The Paradigm Wars: Is MMR Really a Solution?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18034/ajtp.v7i3.507Keywords:
MMR, Paradigm wars, Educational researchAbstract
Educational research has several competing views of the social sciences, and these are often referred to as paradigms. Hammersley (2013, p. 13) portrays paradigms as ‘not simply methodologies; they are ways of looking at the world, different assumptions about what the world is like and how we can understand or know about it’. The paradigm wars’ boils down to a simple conflict between academics and scholars of qualitative and quantitative research which concerns the relative merits of the different perspectives. In the 1980s, the objectivity-seeking quantitative researcher diminished, whilst, post positivists, interpretivists, and critical theorists flourished throughout this same period. Mixed methods research (MMR) combines elements of both qualitative and quantitative approaches and has often been branded as a ‘transformative paradigm’. The importance of MMR means that the author can combine knowledge sets and move away from one’s allegiance to a particular research perspective. This review of literature will examine the paradigms that are commonly associated with education research. There is an active debate in the research community on the paradigms wars, and this will also be examined in relation to MMR.
Downloads
References
Allen, D. (2018). Translational mobilisation theory: a new paradigm for understanding the organisational elements of nursing work. International journal of nursing studies, 79, 36-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.10.010
Beck, R. N. (1979). Handbook in Social Philosophy. New York: Macmillan.
Bernstein, B. (1974). Sociology and the sociology of education: a brief account. In J. Rex (ed.) Approaches to Sociology: An Introduction to Major Trends in British Sociology.
Bryman, A., Bresnen, M., Beardsworth, A., & Keil, T. (1988). Qualitative research and the study of leadership. Human relations, 41(1), 13-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678804100102
Bryman, A. (2006). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International journal of social research methodology, 9(2), 111-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570600595280
Cicourel, A. V. (1964). Method and measurement in sociology.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. routledge.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Inc.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2002). The qualitative inquiry reader. Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986267
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research.
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.
Giddens, A. (1976). Classical social theory and the origins of modern sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 703-729. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/226140
Griffiths, P., & Norman, I. (2011). What is a nursing research journal?. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.09.006
Guba, E. (1990) The Alternative Paradigm Dialogue. In Guba, E. (Ed.) The Paradigm Dialogue. London, Sage.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105.
Hammersley, M. (2013). What Is Qualitative Research? London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory: Selected essays (Vol. 1). A&C Black.
Ions, E. S. (1977). Against behaviouralism: A critique of behavioural science.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1970). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kettley, N. (2012). Theory Building in Educational Research. London: Continuum Books.
Kirk, J. and Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research Methods Series, no. 1. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985659
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Volume 4: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965 (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Layder, D. (1994). Understanding Social Theory. London: Sage.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2019). A Naturalistic Paradigm: An Introduction to Using Ethnographic Methods for Research in Mathematics Education. Compendium for Early Career Researchers in Mathematics Education, 59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15636-7_3
Nesfield-Cookson, B. (1987). William Blake: Prophet of Universal Brotherhood. London: Crucible.
Oakley, A. (1999). Paradigm wars: some thoughts on a personal and public trajectory. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2 (3), pp. 247– 54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/136455799295041
Oldroyd, D. (1986). The Arch of Knowledge: An Introductory Study of the History of the Philosophy and Methodology of Science. New York: Methuen.
Phillips, D. C. and Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and Educational Research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Popper, K. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery (second edition). London: Hutchinson. Popper, K. (1980) Conjectures and Refutations (third edition). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pring, R. (2015). Philosophy of Educational Research (third edition). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Reams, P., and Twale, D. (2008). The promise of mixed methods: discovering conflicting realities in the data. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31 (2), pp. 133– 42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802124509
Reichardt, C. S. and Rallis, S. F. (1994). Qualitative and quantitative inquiries are not incompatible: a call for a new partnership. In C. S. Reichardt and S. F. Rallis (eds) The Qualitative– Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives. San Francisco, pp. 85– 92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1670
Rose, G. (2007). Visual Methodologies (second edition). London: Sage.
Roszak, T. (1970). The Making of a Counter Culture. London: Faber & Faber.
Roszak, T. (1972). Where the Wasteland Ends. London: Faber & Faber.
Schwandt, T.A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics and social constructivism.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Trowler, P. (2008). Cultures and change in higher education: Theories and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-36511-7
Williams, R. T. (2018). Confidence Interventions: Do They Work?. Asian Journal of Humanity, Art and Literature, 5(2), 123-134. https://doi.org/10.18034/ajhal.v5i2.536 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18034/ajhal.v5i2.536
Williams, R. T., & Scott, C. D. (2019). The Current State of Outdoor Learning in a U.K Secondary Setting: Exploring the Benefits, Drawbacks and Recommendations. ABC Journal of Advanced Research, 8(2), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.18034/abcjar.v8i2.537 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18034/abcjar.v8i2.537
--0--
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
American Journal of Trade and Policy is an Open Access journal. Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of their work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal. We require authors to inform us of any instances of re-publication.
How to Cite
