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.