Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 6-16

  Feilzer, Martina Yvonne ^a  

^a BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Duality of data; Mixed methods research; Pragmatism

Indexed keywords

EID: 73149117341     PISSN: 15586898     EISSN: 15586901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1558689809349691     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. (2003). The practice of research in criminology and criminal justice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
2. Blumer, H. (1948). Public opinion and public opinion polling. American Sociological Review, 13, 542-549.
3. Bottoms, A. (2000). The relationship between theory and research in Criminology. In R. D. King & E. Wincup (Eds.), Doing research on crime and justice (pp. 15-60). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4. Bourdieu, P. (1993). Public opinion does not exist (R. Nice, Trans.). In P. Bourdieu (Ed.), Sociology in question (pp. 149-158). London: SAGE.
5. Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
6. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7. Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,1, 8-22.
8. Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9. Creswell, J.W. & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Editorial: Developing Publishable Mixed Methods Manuscripts. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 107-111.
10. Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,2, 270-283.
11. Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.
12. Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L., & Allen, S.D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
13. Feilzer, M. (2007). Criminologists making news? Providing factual information on crime and criminal justice through a weekly newspaper column. Crime, Media, Culture, 3, 285-304.
14. Fishman, M. (1978). Crime wave as ideology. Social Problems, 25, 531-543.
15. Grant, C., Bolling, K., & Sexton, M. (2006). 2005-6 British crime survey (England and Wales): Technical Report, Volume I. London: Home Office.
16. Greene, J., Benjamin, L., & Goodyear, L. (2001). The merits of mixing methods in evaluation. Evaluation, 7, 25-44.
17. Greene, J., & Caracelli, V. (2002). Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods practice. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 91-111). London: SAGE.
18. Hammersley, M. (2008). Questioning qualitative inquiry. Critical essays. London: SAGE.
19. Hanson, B. (2008). Wither qualitative/quantitative? Grounds for methodological convergence. Quality & Quantity,42, 97-111.
20. Hughes, J.A., & Sharrock, W.W. (2007). Theory and methods in sociology. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
21. Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly,24, 602-611.
22. Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods rersearch: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
23. Jowell, R. (1984). Introducing the survey. In R. Jowell & C. Airey (Eds.), British social attitudes: The 1984 report (pp. 1-10). Aldershot, UK: Gower.
24. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26. Miller, S. (2006). Mixed methods as methodological innovations: Problems and prospects. Methodological Innovations Online, 1, 1-7.
27. Mills, C.W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
28. Morgan, D.L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48-76.
29. Mounce, H.O. (1997). The two pragmatisms: From Peirce to Rorty. London: Routledge.
30. Osborne, T., & Rose, N. (1999). Do the social sciences create phenomena?: The example of public opinion research. British Journal of Sociology, 50, 367-396.
31. Park, A., Curtice, J., Thomson, K., Bromley, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (2004). British social attitudes: The 21st report. London: SAGE.
32. Park, A., Curtice, J., Thomson, K., Phillips, M., & Johnson, M. (Eds.). (2007). British social attitudes: The 23rd report. London: SAGE.
33. Robson, C. (1993). Real world research. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
34. Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism and truth: Philosophical papers (Series-Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35. Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. London: Penguin Books.
36. Schumann, H., & Presser, S. (1996). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments in question form, wording and context. London: SAGE.
37. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.