I disagree with Creswell's suggestion that you should have separate philosophical paradigms for each portion of your study. Instead, I would recommend pragmatism as an overall paradigm.

In particular, if you start by establishing quantitative results, then the next step is to design your qualitative study so that it contributes to and integrates with those results. This means that designing the qual study according to how it meets the needs of the overall project, rather than designing it to fit a philosophic paradigm.

Social constructivism has its grounds in Husserl's phenomenology (via Schütz's work). Hence, the assumptions have somewhat similar assumptions. In a less epistemological level, phenomenology focuses on the structure of experience whereas social constructivism is more interested in the social construction of knowledge (in the interactions in the social situations, eg. via language).

The concern about selecting philosophical stance towards epistemology based on research feels very pragmatics. I would argue that it would be better to make one's mind about the philosophy of science based on how well-grounded one sees their epistemological and ontological stances.

(As a note, this answer took some shortcuts on many philosophical issues; hopefully, not too great shortcuts.)

Your goal in an explanatory sequential study is to increase your understanding of what you learned through the original quantitative work, which is why this design is frequently diagramed as QUANT --> qual.

Given the supplementary nature of the qualitative study, you should design it to meet the needs of the overall project, rather than worrying  about more abstract philosophical issues. In other words, the standard Mixed Methods Research response would be to rely on a pragmatic stance, rather than an epistemological one.

I think both theoretical traditions are complimentary and support this work. 

I agree with explanation given by David L Morgan 

I Agree with all comments here. Plus if you pick a philosophical stance to how you run your research then it is likely to be biased and prevent you from understanding the motives underlying another persons actions. what is the topic you are studying? what is it you are interviewing people about?

Thanks to all of you for your informative answers. Prof. David L Morgan and Prof. Petri Lankoski answers are same up to some extent. According to Creswell (2011, p 74) the typical paradigm foundation for explanatory sequential design is positivist for phase 1 (quantitative) and constructivist for phase 2 (qualitative). pragmatism is an umbrella philosophy for convergent research design according to creswell et al., (2011). My study primarily based on quantitative study and i want to use qualitative study to support the results of quantitative study.  Thanks to all of you once again 

Ah ok so you are talking pure positivism which sees quantitative methods as being intrinsically robust and able to test a hypothesis and qualitative methods as inferior. In the social sciences this clear divide isn't always that clear cut...or is it?

Tricia smith quantitative and qualitative methods are not  different from one another. it is the two opposite ends of the same continuum where quantitative approaches  emphasized that external reality independent from human mind and vice versa for qualitative approaches. No one is inferior and both is equally contributing in social science research.  i think that both are clearly divided in social science like as i said reality is inside human mind and reality is outside human mind is this not enough for the division?

I disagree with Creswell's suggestion that you should have separate philosophical paradigms for each portion of your study. Instead, I would recommend pragmatism as an overall paradigm.

In particular, if you start by establishing quantitative results, then the next step is to design your qualitative study so that it contributes to and integrates with those results. This means that designing the qual study according to how it meets the needs of the overall project, rather than designing it to fit a philosophic paradigm.

The following information should be helpful to your topic: 

• Fisher, J. W. P. and Stenner, A. J. (2011) Integrating qualitative and quantitative research approaches via the phenomenological method, International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5, 1, pp. 89-103.
• Mayoh, J. and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2015) Toward a Conceptualization of Mixed Methods Phenomenological Research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9, 1, pp. 91-107.
• Olsen, W., (2004) Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed, in Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. (Eds.), Developments in Sociology, Causeway Press, Ormskirk, UK, pp. 1-30.

Hi Sajjad

I go with David Morgan. Don't overthink it. If the main body of your work is quantitative, with some qualitative research to complement it, then keep the qualitative component simple with a straightforward thematic analysis.  Sandelowski is a good reference.

Adrian 

once again thanks to all of you. For me its very clear through this discussion that i should not confuse myself with paradigm WAR.  i should go straight to pragmatism..... because in mix method the question of paradigm is secondary to methods. Thanks Adrian Esterman and Kenneth Lui-ming Ngie for sharing related articles references.

Dear  Khan

This last mail you sent indicates that your problem is more or less over! In a mixed methods research, the overarching paradigm is pragmatism - not positivism nor social constructivism. Therefore, do not start the paradigm wars as you said! I saw like you were beginning to mix up issues of paradigm (like social constructivism) and research design ( phenomenology) because phenomenological studies are done by believers of social constructivism. Am I saying something to you? But all in all, just collect your data using the methods chosen i.e. interview under the mixed methods approach. Once again, do not bring in the paradigm wars!!!

Dear Onen,

thanks for the answer. yeah i already start working on pragmatism, and i feel myself quit easy with pragmatism :)  i think no more need to think too much about paradigms or world view.   

Glad the issue has been resolved to your satisfaction. Adopting pragmatism as the overall paradigm underlying the research bypasses many issues that may distract both you and your audience from the main thrust of the research. Still, these are excellent questions for further discussion in another forum. Clarifying what counts as knowledge, how different paths to knowledge can be reconciled consistently, and articulating the epistemological context underlying our work is not something trivial. If no one does this work, we are in danger of lapsing further into an uncritical hegemony of positivism or just outright ignorance.

Hi Sajjad

I realise the discussion has now closed but I just wanted to respond to your previous comment. I realise quant and qual are on the same spectrum and are equal but not all paradigms agree with this. On your point of quant being external to the human mind I do not agree but I am not sure what you mean by free from the human mind. It would be good to discuss further as I am keen to understand your view on this.

Sajid has decided that in his study "the question of paradigm is secondary to methods."  That is fair enough. When he says that quantitative methods are external to the human mind he demonstrates a philosophically naive view of the issue that is consistent with his reluctance to explore these issues in his methodology. This sort of philosophical exploration is not for everyone.  Maybe we should post another question and explore this further?

Dear Tricia,

i want to clear my point of view through an example. " Suppose there are two person 1 is tricia and the other is sajjad.  the father of tricia  is a billionaire and the father of sajjad is a wood cutter. The garage of tricia house is full of BMW, Mercedes cars and also a personal  jet for her father business trips. if someone asked tricia about her wants her wants will be to get personal jet, buy Porsche 911 and every year a trip to new place. 

On the other hand sajjad house has nothing to park except his father old tracker. if someone asked sajjad about his needs and wants, definitely his needs will be to have a good beautiful house and a Toyota car, good education for his children".

Here i want to clarify that those personal jets,  Porsche 911 and world tour are also available for sajjad in the world out there but it is not a reality for him because  his reality is just to live life of a ordinary man with his children.

According to maslow hierarchy of need self actualization cannot be achieved before higher order needs or basic needs. So reality is out there in differnt shapes.  

Tricia reality: personal jet, buy Porsche 911, trip to new place.

Sajjad reality: good beautiful house, Toyota car, good education for his childern.

All of the above are realities but different for two persons. Why???

Because its external out there it only be beneficial if a person has a power to give value to a specific reality. 

(Note: its just an explanation of my own thoughts  and i know it is  questionable)

Eso depende de los objetivos que usted se haya trazado para hacer la investigación, depende de varios factores como la cultura, el grupo social, la creencias políticas e ideológicas entre otras, la fenomenología muestra los fenómenos tal cual se presentan sin tener que maquillar absolutamente nada, porque  la visibilidad es tqal cual se presenta, sin máscaras o maquillajes, pero desde el construccionismo social, son los factores que yo como investigador quiero indagar , mostrar o modificar, de ser así se aplicaría el segundo y no el primero, pero de ser lo contrario entonces  si aplicaría el primero.

I couldn't read this so I entered "translator" in Google and this came up:

That depends on the goals you have drawn for research, depends on several factors such as culture , social group , the political beliefs and ideological among others , phenomenology shows phenomena as presented without makeup absolutely nothing because visibility is tqal which is presented without masks or makeup, but from the social constructionism , are the factors that I as a researcher want to investigate, display or modify , if so apply the second and not the first, but if if otherwise then apply the first."

Is that an acceptable translation?

Hello - I am new to this website. I too have a similar question. I am undertaking research on place and place identity - which epistemology is better - Phenomenology or Social Constructionism - Whty?

According to Crotty, Phenomenology is not even mentioned under Epistemology...Why? Does this mean Phenomenology can be compatible with Constructionism?

Constructivism is a broad category within epistemology, which generally asserts that all knowledge is due to human beliefs, rather than to any comparison with an external reality. In contrast, phenomenology is about how one should you about collecting and analyzing data, and is thus a method.

There are a wide variety of different approaches to phenomenology, which are described by Beck in her recent book, Introduction to Phenomenology: Focus on Methodology.

Hi David - Thankyou. I was interested to find out about Constructionism and Social Constructionism - not constructivism - Am i right in assuming they are two different things.

David L Morgan