Pragmatism as Philosophical Approach in Research.
1.0 Introduction:
As research approach, pragmatism emphasizes that we understand the world and solve its problems through the application of subjective and objective methods. Pragmatism researchers are flexible and practical in finding viable solution to the phenomenon under inquiry.
Pragmatism recognizes the importance of having multiple cities of perspective and worldviews in solving research problems. Pragmatism derives pluralistic mixed methods research (MMR). It also values both the objective quantitative worldview and the subjective experience of participant. According to (Foster, 2024) Pragmatism “they situate the research problem within its specific context”.
2.1 Understanding Pragmatism.
Knowledge according to pragmatism such as John Dewey is to be acquired by the action that takes place between man and his environment. That this type of knowledge is charging, dynamic, developing and oriented towards its consequences in human nature. Dewey maintains that all our human experience, such as fears, hopes etc, we deeply rooted in nature. He further asserts that both nature and experience are intertwined and reflect each other.
The word pragmatism was originally derived from the Greek word “Pragma” which means action and which is the central concept of pragmatism (Pansiri 2005).
Pragmatist philosophy holds that human action can never be separated from the past experience and from the belief that have originated from those experiences. Human thought are this intrinsically linked to action. People take action based on the possible consequences of their action, and they are the result of their action to predict the consequences of similar action in the future. A major contention of pragmatist philosophy is that meaning of human action and belief is found in their consequences. External forces do not determine humans; they are themselves capable of shaping their experience through their action and intelligence.
Pragmatist believes that reality is not static; it changes at every turn of events. Similarly, the world is also not statics; it is in a constant state of becoming. The world is also changed through action; action is the way to change existence. Actions have the role of an intermediary. Therefore, actions are pivotal in pragmatism (Goldkubi 2012; Maxcy 2003; Morgan 2014). Used the work of John Dewey to develop his approach to pragmatism, he identifies three widely shared ideas of pragmatism that highlight that pragmatism focus on the nature of experience unlike other philosophy that emphasize of reality first, “action cannot be separated from the situations and context in which they occur” (p.26). This world is a world of unique human experience in which, instead of universal truth, there are warranted belief, which take shape as we repeatedly take action in similar situations and experience the outcomes. Our warranted beliefs are produced by the repeated experience of predictable outcomes (Morgan 2014).
Second, “action are linked to consequences in ways that are open to change, despite the actions being the same. Pragmatist philosophy maintain that it is not possible to experience exactly the same situation twice, so our warranted beliefs about the possible outcome are also provisional, which means that our belief about how to act in a situation are inherently provisional.
Finally, “an action depends on worldviews that are socially shared set of beliefs” (p.27). Pragmatist believes that no two people have exactly identical experiences, so their worldviews can also not be identical. However, there are always varying degrees of shared experience between any two people that lead to different degree of shared belief. The likelihood of acting in the same way in a similar situation and assigning similar meanings to the consequences of those actions depends on the extent of shared belief about that particular situation. Therefore, worldviews can be both individually unique and socially shared (Morgan 2014).
2.2 Pragmatism and Mixed Methods Research.
It is important note that what derives a research paradigm is the nature of the research objectives and questions. For example, if the research question centralized the perception and lived experience of your participant in assessing and addressing the problem under inquiry, pragmatism in this case would be appropriate (Liu, 2022). A pragmatist view would provide you the opportunity to gather both subjective quantitative data and objective quantitative.
Pragmatism supports the mixing of research methods to get an in-depth understanding of the research problem and its solution. Pragmatism values individual views and life experiences (Kaushik and Walsh 2019).
The nature of the research questions with a focus on methodological pluralism would match pragmatic views of the world which “is typically associated with mixed method research. The focus will be on the consequences of research, on the primary importance of the question asked rather than the method and multiple methods of data collection inform the problem under study” (Creswell & Mano Clork, Root, p.23). From a pragmatist viewpoint, the nature of the research question drives the research methods. For example, if the research question of the study put a premium on the constructed lived experience of the research participant in addressing the problem under study, pragmatism will be suitable. The suitability of pragmatism as a guiding philosophical research paradigm in this case is synifant as it “places high regard for the reality of and influence of inner world we experience in action (and where) knowledge is viewed as being both constructed and based o the reality of the world we experience and lived in” (Johnson and J.Onwuegbuzie, 2004,P.18).
2.3 Priority of the Pragmatic Research.
A pragmatic research prioritizes the practical implication of the research outcomes in solving the problem under investigation. Combining quantitative and qualitative approach provides pragmatic researches with a comprehensive understanding of the problem and provides guidance to decision makers. The main aim is to generate practical knowledge that is actionable, viable and relevant to real world challenges (Turyahikayo, 2021).
As a philosophy, pragmatism centralizes contextual, actionable knowledge and the intersection between knowing, experiencing and acting. For pragmatist, to know is to inquire and learn through an experienced process. As a philosophy pragmatism facilitates the methodology pluralism of MMR. It informs the design of mm study and guides an integrative approach that combines survey data with qualitative interviews. The integration of both types of data guide by the principle of pragmatism enriches our understanding of the phenomenon under inquiry. Pragmatism, as such positively impact the MMR Design where different method complement and enhance each other conclusion (Shan, 2021).
2.4 Pragmatism and the Fusion of Paradigm.
For a pragmatic Researchers, the point of understanding is a point where research paradigm fuses with each other. It is a point where interpretation and understanding of one research paradigm yield a concurrent consideration of the other. As such, both research paradigm co exist in relation to each other. These divergent research paradigms never erode one another. The pragmatist mixed methods researchers believes in the inevitable existence of both research paradigms. In fact, you cannot erode, uproot or throw away one research paradigm for the sake of the other. Rather, pragmatism deepens the rationality of each research paradigm, making it worth taking into consideration.
Paradigms are conceptual and practical “tools” that are used to solve specific research problems; in other words, paradigms function as heuristic in social research (Abbott 2004, P.42). Each paradigm has a different perspective on the axiology, ontology, epistemology, methodology, and rhetoric of research. For instance, post positivism, one of the older approaches of social research is often associated with qualitative method and highly formal rhetoric which focus on precision, generalizability, reliability, and replicability. Post positives researchers view inquiry as a series of logically related steps and make claims of knowledge based on objectivity, standardization, deductive reasoning and control within the research process (Creswell 2013, Clark 2011).
Constructivism is typically associated with qualitative method and literary and informal rhetoric in which the researchers relies as much a possible on the participant view and develop subjective meaning of the phenomena. Thus constructivist research is shaped from the bottom up, i.e, from individual perspective to broad patterns, and ultimately to broad understandings (cresswell & clark 2011). Unlike the fundamental underpinning of these world views, participatory action research is conducted with an agenda of reform and empowerment. I.e., the focus is on transforming the lives of socially marginalized populations. It is a collaborative approach in which participants are involved at each step of research. Participatory action is often associated with quantitative methods and rhetoric of advocacy and change (cresswell 2013; cresswell & clark 2011).
Finally, pragmatism is a paradigm that claims to bridge the gap between the scientific method and structuralism orientation of order approach and the naturalistic method and freewheeling orientation of newer approach (cresswell & clark 2011).
2.5 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.
As a philosophical movement, pragmatism originated in the late 19th century in the United States (Maxcy 2003). This distinctly American philosophical doctrine is traced back to a discussion group in Cambridge, Massachusetts in the early 1870s, which brought together the founding fathers of pragmatism such as Philosopher Charles, Sander Pierce, Psychologist Williams James, Chancy Wright, John Dewey, George Herbert Mead; and countless others. Further developments over the past century. The philosophical movement began as consequences of the fundamental agreement of these scholars over the rejection of traditional assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and inquiry. The pragmatist scholars completely rejected the motion that social science inquiry can access the reality solely by using a single scientific method (Maxcy 2003).
The term pragmatism was first used by Williams James in 1898 in a public speech in which he that his source of pragmatic philosophy was Charles Sanders, who himself borrowed the word from Kants (critique of pure reasons) then, Richard Rorty introduced it as a larger audience in 1979 as an American research vocabulary (Maxcy 2003; Ormerod 2006).
2.6 CONCLUSION.
All in all, this paper endorses the vision that the philosophical understanding of pragmatism as a research approach yields a stance that honors, exploring multiplicity of world views in solving problems.
A pragmatic approach allows the possibility of choosing the appropriate research method from the wide range of qualitative and or methods. And this pluralism is strength of pragmatism that has several advantages for social research. “Any problem of scientific inquiry that does not grow out of actual (or practical) social conditions is factitious; it is arbitrarily set by the inquirer” (Dewey 1938, P.499).
REFERENCES:
1. Creswell John W.2009. Research design: qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed methods approaches, 3rd ed thousand Oaks: sage.
2. Creswell, John w, and Vikki L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and
conducting mixed methods Research, 2nd ed ]\thousand Oaks; sage
3. Dewey, John, ed. 1931. The development of American pragmatism in
philosophy and civilization. New York Minton, Balch and co.
4. Dewey John.1938 logic: the theory of inquiry New York
Henry Holt.
5. Johnson, R.B. and Onuwuegbuzie, J. (2004) “mixed method
Research: A research paradigm whose time has come,” Educational Researchers, Vol.7 No.33, PP.14-26.
6. Kaushik, V and Walsh, C.A. (2019) Pargmatism as a research
paradigm and its implication for social work research social science, 8(9).
7. Liu,Y.2022 “Pragmatic compatibility matters: A critical Review of
qualitative-quantitative debate in mixed methods Research” SAGE OPEN,12(1).
8. Abbott, Andrew. 2004. Methods of discovery; Heuristics for the social
science. New York: W.W. Norton.
0 Comments