Almost a year since my inaugaral editorial: Managing Movement, Leading Change (Freshwater, 2012) where I highlighted the importance of challenging philosophical and epistemological stances; we are taking the opportunity to do just that in relation to the elusive concept of ‘‘paradigm’’ through the highly versatile and dialogic form of the editorial. Conceptualizing the concept of paradigms as ‘‘elusive’’ is an important metaphor and one to which we will allude througout this editorial. In our editorial: Why Write (Freshwater & Cahill, 2012), we put into tension some competing definitions of paradigm in order to open up the debate on what constitutes a paradigm and to outline why we felt it is important for this debate to be held in the mixed methods community. Since that editorial, we have had a very interesting response from the coeditor, Donna Mertens: What Comes First? The Paradigm or the Approach? (Mertens, 2012). Mertens argued against the school of thought that paradigms can be methdological in their foundation (Freshwater & Cahill, 2012) and offered the use of ‘‘paradigms as philosophical frameworks that delinieate assumptions about ethics, reality, knowledge, and systematic enquiry’’ as a way of ‘‘[clarifying] the basis of disagreements’’ (Mertens, 2012, p. 256) with regard to the use of paradigms in mixed methods research. At this juncture we would like to take a step back, into the nexus of the disagreements themselves: We believe that ‘‘disagreement’’ offers a more interesting space in which to hold a debate and refine a discourse rather than the seemingly solid ground of a solution. And one that potentially continues to delineate paradigms as philsophical frameworks that lead to choices in methods. We contend that engaging with disagreements and their constructions and deconstructions can underpin some of the most progressive and innovative of debates. Rather like this one, we hope! As an exemplar, we draw on some of the argument presented by Mertens (2012) in the October editorial. Mertens (2012) cites Greene and Hall who caution against using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods as labels for paradigms—arguing that this is to ‘‘reify and essentailize them and thereby disregard their constructed nature . . .’’ (p. 255). The association of a paradigm with a reified and essential entity is interesting in this context. We would argue that understanding the constructed nature of paradigms is key, and in this context we would question the association of paradigms with something that is ‘‘reified’’ or ‘‘essential.’’ As noted in our editorial Why Write (Freshwater & Cahill, 2012), discourse development (including the discourses that underpin paradigms) is inherently relational, iterative, and responsive—and subject to its own deconstruction. That is why it would be misleading to associate paradigms and the paradigmatic structures
Read full abstract