Confronting the Dilemma of Mixed Methods Bradford J. Wiggins Brigham Young University Recent decades have seen a proliferation of research methods, both quantitative and qualitative, available to psychologists. Whereas some scholars have claimed that qualitative and quantitative methods are inherently opposed, recently many more researchers have argued in favor of “mixed methods” approaches. In this article the author presents a review of the literature on the issue of how to meaningfully relate qualitative and quantitative approaches, with a particular emphasis on recent calls for mixed methods. The relative success of mixed-methods approaches is examined, and some of the common pitfalls of these approaches are outlined. Keywords: mixed methods research, pluralism, incompatibility, philosophy of science The past four decades have seen a prolifera- tion of research methods available to psycholo- gists. With this preponderance of methods has come the so-called “paradigm wars” (Gage, 1989), arising from the perceived inadequacies of the received quantitative philosophy of sci- ence. Critics of quantitative methodologies of- fered an alternative philosophy of science, which tended to favor qualitative methods (e.g., Danziger, 1985; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). In turn, defenders of the quantitative tradition of- ten dismissed qualitative methods as fuzzy, vague, and even unscientific (see Mays & Pope, 1995). Locked in an either– or stance, these two sides “warred” over which methodological par- adigm is most appropriate for the social sci- ences. The juxtaposition of these two method- ologies within the paradigm wars has led many to view quantitative and qualitative approaches to research as inherently opposed (e.g., Bed- narz, 1985; Forshaw, 2007; Ogborne, 1995; Simpson & Eaves, 1985). At this time, there appears to be general ac- ceptance of qualitative methods as having some value in psychological research, even if quanti- tative methods continue to dominate the main- stream of psychological research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Hill & Lambert, 2004; Kazdin, 2003; Lambert, Garfield, & Bergin, 2004). Perhaps the best example of the field’s increasing openness to a diversity of research methods comes in the re- port of the American Psychological Association (APA) Presidential Task Force on Evidence- Based Practice (2006). This task force encour- aged practitioners in psychology to base their practices on the best research evidence available from methods as diverse as clinical observa- tions, case studies, qualitative methods, ran- domized controlled trials, and meta-analyses. The task force’s endorsement of such a variety of methods seems to suggest that the supposed opposition of qualitative and quantitative meth- odologies has somehow been resolved. However, although qualitative methods are achieving greater legitimacy alongside quanti- tative methods, their relationship to one another is not entirely clear. Are these methodologies in competitive opposition as the paradigm wars would suggest, or are they potential allies in psychological inquiry? In fact, many contempo- rary researchers, in step with the APA task force, are advocating the use of both quantita- tive and qualitative methodologies. Neverthe- less, very few are elaborating how methods based on such divergent philosophies of science can be meaningfully integrated, leaving unan- swered the questions and problems raised by the paradigm wars. Thus, in this article, I review the Bradford J. Wiggins, Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University. This article draws from the author’s doctoral dissertation research which was supervised by Brent D. Slife. It is based on a paper presented at the 2009 annual convention of the American Psychological Association, which was awarded Division 24’s “Best Student Paper” award. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Bradford J. Wiggins, Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University, 1001 SWKT, Provo, UT 84602. E-mail: brady_wiggins@byu.edu Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association 2011, Vol. 31, No. 1, 44 – 60 1068-8471/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0022612 44