Pragmatism pragmatic research methodology

 Clarke, E. and Visser, J. (2018). Pragmatic research methodology in education: possibilities and pitfalls. International Journal of Research & Method in Education. 

Pragmatism has been noted as the most ‘sensible and practical method available in order to

answer a given research question’ with a range of benefits for the researcher (Becker, 1996; Burr,

2003; Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011; Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005; Robson, 2011; Savin-Baden

and Howell Major, 2013). Using a pragmatic, pluralistic methodology in qualitative research can

ameliorate some of the tensions and limitations inherent within the pure methodologies (Maggs‐

Rapport, 2000; Morse and Chung, 2003). 

Under a pragmatic research umbrella it is possible to combine several different approaches

and methodologies (Caelli, Ray and Mill, 2003) and this pluralist perspective is able to limit some of

the issues concomitant with discrete methodologies (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005). 

Coyle (2010) supported this, proposing that pragmatic research aimed to enhance ‘holistic

understanding’, rather than engaging in a search for consensus or truth. 

A key feature

of a pragmatic methodology is its question focused orientation (Cresswell, 2014; Johnson and

Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005; Pansiri, 2005). This has led it be described as

advocating action over philosophy (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

There is also a distinct lack of research which

has foregrounded TAs’ perspectives or voice, despite repeated calls to address this (Gilbert, Warhurst,

Nickson, Hurrell and Commander, 2012; Lehane, 2016; Roffey-Barentsen and Watt, 2014; Trent, 2014;

Wilson and Bedford, 2008).

The view of knowledge as context based and relativist led to the constructionist epistemology that underpinned the research.

The research was rooted in social constructionism, as it understood knowledge to be ‘socially

and culturally constructed’ (Savin-Baden and Howell Major, 2013, 29). Burr (2003) proposed that this

recognition - that individuals constructed community understandings and collective reality through

exchanges - naturally lent itself to research with a focus on the exploration of an individual’s

construction of meaning (Savin-Baden and Howell Major, 2013).

As a result, the established, friendly and professional relationships that existed between

the participants in sample one and myself and the disclosure of my own views as part of the interviews

and focus group fostered an informal, collaborative ethos. This aimed to reduce the hierarchical

relationships extant within the research process.

A case study methodology was initially assumed to meet the needs of the research, as it was

focused and narrow, but a key tenet was participant observations which would not have been a

suitable. 

Ethnography was then considered, it involved research in situ but required a long duration

in the field - something that was not practical or possible. Attention was then turned to

phenomenology which emphasised working with participants in their own context but required a

specific method of data analysis, which again did not feel suitable. Finally grounded theory was

investigated with its focus on concepts, structures and processes which was key in the research

however, it enforced on an objective stance with little personal disclosure. Considering my

relationship with participants and role in the school as a colleague, this would have been disingenuous.

Therefore, it was felt necessary to use a combination of methods, or a method that enabled the ability

to combine different approaches that remained true to the qualitative, constructionist and feminist

epistemology of the researcher. Mason (2006) offered the term ‘qualitative thinking’ to begin to

address some of the issues raised by this multi-faceted research. She suggested this was a starting

point rather than a prescribed framework and could be used to transcend rather than reinforce

boundaries (Mason, 2006). 

The research undertaken necessitated a focus on actions, real-world practice being both

inclusive and problem focused which made it particularly suited to a pragmatic perspective (Biesta

15

and Burbules, 2003; Cresswell, 2014). In defining the general characteristics of pragmatism, Johnson

and Onwuegbuzie (2004, 18) highlight several features that were specifically pertinent to the research

conducted, including careful consideration of the ‘reality of and influence of the inner word of human

experience in action’.

As a result, a pragmatic approach enabled a focus on the multiple experiences of participants

and their ‘multi-ontological worlds’ which Frost and Nolas (2011) suggested were not accessible

through a single methodological approach. Methodological pragmatism was allied to the pluralism

inherent in the constructionist epistemology of my research that was not overly concerned with the

‘grand Either/Or’ (Teddlie, 2005). This perspective of pluralism was also in line with feminist

perspectives which Usher (1996) suggested, value inclusivity over convention. Therefore pragmatism,

was actively chosen as a research methodology as it provided a close fit with the aims and

epistemology of the research. 

Pragmatic methods were found to be the most commonly used form of qualitative research

in many fields, including education (Caelli, Ray and Mill, 2003; Sandelowski, 2000; Savin-Baden and

Howell Major, 2013). This may be, as Thorne (2011) stated, because fields such as education are more

confident in adjusting and amending the approaches they utilise and tailoring them to fit their specific

requirements. Sechrest and Sidani (1995) had previously argued that methodological plurality was

essential, whilst others suggested that pragmatism was not only practical, but inescapable (Johnson, Long and White, 2008).

Maggs‐Rapport (2000, 223) called for an acknowledgement that nursing, and

it could be argued education, was multi-layered, manifold and ‘unknowable in its entirety’ and that it

therefore required a not a singular approach, but ‘wholism’. Others (Hood, 2006; Morgan, 2007;

Thomas, 2013) have also highlighted the countless differences in qualitative research where the

majority of inquiry does not tidily sit within the boundaries of one specific approach. This perspective

supported Griffiths’ (1995) earlier findings about the necessarily interdisciplinary nature of

educational researchers work. Taylor (2002) cited freedom from methodological distinctions as a

factor to improve educational research, as his findings showed the rigidity this necessitated supressed

any discussion or challenge around methodological approaches. 

The research question (How do TAs view their role in managing behaviour in relation to a

whole school behaviour policy and what are their points of tension in fulfilling this role?) was seen as

paramount and this dictated the methodology, as opposed to the methodology being prime. This

perspective was also noted by others (Bryman, 2006; Chamberlain et al., 2011; Feilzer, 2010;

Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005) who highlighted the centrality and importance of the research

question. A pragmatic methodology also aims to find a ‘middle ground between philosophical

dogmatisms and scepticism to find a workable solution’ (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, 18). 

Onwuegbuzie and Leech's (2005) argument

that pluralist researchers have an increased understanding of a wide range of methods and paradigms.

As a result, the researcher is able to make an informed decision on which aspects do and do not

support answering the research question, as opposed to ‘preconceived biases about which paradigm

is a hegemony in research’ (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005, 387). A pragmatic pluralist approach

therefore, affords greater sensitivity to the data, particularly in the analysis phase. Alldred and Gillies

(2012) suggested that the requirement to place the research within specific boundaries that enforce

certain expectations are negated. Coyle's (2010) view that the plurality enabled by pragmatic research

improves the ‘quality and depth’ of the research undertaken was also ascribed to.

PRAGMATISM encourages the researcher to make

deliberate, conscious choices that are not dictated by a set of methodological rules. This in turn

encourages reflexivity and reflection on the choices made, that does not always occur with prescribed

methodological typologies.

 It also promoted the autonomy required to focus on the research question and

continually query and reflect on the choices made; how they affected the data collected and how

closely they matched the aims and objectives of the research. As such the process of engaging with

the research methodology was iterative and dynamic, with each iteration aiming to be more reflective

and refined than the last.

Biesta and Burbules (2003) view that pragmatism, rather than being prescriptive, was a way of ‘un-thinking’ that in turn supports the researcher in ensuring their work is

reflective supports this. Goldkuhl (2012, 92) also described the ‘continual interplay between action

and reflection’ which defines pragmatism.

Within pragmatic research, the necessity for slavish devotion to a specific method is removed

and the researcher is permitted to choose methods and methodologies which best address the

research question. Pring (2015) supported this stating that within research as a range of questions are

addressed there will be a range of different approaches should be used. It was proposed that ‘the

increasing complexity of qualitative methods’ along with freedom from the ‘tyranny of method’ made

the non-reductionist pragmatic approach popular (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011; SchmidtFelzmann, 2003; Thomas, 2007). Sandelowski (2000, 335) also believed that pragmatic research

enabled the researcher to break free from the ‘methodological acrobatics’ which may be necessary to

classify research as pure ethnography or phenomenology and so on.

Hammersley (2005, 144) asserted that research should not be ‘reduced to the following of explicit rules’, but that;

…much scope for variation in methodological approach must be tolerated…and that

individual researchers should be free to identify the most productive areas of inquiry

and to determine the most effective means for investigating them.

Janesick (1994, 215) had previously raised concerns about what she described as

‘methodolatry’, or ‘a preoccupation with selecting and defending methods’, with White (2013, 219)

later describing how a ‘method-led’ or even ‘mono-method’ approach was a clear barrier to question

focused research. Frost and Nolas (2011, 115) also asserted that ‘silos of mono-theoretical and monomethodological’ approaches only encouraged ‘methodolotry’ that gave prominence to the method

rather than the inquiry. Thorne (2011) believed that the rigidity which some approaches called for was

disadvantageous. It was suggested (Frost et al., 2010; Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005) that proponents

of ‘paradigm purism’ focused on the differences as opposed to the similarities between

methodologies, whereas the pragmatic approach reduces the emphasis on these.

In order to address

some of the criticisms levelled at pragmatism, Caelli, Ray and Mill (2003, 5) proposed key areas which

must be considered to enhance the credibility of pragmatic research, these included:

…the theoretical positioning of the researcher; the congruence between

methodology and methods; the strategies to establish rigor; and the analytic lens through which the data are examined.

The pragmatic nature of the methodology freed the researcher from the ‘tyranny of method’

(Thomas, 2007) when conducting the research. Nonetheless following a set of methodological ‘rules’

or guidelines may have provided a more objective, dispassionate reading of the data, or indeed

prescribed different forms of data collection. 

These

enabled a focus on hearing and maintaining the participants’ voice and their understanding of the

tensions they experienced. 

#To conclude, utilising a pragmatic methodology and straying away from solidity as a

‘researcher-explorer’ in the methodological swamp (Finlay, 2002) can remove the constraints, rigidity

and ‘acrobatics’ (Sandelowski, 2000; Thomas and James, 2006; Thorne, 2011) associated with

adherence to pure methodologies (Holloway and Todres, 2003; Johnson, Long and White, 2008;

Maggs-Rapport, 2000).

However, it was the extended periods of reading and thinking before any active research took

place which were a key possibility. This provided me with a deeper understanding of the tensions and

limitations, as well as potentials of a wide range of methodological perspectives. This process forced

me to engage with methodology as a concept in a way that I had not expected to at the outset of my

research. It made me a more reflective, reflexive and considered researcher. The process of using a

pragmatic methodology provided me with a sound grasp and keen interest on the impact of

methodological choices on the research undertaken, possibly, it could be argued, more than if I had

simply followed a set of prescribed guidelines.

Clarke, E. and Visser, J. (2018). Pragmatic research methodology in education:

possibilities and pitfalls. International Journal of Research & Method in

Education.