A Pragmatic Research Philosophy for Sport and Exercise Psychology

in The Sport Psychologist

Click name to view affiliation

Peter R. Giacobbi Jr.University of Florida

Search for other papers by Peter R. Giacobbi Jr. in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Artur PoczwardowskiBarry University

Search for other papers by Artur Poczwardowski in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Peter HagerState University of New York, College, Brockport

Search for other papers by Peter Hager in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

A pragmatic research philosophy is introduced that embraces mixed-method approaches to applied research questions. With its origins in the work of Peirce (1984), James (1907), Dewey (1931), and contemporary support from Rorty (1982, 1990,1991), pragmatism emphasizes the practical problems experienced by people, the research questions posited, and the consequences of inquiry. As a way to highlight applications of pragmatism in sport psychology, pragmatism is compared to constructivism and positivism in terms of philosophical underpinnings and methodological applications. The pragmatic researcher is sensitive to the social, historical, and political context from which inquiry begins and considers morality, ethics, and issues of social justice to be important throughout the research process. Pragmatists often use pluralistic methods during multiphase research projects. Exemplar design types are discussed that logically cohere to a pragmatic research philosophy.

Peter Giacobbi, Jr. is with the Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-8205. E-mail: Pgiacobbi@hhp.ufl.edu. Artur Poczwardowski is with the Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences at Barry University in Miami Shores, FL 33161; Peter Hager is with the Department of Physical Education and Sport at the State University of New York, College at Brockport. E-mail: phager@Brockport.edu.

The authors would like to thank Vikki Krane for her insightful comments during the review process.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 8321 1487 304
Full Text Views 313 42 7
PDF Downloads 322 50 8