Underlying agreements between quantitative and qualitative research: The short and tall of it all

A review of the methodological literature describing mixed-methods and quantitative and qualitative research paradigms suggest that though many have rejected the so-called paradigm wars there remains much focus on what is different about each research tradition. This has borne out in practice where professional organizations often have subgroups dedicated to the study of one tradition or another. Indeed, Human Resources Development Review has issued calls for manuscripts that explore this topic. This article examines the idea that there can be times when it is best to think of research as a monolithic paradigm rather than a distinct set of subparadigms. The reason for this is there are a number of common research scenarios where it is best to apply perspectives that might typically be characterized as qualitative as well as ones that are considered to be qualitative in orientation (e.g., using contextual information to make judgments about practical significance). There are other scenarios where the underlying goal of a procedure from, say the quantitative paradigm is similar to that from the qualitative realm (e.g., exploratory factor analyses and thematic analyses). There are of course real differences among the paradigms, but overemphasis on division might obfuscate how to conduct rigorous research. The article closes by encouraging readers to let their research questions dictate methodological approach, in the context of the purpose, rather than building questions around techniques that tend to align with different subparadigms.