Understanding the Philosophical Positions of Classical and Neo Pragmatists for Mixed Methods Research

If you need an accessible version of this item, please submit a remediation request.
Date
2017-10
Language
English
Embargo Lift Date
Committee Members
Degree
Degree Year
Department
Grantor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Found At
Springer
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.

Description
item.page.description.tableofcontents
item.page.relation.haspart
Cite As
Johnson, R. B., Waal, C. de, Stefurak, T., & Hildebrand, D. L. (2017). Understanding the philosophical positions of classical and neopragmatists for mixed methods research. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0452-3
ISSN
Publisher
Series/Report
Sponsorship
Major
Extent
Identifier
Relation
Journal
KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie
Source
Author
Alternative Title
Type
Article
Number
Volume
Conference Dates
Conference Host
Conference Location
Conference Name
Conference Panel
Conference Secretariat Location
Version
Author's manuscript
Full Text Available at
This item is under embargo {{howLong}}