3.2.3.

Pragmatism and mixed methods

Pragmatism as a paradigm has been mostly proposed and argued as providing philosophical
and methodological foundations to the use of mixed methods research (Biesta, 2010; Creswell,
2010; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). However, some researchers such as J. Green and Hall
(2010), Mertens (2012) and Morgan (2014a) contend that the terms qualitative and quantitative
point to types of data and not the philosophical dimensions of epistemology, ontology and
design assumptions and thus avoid the use of mixed methods as paradigm which many other
and earlier researchers such as (B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), and Creswell and Plano
Clark (2011) had used in their writings. Mertens (2012, 2015), argues that paradigms
themselves cannot be methodological in nature, rather these lead to the choice of methods based
on some beliefs and careful reflection, whereas B. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) state that
choice/use of mixed methods is a paradigm itself.

The word pragmatism etymologically came from the Greek word ‗pragma‘ (πρᾶγμα) which
literally mean ‗action‘ and consequence of an action. Pragmatism may be defined as ―solving
problems in a practical and sensible way rather than by having fixed ideas or theories‖ (Oxford
Dictionaries Language Matters, 2016c). This definition points towards the non-theoretical and
non-philosophical nature of pragmatism and suggests its practical nature. From a pragmatist
point of view, knowledge comes from taking action and learning from the experiences and
outcomes of these actions (Morgan, 2014a). All these meanings indicate the action-oriented
nature of pragmatism rather than the philosophical as suggested by some researchers such as
Mertens (2015). Therefore, the major rationale behind using pragmatism as a guiding paradigm
for this study is its action-oriented nature because the focus of this research is designing,
implementing and evaluating the teaching-learning intervention in response to the problems of
learning and motivation encountered.

Morgan (2014a) states that pragmatism is ―particularly appropriate‖ (p.8) for mixed methods
research and note that there are a variety of ways these methods can be used. Johnson and Gray
(2010) point to their bias towards ‗dialectical pragmatism‘ as ―a philosophical partner of MM
(mixed methods) [sic]‖ (p.72) and argue that multiple perspectives should be dialectically
examined to ―create workable solutions in addressing important research questions and social
problems‖ (p.72). In this way, Johnson and Gray (2010) also propose pragmatism as an
appropriate paradigm for the conduct of mixed methods studies. However, there are others,
such as Hall (2012), who argue in favour of using the realist paradigm pointing to the ―serious
limitations‖ (p.1) associated with pragmatism stating that ―pragmatism does not enter in to the
choice of mixed methods nor justify its use‖ (p.4) for conducting mixed methods research.
Others, for instance Taylor and Medina (2013) propose the use of multiple paradigms in the
form of a ―new integral paradigm‖ (p.9) to design new and hybrid methodologies and
epistemologies for mixed method research. This multiple paradigm stance is also supported by
B. Johnson and Gray (2010), who advocate for ontological pluralism and label it as multiple
realism which, they state, is a product of embracing all types of objective, subjective and
intersubjective realities. Egbert and Sanden (2014), are also of the view that sometimes
multiple paradigms can produce rich results for some research. Issues about the relevance are
discussed in the following section.

3.2.4. Pragmatism as an appropriate paradigm

On one hand, positivism (post-positivism per se) appears appropriate to this study because of
the teaching experiment (intervention) and the quasi-experimental research design use to carry
it out, while on the other hand, constructivism also seems appropriate as students studied
science concepts in small groups by using discussions, dialogues, and argumentations to
construct knowledge in groups (see section 2.6). Because the elements of social context
(interactions, co-construction, cultural etc.) and emotions (beliefs, values) are involved in the
process of knowledge construction in the classroom context, the thesis of one objective reality
does not work in this case and thus positivism (and post-positivism) does not appear to be an
appropriate paradigm to guide the enquiry. Constructivism allows for multiple subjective
realities based on social interaction. But, because the scientific knowledge in science (related
with scientific laws, theories and facts) is not subjective in nature as is the case of social science
subjects, there is typically only one kind of ‗true‘ (scientific) knowledge in science. Moreover,
as the knowledge construction depends on different varieties of prior knowledge and beliefs,
they can all lead to misconceptions, wrong or alternative conceptions or different conceptions
to those that are agreed upon by the scientific community. Thus, this study also fits poorly with
constructivism.

The researcher instead has taken a pragmatist stance in this study. The overall belief about
pragmatism use, in addition to its ‗whatever works‘ approach, is that pragmatism stresses
action and learning from experiences (reflection) which fits the focus of the current study. In
addition, pragmatism also provides a suitable research framework in terms of the process of
enquiry for the conduct of this study (methodology) as advocated by John Dewey (cited in
Morgan, 2014b). This aspect is explained in the following section.

In relation to the use and justification of pragmatism as an appropriate paradigm for this
research, it is important to consider its ontological, epistemological and methodological
aspects. Pragmatist researchers adopt external but multiple views of reality (as opposed to
positivist and realist) and choose the best one to answer the research question. For pragmatists,
an ideology or reality is true if it works (practically) to solve problems in a particular context.
This view of practical reality is also affected by the belief: what works for whom in specific
context, which is not philosophical in nature but has practical value for the study (Morgan,
2014a). Morgan (2014b), however calls it a ‗new paradigm‘ which is philosophically more
sound and has more practical implications than its previous versions of nineteenth and early
twentieth century (1860-1930). Pragmatists believe that there is such a thing as reality but it
keeps changing with time based on our actions. Pragmatist researchers appreciate all of the
objective, subjective and intersubjective realities and their interrelations (B. Johnson &
Christensen, 2014; B. Johnson & Gray, 2010) to work out what is ‗best‘ in a specific context.
Pragmatists are therefore, interested in finding out what, why and how something, in the case
of present research the intervention, works in specific contexts.

Epistemology, as a theory of knowledge considers the legitimate nature of intended knowledge

and the relationship (interaction) of the knower with the knowledge. Pragmatists believe that
either observable phenomena or subjective meanings or both can provide legitimate and
acceptable knowledge depending upon the research question or objective of the research
(Morgan, 2014b). They therefore integrate different perspectives to generate and analyse valid
data and thus focus on practical and applied research. The implication of this pragmatist
epistemology for the present study is that the objective (individual and scientific) knowledge
as well as subjective (collective and non-scientific such as misconceptions) knowledge will be
examined critically and evaluated based on set scientific criteria. The development and
enhancement of scientific and legitimate knowledge is the focus of the study which is free from
ambiguity and is in line with consensual scientific views acceptable by the scientific
community.

Methodology is related to the choice of suitable and valid methods to achieve the legitimate
knowledge. For pragmatists, the criterion to decide the appropriateness of a method is to
evaluate it in terms of achieving its purpose (Maxcy, 2003). Pragmatists put more emphasis on
the question- why to use a given method and not the other (Morgan, 2014b)? This is in contrast
to the usual question- how to conduct research, which is a classical case in mixed methods
research and is only one aspect of the broader why question. Usually, choice of methods in
pragmatism is linked to the research questions. Morgan (2014a) labels pragmatism as a
―paradigm of choices‖ (p. 8), because there are many complex choices available to integrate
the strengths of the qualitative and quantitative methods based on the nature of research. At the
same time, Morgan (2014a) also warns about the ‗over simplified meaning of ‗what works‘
and suggests that the quality issues (such as knowledge validity) should be considered critically
before deciding on the methods to be used. Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) also stress the
need to justify the use of mixed methods to achieve the purpose and valid knowledge.

The intentional collection of both quantitative and qualitative data… The investigators know
the reasons that both types of data are needed, and they state these reasons. Also, rigor is added
when the authors report detailed quantitative and qualitative procedures and used mixed
methods terms to describe their study. (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, pp. 163-164)

Pragmatist aspects of methodology have two important implications for this research which
guide the overall process. First, in terms of method choice, this study has used mixed methods
both as multi-methods and as integrated methods to investigate the phenomena of conceptual
learning and motivation to achieve legitimate knowledge in line with the scientific consensual
views. Second, the methodology used (see section 3.3) is very similar to the inquiry process as
recommended by Dewey (cited in Mertens, 2015; Morgan, 2014a). For Dewey, the inquiry
(research) is a cyclic process which starts with the action and leads to the
outcome/consequence. The researcher then evaluates the workability of the action and
establishes his/her ‗warranted beliefs‘. These warranted beliefs again guide the line of action
and the process of reflection go on until a workable and valid solution is reached (Mertens,
2015; Morgan, 2014a). This cyclic, reflective and iterative process is very similar to the
Design-based Research (DBR) methodology used in this research to investigate the issues of
learning and motivation. DBR is explained in the following section.