DOI: 10.1177/1558689812437186

A third way of conceptualizing mixed methods research is proposed, one based on critical inter-pretive methodologies. Keywords paradigm, incompatibility thesis, pragmatism, crystallization My thesis is simple and direct. Those of us in the mixed methods qualitative inquiry community need a new story line, one that does not confuse pragmatism for triangulation, and triangulation for mixed methods research (MMR; Fielding, 2009). A different third way is required, one that inspires generative politics and dialogic democracy and helps shape realistic utopian dreams. This is a third path based on interpretive methodologies that show citizens how to confront the obstacles to justice that shape their daily lives (Giddens, 2000). Mixed methods can and should be used in the service of transformative social justice projects (Hesse-Biber, 2010; Mertens, 2011; Morse, 2011). Looking inward, the mixed methods discourse1 needs a narrative that does not stumble over words such as politics, pragmatism, paradigm, third moment, methodology, and triangulation. We need a way out of the present. But I hesitate even before I begin. I feel like I am on a razor’s edge, slipping and sliding. On one hand, I have criticized the MMR movement (below), viewing it with some skepticism, per-haps uncritically linking it to naive postpositivism, audit cultures, neoliberal regimes, and the abuses associated with evidence-based movement in the United States. On the other hand, I come to this discourse from the international community of qualitative inquiry. And I am impressed. There is an energy here—new handbooks, journals, annual confer-ences. This energy can be matched by only a few other interpretive communities and I am not being generous here. Contesting Mixed Methods Experimentalis