Pragmatism, Evidence, and Mixed Methods Evaluation

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 2013, Issue 138, 2013, Pages 15-26

  Hall, Jori N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878952578     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.20054     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 95-118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Biesta, G., & Burbules, N. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
3. Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 1-18.
4. Campbell, J. (1995). Understanding John Dewey: Nature and cooperative intelligence. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
5. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270-283.
7. Denzin, N. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80-88.
8. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.
9. Dewey, J. (1920). Reconstruction in philosophy. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
10. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
11. Dewey, J. (1998). The development of American pragmatism. In L. A. Hickman & T. M. Alexander (Eds.), The essential Dewey: Vol. 1. Pragmatism, education, democracy (pp. 3-13). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. (Original work published 1923)
12. Dirani, K., Freeman, M., & Skidmore, M. (in press). Exploring mentor-protégé dynamics for school principals.
13. Donaldson, S., Christie, C., & Mark, M. (Eds.). (2009). What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
14. Feilzer, M. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(6), 6-16.
15. Garrison, J. (1994). Realism, Deweyan pragmatism, and educational research. Educational Researcher, 23(1), 5-14.
16. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
17. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
18. Greene, J. C. (2009). Evidence as "proof" and evidence as "inkling." In S. I. Donaldson, C. A. Christie, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? (pp. 153-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Feminist approaches to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods research (2nd ed., pp. 169-192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Johnson, B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
21. Johnson, R. B., & Stefurak, T. (2013). Considering the evidence-and-credibility discussion in evaluation through the lens of dialectical pluralism. New Directions for Evaluation, 138, 37-48.
22. Kirkhart, K. E. (2005). Through a cultural lens: Reflections on validity and theory in evaluation. In S. Hood, R. K. Hopson, & H. T. Frierson (Eds.), The role of culture and cultural context: A mandate for inclusion, the discovery of truth, and understanding in evaluative theory and practice (pp. 21-39). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
23. Lipscomb, M. (2008). Mixed method nursing studies: A critical realist critique. Nursing Philosophy, 9(1), 32-45.
24. Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 475-482.
25. Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Mertens, D. M. (2013). What does a transformative lens bring to credible evidence in mixed methods evaluations? New Directions for Evaluation, 138, 27-35.
27. Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A.T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice. New York, NY: Guilford.
28. Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.
29. Murphy, J. P. (1990). Pragmatism: From Peirce to Davidson. Boulder, CO: Westview.
30. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
31. Schwandt, T. A. (2009). Toward a practical theory of evidence for evaluation. In S. I. Donaldson, C. A. Christie, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), What counts as credible evidence in applied research and contemporary evaluation practice (pp. 197-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Seigfried, C. (1996). Pragmatism and feminism: Reweaving the social fabric. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.