This article examines several methodological issues associated with combining qualitative and quantitative methods by comparing the increasing interest in this topic with the earlier renewal of interest in qualitative research during the 1980s. The first section argues for the value of Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts as a tool for examining changes in research fields such as social science research methodology. The next two sections consider the initial rise of the “metaphysical paradigm” that justified the renewed interest in qualitative research and the subsequent problems that have encouraged efforts to replace that paradigm. The final section of the paper advocates a “pragmatic approach” as a new guiding paradigm in social science research methods, both as a basis for supporting work that combines qualitative and quantitative methods and as a way to redirect our attention to methodological rather than metaphysical concerns.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research (6th ed.). Belmont, NJ: Wadsworth.
2.
Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research (7th ed.). Belmont, NJ: Wadsworth.
3.
Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research (10th ed.). Belmont, NJ: Wadsworth.
4.
Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1998). The golem: What you should know about science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Guttman, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
De Waal, C. (2005). On pragmatism. Belmont, NJ: Wadsworth.
10.
Giere, R. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Guba, E. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles.
12.
Guba, E. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-177). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Hacking, I. (2000). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
Hanson, W., Creswell J., Plano Clark, V., Petska, K., & Creswell, J. (2005). Mixed-methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 224-235.
19.
Happ, M., Dabbs, A., Tate, J., Hricik, A., & Erlen, J. (2006). Exemplars of mixed methods data combination and analysis. Nursing Research, 55(2), 43-49.
20.
Hess, D. (1997). Science studies: An advanced introduction. New York: New York University Press.
21.
Ivankova, N., Creswell, J., & Stick, S. (2006). Using mixed methods in sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(3), 3-20.
22.
Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Peterson, J., & Pinch, T. (1995). Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Johnson, B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2006). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
24.
Kuhn, T. (1970). Postscript—1969. In T. Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed., pp. 174-210). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Kuhn, T. (1974). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
(Original work published 1962) Kuhn, T. (2000). The road since structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
Labinger, J., & Collins, H. (Eds.). (2001). The one culture: A conversation about science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Lincoln, Y. (1990). The making of a constructivist: A remembrance of transformations past. In E. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
31.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? In D. Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in educational research (pp. 89-115). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163-189). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of paradigms. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Maxcy, S. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In A. Tashakorri & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 51-90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
Mills, C. (1969). Sociology and pragmatism: The higher learning in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
Morgan, D. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362-376.
37.
Morgan, D. (2006). Connected contributions as a motivation combining qualitative and quantitative methods. In L. Curry, R. Shield, & T. Wetle (Eds.), Applying qualitative and mixed methods in aging and public health research. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
38.
Morgan, D. (in press). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
Neal, M., Hammer, L., & Morgan, D. (2006). Using mixed methods in research related to work and family. In M. Pitt-Cassouphes, E. Kossek, & S. Sweet (Eds.), The work and family handbook: Multidisciplinary perspectives and approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
Newman, M. (1992). Prevailing paradigms in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 10(1), 10-13, 32-32.
41.
Patton, J. (1982). Practical evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
42.
Patton, M. (1975). Alternative evaluation research paradigm. Grand Forks: University of North Dakota Press.
43.
Patton, M. (1988). Paradigms and pragmatism. In D. Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in educational research (pp. 116-137). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
44.
Patton, M. (1997). Utilization focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative methods and evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
Philips D. (1990). Positivistic science: Myths and realities. In E. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 31-45). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
Platt, J. (1996). A history of sociological research methods in America, 1920-1960. New York: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Rescher, N. (2000). Realistic pragmatism: An introduction to pragmatic philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
49.
Ritzer, G. (1975). Sociology: A multiple paradigm science. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
50.
Rossman, G., & Rallis, S. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
Sale, J., Lohfeld, L., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed methods. Quality & Quantity, 36(1), 43-53.
52.
Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
Schwandt, T. (1989). Solutions to the paradigm controversy: Coping with uncertainty. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 17(4), 379-407.
54.
Shadish, W. (1995a). Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates: Thirteen common errors. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), 63-75.
55.
Shadish, W. (1995b). The quantitative-qualitative debates: “DeKuhnifying” the conceptual context. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), 47-49.
56.
Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
57.
Small, H., & Griffith, B. (1974). The structure of scientific literatures, I: Identifying and graphing specialties. Science Studies, 4(1), 17-40.
58.
Smith J., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Leadership, 15(12), 4-12.
59.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakorri & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
White, H., & McCain, K. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327-355.
61.
Zammito, J. (2004). A nice derangement of epistemes: Post-positivism in the study of science from Quine to Latour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
