In this chapter, I argue for the importance of transcending dualisms and using multi-paradigm perspectives when examining phenomena and issues in mathematics education. I begin by exploring the philosophical bases-ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological-underlying three major paradigms in mathematics education research: the modernist (post-)positivist paradigm, the post-modernist interpretive paradigm, and the post-modernist transformative paradigm. Then, I present three modes of thinking that enable researchers to deal with multiple paradigms: dualistic thinking, dialogical thinking, and dialectical thinking. I adopt the dialectical mode of thinking to blend the modernist and post-modernist paradigms with respect to an ontological opposition (mind-world duality) and an epistemological opposition (objectivity-subjectivity duality) prevalent in the literature. A new paradigm begins to emerge from this blend, one which transcends these dualities to better interpret phenomena and issues in mathematics education. Keywords Paradigm Á Mathematics education research Á Pluralism Á Multi-paradigm inquiry Á Blending Á Transcending dualisms Following diSessa (1991) and Schoenfeld (2014) this chapter takes as its point of departure Karmiloff-Smith and Inhelder's (1974/75) well-known paper If you want to get ahead, get a theory. In his paper, If we want to get ahead, we should get some theories, diSessa (1991) argued for serious dedication toward theory advancement in mathematics education, as we have not yet reached deep theoretical understanding of knowledge or the learning process. In his paper, If you really want to get ahead, get a bunch of theories … and data to test them, Schoenfeld (2014) called for approaching complex issues in mathematics education from multiple theoretical perspectives and at multiple levels of granularity. In this chapter, I intend to contribute to this conversation by arguing for conducting multi-paradigm inquiry and blending paradigmatic controversies. Such an approach moves the field beyond dualisms that hinder theoretical discourse.