BRIDGING PARADIGMS: RETHINKING QUANTITATIVE, QUALITATIVE, AND MIXED METHODS IN CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH

Samia Moustaghfir

Abstract


The evolution of research methodology reflects a persistent effort to reconcile the measurable and the meaningful in the pursuit of knowledge. This paper examines the paradigms of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods through a conceptual lens, questioning the widespread belief that methodological hybridity is inherently superior. It argues that such assumptions often overlook the philosophical divergences that define each tradition and the necessity of aligning methodological choice with epistemological coherence. Through a reflective synthesis of historical and theoretical perspectives, the discussion challenges the notion that combining approaches automatically enhances validity or depth. Instead, it calls for principled methodological reflexivity, an awareness that the strength of any method lies in its fit with the research question rather than disciplinary fashion. Ultimately, the paper advocates for a more integrative, self-aware research culture that privileges epistemological alignment over methodological trends.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


quantitative methods, qualitative methods, mixed methods

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. SAGE. Retrieved from https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-foundations-of-social-research/book207972

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://spada.uns.ac.id/pluginfile.php/510378/mod_resource/content/1/creswell.pdf

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2023). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Designing_and_Conducting_Mixed_Methods_R.html?id=eTwmDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE. Retrieved from https://revistapsicologia.org/public/formato/cuali2.pdf

Dilthey, W. (1976). Selected writings (H. P. Rickman, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books?id=nSk4AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y

Denzin, N. K. (2010). The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms. Left Coast Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429449987

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). SAGE.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/The_SAGE_Handbook_of_Qualitative_Researc.html?id=X85J8ipMpZEC&redir_esc=y

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE.

Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018007004

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/The_Interpretation_Of_Cultures.html?id=BZ1BmKEHti0C&redir_esc=y

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine. Retrieved from http://www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Glaser_1967.pdf

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807314013

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). SAGE. Retrieved from https://ethnographyworkshop.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/guba-lincoln-1994-competing-paradigms-in-qualitative-research-handbook-of-qualitative-research.pdf

Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351038027

Integration in mixed-methods studies: Existing practices, considerations and recommendations for pharmacy research. (2023). International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 31(4), 431–437. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riad033

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224

Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Foundations_of_Behavioral_Research.html?id=i-gquSaSCDsC&redir_esc=y

Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-06-0082

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Naturalistic_Inquiry.html?id=2oA9aWlNeooC&redir_esc=y

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43220402_Qualitative_Research_Design_An_Interactive_Approach_JA_Maxwell

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Qualitative_Research.html?hl=id&id=JFN_BwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513733

Oakley, A. (1999). Paradigm wars: Some thoughts on a personal and public trajectory. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2(3), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579950028282

Olaghere, A. (2022). Reflexive integration of research elements in mixed-method research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221093137

Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Rowman & Littlefield. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-08253-000

Schwandt, T. A. (2015). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (4th ed.). Sage. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/The_SAGE_Dictionary_of_Qualitative_Inqui.html?id=OEgoBgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: From triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 671–701). SAGE. Retrieved from https://methods.sagepub.com/hnbk/edvol/sage-handbook-of-mixed-methods-social-behavioral-research-2e/toc#_

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2021). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Foundations_of_Mixed_Methods_Research.html?id=XvMAYYvS1rEC&redir_esc=y

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. SAGE Publications.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences (E. A. Shils & H. A. Finch, Eds. & Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1904–1917). Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Methodology_of_Social_Sciences.html?id=TYvRby1ic6AC&redir_esc=y




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejals.v8i4.662

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The research works published in this journal are free to be accessed. They can be shared (copied and redistributed in any medium or format) and\or adapted (remixed, transformed, and built upon the material for any purpose, commercially and\or not commercially) under the following terms: attribution (appropriate credit must be given indicating original authors, research work name and publication name mentioning if changes were made) and without adding additional restrictions (without restricting others from doing anything the actual license permits). Authors retain the full copyright of their published research works and cannot revoke these freedoms as long as the license terms are followed.

Copyright © 2018-2026. European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies (ISSN 2602 - 0254 / ISSN-L 2602 - 0254). All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library. All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and standards formulated by Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) and Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyrights of the published research works are retained by authors.