Restricted access

Research article

First published online March 14, 2026

Request permissions

Transcending the Trade-off Between External and Internal Validity: A Critical Realist Perspective

Gaye Ilhan Demiryol https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8214-8153 [email protected] and Tolga Demiryol https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0410-3563View all authors and affiliations

https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898261435469

Abstract
References

Abstract

This article contributes to the mixed methods literature by proposing a critical realist philosophy of science to resolve the apparent, and ultimately unfruitful, trade-off between internal and external validity. It is argued that this trade-off is a false dichotomy rooted in contestable philosophical assumptions about causality. Thanks to its stratified ontology and epistemological focus on causal mechanisms, critical realism allows for reconceptualizing internal and external validity as interdependent components of explanatory adequacy. Identifying causal mechanisms is a prerequisite for understanding the scope conditions under which those mechanisms operate. Testing these scope conditions, in turn, strengthens confidence in the initial explanation. The article thus provides mixed methods research with a philosophical foundation for an integrated understanding of validity.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

Allison G. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Little, Brown and Company.

Archer M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.

Beach D., Pedersen R. B. (2013). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. University of Michigan Press.

Bean R. (1973). War and the birth of the nation state. Journal of Economic History, 33(1), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022050700076531

Bhaskar R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds Books.

Bhaskar R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Harvester Press.

Blumer H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Prentice-Hall.

Brady H. E., Collier D. (2004). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Rowman & Littlefield.

Byrne D. (2002). Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction. Routledge.

Campbell D. T. (1974). Evolutionary epistemology. In Schilpp P. A. (Ed.), The philosophy of Karl Popper (pp. 412–463). Open Court.

Collier D. (2011). Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(4), 823–830. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429

Collier D., Mahoney J. (1996). Insights and pitfalls: Selection bias in qualitative research. World Politics, 49(1), 56–91. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.1996.0023

Danermark B., Ekström M., Karlsson J. C. (2019). Explaining Society: Critical realism in the social sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Demiryol T. (2023). Economic crisis, elite conflict and institutional change in empires. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften.

Ertman T. (1997). Birth of the leviathan: Building states and regimes in medieval and early modern Europe. Cambridge University Press.

Evans B. C., Coon D. W., Ume E. (2011). Use of theoretical frameworks as a pragmatic guide for mixed methods studies: A methodological necessity? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(4), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811412972

Fearon J. D. (1994). Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review, 88(3), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.2307/2944796

Flyvbjerg B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363

George A. L., Bennett A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.

Gerring J. (2007). Is there a (Viable) crucial-case method? Comparative Political Studies, 40(3), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006290784

Gerring J. (2017). Case study research. Cambridge University Press.

Glynos J., Howarth D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. Routledge.

Goertz G., Haggard S. (2023). Large-N qualitative analysis (LNQA): Causal generalization in case study and multimethod research. Perspectives on Politics, 21(4), 1221–1239. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592723002037

Gorski P. S. (2013). What is critical realism? And why should you care? Contemporary Sociology, 42(5), 658–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306113499533

Hedström P., Swedberg R. (1998). Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge University Press.

Hempel C. (2014). The function of general laws in history. In Philosophy, science, and history Editor: Lydia Patton (pp. 48–60). Routledge.

Hicken A. (2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(1), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.031908.220508

Hume D. (2007). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford University Press.

King G., Keohane R. O., Verba S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press.

Kitschelt H., Wilkinson S. I. (Eds.), (2007). Patrons, clients and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511585869

Lawson T. (2004). Economics and reality. Routledge.

Levy J. S. (2008). Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388940701860318

Little D. (1998). Microfoundations, method and causation: On the philosophy of the social sciences. Transaction Publishers.

Mahoney J., Goertz G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14(3), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj017

Massimi M. (2004). Non-defensible middle ground for experimental realism: Why we are justified to believe in colored quarks. Philosophy of Science, 71(1), 36–60. https://doi.org/10.1086/381412

Maxwell J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826

Maxwell J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033002003

Maxwell J. A. (2012a). A realist approach for qualitative research. Sage.

Maxwell J. A. (2012b). The importance of qualitative research for causal explanation in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(8), 655–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412452856

Maxwell J. A. (2017). The validity and reliability of research: A realist perspective. In Wyse D., Selwyn N., Smith E., Suter L. E. (Eds.), The BERA/SAGE handbook of educational research (pp. 116–140). Sage Publications Ltd.

Maxwell J. A. (2020). Why qualitative methods are necessary for generalization. Qualitative Psychology, 8(1), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000173

Maxwell J. A. (2022). Critical realism as a stance for designing qualitative research. In Flick U. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research design (pp. 142–154). Sage Publications Ltd.

Miles M. B., Huberman A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.

Mitchell D., Massoud T. (2009). Anatomy of failure: Bush’s decision‐making process and the Iraq war. Foreign Policy Analysis, 5(3), 265–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2009.00093.x

Mukumbang F. C. (2021). Retroductive theorizing: A contribution of critical realism to mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211049847

Oneal J. R., Ray J. L. (1997). New tests of the democratic peace: Controlling for economic interdependence, 1950-85. Political Research Quarterly, 50(4), 751–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299705000402

Pawson R., Tilley N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Sage Publications Ltd.

Popper K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.

Putnam R. D. (1994). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press.

Putnam R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Ragin C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. University of Chicago Press.

Ragin C. C. (2009). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.

Ronkainen N. J., Wiltshire G. (2021). Rethinking validity in qualitative sport and exercise psychology research: A realist perspective. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1637363

Russett B., Layne C., Spiro D. E., Doyle M. W. (1995). The democratic peace. International Security, 19(4), 164–184.

Sayer A. (2000). Realism and social science. Sage.

Schneider C. Q., Wagemann C. (2012). Set-Theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004244

Seawright J., Gerring J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case Study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077

Shadish W. R., Cook T. D., Campbell D. T. (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Cengage Learning.

Spruyt H. (1994). The sovereign state and its competitors: An analysis of systems change. Princeton University Press.

Stokes S. C. (2005). Perverse accountability: A formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051683

Stokes S. C., Dunning T., Nazareno M., Brusco V. (2013). Brokers, voters, and clientelism. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107324909

Zachariadis M., Scott S., Barrett M. (2013). Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed methods research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 855–879. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2013/37.3.09

|

You currently have no access to this content. Visit the access options page to authenticate.