Philosophical assumptions, paradigms and worldviews in mixed methods research

Mixed methods research forces a philosophical choice: quantitative and qualitative methods are often tied to contrasting worldviews—positivism (objective, stable reality) and interpretivism (dynamic reality shaped by people’s perspectives). The central problem is how to justify combining them without undermining the credibility of one side. Positivism treats the world as relatively fixed and emphasizes the value of objective observation, so quantitative tools like questionnaires and structured observations are seen as less vulnerable to bias. Interpretivism, by contrast, treats reality as flexible and socially constructed through lived experience, so interviews and focus groups are viewed as essential for capturing meaning from participants’ viewpoints.

Two common strategies try to resolve this tension. The first approach starts a study under a positivist assumption and then “shifts” toward an interpretivist stance as the project moves from quantitative data collection to qualitative data collection. In practice, researchers describe both worldviews and explain the transition between them. Many scholars accept this as a workable compromise, but the approach has a built-in conflict: if the worldviews genuinely contradict—positivists often see participant talk as a source of bias, while interpretivists see it as the route to understanding—then switching midstream can appear to discredit earlier claims. The worldview becomes something chosen for convenience at each stage rather than something consistently grounded in the study’s underlying assumptions.

The second approach avoids switching and instead selects a single worldview that can support the entire mixed methods design. That worldview is pragmatism. Pragmatism is presented as flexible and purpose-driven: its priority is answering the research questions, using whatever methods work to generate the needed evidence. Rather than treating positivism versus interpretivism as an either/or divide, pragmatism treats reality as constructed by individuals (an interpretivist emphasis) while also acknowledging that these constructions are reconstructions of something relatively stable (a positivist emphasis). It also values empirical observation, but insists that observations are filtered through researchers’ interpretations.

Pragmatism therefore blends key assumptions from both traditions. It recognizes established social structures that can be studied empirically, while also emphasizing that people play an active role in forming and maintaining those structures. For researchers stuck between “talk to people” and “use objective measures,” pragmatism offers a way to justify both questionnaires and interviews within one coherent philosophical stance—without claiming that the study’s worldview changes halfway through. The practical takeaway is straightforward: when philosophical labels become confusing, a pragmatist framework keeps the focus on research questions and methodological effectiveness, while still providing a defensible account of underlying assumptions.