Dear Rossano Andre,

I would say this: a paradigm is an epistemological assumption and contains its own research methods

Hi Rossano,

Perhaps the attached chapter may assist. I often refer to mixed methods as the 'third paradigm' - although appreciate that there are many more paradigms than quantitative and qualitative. 

Hi, Rossano,

I find it useful to think of quantitative approaches as vesting objectivity in the instrumentation utilized, but to think of objectivity in qualitative approaches to be vested in the observer (i.e., researcher).

It is unfair, but in quantitative approaches, the paradigm, epistemology, and theory is often neglected once the reliability and validity of the instrument is said to be established. One, of course, cannot create an instrument to measure any construct without an implicit paradigm, epistemology, or theoretical perspective - no matter how much these matters might be neglected in practice.

Qualitative approaches cannot so easily avoid the charges of observer bias, and accordingly, must attend to the explicit declaration of the researcher's theoretical framework used in the research. This is why mixed methods must attend to paradigms, epistemologies, and theories, because of the qualitative component of the mixed method employed.

Paradigm is a metatheory, not a theory and is epsitemological lexic. Thomas Kuhn is tha authority about it.

3 paradigms we can find, by kuhn's definitions - aristotelic-tomis, mechanicist, complexity. In our culture, of course

Very good questions dear friends. Mr. Dean thanks for the chapter. It is very good specially Tables. Congratulations fot you and Zevia Schneider.

Method is about data, its collection and analysis. Data can be quantitative (i.e numeric) , qualitative (i.e. descriptive) or relational. (e.g. when studying networks). For mixed methods research, the issue is to be careful that appropriate method is applied to the collection and analysis of a given species of data. For example, statistical analysis is not useful for narrative data.But whatever the mixture of methods, all must be consistent with the onto-epistemological approach, which is determined by the nature of the study question. At least, that is how I view the question.

Very good appointments Allan, focused on Method. Thanks for the answer

It is always interesting to see how the argument that quantitative research is objective perpetuates itself. This is only true to the extent that certain data are produced on the basis of a specific survey design. But what about all the considerations that led to the development of the research design and all the interpretations that only make the data meaningful? These are all qualitative considerations. Quite apart from the fact that a researcher always operates within the framework of a context within which all his research only becomes meaningful in the first place. The distinction between qantitative and qualitative is, in my opinion, more misleading than helpful.