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology. SAGE.

39.

Gage

N. L.

(1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath a “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10.

40.

Giddings

L. S.

Grant

B. M.

(2007). A Trojan horse for positivism? A critique of mixed methods research. Advances in Nursing Science, 30(1), 52–60. https://doi.org/00012272-200701000-00006

41.

Glaser

B. G.

(1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Sociology Press.

42.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company.

43.

Glogowska

(2011). Paradigms, pragmatism and possibilities: Mixed-methods research in speech and language therapy. International journal of language & communication disorders, 46(3), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682822.2010.507614

44.

Greene

J. C.

(2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 93–98.

45.

Greene

J. C.

(2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807309969

46.

Greene

J. C.

Caracelli

V. J.

(1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1997(74), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1068

47.

Greene

J. C.

Caracelli

V. J.

Graham

W. F.

(1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255

48.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1989). Fourth generation evaluation. SAGE.

49.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). SAGE.

50.

Haig

B. D.

(2005). Exploratory factor analysis, theory generation, and scientific method. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(3), 303–329. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_2

51.

Hasan

M. N.

(2016). Positivism: To what extent does it aid our understanding of the contemporary social world? Quality & Quantity, 50(1), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0150-4

52.

Hathcoat

J. D.

Meixner

(2017). Pragmatism, factor analysis, and the conditional incompatibility thesis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(4), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815622114

53.

Hesse-Biber

(2010). Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364611

54.

Hesse-Biber

(2015). Mixed methods research: The “thing-ness” problem. Qualitative health research, 25(6), 775–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315580558

55.

Howe

K. R.

(1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x017008010

56.

Howe

K. R.

(1992). Getting over the quantitative-qualitative debate. American Journal of Education, 100(2), 236–256. https://doi.org/10.1086/444015

57.

Hsieh

(2010). Provider-interpreter collaboration in bilingual health care: Competitions of control over interpreter-mediated interactions. Patient Education and Counseling, 78(2), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.02.017

58.

Hsieh

Hong

S. J.

(2010). Not all are desired: Providers’ views on interpreters’ emotional support for patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 81(2), 192–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.004

59.

Hsieh

Pitaloka

Johnson

A. J.

(2013). Bilingual health communication: Distinctive needs of providers from five specialties. Health Communication, 28(6), 557–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.702644

60.

Johnson

R. B.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

(2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014

61.

Johnson

R. B.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Turner

L. A.

(2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224

62.

Johnson

R. B.

Walsh

(2019). Mixed grounded theory: Merging grounded theory with mixed methods and multimethod research. In Bryant

Charmaz

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp. 517–531). SAGE.

63.

Kelle

(2006). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in research practice: Purposes and advantages. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(4), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478088706070839

64.

Kuhn

T. S.

(1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

65.

Lee

Smith

C. A. M.

(2012). Criteria for quantitative and qualitative data integration: Mixed-methods research methodology. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 30(5), 251–256.

66.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Lynham

S. A.

Guba

E. G.

(2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 108–150). SAGE.

67.

Liu

(2015). Mixed methods research: More than quantitative-qualitative debate. Paper presented at the National Communication Association.

68.

Liu

(2017). What does it mean to be Chinese? American sojourners’ experiences of being the other in China [Doctoral dissertation]. https://shareok.org/handle/11244/50777

69.

Makrakis

Kostoulas-Makrakis

(2016). Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Experiences from conducting a mixed methods evaluation in the RUCAS programme. Evaluation and Program Planning, 54, 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.008

70.

Mayoh

Bond

C. S.

Todres

(2012). An innovative mixed methods approach to studying the online health information seeking experiences of adults with chronic health conditions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811416942

71.

Mayring

(2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. http://files.qualitative-content-analysis.aau.at/200000075-82241831d6/Mayring(2014)QualitativeContentAnalysis.pdf

72.

McVilly

K. R.

Stancliffe

R. J.

Parmenter

T. R.

Burton-Smith

R. M.

(2008). Remaining open to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method designs: An unscientific compromise, or good research practice? International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 35, 151–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074-7750(07)35005-2

73.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462

74.

Morse

J., M

. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120–123. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199103000-00014

75.

Nagel

(1989). The view from nowhere. Oxford University Press.

76.

Niaz

(2008). A rationale for mixed methods (integrative) research programmes in education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(2), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00625.x

77.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Teddlie

(2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–383). SAGE.

78.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews BMJ, 10(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

79.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.

80.

Petty

N. J.

Thomson

O. P.

Stew

(2012). Ready for a paradigm shift? Part 1: Introducing the philosophy of qualitative research. Manual Therapy, 17(4), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.03.006

81.

Philip

L. J.

(1998). Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to social research in human geography. Environment and Planning A, 30, 261–276.

82.

Pierre

E. S.

(2014). A brief and personal history of post qualitative research: Toward “post inquiry” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 30(2), 2–19.

83.

Popper

K. R.

(1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford University Press.

84.

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, 627–643. https://doi.org/0.1177/0193841X8500900505

85.

Roy

Banerjee

(2012). Finding a way out of the ethnographic paradigm jungle. Qualitative Report, 17(61), 1–20.

86.

Sale

J. E. M.

Lohfeld

L. H.

Brazil

(2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43–53.

87.

Salkind

N. J.

(2010). Structural equation modeling. In Salkind

N. J.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design. SAGE. https://methods.sagepub.com/reference/encyc-of-research-design. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288

88.

Scotland

(2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9

89.

Smith

Sparkes

A. C.

(2016). Introduction: An invitation to qualitative research. In Smith

Sparkes

A. C.

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 1–8). Routledge.

90.

Smith

J. K.

(1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X012003006

91.

Sommer Harrits

. (2011). More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811402506

92.

Strauss

Corbin

J. M.

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). SAGE.

93.

Symonds

J., E.

Gorard

. (2010). Death of mixed methods? Or the rebirth of research as a craft. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790.2010.483514

94.

Tashakkori

Teddlie

(1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. SAGE.

95.

Tashakkori

Teddlie

(2003). The past and the future of mixed model research: From “methodological triangulation” to “mixed model designs”. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 671–701). SAGE.

96.

Teddlie

Tashakkori

(2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12–28.

97.

Timans

Wouters

Heilbron

(2019). Mixed methods research: What it is and what it could be. Theory and Society, 48(2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09345-5

98.

Tong

Wang

Min

Tang

(2020). A systematic literature synthesis of 19 years of bilingual education in Chinese higher education: Where does the academic discourse stand? SAGE Open, 10(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020926510

99.

van Griensven

Moore

A. P.

Hall

. (2014). Mixed methods research—The best of both worlds? Manual Therapy, 19(5), 367–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2014.05.005

100.

Weston

Gore

P. A.

(2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345

101.

Zhou

M. L.

(2020). Reported methodological challenges in empirical mixed methods articles: A review on JMMR and IJMRA. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 16(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820980212

Paradigmatic Compatibility Matters: A Critical Review of Qualitative-Quantitative Debate in Mixed Methods Research

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Arguments for and against Mixed Methods Research

Can Research Methods be Separated from Their Corresponding Paradigms?

Can Pragmatism be a Good Reason for Mixed Methods Research?

Can Two Research Methods be Combined without Any Concern?

Compatible Paradigms as the Key to Mixing Different Research Methods

Diverse Paradigms within Qualitative Research: The Case of Grounded Theory

Combining Grounded Theory with Quantitative Research Methods

Mixing with exploratory factor analysis

Mixing with structural equation modeling

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Author Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References