z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Understanding the philosophical positions of classical and neopragmatists for mixed methods research
Author(s) -
R. Burke Johnson,
Cornelis de Waal,
Tres Stefurak,
David L. Hildebrand
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
kzfss kölner zeitschrift für soziologie und sozialpsychologie
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.455
H-Index - 34
eISSN - 1861-891X
pISSN - 0023-2653
DOI - 10.1007/s11577-017-0452-3
Subject(s) - pragmatism , epistemology , multimethodology , field (mathematics) , sociology , component (thermodynamics) , philosophy , social science , mathematics , physics , thermodynamics , pure mathematics
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.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom