for presentation

1. 1
College of Urban Development and Engineering (CUDE)
Department of Urban Planning and Development
(PhD program)
Course: Advanced Research Methodology (ARMT 8044)
Instructor: Prof. Samson Kassahun
Reading Assignment III (summary of Section I, Chapter 1-5)
Foundations of Mixed Methods Research by Charles Teddlie and
Abbas Tashakkori (2009)
By
Shambel Gisila Mariye (ID No: ECSU2300057)
Diress Hunegnaw Belete (ID.No:ECSU2300064)
November, 2023
Addis Ababa
ECSU

2. i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents..................................................................................................................................i
List of tables..........................................................................................................................................i
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................1
2. Mixed Methods as the Third Research Community.....................................................................1
3. The Fundamentals of Mixed Methods Research ..........................................................................3
4. Methodological Thought Before the 20th Century.......................................................................4
5. Methodological Thought Since the 20th Century.........................................................................5
6. Paradigm issues in Mixed Methods Research ..............................................................................6
7. Conclusion..................................................................................................................................10
References..........................................................................................................................................11
List of tables
Table 1: Expanded paradigm contrast table comparing five points of view........................................7

3. 1
1. Introduction
Mixed methods research, also known as the third itinerary or research paradigm, has emerged as a
valuable alternative to qualitative and quantitative research in the social and behavioral sciences.
This book aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of mixed method research, presenting
the three research communities in the field, highlighting how different research philosophies
approach the same research question, and addressing issues of disagreement within these groups.
The book introduces several terminologies, including paradigms, which describe a worldview and
its underlying assumptions.
Three types of researchers exist in the social and behavioral sciences: mixed methodologists
(MMs), quantitatively oriented researchers (QUANs), and qualitatively oriented researchers
(QUALs). MMs operate within the pragmatist paradigm, QUANs operate within the post
positivist/positivist paradigm, and QUALs work within the constructivist paradigm, focusing on
narrative data and analyses.
2. Mixed Methods as the Third Research Community
As an alternative to the qualitative (QUAL) and quantitative (QUAN) traditions in the social and
behavioral sciences during the previous 20 years, mixed methods (MM) research is introduced in
Chapter 1. The chapter describes three different research groups: mixed methodologists working in
positivist, constructivist, and pragmatic paradigms; these communities are known as QUANs,
QUALs, and mixed methodologists, respectively. These groups have distinct research
methodologies, cultures, and methodological preferences.
The origins, vantage points, and fields of research of the three methodological approaches in the
social and behavioral sciences define them. These groups are ubiquitous in science and are subject
to sudden change, which emphasizes how important it is to recognize and value cultural variety.
The Tradition of Quantitative: Quantitative (QUAN) methods dominated the social and behavioral
sciences during the 20th century. Researchers and theorists with a quantitative focus have written
widely read books that criticized positivism and offered substitute QUAL techniques.
The Mixed Methods Tradition: In contrast to the QUAN and QUAL traditions, mixed methods
(MM) research has been around for the last 20 years. MM is characterized as a research design that
incorporates both quantitative and qualitative methods into research questions, methods of
collecting data, and procedures for data analysis. It's frequently linked to pragmatism, a

4. 2
deconstructive paradigm that emphasizes "what works" as the truth in relation to the research
questions being studied while rejecting ideas like "truth" and "reality". To address questions,
researchers employ narrative and numerical data, statistical and thematic methods, as well as
original approaches like data transformation or conversion.
Three research communities approach the same research problem, as shown by the Trend (1979)
study. Two distinct components were initially used: a QUAN and a QUAL. However, once the
evaluators combined the data from both, the components became jumbled. Eight sites in the United
States, each serving up to 900 families, were included in the study. The QUAL and QUAN
components were carried out independently, and Trend used both sources for their MM meta-
analysis.
The Quantitative Approach: The impact of direct-cash housing allowance payments in assisting
low-income families in obtaining better homes on the open market was assessed by the study.
Teams from Abt Associates examined data on costs, demographics, and housing quality. Site B did
well, enrolling 900 households and enhancing the quality of homes (Vakkari, 2008). The
Qualitative Approach: The program's implementation at Site B was found to have major issues,
such as delays in opening local offices, poor response to prospective families, and disputes between
administrators and workers.
The Qualitative Approach: The study uses QUAL, a process-based evaluation, to evaluate a
program's implementation at Site B. It found major issues, including delays in opening local offices,
poor response to prospective families, and disputes between administrators and workers. The study
also highlighted traditional features of QUAL research, such as emerging questions, unstructured
and semi-structured observations, interviews, logs, and documents. The qualitative data indicates
that the program does not work as planned, highlighting the need for further investigation.
The Mixed Methods Approach: The three methodological communities have gone through
philosophical conflict and peaceful coexistence over the past forty years. The authors introduce
mixed methods research communities to consider different cultural traditions, backgrounds, and
perspectives on research. They contend that these communities can coexist peacefully in spite of
these differences.
The chapter introduces three research communities: Quantitative (QUAN), Qualitative (QUAL),
and Mixed Method (MM) to accommodate diverse cultural traditions, backgrounds, and

5. 3
perspectives. The authors argue that these communities can coexist peacefully, using an assessment
study and the MM approach to resolve differences between QUAN and QUAL results.
3. The Fundamentals of Mixed Methods Research
Chapter 2 delves into the fundamentals of Mixed Methods (MM) research, addressing key concepts
and providing a detailed exploration of methodologies, methods, and paradigms. The chapter is
organized into five sections as mentioned below:
1. Differences among Methodologies, Methods, and Paradigms
A paradigm is a worldview that influences researchers' questions and method selection. Research
methodology, as defined by Jennifer Greene (2006), includes philosophical assumptions, inquiry
logics, practice guidelines, and sociopolitical commitments. It specifies how questions should be
asked, including design preferences, sampling logic, data collection, analytical strategies, inference
making, and quality assessment. Whereas, Research methods are specific strategies and procedures
determined by the researchers' methodological orientation.
2. More Details Regarding the Methodological Communities
Quantitative (QUAN) research is confirmatory and theory-driven, utilizing deductive logic to test
hypotheses through well-defined research designs. Qualitative (QUAL) research focuses on
exploratory methods, utilizing inductive reasoning to uncover unknown aspects of phenomena. The
Mixed Methods (MM) tradition combines techniques from both QUAL and QUAN traditions,
addressing both confirmatory and exploratory questions using both deductive and inductive logic.
3. The QUAL-MM-QUAN Continuum
Methodological communities are represented as three overlapping circles on a continuum. The left
circle represents the "purist" QUAL tradition, emphasizing exploratory research questions and
narrative data. The right circle represents the "purist" QUAN tradition, emphasizing confirmatory
research questions and numeric data. The middle circle represents the MM tradition, a combination
of the two traditions.
4. Issues Related to Mixed Methods Terms and Definitions
The need for a distinct MM language is emphasized due to differences in definitions between
QUAN and QUAL traditions. Mixed methodologists advocate for a common nomenclature to avoid
confusion, emphasizing consistent use of the term "mixed methods" and associated research
designs. The choice between "bilingual" or common terminology for MM research is discussed,
urging methodological bilingualism.

6. 4
5. The Utility of Mixed Methods Research
MM research is valuable for addressing both confirmatory and exploratory questions
simultaneously, using qualitative and quantitative approaches. It provides stronger inferences
through triangulation and complementarity. MM research offers a greater assortment of divergent
views, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding.
In summary, Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive overview of the fundamentals of mixed methods
research, including the distinctions between methodologies, methods, and paradigms, details about
methodological communities, and discussions on issues related to mixed methods terms and
definitions, as well as the utility of mixed methods research.
4. Methodological Thought Before the 20th Century
The Three Methodological Communities and the Inductive-Deductive Research Cycle
Chapter 3 delves into the evolution of methodological thought before the 20th century, focusing on
the three methodological communities: Quantitative researchers, like Numerico and
Experimentalista, use deductive reasoning to infer observable consequences, while Qualitative
researchers, like Professor Holistico, and use inductive research logic. LeCompte and Preissle
differentiate between QUALs and QUANs, with QUAL researchers focusing on idealism,
empiricism, rationalism, induction, relativism, ideographic methods, and humanism. Mixed Method
researchers use both inductive and deductive logic.
Why Study the History and Philosophy of the Social and Behavioral Sciences?
The history and philosophy of human sciences are crucial for understanding the emergence of
Methodological Methodology (MM) in the past two decades. The philosophy of social and
behavioral sciences is the foundation of knowledge quest. Historical analysis covers four stages:
Antiquity, Middle Ages, Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, and 19th century, emphasizing
the growth of scientific ideas in Western civilization.
Stage 1: Antiquity, explores the contributions of early Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato,
and Aristotle. The Socratic Method, deductive reasoning, and the emphasis on ideal forms are
discussed, with Aristotle standing out as a proto-mixed methodologist advocating for a balanced
approach.

7. 5
Stage 2: The Middle Ages, discusses the decline in scientific knowledge due to Church orthodoxy,
reliance on ancient philosophers, and the dominance of scholasticism.
Stage 3: The Scientific Revolution and Its Aftermath explores the 16th-18th centuries paradigm
shift, featuring figures like Bacon, Galileo, and Newton, British empiricists and continental
rationalists, and the Enlightenment project's impact on human sciences.
Stage 4: the establishment of social and behavioral sciences in the 19th and early 20th centuries,
their discipline outlines, and the rise of positivism and idealism. It highlights the schism between
QUANs and QUALs, the hypothetico-deductive model, psychology experimentation, and statistical
and anthropological methods evolution.
The chapter concludes by emphasizing the importance of studying the history and philosophy of the
social and behavioral sciences for understanding the emergence of mixed methods in the past two
decades. Researchers are encouraged to grasp the conceptual and philosophical roots of knowledge
quest, facilitating a better understanding of methodological viewpoints.
5. Methodological Thought Since the 20th Century
History and Philosophy of the Human Sciences in the 20th Century and Beyond
This chapter presents the evolution of research methods in the human sciences. It covers four
stages: the Traditional Period (1900 to World War II), the Post-positivist Era (End of World War II
to 1970), Diversification of and Advances in Methodologies (1970 to 1990), and the
Institutionalization of Mixed Methods (1990 to the Present).
Stage 5: During the Traditional Period (1900-1942), science shifted towards justifying and testing
hypotheses, with qualitative research dominating. Logic positivism emerged with the Vienna Circle,
rejecting metaphysics and Freud's ideas. Behaviorism in psychology emphasized measurable
aspects. Advances in quantitative methodology, like the H-DM model, boosted optimism about
quantitative research potential. However, logical positivism faced challenges in human sciences,
necessitating multiple measures in mixed methods research.
Stage 6: The Post-positivist Era (1962-1970) saw the rise of the Hypothetico-Deductive Model (H-
DM), a scientific method framework that combined deductive and inductive logic. H-DM focused
on hypothesis testing and data-driven tests, emphasizing falsifiability. Despite criticisms, H-DM

8. 6
influenced quantitative researchers and was eventually replaced by the causal model of explanation.
Post-positivism emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, dominating quantitative research and emphasizing
theory-laden facts. Grounded theory emerged in the 1960s, challenging quantitative studies. Multi-
method designs emerged in the 1990s.
Stage 7: Methodologies in the human sciences had substantial advancements and diversity between
1970 and 1990. Whereas qualitative researchers took an inductive method, quantitative researchers
used a deductive strategy. Both ends were taken into account by multimethod researchers, some of
whom even argued for contradictions. The causal model of explanation took the role of the
Hypothetico-Deductive Model, enhancing our comprehension of causation. In the argument over
paradigms, constructivism asserted that cognitive structures mediate knowledge. Both parties'
points of view were synthesized by dialectical pragmatism. With more than 15 categories,
qualitative approaches witnessed an increase in sophistication and acceptance in the second half of
the 20th century. By the late 1970s, the paradigms discussion had moved from quantitative
measurement to qualitative/naturalistic methods.
Stage 8: Since 1990, there has been a substantial evolution in Mixed Methods (MM) research with
an emphasis on conversations between the qualitative and quantitative groups. Criticizing the post-
positivist methodology of empirically grounded research, it adopts transformational viewpoints and
critical theory. Since the late 1980s, MM has been more popular in the UK and throughout
continental Europe. It has applications in many human sciences fields. According to proponents of
mixed methods, research is by its very nature mixed, incorporating an inductive-deductive cycle.
Reputation, important publications, and discussions amongst research communities are
characteristics of MM institutionalization.
6. Paradigm Issues in Mixed Methods Research
Chapter 5 of the section discuss about paradigm issues in mixed methods research, focusing on the
evolution of paradigm contrast tables and the ongoing dialogues among qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed methods researchers. The original paradigm contrast table, formulated by Lincoln and
Guba in 1985, presented two paradigms: constructivism and positivism, contrasting them on five
dimensions epistemology, axiology, ontology, causal linkages, and generalizability. Over the years,
these tables evolved, incorporating more paradigms and dimensions as presented in table 1.

9. 7
Table 1: Expanded paradigm contrast table comparing five points of view
Dimension of contrast Constructivism Transformative Pragmatism Postpositivism Positivism
Method Qualitative Both QUAL and QUAN
Community of participants
involved in methods
decisions
Both QUAL and QUAN
Researchers answer
questions using best
methods
Primarily QUAN QUAN
Logic Inductive Both inductive and
hypothetico-deductive
Both inductive and
hypothetico-deductive
Hypothetico-
deductive
Hypothetico-deductive
(originally inductive)
Epistimology:
researcher/participant
relationship
Subjective point of view,
reality constructed with
participants
Both objectivity and
interaction with participants
valued by researchers
Both objectivity and
subjective point of view
Depending on stage of
research cycle
Modified dualism Objective point of
view
(dualism)
Axiology:(role of
values)
Value-bound inquiry All aspect of research guided
by social justice
Values important in
Interpreting results
Value in inquiry,
But their influence
may be controlled
Value free inquiry
Ontology: the nature of
reality
Ontological relativism-
multiple, constructed
realities
Diverse viewpoints
regarding social realities
explanation
that promote justice
Diverse viewpoints
regarding social realities
best explanation with in
Personal value system
Critical realism
(external reality
that is understood
imperfectly)
Naive realism(an
objective, external
reality that can be
comprehended
Possibility of casual
linkages
Impossible to distinguish
causes from effects,
credibility of
descriptions important
Causal relations that should
be understood within the
framework of social justice
Causal relations, but
they
are transitory and hard to
identify both internal
validity and credibility
important
Cause identifiable
in probabilistic
sense that change
over time, internal
Validity important
Real cause temporally
precedent to or
simultaneous with
effects
Possibility of
generalization
Only ideographic
statements possible,
Transferability issues
important
Ideographic statements
emphasized, results linked to
issues of social inequality
and justice
Ideographic statements
emphasized, both
external validity and
transferability issues
Modified
nomothetic
position, external
validity important
Nomothetic statements
possible

10. 8
Two paradigms associated with mixed research are pragmatism and the transformational
viewpoint, which seek to strike a balance between constructivism/post-positivism and
philosophical dogmas. Pragmatism rejects either-or decisions in favor of finding a medium ground.
Transformative academics use all means necessary to achieve social justice with the goal of
building a more equitable society. Both paradigms incorporate elements of constructivism,
positivism/post-positivism, and logic into their approaches to research methodology and
epistemology.
Taking situational relevance into account, pragmatics supports the application of both qualitative
and quantitative methodologies. Transformational scholars concentrate on building a more
equitable society for marginalized groups, whereas post-positivists frequently favor quantitative
approaches. They support an approach to research methods that is adaptable and integrative rather
than rigidly adhering to a single methodological viewpoint.
According to pragmatics, research follows an inductive-deductive cycle that begins with theories,
conceptual frameworks, facts, or observations. They create a framework, frequently through the
application of inductive reasoning, based on literature, mini-theories, and intuition. To answer
questions, researchers can employ both deductive and inductive reasoning. They can also employ
abductive reasoning to come up with theories about unforeseen occurrences. Five points of view
epistemological relativism, axiological considerations, ontological considerations, differences
regarding causal relations, and the possibility of generalizations are compared in an expanded
paradigm contrast table mentioned in table 1.
Epistemological relativism examines the perspectives of scholars on the relationship between
researchers and participants in research. Positivists and post-positivists view the relationship as
objective, constructivists as subjective, and pragmatists advocate for a continuum. Transformative
scholars aim for a balanced view, avoiding bias and emphasizing subjective experiences.
Axiological considerations vary, with positivists believing in value-free inquiry, constructivists
focusing on value-influenced inquiry, and pragmatists prioritizing anticipated consequences.
Ontological considerations involve different types of realism.

11. 9
Six modern viewpoints on the application of paradigms in mixed methods research are discussed
in this chapter. The Incompatibility Thesis contends that irreconcilable paradigm differences make
MM research impossible, while the A-Paradigmatic Stance supports independence between
paradigms and methods allowing flexibility in MM research. The Complementary Strengths Thesis
promotes independent QUAL and QUAN components while endorsing MM research. The
Dialectic Stance promotes engaging with multiple paradigms, whereas the Single Paradigm
Foundation advocates for a single paradigm, such as pragmatism. According to the Multiple
Paradigms Foundation, MM research can be grounded in a variety of paradigms. Opponents make
the case for different axiological positions.
Discussions with the communities of mixed methods, qualitative and quantitative research
methods are part of the paradigms debate, which is mainly led by qualitative researchers. The Neo-
Paradigms Debate is centered on methodological compatibility, avoiding philosophical dogmas.
Nonetheless, issues with methodological tolerance and dominance cycles still exist. During the
Bush-Cheney administration, the post-positivist QUAN orientation in educational research gained
prominence, which led to criticism of QUAL methods as "scientism." While some on both sides of
the QUAL-QUAN divide continue to promote certain aspects of the paradigms debate, the mixed
methods community seeks to find a balance between the differences.
The dialogue between qualitative and mixed methods researchers discusses the criticisms of mixed
methods research from within the qualitative method (QUAL) tradition. Some scholars question
the viability of MM research, viewing it as an attempt to fit QUAL methods. MM researchers
argue that MM has roots in both traditions and challenge the notion of a "natural home" for QUAL
methods.
In summary, Chapter 5 provides a comprehensive exploration of paradigm issues in mixed
methods research, detailing the evolution of paradigm contrast tables, discussing paradigm
comparisons, and examining contemporary perspectives and ongoing dialogues among qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods researchers.

12. 10
7. Conclusion
Mixed methodologists (MMs), quantitatively oriented researchers (QUANs), and qualitatively
oriented researchers (QUALs) are the three categories of researchers in the social and behavioral
sciences. While QUALs concentrate on narrative data, MMs work in the pragmatist paradigm,
QUANs in the post positivist/positivist paradigm.
In Chapter 1, three research communities are introduced to accommodate different cultural
traditions and perspectives: Mixed Method (MM), Qualitative (QUAL), and Quantitative (QUAN).
The authors make the case for amicable cohabitation by utilizing MM techniques and assessment
studies to settle disputes. While Chapter 2 offers a thorough understanding of mixed methods
research, highlighting the distinctions between methodologies, methods, and paradigms, the details
of methodological communities, and discussions on terms and definitions, as well as the utility of
mixed methods research.
Chapter 3 emphasizes the significance of studying the history and philosophy of social and
behavioral sciences for comprehending the emergence of mixed methods in the past two decades,
encouraging researchers to understand the conceptual and philosophical roots of knowledge quest.
Chapter 4 details the evolution of research methods in human sciences through four stages:
Traditional Period (1900-1942), Post-positivist Era (1942-1970), Diversification and Advances in
Methodologies (1970-1990), and Institutionalization of Mixed Methods (1990-present).
Finally, chapter 5 intricacies of paradigm problems in mixed methods research is explored. The
development of paradigm contrast tables, comparisons, and current viewpoints among mixed
methods, qualitative, and quantitative researchers are examined in detail.

13. 11
References
Greene, J. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the
Schools, 13(1), 93-98.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences.
Sage.
Vakkari, P. (2008). Trends and approaches in information behavior research. Information
Research, 13(4), 13-4.