This article explores the practical relevance of pragmatism as a research paradigm through the example of a piece of pragmatic research that not only used both quantitative and qualitative research methods but also exploited the inherent duality of the data analyzed. Thus, the article aims to make the case that pragmatism as a research paradigm supports the use of a mix of different research methods as well as modes of analysis and a continuous cycle of abductive reasoning while being guided primarily by the researcher’s desire to produce socially useful knowledge. It will be argued that pragmatism can serve as a rationale for formal research design as well as a more grounded approach to research.
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.
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.
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 .
