IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v39y2022i1p104-115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing mixed methods pragmatism with systems theory: Perspectives from educational research

Author

Listed:
  • Jacob Høgaard Christensen

Abstract

Paradigmatic frameworks are central to philosophical and theoretical discussions of mixed methods research. This article argues that in mixed methods research, systems theory provides a paradigmatic stance that in some cases may be regarded as more suitable than other prominent paradigmatic stances, such as pragmatism. This article develops this argument by discussing the key terms within a distinguished understanding of pragmatism, from which a systems‐theoretical alternative to mixed methods educational research is derived, comprising three main themes: (a) second‐order observation as an alternative to abductive reasoning, (b) the distinction between system and environment as an alternative to intersubjectivity and (c) structural coupling as an alternative to the transferability of mixed methods research results. Throughout this article, the main arguments are elaborated with perspectives from educational research.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacob Høgaard Christensen, 2022. "Enhancing mixed methods pragmatism with systems theory: Perspectives from educational research," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 104-115, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:39:y:2022:i:1:p:104-115
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2751
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2751
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2751?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J Mingers, 2000. "The contribution of critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for OR/MS and systems," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 51(11), pages 1256-1270, November.
    2. Mingers, John & Brocklesby, John, 1997. "Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 489-509, October.
    3. Mingers, John & White, Leroy, 2010. "A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1147-1161, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael C. Jackson, 2022. "Critical systems practice 3: Intervene—Flexibly executing a multimethodological intervention," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1014-1023, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    2. Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Linking stakeholder visions with resource allocation scenarios and multi-criteria assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 762-772.
    3. M. Nassereddine & M. A. Ellakkis & A. Azar & M. D. Nayeri, 2021. "Developing a Multi-methodology for Conflict Resolution: Case of Yemen’s Humanitarian Crisis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 301-320, April.
    4. Zhichang Zhu, 2022. "Paradigm, specialty, pragmatism: Kuhn's legacy to methodological pluralism," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 895-912, September.
    5. Espinosa, Angela & Reficco, Ezequiel & Martínez, Andrea & Guzmán, David, 2015. "A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a Latin-American multi-national," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 202-212.
    6. Small, Adrian & Wainwright, David, 2018. "Privacy and security of electronic patient records – Tailoring multimethodology to explore the socio-political problems associated with Role Based Access Control systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 344-360.
    7. Gerald Midgley & Erik Lindhult, 2021. "A systems perspective on systemic innovation," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 635-670, October.
    8. J Mingers, 2003. "A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(6), pages 559-570, June.
    9. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2013. "The uses of qualitative data in multimethodology: Developing causal loop diagrams during the coding process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 151-161.
    10. Shaw, Duncan & Smith, Chris M. & Scully, Judy, 2019. "From Brexit to Article 50: Applying Critical Realism to the design and analysis of a longitudinal causal mapping study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 723-735.
    11. Abuabara, Leila & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2021. "Surveying applications of Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) from 1989 to 2018," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1051-1065.
    12. Mingers, John, 2015. "Helping business schools engage with real problems: The contribution of critical realism and systems thinking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 316-331.
    13. J Mingers, 2005. "Classifying philosophical assumptions: a reply to Ormerod," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(4), pages 465-467, April.
    14. J Mingers, 2006. "A critique of statistical modelling in management science from a critical realist perspective: its role within multimethodology," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(2), pages 202-219, February.
    15. Ana Gabriela Ramírez-Gutiérrez & Pedro Pablo Cardoso-Castro & Ricardo Tejeida-Padilla, 2021. "A Methodological Proposal for the Complementarity of the SSM and the VSM for the Analysis of Viability in Organizations," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 331-357, June.
    16. Killemsetty, Namesh & Johnson, Michael & Patel, Amit, 2022. "Understanding housing preferences of slum dwellers in India: A community-based operations research approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 699-713.
    17. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    18. Wang, Yingli & Touboulic, Anne & O'Neill, Martin, 2018. "An exploration of solutions for improving access to affordable fresh food with disadvantaged Welsh communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1021-1039.
    19. Payam Hanafizadeh & Mohammad Mehrabioun, 2018. "Application of SSM in tackling problematical situations from academicians’ viewpoints," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 179-220, April.
    20. J Mingers, 2005. "‘More dangerous than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer’: a contribution to the Ulrich debate," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(4), pages 468-474, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:39:y:2022:i:1:p:104-115. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.