The current status-quo of paradigm wars
- In learning of mixed methods research, the issue of paradigm wars is usually brought up in how it affects us, scholars, and the academia as a whole. I occasionally came across the over-endorsement of one method (oftentimes quantitative) to another in my conversation with colleagues like, “Psychology is the field that is largely explained by quantitative research”, “We do not buy the notion that p-value can conclude anything beyond numbers”; these statements are the byproduct of paradigm wars, a methodological preference that divided academic community to these days (Williams, 2020). Implicit as it may be, the remnant of this conflict is still there.
Then, what should we do about it?
At methodological level, Mixed Methods Research (MMR) seems to be a realistic answer to this problem by synergizing both qualitative and quantitative data into a greater whole than the sum of the two (Fetters & Freshwater, 2015). One philosophical mechanism behind MMR is Dialectical Pluralism (DP), a process philosophy that serves as a middle ground for both qualitative and quantitative paradigms for equal acknowledgement while offers equal voice to paradigm with lesser recognition.
An interesting suggestion from Shannon-Baker (2016) is that qualitative or quantitative view should be used as our regard to data rather than the whole research; for that, we should consider our research framework as a fluid “stance” to research instead of an archaic notion of static concept.
What about the how?
As I realize the existence of multiple realities in social science, the next step could be to move beyond our current paradigm as Johnson (2017) suggests, “the next theoretical step in the paradigms dialog is to articulate a metaparadigm” (p.159). Researchers are encouraged to apply the dialectic worldview in their practice, both interpersonally and intrapersonally.
Interpersonally, researchers could seek a collaborative space with heterogeneous team members, and conclusions should be made based on the evidence of shared values. Ultimately, practical truths should be emphasized instead of absolute truths.
Intrapersonally, researchers could have internal dialogues that reconcile differences of their perspective through personal reflection. The more ideas a researcher has in their toolbox, the more versatile they can be, as Fitzgerald (1936) said, “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function”.
Final remarks and food for thought
- To me, learning about DP is quite impactful as it offers a middle ground for seemingly conflicting ideas to collaborate equally to further the body of knowledge than wresting internally over the some-old quarrel. That, my friend, could be a promising way for us to grow up as a versatile individuals (and researchers). Have a good one!