Bridging the Gap: A Comparative Analysis of Research Paradigms and the Rise of Mixed Methods in Human Resource Studies

This paper analyses the comparative analysis of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research and their relevance to HR and organisational studies. Through examination of their philosophical foundations, strengths, weaknesses and practical application, ways in which choices made can affect reliability, validity and utility of findings for HR policy and practice. Findings reveal that the quantitative methods, associated with the paradigm of positivism, can give us evidence that is generalisable and statistically strong about the relationships that certain HR variables, like job satisfaction, performance turnover, etc., share. On the other hand, qualitative methods that are linked with the paradigm of interpretivism and constructivism can provide us with rich contextual insights into employee experiences, organisational culture, change processes, and more (Creswell 2013). Mixed methods, which are in harmony with pragmatism, draw on the quantitative for breadth and the qualitative for depth. It also allows for triangulation as a means to determine how widespread a phenomenon is and why it occurs. Mixed methods are suitable for complicated HR issues (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). Examples could include engagement and the impact of leadership, amongst others. The paper concludes that no methodology is the best. The best methodology depends on the research questions, objectives, and constraints. In HR and organisational research, the pragmatic approach of mixed methods is becoming increasingly popular to gain a better understanding