Mixed research is a methodology of growing importance both within and without education. This type of research forces researchers to reconcile conflicting ways of justifying and understanding research with results that have the potential to be forward pointing for all researchers. As mixed research has grown, mixed research has gained an increasingly solidified identity which is increasingly associated with the pragmatic paradigm. This paper seeks to describe and criticise pragmatism as a paradigm for mixed research. We identify six features of pragmatism which we argue render it unfit for purpose. (1) That it is a "paradigm of convenience;" (2) That it takes a consequentialist view of good research; (3) That it takes a consequentialist view of truth; (4) That it assumes the answers to epistemic questions is "somewhere in the middle;" (5) That it priorities the research question, rather than ontology or epistemology; (6) That it treats itself as a prerequisite for mixed research. We argue that in prioritising flexibility and practicality over principles, pragmatism loses the ability to offer guidance to researchers. Furthermore, many of the issues with pragmatism arise from a conflation of paradigm and method. I.e., by thinking that there are quantitative and qualitative paradigms. We conclude that traditional paradigms are better served to act as a paradigm for mixed research.