Axiology and Anomaly in the Practice of Mixed Methods Work

Abstract

This article uses a Kuhnian framework to explain the adoption of the transformative paradigm in pragmatically informed mixed methods research. We argue that pragmatism represents a model of ''normal science'' among many mixed methods researchers and that Kuhn's concept of the scientific anomaly provides an instructive metaphor for understanding what we interpret to be a failure of pragmatic mixed methods researchers to adequately account for the axiological foundation for their work. The transformative paradigm thus can be read as providing pragmatic researchers with an axiological ''fix'' that sidesteps the larger question of how to establish a philosophically consistent means of specifying research value. We discuss this argument in light of pragmatist philosophy, the recent history of mixed methods research, and the future development of the field.

Pragmatism as a Supportive Paradigm for the Mixed Research Approach: Conceptualizing the Ontological, Epistemological, and Axiological Stances of Pragmatism

“…Over the past two decades, the mixed research approach has been increasingly acknowledged as the third methodological movement (Biddle & Schafft, 2015;Cameron, 2011;Hall, 2013;Ma, 2012;Molina-Azorin, 2016). Quantitative and qualitative approaches are no longer seen as two discreet opposite approaches.…”

“…The emergence of the mixed research approach has been accompanied by searching for a philosophy that legitimates mixing quantitative and qualitative methods in one research (Biddle & Schafft, 2015;Johnson et al, 2007;Hall, 2013). Researchers have used different approaches and suggested different philosophies to deal with this dilemma.…”

“…During the '80s each group of researchers claimed that their approach is superior and some of them were "purists" assuring that the quantitative and qualitative approaches cannot be combined together because of the quantitative-qualitative paradigmatic differences, what is known as the "incompatibility thesis". Starting from the '90s many researchers have refused this principle and started a new approach mixing quantitative and qualitative research methods (Biddle & Schafft, 2015;Glogowska, 2011;Johnson & Christensen, 2012;Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).…”

“…In 2013, nearly 1800 mixed methods studies were published, this is a huge jump compared to nearly 20 articles per year in the '90s. This dramatic increase has been "professionally legitimatized" by textbooks and journals that are mainly concerned with mixed research (Biddle & Schafft, 2015;Molina-Azorin, 2016) such like "Journal of Mixed Methods Research". Moreover, the mixed research approach is spreading in many research disciplines including for example business research, psychology, sociology (Molina-Azorin, 2016), international relations (Pratt, 2016), educational research (Johnson & Christensen, 2012), library and information sciences research (Ma, 2012), information system research (Goldkuhl, 2008(Goldkuhl, , 2012, and health service research (Glogowska, 2011;Sale et al, 2002).…”

“…However, Barnes (2019) believes that the mixed research approach is not sufficiently represented in the social sciences until the moment taking into account the rich and valuable insights that it provides. differing assumptions of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms (e.g., Hall, 2013;Biddle & Schafft, 2015;Sale et al, 2002). Trying to overcome this criticism, the current research is mainly concerned with presenting pragmatism as a coherent, integrated paradigm by conceptualizing its ontological, epistemological and axiological stances in a way that combines both quantitative and qualitative paradigms' points of view as two integrated, not conflicting philosophies.…”