Dear Arid, 

Thank you for this thought provoking question. Realism accepts the existence of independent structures that influence the actions of actors in a particular setting while acknowledging the role of the subjective knowledge of these actors. Realism, therefore, leverages elements of both positivist and interpretivist paradigms to formulate a

relatively new approach to knowledge development. The implication of this is that research conducted with the realist paradigm should provide greater detailed casual explanations on phenomena or events in terms of the actors’ interpretations, structures, and mechanisms that interact to produce the outcome of interest. Because of the qualities of realism to merge the assumptions of the positivist and interpretivist positions, it has been suggested that critical realism subsumes positivism and intepretivism, resolving the quantitative–qualitative dilemma. 

Idealists or purists, nevertheless, do not agree with this position suggesting that ones remains objective (positivist - reality is out there and couple be studied objectively) or inteprevist, where realist is seen through the eyes of the person experiencing it.

I like the way that Ferdinand has interpreted your questions.

I would add: it is important to understand the basic concepts and vocabulary of the philosophy of science as this permits clarity of perception and conception and aids both academic discussion and scientific progress. So, the concept of 'paradigm' is a very complex one and even in the major thinker on scientific paradigms - TS Kuhn, one can find many different usages of 'paradigm'. Nevertheless, I would advise a close study of Kuhn's work as the basis for any possible further discussion around the  meaning and usage of scientific paradigms.

Arif, you have raised a valid point. I would like to make the following propositions:

1. Once the researchers decide about their “knowledge claims”, they need to stick to the methodological requirements of it otherwise, there will be coherence issues.

2. Mixed Methods, it is suggested, have their own paradigmatic frame and as such it doesn’t negate the purpose of paradigms.

3. The real problem that I see with an issue like this is that opposing intellectual stances are usually sorted in a compromise between them in a rather political manner. For example, the disagreement between the first three ‘leadership theory paradigms’ was “sorted” through the “integrative leadership theory paradigm” which mixes all the previous leadership theory paradigms; concept analysis studies merely aggregate previous definitions of the term being analysed. Mixed paradigms are more like academic compromises rather than a new paradigm.

Thank you all for valuable responses. Research objectives which require to mix methods from multiple paradigms should be explicity defined and justified on the nature of social reality.  Mr. Sajid I think your last sentence very meaningfully condense the discussion. Pragmatism should not be, at least on equal level with other paradigms be considered as paradigm or the problem of coherence will always be there in mix method research studies.

I think there is a major problem with statements such as: "Research objectives which require to mix methods from multiple paradigms should be explicity defined and justified on the nature of social reality." This is the assumption that paradigms from the philosophy of knowledge are directly connected to methods in the social sciences. 

Although the mistaken assumption that methods are attached to paradigms is quite common, even a quick reading of such leading paradigm proponents as Lincoln & Guba will show they are explicit that their discussion is not about methods. So the initial issue of, "do mixing methods across paradigms (pragmatism) not negate the basic purpose of the paradigms" is not an issue because this is not what the paradigm wars were ever about.

Also, the statement about pragmatism as consisting of mixing methods tends to get things backward. Pragmatism is not a reason for mixing methods. Instead, it is an entirely separate paradigm within the philosophy of knowledge, and it is especially notable because it rejects the distinction between realism and interpretivism (constructivism) as a false dichotomy. Researchers within the field of mixed methods have thus found pragmatism to be a useful escape from the unanswerable debate between realism and interpretivism -- which is exactly what pragmatist philosophers such as William James and John Dewey intended.

Prof. David Thank you so much for your thought provoking answer, as usual. I have been indeed learning alot from your asnwers. I agree that paradigms do not dictate particular methods but don't you think that ultimately, methods should somehow be in-line with basic assumptions of particular paradigm? (Creswell, 2003) also seems to be of the view that the pragmatism implies approaching research with mixing data collection methods and data analysis procedures within the research process. As an example, just consider the Realists belief that reality exist independent of our mind, is concrete, singular and therefore can be objectively measured and law like generalizations can be drawn about it (Positivism) do not require deductive methods? In the similar vein, Why experimental approach is the most dominant approach among realists? While I agree that either of the extreme points are dangrous, at least authors should be somehow burdened to justify their methodological stance (based on their philosophical view of the social world) instead of using the cover of pragmatism for the lazy work. Seen other way around, are these not the methods that also inform paradigmatic beliefs?

When I look back at huge literature base on paradigms, it makes me think how much energy and time they wasted if we were to consider it as false dichotomy?

Lots of time and energy has indeed been been spent on the dichotomy between realism and interpretivism, both in philosophy and more recently in the social sciences. From a pragmatist point of view, this has been a waste because there is no way to resolve the dispute. Indeed, Dewey characterized much of the traditional philosophy of knowledge as the "epistemology industry" -- which mostly served to provide epistemologists with guaranteed employment, since their concerns could never be resolved.

I have argued that the introduction of paradigms by Guba et al. was primarily a strategy for legitimizing qualitative research, but the fact that it refused to address issues related to data collection and analysis (i.e., methods) meant that it was at best a Trojan horse. That it is, it carried a lot of hidden baggage that it claimed was not there at all.

And no, pragmatism is not just for the lazy. It is a legitimate philosophical alternative to the older version of the philosophy of knowledge. The idea that debates in the philosophy of knowledge have to be about realism versus constructivism is itself little more than human construction, and pragmatism offers a well-developed alternative. So, it will not do to dismiss the relevance of pragmatism without trying to understand its radical implications.

Here are two articles that I have written on the subject.

Article Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Impli...

Dear Arif,

I completely agree with the comments of Prof. Morgan. There are so many debates in social sciences that are (or have been) a waste of time and energy, that I don't think this is a good argument to say that the quesiont of the paradigmatic roots of methods should be taken into account.

In my view you have to align your choice of research methods with your research question. You use methods to have a response to your quetion, no to build a more realistic or constructivist view of the world. I would recommend you to think about the theoretical foundations of your research (whether they are phenomenological, interactionist, ethnographic, etc.) and then choosing the methods these theoretical stances connect with better (and not bothering about paradigms when choosing your methods). 

Also Professor David Silverman has expained perfectly how research methods should be in-line with the research question which is far different of saying that they should be in-line with paradigms. You might be interested on reading also his work.

I hope this helps

Best wishes

Arif, we "brought" the qualitative and quantitative dichotomy on a continuum, with mixed-methods in the center; why can't we bring the contrasting paradigms on a continuum? They call this center 'pluralism' (ontology) and 'dialectical pragmatism' (epistemology). (Just another thought!)

Said Iqbal's comments run into the problem of paradigm "incommensurability" as originally described by Kuhn. In this case, I would say that the assumptions of realism and constructivism are indeed incommensurable, and there is no "middle ground."

And I would say the same about pragmatism versus the traditional version of the philosophy of science, based on ontology and epistemology. That is, these are incompatible belief systems, so one needs to make a choice between them.

I think you cannot say, at the same time and under the same circumstances, that reality is (somehow) constructed AND that it has inherent qualities. It is a contradictions in terms. Realism and relativism are indeed incommesurable. Unless you live in Freud's id, of course.

What is not incommesurable are qualitative and quantitative methods, mainly because, contrary what to is commonly argued, they are not necessarily tied to epistemological standpoints. So, yes, you can be a relativist AND a researcher using quantitative methods. No contradiction there. All you have to do, for example, is accept that multiple-choice questionnaires construct (not reflect or describe) what they are supposed to measure, hence, they do not objectively depict a prelinguistic state of affairs.

Not a lot of folks in that tribe, I give you that. The only reason being misconceptions about and overreaching of the differences between q&q methods and a tendency to overstate the us/them identity politics so you can justify (legitimize) what you do, tell your tribe from the other one and make a living out of it.

Regards,

Javier

Hola,

Methods --such as qualitative and quantitative discourse analysis-- can and ARE (routinely) mixed. Epistemological standpoints can not: you cannot say, at the same time and under the same circumstances, that you believe that there is a world "out there", per se, with objective/intrinsic qualities (the Kantian "noumeno", which is... as it is, independently of what is said of it) and that the world we know is somehow shaped by our values, language, culture and so on.

Put simply, you cannot be a constructivist/relativist/constructionist/postmodernist/[place any other label for those who do not believe in the possibility of objectivity here] AND be a realist/positivist/[place any other label for those who believe in the possibility of objectivity here]. It is a contradiction in terms: you either believe we construct the world... or you don't. There is no middle ground (Bashkar would disagree, but, well...).

This means you can use qualitative AND/OR quantitative methods and believe in any of those two options while you do. No obstacle there (other than people believing there is some NECESSARY relationship between an epistemological standpoint and a methodological option, which is a very popular notion, completely wrong in my view). To make it clear, you can use a multiple choice questionnaire AND believe that whatever you are measuring is constructed by the instrument (among other elements of the research practice such as proposed theoretical view) and does not exist before or outside of it. Not a lot of people in that club, I'll give you that, but that club CAN exist.

Your question, I guess, comes from confusing epistemological standpoints that are incompatible (other than in Freud's unconscious) with methological choices that are perfectly compatible. You have to choose an epistemological side (unless you want to fall into contradictions), but you do not need to pay allegiance to any methodological option.

Un saludo,

Javier

PS: Take capitals as italics. I am not yelling :).

Positivism and Interpretivism are the two basic approaches to research methods in Sociology. Positivist prefer scientific quantitative methods, while Interpretivists prefer humanistic qualitative methods.pragmatism combination of Positivism and Interpretivism which use in mixed method study

"How can a social reality be together seen from realist and idealist views?" quite easy, really, as both are individual perepctives on life; i do not believe ones view, either realist or idealist (or this question) has anything to do with research qulaitative or quantitative.

i was in phd program almost 30 years ago, where we studied this debate from its inception and its development from mid/late 1800 to the (then) present. we did so to understand them both, epistemologically; and learn how they are both valuable and be accepted after years of non-acceptance and denigration of social science and qualitative methods. (Philosophy of science course- best one i ever had) Even so, there was a very positivist (elderly) professor who would say, "if you can't measure it, it doens't exist."

So i can't help but feel bad for students whose, "...doctoral theses are declared incoherent" becasue of qualitative or mixed methods use. i truly believed we'd come a long way in this area. I think in most countries we have done so.