Introduction
In the last few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in labeling social scientific research as “mixed methods ” and thus professional research (Biddle & Schafft, 2014). There is ample evidence that mixed methods research is increasing in volume and acceptability within the scientific community, as well as increasing levels of proven methodological and theoretical sophistication (Denzin, 2010; Small, 2011). All of these developments raise critical questions within the broader community of scientists engaged in mixed methods research.
A growing number of authors are discussing how the quality of mixed methods research should be conceptualized and operationalized, with the ultimate goal of promoting mixed methods research that is well designed and properly implemented (Fa‘bregues & Molina-Azorı´n, 2017). In this context, Creswell and Plano-Clark (2018) argue that in their bedside book for mixed methods researchers, researchers should provide a clear philosophical justification for their methodological choices in light of the still-evolving norms and practices of mixed methods study.
There are many philosophical perspectives or worldviews discussed and used in the literature on the mixed research method (Ghiara, 2020);pragmatism (Morgan, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009; Yvonne Feilzer, 2010), transformative (Mertens, 2003; Mertens & Hesse-Biber, 2013), critical realism (Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2010; Zachariadis et al., 2013), postpositivism (Phillips et al., 2000), constructivism (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018),realism (Maxwell, 2016; Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2010; Pawson, 2013), feminism (Crasnow, 2015; Hesse-Biber, 2012; Leckenby & Hesse-Biber, 2007). Shannon-Baker (2016) emphasizes four perspectives in the mixed research method: pragmatism (Morgan, 2007), transformative-emancipation (Mertens, 2003), dialectics (Greene & Hall, 2010), and critical realism (Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2010). Of these paradigms, pragmatism is one of the most widely used philosophical frameworks, mostly in mixed research. It is often described as such in theory or method books and major articles in the field (Bryman, 2007; Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2018; Yvonne Feilzer, 2010; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Johnson et al, 2007; Morgan, 2007; Scott & Briggs, 2009; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, 2010). The popularity of pragmatism in mixed-method studies is partly explained by its use as a philosophical tool to address the many unhelpful dualisms at the center of ”paradigm wars ” (Biesta, 2010). Perhaps the most profitable scientific research method from paradigm wars has been the mixed research method. Rossman and Wilson (1985) suggested that the views of purists who adopt a pure research paradigm, situationists who adopt a case-by-case research paradigm, and pragmatists who adopt a utilitarian research paradigm are combined in a mixed method.
Using these philosophical perspectives, researchers try to explain knowledge in terms of ontological (what is knowledge),epistemological (how do we know the information),axiological (what values are included in the information),rhetorical (how do we write about information), andmethodological (processes of examining knowledge) dimensions (Creswell, 2003). Pragmatist philosophy considers the nature of reality ontologically in multiple forms of reality. Information is explained by adopting a usefulness-oriented understanding of reality. From an epistemological point of view, the relationship between the knowing subject and the known object can be used together to increase the reliability of the research. Axiologically, values are brought to the fore and it is accepted that values affect the research process. Both formal and informal writing styles can be used rhetorically. In other words, the researcher can use accepted definitions of variables as well as make definitions in different ways according to his or her point of view. He uses various forms of qualitative and quantitative data to develop an understanding from a methodological point of view, integrating them to serve the purpose of his research. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) state that pragmatism supports the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, places the research question at the center of the research, and all knowledge claims depend on the research question. In this respect, it can be said that the pragmatist approach, which uses the advantages of qualitative and quantitative data, has a pluralistic perspective. (Creswell, 2009). The phenomenon investigated with multiple data is explained in a comprehensive, detailed, and more convincing way (Mills & Gay, 2016). It is important to determine the reason for using quantitative and qualitative data together, the reason and contribution of using more than one method, and the relationship between them. From the title of the study and research questions to the recommendations, a report should be created that is not only representative of qualitative or quantitative but also pluralism by pragmatism. Pragmatism allows researchers the freedom to choose their methods, techniques, and procedures to best meet the needs and goals of research (Murphy, 1990). All kinds of quantitative and qualitative data that are useful in the research process and that will help to solve the problem can be consulted. Therefore, it can be said that the word most associated with pragmatism is ”utilitarianism ” (Doğan, 2003). While pragmatism includes utilitarianism, it is a much more comprehensive and newer trend than utilitarianism. (Türer &Aydin, 2019). In pragmatism, we can measure the accuracy or value of information according to the usefulness it provides. Pragmatism, which evaluates truth or reality according to the result of the action, evaluates it in terms of utilitarianism. Contribution to the solution of the problem is the main one (James, 2004). Ease of action can be defined more simply as usefulness. The emphasis on the interpretation of pragmatist philosophy as ”what does it do ” in pursuit of research is actually ” what good is it for whom? ” and “for what purpose? ” makes sense with questions. The pragmatic approach also preserves the ”valuable contributions ” of the metaphysical paradigm, namely the importance of epistemology and the centrality of one’s worldviews for research (Morgan, 2007). In addressing these issues, pragmatism focuses on what makes the difference, as well as linking abstract issues at the epistemological level to the methodological level (Shannon-Baker, 2016).
Pragmatism is result-oriented and is concerned with determining the meaning of facts (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) or focusing on the product of research (Biesta, 2010). It emphasizes communication and creating shared meaning to create practical solutions to social problems. Pragmatism deals with what function, in theory, is in practice and how it is applied (Cevizci, 1999). Theoretical knowledge is valuable with its function in practice.
Pragmatism uses transferability to consider the results of research (Leininger, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 1986). This philosophy is based on the belief that theories can be both contextual and generalizable by analyzing them for ”transferability ” to another situation (Shannon-Baker, 2016). Pragmatists agree that research always takes place in social, historical, political, and other contexts. In this way, mixed-method studies can include a theoretical lens that reflects a postmodern turn, social justice, and political goals. Transferability is a concept related to how and to what extent the acquired knowledge affects different fields, environments, or results. It is necessary to look at how the obtained information manifests itself in different areas or can it be transferred to different areas. It is the explanation of how the obtained knowledge or result corresponds to another field and to what extent it can be adapted (Arastaman et al., 2018). To better understand the usefulness, functionality, and transferability of the research results, it should be emphasized which uncertainty the information obtained in the study will eliminate or in which area it will fill the gap. If the solution to the problem depends on the findings of the research, it can be said that the research has a problem-solving feature (Doğan, 2003).
Taşçıoğlu et al. (2022) examined which paradigm/research method dominates the 500 most cited articles in the field of education in the last 10 years and whether dominant paradigms affect citations. As a result of the examination of the Web of Science Core Collection, Social Science Citation Index-SSCI indexed articles, they determined that the most preferred methodological paradigms were quantitative, mixed methods, and qualitative, respectively. Ghiara (2020) argued that mixed research is a new paradigm to use concepts such as paradigms and worldviews more clearly in the literature and that more than one paradigm can be used in research. In these studies, we see that the concept of paradigm and research method are often used interchangeably. Coates (2020) explored the presentation of philosophical assumptions in 1,026 mixed-methods research papers in education. Eighty-one articles (7.9%) were reported to have made philosophical commitments and 31 of them had different stances/claims. Coates (2020) found that pragmatism was the most used philosophical approach. Alise and Teddlie (2010) present a new line of research on the prevalence of mixed methods. They analyzed 600 studies in fields such as psychology, sociology, and education. They reported that only one of these studies mentioned the philosophical paradigm that formed the basis of the research.
Fa‘bregues and Molina-Azori ̵́n (2016) argued that mixed-method research has several unique features compared to single-method research and therefore should be evaluated according to its quality criteria. They reported that publications on the quality of mixed methods research are becoming more common and detailed and that a common set of basic quality criteria can be determined among publications to evaluate mixed methods research. Shannon-Baker (2016) stated that we should be concerned with the way researchers legitimize and functionalize the paradigm they choose to make paradigms meaningful in mixed studies. “Are the chosen paradigm values compatible with the research focus?”, “Are the implications of the paradigm discussed clearly? ”, “How do the implications relate to the paradigm(s) being discussed? ” It is necessary to focus on the questions. The same study noted that researchers should focus more on the details of how they use the paradigm(s) and how they will do it. Heyvaert et al. (2013) provided an overview of current critical review frameworks developed to evaluate primary mixed-methods research papers. They compared frameworks used in studies examining studies using the mixed method and the quality criteria they included. Researchers have found that quality criteria have evolved and changed; reported the need for more detailed criteria. Therefore, we anticipate that the criteria we propose are for learning purposes for novice researchers. We also hope that our criteria will be of great help to novice researchers to avoid deficiencies that more experienced researchers are aware of. In addition, we plan to provide a framework for reflecting philosophical perspectives in mixed studies. Thus, we will give an idea to ensure a clear and conscious interaction with philosophical foundations in the design, implementation, and reporting stages of the research. The questions we will focus on solving in the research are as follows: “Can we understand that pragmatist philosophy is used in a study using a mixed research method? ”, “What are the clues about pragmatist perspective in an academic study? ”, “Can we show that the research is based on pragmatist philosophy? ” Therefore, this research aims to examine the reflection of pragmatist philosophy on mixed studies.