The mixed methods approach has emerged as a "third paradigm" in social research, offering a distinct platform of ideas and practices that distinguish it from quantitative and qualitative paradigms. However, variations and inconsistencies within the mixed methods approach exist and should not be ignored. This article argues for a research paradigm based on "communities of practice," which is consistent with the pragmatist underpinnings of the mixed methods approach, accommodates diversity, and has potential for understanding methodological choices. Mixed methods research has evolved from early 20th-century fieldwork sociologists and cultural anthropologists, becoming a recognized research movement in the last decade. It is seen as emerging from the 1990s, establishing itself alongside quantitative and qualitative paradigms. The mixed methods approach is characterized by the use of quantitative and qualitative methods within the same research project, a clear design specifying the sequencing and priority of data collection and analysis, and an explicit account of how these methods relate to each other, with emphasis on triangulation. Pragmatism is the philosophical underpinning for the research. Variations and inconsistencies within the mixed methods approach are significant and should be considered. The purpose of this article is to highlight the need for a flexible, permeable, and multilayered research paradigm that can accommodate these variations. Communities of practice are proposed as a basis for such a paradigm, as they are consistent with the pragmatist underpinnings of the mixed methods approach, accommodate variations and inconsistencies, and have potential for understanding researchers' methodological decisions. The mixed methods approach is not unique in its use of pragmatism, and there is evidence that many contemporary instances of combining methods occur without explicitly acknowledging the mixed methods approach. The mixed methods approach is not exclusive in its use of mixed methods or pragmatism as a philosophical foundation. There is also evidence that many researchers combine methods without explicitly acknowledging the mixed methods approach or its premises. Communities of practice are proposed as a basis for a research paradigm that can accommodate variations and inconsistencies within the mixed methods approach. They meet the four criteria for a practice-based research paradigm as envisaged by Kuhn. Communities of practice provide a flexible, permeable, and multilayered research paradigm that can accommodate the variety of ways in which mixed methods are used and the variety of motives researchers might have for adopting a mixed methods approach. They also allow for the possibility of permeable boundaries to the paradigm, enabling researchers to transfer allegiances or have a foot in both camps. Communities of practice can help explain why the mixed methods approach might seem more attractive to some researchers than others by taking into account the group influences on methodological choices. They are consistent with pragmatism and emphasize the problem-driven nature of inquiry and learning. They do not tie methodological choices to metaphysical principles but allow methods to be chosen based on their practical value for dealing with a specific research problem.The mixed methods approach has emerged as a "third paradigm" in social research, offering a distinct platform of ideas and practices that distinguish it from quantitative and qualitative paradigms. However, variations and inconsistencies within the mixed methods approach exist and should not be ignored. This article argues for a research paradigm based on "communities of practice," which is consistent with the pragmatist underpinnings of the mixed methods approach, accommodates diversity, and has potential for understanding methodological choices. Mixed methods research has evolved from early 20th-century fieldwork sociologists and cultural anthropologists, becoming a recognized research movement in the last decade. It is seen as emerging from the 1990s, establishing itself alongside quantitative and qualitative paradigms. The mixed methods approach is characterized by the use of quantitative and qualitative methods within the same research project, a clear design specifying the sequencing and priority of data collection and analysis, and an explicit account of how these methods relate to each other, with emphasis on triangulation. Pragmatism is the philosophical underpinning for the research. Variations and inconsistencies within the mixed methods approach are significant and should be considered. The purpose of this article is to highlight the need for a flexible, permeable, and multilayered research paradigm that can accommodate these variations. Communities of practice are proposed as a basis for such a paradigm, as they are consistent with the pragmatist underpinnings of the mixed methods approach, accommodate variations and inconsistencies, and have potential for understanding researchers' methodological decisions. The mixed methods approach is not unique in its use of pragmatism, and there is evidence that many contemporary instances of combining methods occur without explicitly acknowledging the mixed methods approach. The mixed methods approach is not exclusive in its use of mixed methods or pragmatism as a philosophical foundation. There is also evidence that many researchers combine methods without explicitly acknowledging the mixed methods approach or its premises. Communities of practice are proposed as a basis for a research paradigm that can accommodate variations and inconsistencies within the mixed methods approach. They meet the four criteria for a practice-based research paradigm as envisaged by Kuhn. Communities of practice provide a flexible, permeable, and multilayered research paradigm that can accommodate the variety of ways in which mixed methods are used and the variety of motives researchers might have for adopting a mixed methods approach. They also allow for the possibility of permeable boundaries to the paradigm, enabling researchers to transfer allegiances or have a foot in both camps. Communities of practice can help explain why the mixed methods approach might seem more attractive to some researchers than others by taking into account the group influences on methodological choices. They are consistent with pragmatism and emphasize the problem-driven nature of inquiry and learning. They do not tie methodological choices to metaphysical principles but allow methods to be chosen based on their practical value for dealing with a specific research problem.