Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the philosophical positions of classical and neopragmatists for mixed methods research

Das Verständnis der philosophischen Positionen der klassischen und Neo-Pragmatiker für gemischte Methoden-Forschung

  • Abhandlungen
  • Published:
KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pragmatism is the most popular philosophy/paradigm in the international field of mixed methods research (MMR). This article therefore introduces, describes, and contrasts the philosophies of the most well known pragmatists, including the three most important classical pragmatists (Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey) and two neopragmatists (Richard Rorty and Susan Haack). It is shown that Rorty and James fit well with qualitatively driven MMR (i. e., MMR where the qualitative component of the study is primary); Peirce fits well with quantitatively driven MMR (i. e., MMR where the quantitative component is primary); and Dewey fits well with MMR that attempts to treat qualitative and quantitative research/philosophy equally (i. e., equal-status mixed methods research). Importantly, it is shown here that pragmatism offers a way out of many philosophy of science quagmires facing social researchers and it offers a promising philosophy for mixed methods research practice.

Zusammenfassung

Die philosophische Strömung des Pragmatismus ist der in der Mixed-Methods-Bewegung zur Zeit populärste wissenschaftstheoretische Ansatz, der bei Bedarf mit anderen wissenschaftsphilosophischen Paradigmen kombiniert werden kann. Innerhalb des Pragmatismus lassen sich verschiedene wissenschaftstheoretische Positionen identifizieren, die sich jeweils unterschiedlich gut für unterschiedliche Varianten der Mixed-Methods-Forschung eignen. Der Beitrag diskutiert und kontrastiert daher die wissenschaftstheoretischen Positionen (vor allem in Bezug auf Mixed Methods) von drei klassischen Pragmatisten (Charles Sanders Peirce, William James und John Dewey) sowie zwei Neo-Pragmatisten (Richard Rorty und Susan Haack). Die Arbeiten von Rorty und James bieten in besonderem Maße Anknüpfungspunkte für Mixed-Methods-Forschung, die von der qualitativen Perspektive getrieben wird; Peirces Überlegungen für Mixed-Methods-Forschung, die von der quantitativen Perspektive getrieben wird; und Deweys und Haacks Arbeiten für Mixed-Methods-Forschung, bei der qualitative und quantitative Methoden die gleiche Bedeutung haben („equal-status mixed methods research“). Der Beitrag zeigt, dass der philosophische Pragmatismus Auswege aus jenem Dickicht wissenschaftstheoretischer Widersprüche bieten kann, vor dem viele empirische Forschende stehen, und damit eine vielversprechende wissenschaftstheoretische Basis für Mixed-Methods-Forschung bietet.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Creswell, John. W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John. 1978 How we think. 1910. In John Dewey The Middle Works 1899–1924, Vol. 6: 1910–1911, ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John. 1980. Democracy and education. 1916. In John Dewey The Middle Works 1899–1924, Vol. 9: 1916, ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John. 1980. The need for a recovery of philosophy. 1917. In The Middle Works of John Dewey, 1899–1924, Vol. 10, ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John. 1981. Experience and nature. 1925. In John Dewey The Later Works 1925–1953, Vol. 1: 1925–1953, ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John. 1982. Reconstruction in philosophy. 1920. In John Dewey The Middle Works 1899–1924, Vol. 12: 1920, ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John. 1984. The public and its problems. 1927. In John Dewey The Later Works 1925–1953, Vol. 2: 1925–1927, ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John. 1986. Logic: The theory of inquiry. 1938. In John Dewey The Later Works 1925–1953, Vol. 12: 1938, ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John. 1988. Experience, knowledge and value: A rejoinder. 1939. In John Dewey The Later Works 1925–1953, Vol. 14: 1939–1941, Essays, ed. Jo Ann Boydston, 3–90. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John. 1990. Methods in philosophy and the sciences. 1937. Unpublished lecture. In John Dewey The Later Works 1925–1953, Vol. 17: 1885–1953, Essays, ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, Richard. 2003. Epistemology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  • Frost, Nollaig A., and Sevasti-Melissa Nolas. 2011. Exploring and expanding on pluralism in qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 8:115–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haack, Susan. 1998. Manifesto of a passionate moderate: unfashionable essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haack, Susan. 2003. Defending science – within reason. Amherst: Prometheus Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, David L. 2003. Beyond realism and antirealism: John Dewey and the neopragmatists. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, David L. 2008. Dewey: A beginner’s guide. Oxford: Oneworld Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, George S. 1983. Toward methodological pluralism. Journal of Counseling Psychology 30:19–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, William. 1995. Pragmatism. 1907. New York: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, William. 1997. The meaning of truth. 1908. Amherst: Prometheus Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. Burke. 2016. Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11:156–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. Burke, and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33:14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. Burke, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie and Lisa A. Turner. 2007. Toward a definition mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1:112–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroos, Karmo. 2011. Eclecticism as the foundation of meta-theoretical mixed methods and interdisciplinary research in social sciences. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 46:20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Yvonna S., Susan A. Lynham and Egon G. Guba. 2011. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 97–128. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchel, Carol., and Stephanie Owens. 2007. Qualitative research in psychology: Could William James get a job? History of Psychology 10:301–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathison, Sandra. 1988. Why triangulate. Educational Researcher 17:13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, Joseph A. 2012. A realist approach for qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCumber, John. 2001. Time in the ditch: American philosophy and the McCarthy era. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menand, Louis. 2001. The metaphysical club. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens, Donna M. 2007. Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1:212–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, David L. 2014. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochs, Peter 1992. “Charles Peirce as postmodern philosopher”. In Founders of Constructive Postmodern Philosophy: Peirce, James, Bergson, Whitehead and Hartshorne, ed. David Ray Griffin, 43–87. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1986. The writings of Charles S. Peirce : A chronological edition. Volume 3: 1872–1878. Peirce Edition Project, Ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1992. The essential peirce. Volume 1. Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel Eds. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, Charles S. 2014. Illustrations of the logic of science. Cornelis de Waal Ed. Chicago: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, Richard, 1989. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, Richard. 1979. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slife, Brent. D., and Edwin E. Gantt. 1999. Methodological pluralism: A framework for psychotherapy research. Journal of Clinical Psychology 55:1453–1465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, Charles, and Abbas Tashakkori. 2009. Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, Bradford. J. 2009. William James and methodological pluralism: Bridging the qualitative and quantitative divide. Journal of Mind and Behavior 30:165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yardley, Lucy, and Felicity Bishop. 2008. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, eds. Carla Willig and Wendy S. Rogers, 352–369. London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, UCOM 3700, University of South Alabama, 36688-0002, Mobile, AL, USA

    R. Burke Johnson & Tres Stefurak

  2. IUPUI – IU School of Liberal Arts, Cavanaugh Hall 331–425 University Blvd, 46202, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Cornelis de Waal

  3. Department of Philosophy, Box 179, University of CO Denver, 173364, Denver, CO, USA

    David L. Hildebrand

Authors
  1. R. Burke Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cornelis de Waal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tres Stefurak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David L. Hildebrand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Burke Johnson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnson, R.B., de Waal, C., Stefurak, T. et al. Understanding the philosophical positions of classical and neopragmatists for mixed methods research. Köln Z Soziol 69 (Suppl 2), 63–86 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0452-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0452-3

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation