Pragmatism

Within the mixed methods research community there is considerable divergence around the philosophical beliefs underpinning mixed methods research (Creswell, 2011; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2011). The stance of this study is that of pragmatism. There are different types of pragmatism (Goodman, 1995; Pihlström, 2011). The pragmatic approach taken in this study is primarily informed by the classical

pragmatists (e.g., Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, John Dewey, and George Herbert Mead) (Crotty, 1998; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Although there is no precise or accepted definition for pragmatism, there are a number of commonly agreed upon key concepts and characteristics that are pertinent to the pragmatist approach taken with this study (Pihlström, 2011).

A major tenet of pragmatism is the belief that quantitative and qualitative methods can be mixed, reflecting an anti-dualist stance that rejects the forced-choice between positivist/postpositivist and constructivist/interpretivist paradigms (e.g., objectivism vs subjectivism) (Howe, 1988; Johnson & Gray, 2010). However, there are those who have argued that qualitative and quantitative techniques cannot and should not be combined because they are grounded in incompatible epistemological and ontological assumptions (e.g., Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002; J. K. Smith, 1983; J. K. Smith & Heshusius, 1986). This issue has been termed the incompatibility thesis by Howe (1988) and has been discredited on several grounds (Bergman, 2008; Bryman, 2012; Datta, 1994; Gorard, 2010; Hanson, 2008; House, 1994; Howe, 2003; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005; Reichardt & Rallis, 1994; Schwandt, 2000; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).

One argument that has been put forward by those arguing that quantitative and qualitative methods cannot be mixed is that the research methods employed by researchers are determined by their epistemological and ontological beliefs. The counter argument is that epistemological and ontological beliefs should not dictate the

methods employed in a study (Biesta, 2010; Howe, 1988; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Empirical support for this counter argument comes from large scale analyses of published articles that have not found a strong link between methods and

epistemological and ontological assumptions (Bryman, 2012).

Another argument put forward for the incompatibility between quantitative and qualitative research is that quantitative research is assumed to be a theory-driven, hypothesis testing approach, while qualitative research is assumed to focus on theory generation. Again Bryman (2012) challenges this assumption. He notes that

quantitative data from social surveys are often exploratory and therefore can be used to generate theories, while qualitative research can be used to test theories.

The difference between the focus on numbers verses words is also often cited as a distinct difference (Bryman, 2012; Vogt, 2007). However, there are numerous

examples where researchers have quantitized qualitative findings (e.g., the numerical reporting of frequency with which particular themes are identified), and made

qualitative judgments about numerical data (Vogt, 2007). Hanson (2008) also points out that numbers are socially constructed symbols that have no meaning beyond the context in which they are used. Howe (1988) also argues that the credibility of the results arising from statistical analyses is determined by their underlying assumptions and arguments, rather than by the preciseness of the numbers.

According to Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) many of the arguments put forward by those who believe that qualitative and quantitative approaches are incompatible are based on false dichotomies. They argue that there are more similarities than there are differences.

Schwandt (2000) has gone as far as to argue that, “it is highly questionable whether such a distinction [between qualitative and quantitative inquiry] is any longer

meaningful in helping us understand the purpose and means of human inquiry” (p. 210). Morse (1991) soundly sums up the views of many mixed methods researchers on the incompatibility thesis when she stated, “researchers who purport to subscribe to the philosophical underpinnings of only one research approach have lost sight of the fact that research methodologies are merely tools, instruments to be used to facilitate understanding” (p. 123).

In rejecting the forced-choice stance advocated by those supporting the incompatibility thesis, pragmatists take a synechistic position, viewing the world in terms of continua rather than binaries (Johnson & Gray, 2010). Pragmatists also believe paradigms are descriptive, rather than prescriptive and restrictive (J. C. Greene & Caracelli, 1997). They believe that no methodological approach is inherently better than any other in terms of generating knowledge (Biesta, 2010). Rather, research methodologies are evaluated, “not by a priori epistemological standards, but by the epistemological

standard of their fruitfulness in use” (Howe, 2003, p. 11). As Patton (2002) pointed out, pragmatism “allows one to eschew methodological orthodoxy in favour of

methodological appropriateness as the primary criterion for judging methodological quality” (p. 72).

From an ontological perspective, pragmatists recognise there are singular and multiple realities (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). They acknowledge the existence of an

“external world independent of the mind as well as that lodged in the mind” (Creswell, 2009, p. 11). From an epistemological perspective, pragmatists view knowledge “as being both constructed andbased on the reality of the world we experience and live in”

(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 18). Given experience is one of the key concepts of pragmatism, pragmatists argue that knowledge must be anchored in experience

(Eldridge & Pihlström, 2011). For pragmatists the focus is on intersubjectivity, rather than on objectivity or subjectivity (Morgan, 2007).

While this study is underpinned by the pragmatist beliefs outlined above, it also

endorses the pragmatist belief that it is important to find workable solutions to practical real-world problems (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). The study arose out of a concern for secondary students’ life chances being potentially limited by their

performance in high-stakes certification assessment, and a desire to identify ways to improve students’ outcomes. It is from this practical concern that the research questions evolved. To successfully address these research questions, a mixed

methods research methodology was considered most appropriate. As Creswell (2009) has noted, pragmatism is problem-centred, practically oriented, and pluralistic. Its focus is on what approaches work best to understand the research problem and answer the research questions, drawing on both qualitative and quantitative methods and