Limiti dell’"approccio pragmatico" e insidie della metodologia bricolage. I metodi misti rischiano di riprodurre un’epistemologia positivista sotto mentite spoglie?

Titolo Rivista RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione
Autori/Curatori Giampietro Gobo
Anno di pubblicazione 2021 Fascicolo 2020/76
Lingua Italiano Numero pagine 20 P. 71-90 Dimensione file 340 KB
DOI 10.3280/RIV2020-076005
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Mixed methods have often been presented as a «third paradigm» (Tashakkori e Teddlie, 2003; Morgan (2007), halfway between quanti-tative and qualitative ones. More recently, they have also been provid-ed with a broader philosophical foundation identifiable in pragmatism, «a philosophical program for social research, regardless of whether that research uses qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods» (Morgan 2014, p. 1045), proposed as a "third way" between positivism and constructivism (Maxcy 2003, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004, Mor-gan 2007 and 2014, Biesta 2010, Tashakkori and Teddlie 2010, Pearce 2012, Hall 2013). This (apparent) novelty has also made it attractive in evaluative research. However, are contemporary mixed methods (and the related prag-matist approach) really a third way? For example, in their empirical in-quiries, will mixed method and pragmatic researchers use a classic (and positivistic) questionnaire with forced choices and close-ended an-swers, which are a strong limitation to an interpretative and interaction-al perspective? Recalling that those conventional fixed formats are responsible for many well-known response errors and biases? Have the concepts of ‘measures’ and ‘measurement’ (and their positivistic imprinting and use), become so widespread in mixed method literature, been rethought within a pragmatic approach or only imported, underes-timating several epistemological, methodological and technical prob-lems related to measurement? While analyzing in detail the foundations of this approach, a num-ber of theoretical and methodological difficulties of the pragmatist proposal seem to emerge precisely on the level of .. research practices. Hence, although the pragmatic approach is proposed as a paradigm for the dissolution of differences and the neutralization of epistemological barriers, in practice it runs the risk of ending up reproducing the posi-tivist paradigm in disguise, by not problematizing and reforming cur-rent research methods. The evaluator should take this into account.

Parole chiave:Mixed methods, merged methods, measurement, epistemology, methodology, positivism.

  1. Amaturo E., (2012), Metodologia della Ricerca sociale. Torino: UTET.
  2. Amaturo E. e Punziano G. (2016), I mixed methods nella ricerca sociale. Roma: Carocci.
  3. Bazeley P., (2018), Integrating Analyses in Mixed Methods Research. London: Sage.
  4. Becker H.S., (1970), Sociological work: Method and substance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
  5. Belli R.F., Stafford R.P. e Alwin D.F. (a cura di) (2009), Calendar and time diary methods in life course research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  6. Biesta G. (2010), Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A. and C. Teddlie, a cura di, Handbook of mixed methods research for the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed. pp. 95-118). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  7. Brannen J., (1992), Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research. London: Gower
  8. Campbell D. e Fiske D. (1959), Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix’. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.
  9. Chen H.T. e Rossi P.H. (1981), The multi-goal, theory-driven approach to evaluation. A model linking basic and applied social science. Social Forces, 59, 106-22.
  10. Chen H. e Rossi P. (1989), Issues in the theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and program planning, 4, 299-306.
  11. Cicourel A.V. (1996), Ecological Validity and White Room Effects. Pragmatic and Cognition, 4(2), 221–264.
  12. Collins K.M.T., Onwuegbuzie A.J. e Jiao Q.G. (2007), A Mixed Methods Investigation of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social and Health Science Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 267-94.
  13. Converse J.M. and Schuman H. (1974), Conversations at Random: Survey Research as Interviewers See it. New York: Wiley.
  14. Creswell J.W. (2009), Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  15. Creswell J.W. e Plano Clark V.L. (2011), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
  16. Cronbach L. J. (1975), Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30(2), 116–27.
  17. Daigneault P.M. e Jacob, S. (2014), Unexpected but most welcome: Mixed methods for the validation and revision of the participatory evaluation measurement instrument. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 8(1), 6-24.
  18. Denzin N.K. e Lincoln Y.S. (2005), Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research”. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. a cura di, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1-32.
  19. Dewey J. (1938), Logic, the Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
  20. Diesing P.R. (1971), Patterns of Discovery in the Social Sciences. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
  21. Fakis A., Hilliam R., Stoneley H., e Townend M. (2014), Quantitative Analysis of Qualitative Information From Interviews: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(2), 139–61.
  22. Giddings L.S. (2006), Mixed-methods research: positivism dressed in drag. Journal of Research in Nursing, 11(3), 195-203.
  23. Glaser B.G. e Strauss A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
  24. Gobo G. (1993), L’interazione telefonica. Rituali e strategie nel contatto iniziale, in C. Guala Posso farle una domanda?, Roma, Nuova Italia Scientifica, 99-116.
  25. Gobo G. (2001), Descrivere il mondo. Teoria e pratica del metodo etnografico in sociologia, Roma, Carocci.
  26. Gobo G. (2004), Generalizzare da un solo caso? Lineamenti di una teoria ideografica dei campioni, in «Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia», 1, 103-29.
  27. Gobo G. (2009), Ritorno a Likert. Verso una survey discorsiva, in «Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale», XXX, n. 88, 5-28.
  28. Gobo G. (2011), Back to Likert. Towards a conversational survey, in Williams, Malcolm and Vogt, Paul (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods London, Sage, 228-248.
  29. Gobo G. (2015), La nuova survey. Sondaggio discorsivo e approccio interazionale, Roma, Carocci.
  30. Gobo G. (2016), Why “merged” methods realize a higher integration than “mixed” methods. A reply, in “Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal”, 11(3), 199-208.
  31. Gobo G. (2018), Upside down. Reinventing research design, in Uwe Flick (ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, London, Sage, (Chapter 5), 65-83.
  32. Gobo G., e Mauceri, S. (2014), Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach, London, Sage.
  33. Gobo G., Fielding N., La Rocca G. e van der Vaart W. (2021), Merged Methods: A Rationale for Full Integration, London: Sage.
  34. Goffman E. (1967), Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-To-Face Behavior. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
  35. Gomm R., Hammersley, M. e Foster, P. a cura di (2000), Case Study Method. London, Sage.
  36. Gorard S. (2010). Research design, as independent of methods. In Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. a cura di, Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 237-51.
  37. Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J. e Graham W.F. (1989), Toward a conceptual framework for mixed method evaluation designs. In: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (3), 255-74.
  38. Hall J. (2013), Pragmatism, evidence, and mixed methods evaluation (Special Issue: Mixed methods and credibility of evidence in evaluation). New Directions for Evaluation, 138, 15-26.
  39. Hammersley M. (1987), Some notes on the terms “validity” and “reliability. British Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 73–81
  40. Hammersley M. (2008), Troubles with triangulation. In Bergman, M.M a cura di, Advances in Mixed Methods Research. London: Sage, 22–36.
  41. Hammersley M. (2010), Is Social Measurement Possible, and Is It Necessary? In: Walford G., Tucker E. and Viswanathan, M. a cura di, The SAGE Handbook of Measurement, London. Sage.
  42. Hammersley M. (2018), Commentary—On the “Indistinguishability Thesis”: A Response to Morgan. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 12(3), 256-61.
  43. Howe K.R. (1988), Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17, 10-16.
  44. Howe K.R. (2004), A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (4), 42-61.
  45. Howell Smith M.C., Babchuk W.A., Stevens J., Garrett A.L., Wang S.C. e Guetterman T.C. (2020), Modeling the Use of Mixed Methods–Grounded Theory: Developing Scales for a New Measurement Model. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 14(2), 184-206.
  46. Jick T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4), 602-611.
  47. Johnson B., e Onwuegbuzie A. (2004), Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
  48. Lazarsfeld P.F. (1958), Evidence and inference in social research. Daedalus, 87(4), 99–130.
  49. Likert R. (1932), A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1–55.
  50. Lincoln Y.S., e Guba E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  51. Luyt R. (2012), A Framework for Mixing Methods in Quantitative Measurement Development, Validation, and Revision: A Case Study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 6(4), 294-316.
  52. Marradi A. (1985), Unità di misura e unità di conto. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 24(2), 229-38.
  53. Marradi A. (1981), Misurazione e scale: qualche riflessione e una proposta. Quaderni di Sociologia, 29(4), 595–639.
  54. Marradi A. (2005), Raccontar storie. Un nuovo modo per indagare i valori. Roma: Carocci.
  55. Maxcy S. (2003), Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In: Tashakorri A. and Teddlie C. a cura di, Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 51-90). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  56. Maxwell J.A. (2012), The Importance of Qualitative Research for Causal Explanation in Education. Qualitative Inquiry. 18(8), 655-661.
  57. Maxwell J.A. (2016), Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 12-27.
  58. Moreno J.L. (1951), Sociometry, experimental method and the science of society, Ambler: Beacon House.
  59. Morgan D.L. (2007), Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48-76.
  60. Morgan D.L. (2014), Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research, Qualitative Inquiry 20, p. 1045-53.
  61. Morse J.M. (2005), Evolving trends in qualitative research: advances in mixed methods designs. Qualitative Health Research, 15(5), 583-585.
  62. Onwuegbuzie A.J., e Collins K.M. (2007), A Typology of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social Science Research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316.
  63. Pawson R. e Tilley N. (1997), Realistic evaluation. Sage, London.
  64. Payne G. e Williams M. (2005), Generalization in qualitative research. Sociology, 39(2), 295–314.
  65. Pearce D. (2012), Mixed methods inquiry in sociology. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 829-848.
  66. Psathas G. (1995), Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. London: Sage.
  67. Ragin C. (1987), The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
  68. Ragin C. (2000), Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  69. Ricolfi L. (1997) (a cura di), La ricerca qualitativa, Roma: Carocci.
  70. Sandelowski M. (2014), Unmixing mixed methods, Research in Nursing and Health, 37, 3-8.
  71. Sandelowski M., Voils C.I. e Knafl G. (2009), On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208-22.
  72. Sedoglavich V., Akoorie M.E.M. e Pavlovich K. (2015), Measuring Absorptive Capacity in High-Tech Companies: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(3), 252-72.
  73. Schober M.F. e Conrad F.G. (1997), Does Conversational Interviewing Reduce Survey Measurement Error? Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(4), 576-602.
  74. Sieber S.D. (1973), The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1335-59.
  75. Silverman D. (2017), How was it for you? The Interview Society and the irresistible rise of the (poorly analysed) interview, Qualitative Research, 17(2), 144-58.
  76. Silverman D. (2005), Instances or Sequences? Improving the State of the Art of Qualitative Research [71 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(3), Art. 30, -- http: //nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0503301
  77. Smith H.W. (1975), Strategies of Social Research: The Methodological Imagination, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.
  78. Smythe E. (2005), The thinking of research. In: Ironside, P. a cura di, Beyond Method: Philosophical Conversations in Healthcare Research and Scholarship. Interpretive Studies in Health Care and the Human Sciences, Vol. IV. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 223-58.
  79. Stevens S.S. (1946), On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science, 103, 2684, 677-80.
  80. Strauss A., e Corbin J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
  81. Tashakkori A., e Teddlie C. (2003), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social &. Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  82. Tashakkori A., e Teddlie C. (1998), Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  83. Tashakkori A., e Teddlie C. (2010), Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie C. a cura di, Handbook of mixed methods research for the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 1-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  84. Teddlie C., e Yu F. (2007), Mixed Methods Sampling A Typology with Examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 77-100.
  85. Vidich A.J., e Shapiro G. (1955), A comparison of participant observation and survey data. American Sociological Review, 20(1), 28-33.
  86. Vogt P.W. (2008), Quantitative versus qualitative is a distraction: variations on a theme by Brewer & Hunter (2006)”, Methodological Innovations Online, 3(1), 1-10.
  87. Webb E.J., Campbell D.T., Schwartz R.D., e Sechrest L. (1966), Unobtrusive Measures. Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
  88. Weiss C.H., (1997), Theory-based evaluation: past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation, 76, 41-55.
  89. Wheeldon J. (2010), Mapping Mixed Methods Research: Methods, Measures, and Meaning. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 4(2), 87-102.

Giampietro Gobo, Limiti dell’"approccio pragmatico" e insidie della metodologia bricolage. I metodi misti rischiano di riprodurre un’epistemologia positivista sotto mentite spoglie? in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 76/2020, pp 71-90, DOI: 10.3280/RIV2020-076005