The Qualitative Report Volume 14 Number 3 September 2009 498-523 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR14-3/stinson.pdf The Proliferation of Theoretical Paradigms Quandary: How One Novice Researcher Used Eclecticism as a Solution David W. Stinson Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA When a doctoral student plans to conduct qualitative education research, the aspect of the dissertation that often becomes problematic is determining which theoretical paradigm(s) might frame the study. In this article, the author discusses how he resolved the quandary through eclecticism. The author begins by describing briefly the purpose of his dissertation study, providing a justification for eclecticism in the selection of theories. He follows with a description of the three theories— poststructural theory, critical race theory, and critical theory—that framed his study and discusses briefly the methodology employed. The author concludes with a discussion of likely objections of his study and with an explanation of why his study was positioned within a critical postmodern paradigm. Key Words: Qualitative Research, Poststructural Theory, Critical Race Theory, Critical Theory, Critical Postmodern Theory, and Paradigm Proliferation When a doctoral student plans to conduct qualitative education research, the aspect of the dissertation that often becomes most problematic, that is, after the topic has been decided upon, is determining which theoretical paradigm(s) might frame the study (e.g., positivist, interpretive, critical, poststructural, neopositivist, etc.). A consequence of the growth of social science qualitative research through the “seven moments” 1 (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 2) over the last century has been the proliferation of theoretical paradigms (see Preissle, 2006, for a brief history of qualitative research). This proliferation has led many novice researchers into a theoretical paradigm quandary. Different aspects of this quandary have been debated; for instance, Lather (2006) claimed that paradigm proliferation is a good thing to think with, Dillard (2006) argued for cultural and spiritual considerations in paradigm proliferation, and Donmoyer (2006) questioned the use of Kuhn’s concept paradigm in qualitative research and the need for paradigm talk altogether (see also Wright, 2006). Other debates about the quandary have included discussions regarding epistemology (Siegel, 2006), methodology (Ercikan & Roth, 2006), and even the preparation of doctoral students (Pallas, 2001). Here, I use the concepts theoretical paradigm and theoretical framework somewhat interchangeably and in a broader sense than Kuhn’s (1996/1962) paradigm (e.g., see Donmoyer, 2006). Specifically, I use the concepts to denote the various theoretical approaches that might frame qualitative research. I understand, however, that 1 Denzin and Lincoln (2000) identified seven distinct, yet overlapping and simultaneously operating, moments in qualitative research: the traditional (1900-1950); the modernist or golden age (1950-1970); the blurred genres (1970-1986); the crisis in representation (1986-1990); the postmodern or experimental (1990-1995); the post experimental inquiry (1995-2000); and lastly, the future (2000-) (pp. 2-3).