Pragmatism CGPT
Chapter 1: Introduction – Pragmatism and Its Role in Interpretative Research
1.1 Introduction
In social science research, the choice of a research paradigm significantly influences the framing of research questions, the selection of methods, and the interpretation of findings. This chapter introduces pragmatism as the guiding philosophical framework for this study and justifies its selection for an interpretative research approach. Pragmatism, with its flexible, problem-oriented stance, is increasingly recognised as particularly suitable for complex social inquiries where understanding meaning and context is essential (Biesta, 2010; Morgan, 2014).
1.2 Understanding Pragmatism
Pragmatism emerged in the late 19th century as a philosophical tradition grounded in the works of Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Rather than adhering strictly to the metaphysical dualisms of realism and idealism, pragmatism focuses on the practical consequences of belief and the utility of knowledge in addressing real-world problems (James, 1907; Dewey, 1938). Peirce (1878) famously asserted that the meaning of any concept lies in its observable practical effects—a view that laid the foundation for the pragmatist emphasis on action and outcomes.
In research, pragmatism does not commit to a single system of philosophy or reality. Instead, it adopts a pluralistic and functional stance, allowing for both qualitative and quantitative methods as tools to explore phenomena (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). This flexibility makes pragmatism a valuable paradigm for addressing questions that are grounded in practice, experience, and change (Feilzer, 2010).
1.3 Pragmatic Research: Characteristics and Assumptions
Pragmatic research is characterized by its focus on the research problem and its openness to diverse methods and data sources (Morgan, 2007). The central question in pragmatic inquiry is not, “What is the nature of reality?” but rather, “What works, to understand and address this issue in this context?” (Patton, 2015). As such, pragmatic research:
Emphasises the importance of the research question over philosophical purity;
Integrates methods and theories as needed to address the research aims;
Seeks actionable outcomes and practical implications;
Recognises the situated nature of knowledge, produced through interaction and interpretation.
Unlike positivist paradigms that seek generalisability or constructivist paradigms that focus solely on meaning-making, pragmatism permits a middle path, acknowledging that knowledge is both constructed and shaped by its utility in real-world contexts (Biesta, 2010; Morgan, 2014).
1.4 Pragmatism and Interpretative Research
Interpretative research seeks to understand the meanings that individuals or groups ascribe to social phenomena, typically through qualitative methodologies such as interviews, ethnographies, or case studies (Schwandt, 2014). The alignment between pragmatism and interpretative research lies in their shared epistemological commitment to the contextual and contingent nature of knowledge.
Whereas traditional interpretivism draws on phenomenological or hermeneutic traditions, pragmatism adds a problem-solving orientation. It does not seek truth in an absolute sense but rather in terms of what is useful, meaningful, and credible within a specific context (Goldkuhl, 2012). This allows researchers to navigate the fluid boundaries between interpretation, action, and application.
In pragmatic interpretative research, the researcher is not a neutral observer but an active participant in knowledge construction, engaging with participants to co-create meaning. This relational stance enhances the depth and relevance of interpretation while remaining open to adaptation as the study unfolds (Maxcy, 2003).
1.5 Justification for a Pragmatic Approach in This Study
The choice of pragmatism for this research is based on several considerations. First, the study is concerned with exploring a phenomenon that is context-dependent, requiring an approach that can accommodate the subjective experiences of participants while remaining oriented toward practical implications. Second, the research questions are exploratory and complex, warranting methodological flexibility and an openness to using multiple forms of data. Third, the study aims to generate insights that are not only theoretically meaningful but also useful for practitioners, policy makers, or other stakeholders.
Pragmatism supports this orientation by prioritising relevance over rigidity and enabling the integration of diverse perspectives in a coherent, purpose-driven framework (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This makes it especially well suited to applied social research where meaning and action are interlinked.
1.6 Conclusion
In sum, pragmatism offers a philosophically grounded yet practically oriented paradigm that aligns closely with the aims of interpretative research. By focusing on the research problem, embracing methodological pluralism, and valuing the co-construction of meaning, pragmatism provides a robust foundation for this study. The next chapter will further elaborate on the methodological design informed by this pragmatic stance.
Justifying a Pragmatic Sequential Mixed Methods Design over Lesson Study for Exploring Digital Accessibility Awareness Teaching at Upper Key Stage 2
1. Introduction
The choice of methodology in educational research must be guided by the nature and scope of the research questions, the type of knowledge sought, and the contextual complexities of the educational environment. This study seeks to understand how teachers can effectively teach digital accessibility awareness to pupils at Upper Key Stage 2 (UKS2)—a topic that is emergent, under-theorised, and multi-dimensional. While lesson study offers a valuable practitioner-based, iterative approach to improving classroom instruction, a pragmatic sequential mixed methods design, particularly one employing a quant → QUAL → QUAL structure, provides a broader and more flexible framework. This approach allows for the systematic generation of baseline data, the exploration of contextual meanings, and the refinement of pedagogical recommendations grounded in both empirical evidence and educator insight.
2. The Limits of Lesson Study for This Research Context
Lesson study, originating in Japanese pedagogy (Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004), is a collaborative professional development model where teachers co-plan, observe, and refine lessons in iterative cycles. While highly effective for improving specific teaching practices within a community of practice, lesson study is narrow in scope, primarily focused on lesson-level refinement and peer reflection rather than conceptual exploration or theory-building (Dudley, 2014).
In the case of digital accessibility awareness, which encompasses complex issues such as inclusive design, assistive technologies, disability rights, and digital citizenship, lesson study alone may fall short for several reasons:
Lack of generalisability: Lesson study typically involves small teacher groups and is highly context-specific. This restricts its capacity to generate broadly transferable insights about effective practices across schools or curricula (Lewis, Perry, & Hurd, 2009).
Insufficient exploratory depth: Lesson study assumes a relatively clear problem space (e.g., improving a known lesson), whereas teaching digital accessibility may require discovery-oriented inquiry into teacher beliefs, curricular gaps, and student perceptions—elements beyond the immediate instructional cycle.
Limited data integration: Lesson study focuses on teaching observations and reflective dialogue. It rarely incorporates diverse data types (e.g., surveys, interviews, or thematic analysis) that would support a more comprehensive and systematic understanding of pedagogical change.
As such, while lesson study may be a valuable professional learning tool for implementing insights after foundational research, it is less suitable as the primary methodological framework for an exploratory study with broader research aims.
3. The Case for a Pragmatic Mixed Methods Approach
Pragmatism, as a research paradigm, is distinguished by its focus on practical inquiry, its rejection of philosophical dualisms, and its support for methodological pluralism (Biesta, 2010; Morgan, 2014). Pragmatism recognises that research problems—particularly in complex educational settings—often require both quantitative breadth and qualitative depth to produce actionable knowledge (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017).
A sequential mixed methods design using a quant → QUAL → QUAL structure is especially appropriate for this study because it supports:
Initial mapping of teacher knowledge and confidence (quant);
Interpretative depth through interviews with teachers (QUAL 1);
Validation and elaboration through classroom observations and/or focus groups (QUAL 2).
This design enables the study to address what is currently known or practised (quant), how teachers conceptualise digital accessibility (QUAL 1), and how those concepts play out in practice (QUAL 2). This layered inquiry supports both theory-building and pedagogical development in ways that lesson study, as a purely practitioner-driven model, cannot.
4. Benefits of the Quant → QUAL → QUAL Sequence
4.1 Phase 1 – Quantitative Baseline
A survey of teachers at UKS2 can collect data on awareness levels, confidence, training experience, and perceived barriers in teaching digital accessibility. This quantitative phase provides:
A broad diagnostic of current practice and readiness;
Sampling criteria for selecting participants for the qualitative phases;
Empirical grounding for developing interview protocols.
4.2 Phase 2 – First Qualitative Phase (Teacher Interviews)
Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of teachers allow deeper exploration of the meanings, assumptions, and pedagogical choices behind the quantitative trends. This phase helps to:
Identify contextual enablers and constraints;
Understand how teachers make sense of digital inclusion;
Reveal conceptual gaps or ethical tensions in how accessibility is framed.
4.3 Phase 3 – Second Qualitative Phase (Classroom Observation / Focus Groups)
This phase offers practice-based validation of earlier findings. Through observing lessons or engaging in teacher-student focus groups, the researcher can assess how conceptual understandings translate into practice, and how students interpret accessibility education. It also supports the iterative refinement of pedagogical approaches that could later inform professional learning initiatives.
5. Alignment with Research Aims and Pragmatism
This design aligns with pragmatic inquiry by focusing on what works, for whom, and under what conditions (Patton, 2015). It is especially suitable for emergent educational fields, such as digital accessibility, where theoretical models are still developing, and practice is uneven.
Pragmatism values outcomes that are contextually grounded yet actionable, making it ideal for producing insights that can inform teacher training, curriculum development, or policy recommendations. Furthermore, the combination of empirical scope (quant) and experiential depth (QUAL) ensures that the research can engage both scholarly and practitioner audiences—a dual aim that lesson study does not typically address.
6. Conclusion
While lesson study offers a valuable model for instructional refinement in tightly focused, practitioner-led contexts, it is not designed to support exploratory, theory-informed research that requires broad diagnostic insight, conceptual depth, and multiple stakeholder perspectives. A pragmatic sequential mixed methods approach, using a quant → QUAL → QUAL design, offers the flexibility, depth, and action-oriented focus required to investigate how teachers can effectively teach digital accessibility awareness at UKS2. This design provides a robust structure for understanding existing teacher knowledge, exploring interpretative dimensions of accessibility pedagogy, and generating evidence-based recommendations for educational practice.
References
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 Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dudley, P. (2014). Lesson study: A handbook. University of Cambridge: Lesson Study UK.
Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Routledge.
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving mathematics instruction through lesson study: A theoretical model and North American case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 285–304.
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Explaining a Quant → QUAL → QUAL Design Through Dewey’s Process of Inquiry
1. Introduction
John Dewey’s philosophy of inquiry presents a dynamic, iterative model of knowledge construction that aligns closely with pragmatic, problem-centred educational research. Dewey (1938) viewed inquiry not as a linear process of hypothesis testing, but as a transactional engagement with a problematic situation, in which thought and action evolve together through experience, reflection, and reconstruction. His model provides a robust conceptual lens through which to understand and justify a sequential mixed methods design—specifically, one that follows a quantitative → qualitative → qualitative (quant → QUAL → QUAL) sequence.
This design is particularly suitable for exploring how teachers can teach digital accessibility awareness at Upper Key Stage 2 (UKS2), as it mirrors Dewey’s iterative logic of inquiry: from problem recognition to exploration, understanding, and practical transformation.
2. Dewey’s Logic of Inquiry: A Summary
Dewey (1938) outlined five overlapping phases in the process of inquiry:
A felt difficulty or indeterminate situation – the recognition of a problematic condition that disrupts equilibrium.
Problem formulation – the clarification and definition of the problem in context.
Observation and data gathering – the empirical exploration of relevant facts or experiences.
Development of hypotheses – generating possible interpretations, explanations, or solutions.
Testing and resolution – evaluating these through action, reflection, or further inquiry.
Dewey’s model is context-driven, recursive, and action-oriented, which makes it inherently suited to educational research aiming to link understanding with practice. It also supports the integration of multiple modes of knowing—a core assumption of mixed methods research.
3. Mapping Dewey’s Inquiry to the Research Design
3.1 Phase 1: Identifying the Problem (Dewey’s Indeterminate Situation)
The study begins by recognising a felt difficulty: a lack of clear pedagogical guidance or teacher confidence in teaching digital accessibility awareness to primary school pupils. This issue is both under-researched and increasingly important in digital education and inclusion discourse.
The initial quantitative phase responds to this recognition by mapping the scope of the problem—surveying teachers’ awareness, perceived competence, access to resources, and current practices. This establishes the contours of the indeterminate situation and enables the researcher to move from vague concern to a more clearly formulated problem space, in line with Dewey’s second phase.
3.2 Phase 2: Observation and Exploration (Data Gathering and Problem Framing)
The first qualitative phase (QUAL 1) involves semi-structured interviews with selected teachers. This step corresponds to Dewey’s third phase—systematic observation and contextualisation. Here, the researcher explores how teachers interpret their roles in promoting digital accessibility, the challenges they face, and the meanings they ascribe to inclusive digital education. These interviews allow deeper insight into the cultural, institutional, and emotional dimensions of the problem identified earlier through the survey.
At this stage, the research moves from describing the problem to understanding its social and pedagogical implications—a shift that Dewey would regard as essential for generating meaningful hypotheses or directions for change.
3.3 Phase 3: Hypothesis Testing and Practical Engagement (QUAL 2)
The second qualitative phase (QUAL 2)—which might involve classroom observations, co-reflective discussions, or focus groups with teachers and pupils—aligns with Dewey’s phases of hypothesis testing and resolution. This phase evaluates how conceptual understandings of accessibility are enacted (or constrained) in practice. It also allows for the refinement of practical approaches to teaching digital accessibility awareness, based on the experiential data gathered.
Dewey emphasised that inquiry must return to action, and that testing is not limited to logical deduction but includes embodied, experiential evaluation in real-world contexts. This final phase thus serves both as a means of testing emerging insights and a preparation for future pedagogical intervention or professional development strategies.
4. Why This Design Embodies Deweyan Pragmatism
This quant → QUAL → QUAL design is not only compatible with Dewey’s pragmatism—it operationalises it. Key points of alignment include:
Problem-centred focus: Dewey viewed inquiry as rooted in experience and responsive to real-world challenges—just as this study seeks to respond to the unmet challenge of preparing teachers to teach digital accessibility effectively.
Methodological flexibility: Dewey rejected rigid dualisms between objectivity and subjectivity, or between empirical and interpretative knowledge. A mixed methods approach similarly embraces methodological pluralismas a strength (Biesta, 2010).
Iterative development: The design follows a recursive logic, where each phase informs and reshapes the next, much like Dewey’s conception of inquiry as a continuum of thinking, experiencing, and acting.
Educational action: Dewey argued that knowledge should lead to intelligent action in educational settings. By ending in a phase focused on applied understanding, the design stays true to his vision of research as a tool for educational improvement.
5. Conclusion
Framing a sequential mixed methods design (quant → QUAL → QUAL) within Dewey’s theory of inquiry highlights the coherence between pragmatist epistemology and educational research concerned with real-world problem-solving. The design mirrors the logical progression of Dewey’s inquiry—from identifying a felt problem, through empirical and interpretive investigation, to applied understanding—while providing a flexible and contextually sensitive method for addressing the challenges of teaching digital accessibility awareness at UKS2. It enables the research to honour the complexities of educational experience while generating findings that can inform meaningful action.
Theoretical Framework: Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry and the Pragmatic Logic of Research Design
This study is underpinned by pragmatism, both as a philosophical orientation and as a methodological stance. Pragmatism offers a flexible and context-responsive approach to research, particularly suited to addressing complex and applied educational questions (Biesta, 2010; Morgan, 2014). At the heart of this pragmatist approach lies John Dewey’s theory of inquiry (1938), which provides a coherent structure for understanding the logical progression of the research design adopted here: a sequential mixed methods approach using a quantitative → qualitative → qualitative (quant → QUAL → QUAL) structure.
The central research problem guiding this study concerns the lack of established practice and teacher confidence in delivering digital accessibility awareness education to pupils in Upper Key Stage 2 (UKS2). As this is an emergent and context-dependent issue, it calls for an exploratory and iterative research design—one that reflects Dewey’s model of inquiry and his commitment to improving education through situated, reflective, and action-oriented processes.
3.2.1 Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry
Dewey (1938) conceptualised inquiry as a dynamic and iterative process that begins with the recognition of a problematic or indeterminate situation and proceeds through a series of phases: (1) identifying the problem; (2) defining and refining it through empirical exploration; (3) generating possible explanations or responses; and (4) testing those responses through further experience and reflection. Crucially, Dewey saw inquiry not as a purely intellectual activity but as an embedded, practical engagement with experience, where knowledge is always provisional and developed in response to context.
In this view, inquiry is transactional: the researcher is part of the situation being studied, and understanding develops through iterative cycles of action, reflection, and refinement. This notion is highly compatible with pragmatist educational research, which seeks not only to understand educational phenomena but also to contribute to improvements in practice (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017; Patton, 2015).
3.2.2 Applying Dewey’s Inquiry Logic to the Research Design
The quant → QUAL → QUAL design employed in this study mirrors Dewey’s stages of inquiry and provides a structure for moving from diagnostic exploration to conceptual understanding and finally to evaluative engagement with practice.
Phase 1 – Quantitative Exploration: Establishing the Indeterminate Situation
The study begins with a quantitative survey distributed to a broad sample of UKS2 teachers. The purpose of this phase is to identify the scope and nature of the problem, specifically focusing on teacher awareness, preparedness, and perceived barriers related to teaching digital accessibility. In Deweyan terms, this corresponds to the recognition and clarification of an indeterminate situation—a space where existing pedagogical frameworks or resources are insufficient, and new understanding is needed to guide action.
Phase 2 – First Qualitative Phase: Problem Interpretation and Conceptual Understanding
The second phase involves semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of teachers selected based on their survey responses. This phase allows for deeper interpretation of the problem, exploring teachers’ conceptualisations of digital accessibility, their ethical concerns, and their experiences navigating this under-defined curricular area. This aligns with Dewey’s emphasis on systematic observation and contextual exploration, which is necessary for generating possible explanations or principles for action.
Phase 3 – Second Qualitative Phase: Observing and Evaluating Pedagogical Responses
The final qualitative phase involves either classroom observations, teacher focus groups, or reflective dialoguesexamining how digital accessibility awareness is taught—or could be taught—in practice. This stage tests emerging themes and hypotheses from the earlier phases and begins the process of practical resolution: determining what approaches are both pedagogically sound and contextually viable. In Dewey’s framework, this phase reflects testing and reflective engagement, where knowledge gained is assessed not abstractly but in terms of its relevance and efficacy in real-world educational settings.
3.2.3 Advantages of the Deweyan-Informed Pragmatic Design
Framing this research within Dewey’s inquiry model supports the study’s methodological and epistemological coherence in several ways:
Problem-centred focus: Dewey’s inquiry begins with real-world concerns, not abstract theory. The study’s design begins with teacher practice and builds understanding in direct response to that context.
Iterative structure: Each phase informs the next, enabling progressive refinement of understanding and solutions. This iterative logic is a hallmark of both Dewey’s theory and robust educational inquiry.
Integration of methods: Dewey rejected rigid boundaries between forms of knowledge. A mixed methods approach reflects this by combining quantitative breadth with qualitative depth to fully engage with the research problem.
Application to practice: For Dewey, the ultimate test of knowledge is its usefulness in action. The final phase of this design focuses explicitly on how insights from the research can inform and improve pedagogical practice.
3.2.4 Justification for Not Using Lesson Study
While lesson study is a respected practitioner-oriented methodology in educational research (Dudley, 2014; Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004), it is less well suited to this study’s aims. Lesson study is typically focused on collaborative lesson refinement, rather than broader exploration, theorisation, or validation of an emergent issue like digital accessibility. It is designed to improve known practices within existing frameworks, rather than to explore conceptually fluid and ethically complex educational goals such as digital inclusion and accessibility education.
In contrast, the Deweyan-informed pragmatic mixed methods design supports both exploratory and evaluative goals, ensuring that the research produces knowledge that is at once context-sensitive, pedagogically relevant, and theoretically generative.
References
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 Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Dudley, P. (2014). Lesson study: A handbook. University of Cambridge: Lesson Study UK.
Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Routledge.
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
https://unitus.org/FULL/DewLog38.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment