More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research

This article challenges the idea that mixed methods research (MMR) constitutes a coherent research paradigm and explores how different research paradigms exist within MMR. Tracing paradigmatic differences at the level of methods, ontology, and epistemology, two MMR strategies are discussed: nested analysis, recently presented by the American political scientist Evan S. Lieberman, and praxeological knowledge, inspired by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. These strategies address two different epistemological problems, namely, the problem of causal inference and the problem of double hermeneutics. Consequently, the research designs as well as the understandings of the “qualitative component ” differ noticeably. Realizing such differences at the ontological, epistemological, and methodological level contributes to discussions on how to move forward MMR, embracing differences instead of imposing homogeneity. Keywords epistemology, research paradigms, nested analysis, praxeological knowledge The popularity of mixed methods research (MMR) is expanding (Bryman, 2006b; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010) and now also includes research areas that so far have not participated much in discussions on MMR, for example, political science and comparative politics. One result of this development is a growing pluralism in the way researchers conduct and justify MMR, and a variety of MMR typologies have therefore been suggested (e.g., Creswell & Plano Clark, 2008