> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.meditation-research.org.uk/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Nondualism as a Research Paradigm for Mindfulness Research: A Conceptual Proposal - URL: https://www.meditation-research.org.uk/nondualism-as-a-research-paradigm-for-mindfulness-research-a-conceptual-proposal/ - Published: 2026-11-03T17:33:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-11-03T17:32:59.000Z - Description: In this theoretical paper the authors argue that nondualism should be integrated into meditation research paradigms. They focus on how findings are conceptualised, rather than how studies are run. It is a modest conceptual argument that aims to add non-dual perspectives to the discourse. - Author: Dr Peter Malinowski - Tags: Research Methods & Evidence, Meditation, Buddhism, #Paper Brief ## Citation and paper identity Medvedev, O. N., & Krägeloh, C. U. (2026). Nondualism as a Research Paradigm for Mindfulness Research and Beyond. *Mindfulness*. DOI: [10.1007/s12671-026-02992-7](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-026-02992-7?ref=meditation-research.org.uk). \[open access\] This is a single conceptual or theoretical position paper, not an empirical study. ## Why this paper matters Most mindfulness research is studied using scientific methods and theoretical underpinnings inherited from psychology and neuroscience, yet the practices themselves come from mainly Buddhist traditions with very different assumptions about the self and experience. This paper matters because it asks a question that is usually left implicit: does the standard list of research paradigms actually fit work that is quietly shaped by Buddhist philosophy? The authors argue it often does not, and that this mismatch can lead to findings being worded more strongly than they should be. For a field where overclaiming is a recurring problem, a paper about how results are framed and interpreted is worth attention, even when it does not offer new data. ## What is it about and what do the authors argue? The central question is whether nondualism can be articulated as a legitimate research paradigm for mindfulness research and contemplative science, and what would follow methodologically if researchers adopted it. By *nondualism*, the authors mean a position in which the split between subject and object is treated as a derived feature of how we describe reality, rather than a fundamental fact of reality itself. Importantly, this is a philosophical and structural claim about paradigms. The authors are careful to separate it from two things it is often confused with: **nondual awareness** as a temporary meditative *state*, and **awareness of nonduality** as a trait-like *orientation*. Medvedev and Krägeloh emphasise that their argument is not about meditation *experiences* (nondual awareness) and also not about a sustained background recognition of a non-dual nature, an awareness that informs how someone engages with everyday experiences; it is about the assumptions behind research and, in consequence, how research findings are described, presented and interpreted. The authors draw on Buddhist philosophy (notably Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, and Chan/Zen), and rely on the Kyoto School and the work of Nishida Kitarō for their understanding of nonduality. Their philosophical and methodological analysis does several things: - It examines the standard paradigm typology found in many methods textbooks (positivist, postpositivist, constructivist, critical, and poststructural) and argues that it is not exhaustive. - It distinguishes nondualism from monism, idealism, mysticism, and nondual awareness as a state, to avoid common misreadings. ### Unitlessness as central proposition of the article The suggested approach to nondualism in meditation research Medvedev and Krägeloh introduce is a recent framework called *unitlessness.* It entails three levels: The unitlessness framework entails three levels: 1. **units** (the level of language, categories, descriptions) 2. **unity** (pre-discursive experience), and 3. **unitlessness** (the non-describable ground from which both, units and unity arise). Following this framework, the article - works through what this framing implies for first-person and third-person methods, and for how findings should be reported. - uses neuroimaging of self-related processing as a worked example, showing how the same data could be interpreted differently under a postpositivist frame versus a nondual frame. ## What are the proposed positions? The main conceptual positions the authors arrive at are as follows: - The usual paradigm menu reflects one particular conception of research rather than a universal framework, so some researchers' commitments fall outside it. - Nondualism can be stated as a paradigm position on the same terms as any other, without requiring the researcher to meditate or claim any special access to truth. - Within the unitlessness framework, first-person and third-person methods sit at the same level: both produce structured descriptions, and **neither gives direct access to experience itself**. - Reflexivity is *deflated* rather than treated as foundational. On this view, positionality statements are themselves discourse-level acts and cannot close a subject-object gap that is itself a product of description. - **Research methods are left unchanged. What changes is how findings are worded and what they are taken to show.** - The authors recommend "methodological honesty": stating clearly that questionnaires, codes, and brain measures are constructed descriptions, and **avoiding language implying that they capture experience directly**. The practical core is modest and, to my mind, sensible: describe what your measures actually are, and do not let them stand in for experience itself. This, per-se, does not require a nondual perspective or the unitlessness framework. A stronger commitment to methodological honesty can and should inform the way research into human experience of any kind is presented and interpreted. ## What are the main limitations? The authors are reasonably candid about the limits of what a conceptual paper can do, and several cautions deserve emphasis. - This is an argument, not evidence. It offers no empirical test to what extent mindfulness researchers actually hold nondual commitments, or whether adopting this paradigm improves research quality. - The paper itself notes that the prevalence of implicit nondual commitments in the field has not been studied systematically. - The unitlessness framework is somewhat tradition-specific (the Kyoto School). It does not claim to represent all forms of Buddhism or all nondual traditions. - The unitlessness framework is described as very recent and emerging, so its usefulness and uptake remain unproven. ## How much confidence should we have in this paper? The right question here is "how coherent is the argument, and how far does it reach." On its own terms, the reasoning is carefully bounded. The authors explicitly resist the overreach that can slip into the discourse: they do not claim first-person methods are superior, do not require contemplative practice, and do not grant contemplative experience special epistemic authority. What this means in practice is that the paper should be read as a well-argued proposal, not as an established conclusion. It opens a line of thinking rather than settling one. Readers should also keep clear the distinction the authors insist on: this is a claim about research paradigms, not a claim about what happens in meditation. A single conceptual paper, however thoughtful, does not make nondualism a settled fixture of the field. ## Why might this matter for research or practice? For researchers, the most usable takeaway is the call for honest wording. The authors rightfully remind us that often the (mindfulness) meditation practices that found a home within psychology are derived from traditions with a quite different world view. I read it as an invitation to all of us to reflect on the conceptual, philosophical position we take and to be clear about what a questionnaire score or an fMRI pattern actually provide: a structured description, rather than as a direct reading of experience. Such small change in language could reduce overclaiming and inspire a more careful discourse. That is worth taking seriously regardless of whether one accepts the nondual framing. For the field more broadly, the paper suggests that mindfulness research might become more conceptually coherent if it acknowledged its philosophical inheritance instead of defaulting to a positivist or postpositivist frame without comment. This connects to a long-standing gap: research tends to measure symptom change, while the traditions behind these practices point at something broader. A clearer account of assumptions will not close that gap, but it may stop us mistaking our measures for the thing itself. For practitioners and clinicians, the implication may be more indirect. Clearer framing in the literature should, over time, mean more accurate public communication about what mindfulness interventions can and cannot be said to do. In the meantime as practitioners we can contribute to a more precise communication about the science of meditation. ## Should you read it? This article is not necessarily easy to read and digest, in particular if you are not familiar with the various theoretical positions alluded to. Nevertheless, I consider it a good read for anyone who is interested in an appropriate conceptualisation of mindfulness and meditation research. The three-level unitlessness framework itself was new to me while in its conceptualisation similar to my understanding of non-dual perspectives in Madhyamaka and Mahamudra. ## Related topics and publications Readers interested in this paper may find the following areas useful for context: - First-person and third-person methods in consciousness studies, and attempts to combine them, in particular Varela's *neurophenomenology* as well as *micro-phenomenology* (see Claire Petitmengin's work). - The problem of conceptual clarity in defining "mindfulness" and related terms, where loose language often hides unclear assumptions. - Comparative work on non-Western philosophical traditions in research, including Indian psychology and Confucian-rooted paradigm proposals. - Broader discussions of overclaiming in mindfulness research and the gap between symptom-focused outcomes and the wider aims of contemplative traditions. Written with AI assistance — [see how](https://www.meditation-research.org.uk/about/#ai-use-on-this-site).