Abstract
Despite growing recognition that methodological choices shape the credibility and relevance of social science inquiry, the field continues to grapple with three persistent gaps: inadequate methodological training, weak integration in mixed methods studies, and philosophical incoherence in research design. This literature review addresses these gaps by synthesising recent scholarship on methodological selection, examining how quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches are being deployed, integrated, and contested in contemporary social science research. The review reveals that methodological choices are driven by the nature and complexity of the research problem, philosophical alignment, data requirements, sampling logic, and practical feasibility. It further demonstrates that research objectives and questions function as the primary mechanism through which these criteria are operationalised into concrete design decisions. Quantitative methods are increasingly interrogated for reductionist tendencies; qualitative methods are being expanded and legitimised beyond exploratory roles; and mixed methods research is being refined through stricter integration frameworks and epistemological accountability. Recent studies indicate a shift toward methodological pluralism, problem-driven inquiry, and technology-enhanced research designs. Yet the field still lacks a systematic, design-stage tool for aligning research problems, philosophical assumptions, and analytical goals, a deficit that the Methodological Alignment Decision Framework (MADF) introduced here directly addresses, comprising three diagnostic tests: ontological coherence, integration necessity, and context adequacy.