Mixed Methods and Methodological Pluralism

Learn what mixed-methods research is and its main designs (sequential, concurrent, embedded), and distinguish it from methodological pluralism as a disciplinary stance — two different ways of taking the limits of any single method seriously.

1 Introduction

Once you see that qualitative and quantitative approaches each have characteristic strengths and blind spots (see Qualitative vs Quantitative Research), an obvious move suggests itself: combine them. This page introduces mixed-methods research — combining approaches within a single study — and methodological pluralism — a broader stance about the diversity of methods a discipline should sustain. They are related but operate at different levels, and confusing them is a common mistake.

2 Why Combine Methods?

Two motivations stand out:

• Both qualitative and quantitative approaches have pitfalls. Each illuminates some features of a phenomenon and obscures others.
• Complex phenomena require multiple perspectives. A single lens, however sharp, captures only one facet.

The cartoon of blindfolded scientists around an elephant — one declaring “it’s a rope!” (the tail), another “it’s a wall!” (the side), another “it’s a spear!” (the tusk) — captures the predicament. Each observer reports accurately and reaches a different conclusion. Combining perspectives is what reveals the elephant.

3 Mixed-Methods Research

Mixed methods is, in one standard definition:

“a class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, or concepts into a single study.”

The key phrase is single study: mixed methods answers one research question by drawing on both kinds of evidence. Three common designs:

• Sequential designs — one method is used first, and its findings inform the second. (e.g. exploratory interviews surface hypotheses that a later survey tests; or a survey identifies a puzzle that follow-up interviews explain.)
• Concurrent designs — quantitative and qualitative methods are used simultaneously, then compared or combined.
• Embedded designs — one method is nested within the framework of the other (e.g. a small interview component embedded inside a primarily quantitative trial).

A cartoon often used to summarise the field shows three figures: one insisting “qualitative methods are best” (constructivism, inductive logic, exploratory research), another “quantitative methods are best” (post-positivism, deductive logic, confirmatory research), and a third in the middle holding that “the research question drives everything” (pragmatism, abductive logic, combining QUAL and QUANT). The middle position is the spirit of mixed methods.

4 Methodological Pluralism

Methodological pluralism operates one level up. Where mixed methods combines approaches to answer a single research question, methodological pluralism is about employing a multitude of methods at the level of a whole discipline.

Key distinctions:

• Plurality vs. pluralism. Plurality is the mere fact that many methods exist; pluralism is the considered stance that this diversity is valuable and worth cultivating.
• It plays out on the levels of ontology, epistemology and methodology.
• There are different forms of pluralism — consensual, agonistic, and antagonistic — depending on how the coexisting positions relate to one another.
• Crucially, it plays out at the disciplinary level, not in regard to a single research question.

NoteThe key take-away

Different methodological approaches can reveal different aspects of social phenomena that might be missed by a single method. This is true within a study (mixed methods) and across a discipline (pluralism) — but the two work at different scales and should not be conflated.

Note🎓 MA / PhD

The distinction between consensual, agonistic and antagonistic pluralism is worth unpacking. Consensual pluralism treats rival approaches as complementary pieces of one puzzle; agonistic pluralism keeps them in productive but unresolved tension; antagonistic pluralism holds that some positions are genuinely incompatible and competing. Which form is appropriate is itself contested, and bears on debates about paradigm incommensurability (can findings from incompatible paradigms even be combined?) and on the integrity of mixed-methods inference. In economics and management specifically, methodological pluralism is also an argument about the sociology of a discipline — about which approaches get funded, published and taught.

5 Summary

• Mixed methods combines qualitative and quantitative techniques within a single study to answer one research question; main designs are sequential, concurrent and embedded.
• Methodological pluralism is a disciplinary-level stance valuing a diversity of methods; it distinguishes plurality from pluralism and comes in consensual, agonistic and antagonistic forms.
• Both rest on the same insight: a single method can miss aspects of a phenomenon that another reveals — but they operate at different scales.

6 What to Read Next

• Qualitative vs Quantitative Research — the two approaches mixed methods combines.
• Conducting Research Interviews and Case Study Research Design — methods that frequently appear in mixed designs.

7 Further Reading

• Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.” Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). SAGE.