Utility of Pragmatism paper - King

 King, R. (2022) The Utility of Pragmatism in Educational Research. Creative Education, 13, 3153-3161. doi: 10.4236/ce.2022.1310199.

The article’s objectives will address the major contributory thinkers of Peirce, James, and Dewey, and demonstrate why pragmatism is not an epistemology but best considered a methodological approach, and why it is thus, suited to the utility of both quantitative and qualitative methodology and method.

I will then summarise how it is not considered an epistemological approach; albeit the approach demonstrates ontological and epistemological awareness.

The article fundamentally addresses, through example of an educational research inquiry—how pragmatic methodology does not merely reduce all that is known and experienced to binary assumption for the researcher, like its epistemic competitors. But by evaluating social scientific knowledge via reflexivity and quantitative methods, research thus, becomes a social endeavour—for the practitioner & researcher alike. 

Although research is considered to be founded on ontological and epistemological assumptions, so to establish and inform a research process (Lincoln & Guba, 2005), pragmatism is neither considered an ontology or epistemology and at best, considered to reflect a methodological approach (Biesta and Burbule, 2003; Pihlström, 2008; Houser, 2010).

For the linear or purist researcher out there then, its theoretical position is considered to be somewhat nestled between the paradigms of positivism and constructivism (Martela, 2015). Its purported utility as a methodology and not an epistemology (Houser, 2010) however, allows it to encompass both qualitative and quantitative methodology and method, so to further “actionable” inquiry; rather than just mirror reality of a linear truth or multiple, for the sake of it (Adler and Clark, 2011; Feilzer, 2010). This is beneficial to the [educational] researcher because of its practical utility, and thus, does not follow on the only aspect of research, that being, the “entailment of epistemology to method” (Johnson et al., 2007). The fallibility of logic or truth-seeking inquiry is thus, not considered primary to the purpose of research within pragmatism.

This rule, central to the pragmatism philosophy of method and beneficial to the researcher when seeking a research question; suggests an “inquiry” can only be “inferred” if the researcher goes through a series of doubts in their everyday behaviour and experience. These are then assessed and re-assessed through a process of abduction, deduction and induction: until the inquiry is validated as: “able to withstand future inquiry” (Peirce, 1878 [1986: pp. 266-273]).

Pragmatists coin the term “inquiry”, in place of the objectivist’s epistemic assumptions of “knowledge” because the pragmatist is not seeking the representational value, or truth per se, but seeking the inquiries actionable and theoretical value (Biesta & Burble, 2003). 

Pierce went further and purported that method of inquiry should be fit for the purpose of such inquiry and therefore able to adapt to the researcher’s question. It is for this very reason Peirce said an inquiry or research question is only inferred as validated once it is able to withstand further inquiry, because it is based on how best its available evidence purports it to be (Misak, 2022).

Very simplistically the pragmatic approach may enquire and raise “doubts” through published and non-published literature—to see if there are any knowledge gaps firstly on the topic. They may consider deductively as well; what would be of greatest benefit within educational research or practice as a line of inquiry i.e., what constitutes a “positive impact” for students’ what specific types of VLE resources exist and how and why should they provide the greatest benefit [to the class/student]? Whether the teacher or student contribution within VLE have equal weighting in influence?

To the pragmatist researcher then, the actionable value [experiential consequences] of such techniques, may enable one: to use different teaching methods in schools; across different groups of students so to enhance learning, and specifically review and implement strategies for teacher and pupil; in post pandemic situations or for those difficult to engage students?

In summary then, the inquiry and its focus on the experiential consequences of such, indicates pragmatism can be seen of being of utility to the researcher with respect to refining experiences and thus, its very practice.

During the inquiry process, where there are several interpretations open to the researcher, the best line of inquiry to pursue can be based on its approximate utility, in accordance with Dewey’s pragmatism (Dewey, 1911 [2008]). It is at this point where the true understanding of the pragmatic method emerges, as the “instinct” to choose the most “beneficial” “economical” or “helpful” line of inquiry is not merely reduced to all logic, and encompasses the wider understanding of abductive reasoning as well (Biesta and Burble, 2003). Individual thought, perception, and socio-cultural context are seen by the pragmatist as sources of knowledge, these being referred to as social facts and in transaction with one’s environment (Dewey, 1911 [2008]). These then become as notably coined by Dewey (1929 [1984]): “verified by the most suitable systematic and experimental method”. 

both Peirce and Dewey who form then an understanding for the building blocks of critical reflexivity in pragmatic research, with questions most aptly posited by Feilzer (2010) such as: “what is it for” “who is it for” and “how do researchers…” enabling a pragmatic shaping of the inquiry to emerge.

As pragmatism is not committed to an ontological or epistemological stance, and in accordance with the pragmatic maxim; the “actionable inquiry”, places it well within the utility of both qualitative and quantitative methodology and method. It is therefore because of this, pragmatism is best considered a methodological approach in its own right (Martela, 2015; Houser, 2010). It is important to clarify however, this is not to be confused with mixed methods research (MMR) that although “appears” to overlap with the use of both approaches does have different theoretical underpinnings, see Onwuegbuzie & Leech (2019) and Morgan (2007, 2014). It is noteworthy here then, to give attention to the differential terms of methodology and method, as these at times, can be used interchangeably but refer to different concepts within research design. Methodology can be considered as the reasoning and theoretical justification behind the research processes being implemented, where as methods however refer to the specific techniques employed by such processes at the different stages of research (Patton, 2002).

The advantages of using both qualitative and quantitative research enable the weaknesses of either methodology to be complemented by the strengths of the other (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). More specifically, this refers back to the [fallible] logic of justification, whereby epistemology is considered synonymous with the choice of design (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). 

Similarly, qualitative methodology is “typically” synonymous with the inductive approaches. However, as we have seen, Peirce utilises both approaches in pragmatic research, in addition to abductive techniques. Strengthening the argument that the use of the [binary] reasoning techniques helps avoid any polarisation, and enables a more thorough inquiry process (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Morgan, 2007, 2014).

If we accept then, that studying social scientific knowledge through the theoretical lens of pragmatism, as opposed to the epistemic beliefs of correspondence theory and in contrast to realist ontology: “of an observer, looking into the world of another…out there” then the researcher arrives back at the abduction approach as a research technique.

This, often unanimous with the pragmatic theory of method in part because Peirce founded it, is not, an amalgamation of deduction and induction, but a reasoning technique in its own right (Capps, 2019). What this does allow, compared to its binary members however, is an abductive analysis of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies and in equal proportions, something which MMR does not enable (Morgan, 2014). It can therefore be argued, by using a pragmatic methodological approach one can not only avoid the polarisation of the research inquiry by using both approaches, but avoids the clash of philosophical assumptions and associated beliefs—of which MMR research fails to overcome (Morgan, 2014). It is therefore posited, specifying the study’s position as a pragmatic study firstly helps to identify its position in the field of research theory (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005).

Peirce demanded the inquiry process is started linearly from abduction, where it is then validated or verified lastly, at the inductive stage (Biesta & Burble, 2003). This is because at the explanatory hypotheses stage, where the inquiry commences; the interest inferred—dictates with no such certainty, that it is not a mere random inference that we have thus observed, doubted, and therefore, to verify such social regularity, we seek to map the class of phenomena to increase our cognitive and practical understanding of it (Hookway, 2012). We do this by seeking out, at an intermediate level (i.e., abduction)—core concepts from our observations & the relevant literature, and can then infer further distinctions of relevant domains.

We can do this in part, due to the complexity of the material, by using methods such as descriptive statistics, formal coding, and cross tabulation to cross cut the categories [of teacher focus group data], elicit similarities and differences between and within the data; and therefore, start to structure and arrange the inquiry process in itself (Friedrichs and Kratochwil, 2009).

#Again, statistical inference is not the goal of pragmatic research, so these analytical and descriptive methods will always be kept simple and as intuitive as possible.

Pragmatic inquiry can be defined as not a description of reality and nor of representational knowledge, but as a fully transactional experience—seeking to pursue its theoretical and actionable worth. Its point of influence in educational research, highlights its focus is not simply to know more, but to apply, problem solve and enhance awareness of one’s interaction with the world. Due then, because of the philosophy’s divided principles and theories of such, the philosophy is best considered a methodological approach. It is through these said values therefore, unique only to the pragmatic maxim, and evaluated via reflexivity, both qualitative and quantitative methodology and method, an enablement in research exists, between practice educators and researchers alike.