Mixed methods and their pragmatic approach: is there a risk of being entangled in a positivist epistemology and methodology? Limits, pitfalls and consequences of a bricolage methodology

Since the early 2000s, the pragmatic approach has been proposed as a philosophical program for social research, regardless of whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods are used. In addition, current mixed methods have been presented as a third way between positivism and constructivism. However, can mixed methods be fully considered a third way? For instance, in their inquiries, will scholars oriented to pragmatism actually employ the traditional and standardized questionnaire, with forced choices and closed questions, which strongly limits any interpretative and interactional perspective? Hence, several theoretical and methodological difficulties of the pragmatist proposal emerge precisely (and paradoxically) at the level of research practice. The pragmatic approach is presented by its proponents as a model designed to dissolve differences and neutralize epistemological barriers; however, without problematizing and removing the positivist features of their methods, researchers oriented to pragmatism actually risk ending up reproducing positivism in disguise. Hence, despite their claims to innovation, proponents of pragmatism are often overly traditionalist in their use of methods.