Practices for Aligning Mixed-Methods Educational Research Features With Philosophical Paradigms

• In Event: The Current State of Mixed-Methods Research: A Systematic Review and Panel Discussion

Abstract

Objectives
The aim of this paper is to discuss the results of the systematic review by Paper 1 within the context of the major theme of alignment. This paper explores the following questions: To what extent are mixed methods elements (e.g., research questions, design, figure) aligned? Do the reviewed studies present evidence of their epistemological perspectives (and if so, how)?

Perspectives
If, in the process of maintaining rigor in both the quantitative and qualitative strands, mixed methods research is conducted in teams, it is likely that the quantitative expert is grounded in a form of positivism while the qualitative expert stems from a constructivist epistemology (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Tashakkori et al., 2021). Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2006) contend that the successful blending of qualitative and quantitative paradigms can create a paradigmatic mixing form of legitimacy. While it is possible for these distinct views to coexist in a single study, the nature of mixed methods pushes scholars toward the pragmatic and transformative worldviews. The transformative worldview is often subsumed by the pragmatic, in that both are focused on addressing a particular issue regardless of the means (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Tashakkori et al., 202). In adopting pragmatism and transformative-emancipation, the researcher is free to focus on studying the problem by any means (Dawadi et al., 2021).

When the research methods contradict the ontological foundation of the researcher, Beach (2018) argues that they are forced to pick a side. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003) argue that the mixing of epistemologies is a simpler process when the data are collected and analyzed separately and then integrated, allowing each researcher to work independently. Proponents of this kind of dialectical pluralism celebrate the contradictory insights that are bound to surface when combining multiple worldviews, and in fact, practitioners of this worldview benefit from working on a just and equitable research team (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Johnson & Stefurak, 2013).

Methodology and Data Sources
This paper will use the data and results presented from paper and compare them against the literature of mixed methods research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Fetters et al., 2013; Plano Clark & Sanders, 2015) and philosophical paradigms (Alise & Teddlie, 2010; Bryman, 2006; Maxwell, 2011; Morgan, 2007).

Initial Results
In the initial results, we found a range of alignment across the elements of the studies. We noted that the researchers’ epistemological perspectives were presented more frequently in dissertations than in journal articles, possibly due to word constraints.

Scholarly Significance
Alignment within empirical studies is crucial as it strengthens the validity of the research and, thus, the credibility of the researcher (Hoadley, 2004). As these studies become increasingly more complex with the inclusion of multiple research methodologies, it is imperative that scholars focus on the alignment of the design elements (e.g., research questions, design, results; (Thurston et al., 2008).

Author

• Peggy Shannon-Baker, Georgia Southern University