Pragmatism as a Research Lens PDF

Paradigm 4: Pragmatism as a Research Lens A paradigm associated with mixed- methods “…a research design with philosophical assumptions as well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis of data and the mixt...

Paradigm 4: Pragmatism as a Research Lens A paradigm associated with mixed- methods “…a research design with philosophical assumptions as well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches in many phases in the research process.[…] Its central premise is that the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone.” (Creswell and Plano-Clark, 2011, p.5) The development of pragmatism  Originated in the US in the late C19th (Maxcy, 2003)  Philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, psychologist William James, philosopher and lawyer Nicholas St. Johns Green.  Later developed by philosopher, educationist and social reformer John Dewey; sociologist, and psychologist George Herbert Mead; and political scientist Arthur F. Bentley (Morgan, 2014)  Modern usage associated with philosopher Richard Rorty (1979)  The ‘pragmatist paradigm’  Concerned with applications-"what works" - and solutions to problems. Instead of methods being important, the problem is most important  Researchers use all approaches to understand the problem  From the Greek, pragma, meaning action  Dewey – there are no universal truths but “warranted beliefs”. These come from repeated outcomes of social action.  “…pragmatists decide what they want to research, guided by their personal value system; that is, they study what they think is important to study. They then study the topic in way that is congruent with their value system, including variables and units of analysis that they feel are the most appropriate for finding an answer to their research question.” (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998:26)  The pragmatist paradigm  The research question is key  Most practical methods and theories for the job – ‘what works’, problem-solving approach (Denscombe, 2008)  What is ‘true’ and ‘valuable’ is what works – what something means can be observed in its practical consequences  Reality is multiple and plural – no two people have the same experience or world view, but these do overlap  Approaches to method should be multiple and plural  Both inductive and deductive reasoning can be used  Similarities between different ontologies and epistemologies – there is more to unite than to divide  Emphasis on the empirical not theory or ideas (Frega, 2011)  Biesta (2012) pragmatism vs Criticisms of principled approaches pragmatism  How can you combine different ontologies (views of the nature of reality)?  How can you combine different ways of knowing about reality (epistemology)? How can you be objective and subjective at the same time?  Is it logical to seek coherence in a single research design? (Denzin, 2012)  How can you combine things that are incommensurable i.e. cannot be mixed?   Assumes a lack of bias in methods  Problem-solving approach cannot investigate issues of structural inequality and exclusion (Thompson, 1997)  Should it be linked to mixed-methods research? A single method may be ‘what works’  Research design is key – focusing on what is most suited for the problem to be investigated. BUT – is this not a concern for all paradigms? Things to think about  What are overlaps between different positions?  Are different paradigms suited to different kinds of topics?  What are you the most convinced by?