Donna M. Mertens

Transformative Paradigm Mixed Methods and Social Justice

The intersection of mixed methods and social justice has implications for the role of the researcher and choices of specific paradigmatic perspectives. The transformative paradigm with its associated philosophical assumptions provides a framework for addressing inequality and injustice in society using culturally competent, mixed methods strategies. The recognition that realities are constructed and shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, and racial/ethnic values indicates that power and privilege are important determinants of which reality will be privileged in a research context. Methodological inferences based on the underlying assumptions of the transformative paradigm reveal the potential strength of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. A qualitative dimension is needed to gather community perspectives at each stage of the research process, while a quantitative dimension provides the opportunity to demonstrate outcomes that have credibility for community members and scholars. Transformative mixed methodologies provide a mechanism for addressing the complexities of research in culturally complex settings that can provide a basis for social change.

Inclusive Evaluation: Implications of Transformative Theory for Evaluation

Evaluators face a challenge in responding to a call for greater inclusiveness of marginalized groups. In this presentation, I examine the contribution that transformative theory can make toward meeting this challenge. Transformative scholars assume that knowledge is not neutral, but is influenced by human interests, and that all knowledge reflects the power and social relationships within society, and that an important purpose of knowledge construction is to help people improve society. I propose the use of an inclusive model of evaluation that can address the tension between what is needed accurately represent the experiences of marginalized groups research and the traditional canons of research.

Transformative Mixed Methods Research

Paradigms serve as metaphysical frameworks that guide researchers in the identification and clarification of their beliefs with regard to ethics, reality, knowledge, and methodology. The transformative paradigm is explained and illustrated as a framework for researchers who place a priority on social justice and the furtherance of human rights. The basic belief systems associated with this paradigm are explained and illustrated by examples of research that is commensurate with the transformative paradigm.

Philosophy in mixed methods teaching: The transformative paradigm as illustration

Abstract As teachers of mixed methods, we have a responsibility to nurture our students’ abilities to think through their choices in terms of mixed methods research based on a critically examined understanding of their philosophical assumptions. The belief systems associated with the transformative paradigm are used to illustrate the importance of teaching philosophical frameworks as a part of mixed methods instruction. Teachers and students of research will improve their practice by engaging in critical self-reflection and dialogue about the philosophical assumptions that underlie their positions as researchers. This is an important area of exploration for mixed methods researchers who seek to improve the validity of their findings.

Advantages and Challenges of Using Inclusive Evaluation Approaches in Evaluation Practice

Panel discussions should be well-integrated interactive or question-answer format presentations of important evaluation idea. These panels may be drawn from panel presentations at AEA or other professional meetings, but would need to be something of significant interest that would list them out of the realm of the “ordinary” panel discussions. The panel presentation should be submitted by a single individual, although the responses of all panelists would be individually identified. Interviewees should be persons who are important stakeholders for evaluations and those with views of general interest to practicing evaluators. Interviewers and interviewees may be one person or several (i.e., one person may interview one individual or a panel of individuals, a panel of interviewers may interview one or more interviewees, and so on). Paul Johnson, of the U.S. Public Health Service, is coordinating this section. Suggestions for interviewees and interviewers should be sent to Paul at 740-G Humphrey Bldg., 200 Independence Ave., SW., Washington DC 20201.

Transformative Mixed Methods: Addressing Inequities

Researchers committed to furthering social justice face many challenges in aligning their values with their research approaches. The transformative paradigm provides a philosophical framework that focuses on ethics in terms of cultural responsiveness, recognizing those dimensions of diversity that are associated with power differences, building trusting relationships, and developing mixed methods that are conducive to social change. Examples of transformative cyclical mixed methods designs are used to illustrate the methodological implications of this paradigm.

Triangulation and Mixed Methods Research Provocative Positions

Triangulation is a measurement technique often used by surveyors to locate an object in space by relying on two known points in order to ‘‘triangulate’’ on an unknown fixed point in that same space. Early on, social scientists borrowed the concept of triangulation to argue for its use in the validation process in assessing the veracity of social science research results. There are alternative perspectives on the use of triangulation that argue for its usefulness as a ‘‘dialectical’’ process whose goals seek a more in-depth nuanced understanding of research findings and clarifying disparate results by placing them in dialogue with one another. This special issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) analyzes and explores the variety of ways triangulation is used in mixed methods research and the range of issues and controversies surrounding triangulation praxis. To date, there are few scholarly in-depth discussions of its deployment in mixed methods research. The choice of triangulation as the topic for this first special issue of JMMR is based on the claims made by many scholars in the field that triangulation provides a justification for the use of mixed methods. The contributors to this volume raise many questions about the meaning of triangulation, its philosophical positioning in the mixed methods community, and strategies for using triangulation in the design of mixed methods studies, analysis and interpretation of data, and making visible subjugated voices. They take provocative positions, suggesting that qualitative, constructivist, and interpretive pathways provide greater potential for research to address the social good than has been possible using mixed methods approaches that are more closely aligned with the postpositivist paradigm. They revisit the ‘‘paradigm wars’’ and ask this question: Are we still stuck with the incompatibility thesis that paralyzed advances in mixed methods in past decades? They explore and critique the potential of alternative methodologies for harnessing the synergy that is said to lie in the application of mixed methods research designs by asking another set of questions: Have members of the mixed methods community done an injustice to pragmatism as a philosophical frame for mixed methods? Is qualitatively framed mixed methods the way forward? Is it possible that qualitatively framed mixed methods are better suited to the ability of mixed methods researchers to demonstrate a causal relationship between variables? How and when should triangulation be brought into mixed methods research to obtain a more nuanced

What Comes First? The Paradigm or the Approach?

The mixed methods community is awash in discussions about philosophical frameworks or paradigms that provide guidance for mixed methods approaches (B. Johnson & Gray, 2010). Part of the reason for the multiplicity of viewpoints about the role of paradigms in mixed methods research emanates from the different uses of the term paradigm. When Thomas Kuhn (1962) brought this term into the academic community through his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he gave it a particular meaning that characterized a paradigm as a worldview that embodied the beliefs of scientists. He added that different scientists who held different worldviews would be unable to communicate with each other because of the fundamental differences in their definitions of reality and methodology. He argued that the scientific community experienced paradigm shifts when a phenomenon could no longer be understood using past methods and new methods would emerge. Guba and Lincoln’s (1989, 2005) adaptation of the idea of paradigms to the social sciences retained the idea of paradigms as worldviews that reflect researchers’ assumptions about reality and methodology, and they added two other categories of assumptions that constitute a paradigm: assumptions about ethics and epistemology. However, they rejected the idea that researchers would replace one dominating method from the past with a new approach. Rather, they described paradigms in terms of assumptions related to ethics, reality (ontology), and epistemology that lead to different assumptions about the nature of systematic inquiry (Mertens & Wilson, 2012). Hence, Guba and Lincoln set the stage for recognition of different paradigms that start with different philosophical assumptions and that lead to different methodological assumptions and methods choices. This concept of paradigms contrasts with the idea that there are three paradigms: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (Biesta, 2010; Freshwater & Cahill, 2012; Greene & Hall, 2010). In this editorial, I argue against the school of thought that paradigms can be methodological in their foundations. I am in agreement with Greene and Hall (2010) who wrote,

Transformative Considerations Inclusion and Social Justice

Should the Russians be included in the evaluation and, if so, how can that be done? Based on the axiological assumption that the social justice theory of ethics leads to an awareness of the need to redress inequalities by giving precedence, or at least equal weight, to the voice of the least advantaged groups in society who may not have sufficient power for accurate representation among the stakeholder groups, the ethical path leads to answering this query in the affirmative. The axiological focus on the strengths of the community provides one avenue to addressing this issue through an exploration of options for partnership and community involvement.

Mixed Methods as Tools for Social Change

Researchers often justify their choice of mixed methods on the basis that it allows them to understand the phenomenon they are studying more completely than would be possible with a single method. In this editorial, I raise the question for mixed methods researchers: To what end do we understand the phenomenon we study more completely? Researchers have a long tradition of answering this question with the response: We conduct research to create new knowledge. Brown and Hedges (2009) describe the ethical responsibilities of researchers as follows: