Ontology of mixed research: an analysis from classical logical principles
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32480/rscp.2026.e3103Keywords:
principle of non-contradiction, ontology, mixed methods, epistemology, classical logic, metaphysics, paradoxAbstract
This article critically examines the ontological foundations of mixed methods research through the lens of classical logical principles: identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, and sufficient reason. Through a hermeneutical analysis of foundational texts by Parmenides (DK B8) and Aristotle (Metaphysics IV), it demonstrates that qualitative-quantitative methodological integration generates irresolvable tensions within traditional logic frameworks. The analysis reveals that this integration implies the coexistence of mutually exclusive ontological categories, thus contravening fundamental principles of Western thought. However, rather than proposing absolute rejection, the study explores alternative ontological frameworks that could legitimize such integration: Hegelian dialectics, Bhaskar's critical realism, paraconsistent logics, and complex systems thinking. The study concludes that mixed methods ofresearch requirea meta-ontological framework that transcends Aristotelian logic, allowing for the productive coexistence of controlled paradoxes. Implications for research theory and practice include the need for explicit ontological reflection prior to any methodological integration.
Downloads
References
1. Aristóteles. Metafísica. García J, traductor. Gobierno de Jalisco; s.f. Disponible en: http://ri.agro.uba.ar/files/download/biblioteca/cita.pdf
2. Asenjo FG. A calculus of antinomies. Notre Dame J Formal Logic. 1966;7(1):103–105. Disponible en: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/notre-dame-journal-of-formal-logic/volume-7/issue-1/A-calculus-of-antinomies/10.1305/ndjfl/1093958482.full
3. Maxwell JA. Paradigms or toolkits? Philosophical and methodological positions as heuristics for mixed methods research. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education; 2011:1–10.
4. Parménides. Epítetos de la verdad en Parménides DK28 B1.29: Bene rotunda, bene lúcida, bene persuasiva. Archai. 2019;25:1–26. Disponible en: https://www.scielo.br/j/archai/a/7JRSndnXY4s7nDxk7pNZyzt/
5. Leibniz GW. Monadología y otros escritos filosóficos. Bello E, editor y traductor. Madrid: Alianza Editorial; 1989.
6. Cordero N. Los orígenes de la ontología: Parménides, Platón y Aristóteles. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 2005.
7. Berti E. La metafísica de Aristóteles: Ontología y lógica. Barcelona: Herder; 2014.
8. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. 1994:105–117. Disponible en: https://ethnographyworkshop.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/guba-lincoln-1994-competing-paradigms-in-qualitative-research-handbook-of-qualitative-research.pdf
9. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3º ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2018.
10. Howe KR. Against the quantitative–qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educ Res. 1988;17(8):10–16. Disponible en: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0013189X017008010
11. Maxwell JA, Mittapalli K. Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2010:145–168. Disponible en: https://www.rajgunesh.com/resources/downloads/research/realism.pdf
12. Greene JC. Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2007.
13. Crotty M. The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
14. Gómez-Lobo A. ¿Es la metafísica aristotélica una ciencia buscada? Revista de Filosofía. 1985;25-26(1):45-50. Disponible en: https://revistafilosofia.uchile.cl/index.php/RDF/article/view/44893/46970
15. ?ukasiewicz J. Selected works: Logic, philosophy, and metaphysics. Slater JR, editor. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 2000.
16. Ross WD. Aristotle. London: Routledge; 1981.
17. Hegel GWF. Ciencia de la lógica. Duque F, traductor. Madrid: Abada Editores; 2010. (Trabajo original publicado en 1812).
18. Bhaskar R. A realist theory of science. Brighton: Harvester Press; 1978.
19. Priest G. In contradiction: A study of the transconsistent. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
20. da Costa NCA. On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame J Formal Logic. 1974;15(4):497–510. Disponible en: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/notre-dame-journal-of-formal-logic/volume-15/issue-4/On-the-theory-of-inconsistent-formal-systems/10.1305/ndjfl/1093891487.full
21. Morin E. Introducción al pensamiento complejo. Barcelona: Gedisa; 2007.
22. Smith JK, Heshusius L. Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative–qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educ Res. 1986;15(1):4–12. Disponible en: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0013189X015001004
23. Morgan DL. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J Mix Methods Res. 2007;1(1):48–76.
24. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res. 2004;33(7):14–26. Disponible en: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0013189X033007014
25. Teddlie C, Tashakkori A. Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2009.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Revista de la Sociedad Científica del Paraguay
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
El/los autores autorizan a la Revista de la Sociedad Científica del Paraguay a publicar y difundir el articulo del cual son autores, por los medios que considere apropiado.
