Jones--Turning back on yourself?

In Eisenberg's chapter, I was struck by the (essentially psychoanalytic) idea that when we deny a part of ourselves, we tend to seek it out in others. Whatever we have denied thus may be complementary, but Eisenberg moves on to say that we have "a tendency to attack in others what they most fear in themselves" (p. 117, original emphasis). I have heard this in terms of interpersonal relationships, but not in terms of theory and research.

    What are some of the arguments made critiquing the different paradigms that may actually appear to be critiques of the author who penned the critique?

I have mixed feelings about the Fairhurst chapter. I think that she brings up some important points about the 'hidden' spaces where paradigm conflicts arise. However, there are a couple of aspects that concern me:

The second option for avoiding "paradigmatic skirmishes" is to avoid "a combined study" that uses empiricist and interpretative approaches because it might get a "mixed panel of reviewers" resulting in conflict (p. 126). So, just don't use mixed methods? Am I reading that correctly?

Also, the chapter ends with "if you cannot win the battle, win the war" (p. 127). So, dialogue and cooperation is not the goal, but instead triumph in one paradigm? Am I reading that correctly? Both of these areas appear to contradict with Fairhurst's goal of overcoming paradigmatic skirmishes.