During 802, I was persuaded by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) that mixed methods is a paradigm and argued (coherently, I hope) that mixed methods seeks pragmatic value in both quantitative and qualitative approaches, also leaving open the door for including Critical approaches, as well. This was the only way I could align my ontology, epistemology, and axiology within this assignment. The works that were of greatest help to me include a book, a journal article, and a dissertation:

Ivankova, N. V. (2015). Mixed methods applications in action research : from methods to community action. Thousand Oaks, California : SAGE Publications.

Paradigm: Mixed Methods (Post-positivist, Interpretive Action Research, and Critical Participatory Action Research) (see Cohen, et al., p. 47). Theoretical framework: Action Research.

Ivankova argues mixed methods is the best approach to understand complex research questions:

The need to use all possible methods to answer complex study research questions and the complexity of social phenomena dictates the need to explore social phenomena from various facets and multiple perspectives.  Indeed, by integrating quantitative and qualitative methods within a mixed methods approach, researchers can gain a more thorough understanding of the research problem under investigation and get more complete answers to the posed research questions.  By conducting a mixed methods study, researchers can obtain statistical trends and patterns in the data and get individual perspectives that help explain these trends. In other words, by conducting a mixed methods study, researchers can address both confirmatory (verifying knowledge) and explorative (generating knowledge) questions and get answers to the ‘What?’ ‘How?’ and ‘Why?’ (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2008; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009, as cited in Ivankova, 2015, p. 4).

Next up is:

Evans, B., Coon, D., & 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.

Evans, Coon and Ume state "there is no widely accepted set of ideas with regard to use of a conceptual model or theoretical framework to guide inquiry" in mixed methods, which made completing an assignment with a well-defined theoretical framework tricky. The research paradigm was interpretive, and the authors' theoretical drive is inductive (QUAL + quant), but this isn't actually a theoretical framework (which they openly admit). The theoretical construct they selected was life course perspective, which includes a holistic look at caregiver and family trajectories, transitions, turning points, timing of life events, adaptive strategies and cultural/context differences. What it highlights is both the (a) lack of guidance mixed methods researchers may face and (b) the relative creativity this affords.

Finally, there is this dissertation (which I couldn't access despite all my library connections).

Rivera, N. (2014). Cooperative learning in a community college setting: Developmental coursework in mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 74.

Paradigm appears to be constructivist/interpretivist (Lincoln, Lynham & Guba), but could also be Participatory.  The theoretical framework includes Bandura's self-efficacy theory, Vygotsky's social constructivist theory, and Deutsch's social independence theory. The paradigm is hard to identify, but the abstract is personal, where the author states that her research developed "a strong sense of community that I had not witnessed in previous courses I had taught," which lead me to believe it could be Participatory.  Mixed methods as bricolage is something I may explore further at a later date.

Mixed methods, as a paradigm, presents challenges because of its rejection of the incompatibility thesis, which makes identifying a paradigm or a singular theoretical framework more difficult, but it also provides researcher freedom in the pursuit of highly complex phenomenon.