Pragmatism as ontology and epistemology

Ontological and Epistemological Position

This research is grounded in a pragmatic paradigm, which embraces methodological pluralism and foregrounds the research question as the primary driver of methodological choices. Rather than aligning exclusively with either a positivist or interpretivist worldview, pragmatism offers a flexible ontological and epistemological stance that recognises the value of both objective and subjective understandings of educational practice.

Ontologically, pragmatism rejects rigid dualisms between realism and relativism, instead adopting a situated, action-oriented ontology that acknowledges both the existence of observable educational phenomena (such as curriculum structures or pedagogical practices) and the constructed meanings that teachers and learners ascribe to them. In this study, teacher readiness to teach digital accessibility is understood not as a fixed trait, but as a dynamic construct shaped by contextual, experiential, and systemic factors. The study recognises that reality is multiple and contingent, with teacher experiences and practices being shaped by real institutional pressures as well as personal beliefs, values, and professional identities.

Epistemologically, this research adopts a transactional and consequentialist perspective, in which knowledge is generated through interactions between researchers and participants, and judged by its practical utility in informing educational improvement. The use of a sequential mixed methods design—beginning with a questionnaire, followed by a focus group and then lesson observations and interviews—reflects a commitment to epistemological complementarity, enabling both breadth and depth in understanding teacher readiness. Quantitative data offers generalisable patterns about perceived constraints and levels of confidence, while qualitative data surfaces the contextual nuances, values, and reasoning that underpin these patterns.

The initial questionnaire serves to map broad trends and identify areas of divergence or consensus in teacher perceptions. The focus group builds on this by fostering dialogic engagement, allowing participants to co-construct meanings around curriculum integration and resource needs. The final phase—lesson observations followed by semi-structured interviews—seeks to understand enacted practice and lived experience, embracing a constructivist epistemology in its attention to teacher voice and learner feedback. Yet, the pragmatic lens ensures that the goal is not solely interpretation but also actionable insight.

In sum, this research positions knowledge as situated, partial, and purpose-driven, with methodological choices driven by their capacity to generate credible, contextually relevant, and practically useful understandings of how digital accessibility awareness might be meaningfully integrated into the upper Key Stage 2 curriculum.


Ontological and Epistemological Position

This research adopts a pragmatic paradigm, which allows for methodological flexibility and prioritises the research question as the key determinant of design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Biesta, 2010). Pragmatism resists the binary between positivism and interpretivism, instead recognising that both objective and subjective knowledge claims can be valid depending on their usefulness for addressing practical problems (Morgan, 2007). Accordingly, this study explores teacher readiness to teach digital accessibility awareness through a sequential mixed methods design, combining a questionnaire (with both closed and open-ended items), a focus group, and classroom observations followed by interviews. Each method contributes complementary insights, generating both generalisable trends and context-rich understandings.

Ontologically, the study assumes a pluralistic and situated realism—acknowledging that while certain educational phenomena (e.g., curriculum content, policy pressures) exist independently of individual perception, teachers’ readiness and pedagogical decision-making are shaped through contextually embedded experiences (Maxcy, 2003). This aligns with pragmatism’s rejection of metaphysical essentialism in favour of a practical, action-oriented understanding of reality (Dewey, 1938; Cherryholmes, 1992). Readiness to teach digital accessibility is thus conceptualised as a contingent and relational construct, emerging through interactions between teachers, institutional structures, professional identities, and classroom dynamics.

Epistemologically, the study aligns with a transactional and problem-solving epistemology (Biesta, 2010; Morgan, 2007), wherein knowledge is constructed through inquiry that is embedded in real-world contexts and aimed at practical outcomes. The pragmatic stance supports the integration of both quantitative and qualitative data as legitimate and necessary forms of knowing (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). The initial questionnaire serves to identify broad patterns in attitudes, constraints, and levels of confidence regarding digital accessibility teaching. The subsequent focus group leverages collective meaning-making, drawing on participants’ dialogic engagement to surface practical considerations for curriculum integration (Barbour, 2007). The final phase—lesson observations and semi-structured interviews—aligns with a more interpretivist mode, focusing on lived experiences, pedagogical reasoning, and learner responses (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2018).

Crucially, the pragmatic orientation supports a consequentialist view of knowledge—valuing research outcomes that can inform meaningful educational change (Patton, 2015). By combining empirical generalisability with rich contextual insights, the study aims to produce findings that are both credible and actionable for curriculum developers, teacher educators, and policy makers. In this way, pragmatism supports a form of situated educational inquiry that balances conceptual depth with practical impact (Shannon-Baker, 2016).

References

Barbour, R. (2007). Doing focus groups. Sage.

Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 95–118). Sage.

Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher, 21(6), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X021006013

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Henry Holt.

Maxcy, S. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 51–89). Sage.

Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.

Shannon-Baker, P. (2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815575861


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Notes from original proposal

Text taken from original proposal to unpack/expand: The barriers and ‘unlearning’ highlighted during SCULPT were potentially framed by prior complex  beliefs and understandings and ‘unlearning’ or ‘retrofitting’ skills (Youngblood, 2010). As Gu (2010, p.340) explains “a large part of human and professional knowledge can hardly retain its original meaning when it is divorced from the contexts in which it was constructed and produced.” This made me consider that these skills should potentially be taught at the point these original meanings are constructed and that happens at a much younger age. To understand when it would be appropriate to introduce the basics of awareness and skills in school, I considered the age when young people develop digital skills (Department for Education, 2013) as well as an understanding of what it means to be disabled and children’s perceptions for those with disabilities (Boer et al, 2012).  In a literature review Babik & Gardner (2021) found th...
Read more

Teach Access Repository and Facebook research link

Image
 #Educators, do your students know what assistive technology means? From tactile maps to screen readers, #AssistiveTechnology includes a number of devices that enable and foster the inclusion of people with disabilities. The Teach Access Curriculum Repository (TACR) has various resources designed to build out your courses and introduce your students to these types of technologies.  Go to the TACR (https://lnkd.in/gWMxzk2e) and check out the presentation slide deck on assistive technology and the assignment for using a screen reader, under the Psychology section.    #BackToSchool #Accessibility #Inclusion #ScreenReader #AssistiveDevices #Psychology #Disability #Disabilities #A11y https://teachaccess.org/curriculum-repository/ Facebook research post: PhD Thesis Writing Process: A Systematic Approach—How to Write Your Introduction To download complete article, use the link: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590321.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590321.pdf?f...
Read more

Ideas for initial quantitative survey data

Phase 1 will be an initial survey to paint a basic picture of knowledge in schools. This survey I aim to do with a large number of respondents to get a broad picture of a range of schools and scale to have more reliable data to be able to group and analyse. This will be followed up with semi structured interviews to add more detail and to explain and better understand the findings. This will be smaller in scale but across a cross section of participants from a range of settings. *This in terms of Dewey is going to help identify the extent of the problem and help reflect on the problem. Any findings can also be located in literature to triangulate and discuss. Phase 2 will be focus groups exploring a range of knowledge concepts and resources (suggested solutions) with both teachers and learners to identify their level of understanding of each of them is and what could be realistically embedded into the curriculum and at what point or made visible and understood in the education space to...
Read more