Pragmatic approach to research

Educational philosophy

1. Pragmatic approach to research Muhammad Ayoob Babar Reg. No. 140-FSS/PHDEDU/F17 Department Of Education International Islamic University, Islamabad

2. Contents Definition Philosophy Characteristics Mixed method definition Positivism, I nterpretivism and Pragmatism Strengths Limitations Implication of concept in Pakistan

3. Definition Involves using the method which appears best suited to the research problem Pragmatism represents the single most appropriate approach to mixed method studies (Morgan, 2007)

4. Cont.. Pragmatism suggests that researchers adopt a needs-based or possibility approach to selecting methods and approaches (Johnson & On wueg , 2004).

5. Philosophy Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology Ontology Reality is the practical effects of ideas. View point regarding existence of man , society and the world , and relationship among them (Gray, 2013)

6. Epistemology Any way of thinking/doing that leads to pragmatic solutions is useful. The process through which a researcher may establish or determine reality (Creswell, 2003)

7. Methodology Mixed Methods, design-based research, action research The generic (not specific) approach used by the researchers, which include the methods of data collection to data analysis to conduct their research (Silverman, 2016)

8. Characteristics Pragmatic researchers give themselves the freedom to use any of the methods, associated with quantitative or qualitative research. They think that every method has its limitations different approaches can be complementary

9. Mixed methods definition Research that involves collecting, analyzing and interrelating Quantitative (experiments, surveys) and Qualitative (focus groups, Interviews) research ( Creswell ,2011)

10. Cont.. This approach to research is used when this combination provides a better understanding of the research problem than either each alone

11. Positivism, interpretivism and Pragmatism Positivism There are no differences in the logic of inquiry across sciences The research should aim to explain and predict Research should be empirically observable via human senses. Inductive reasoning should be used to develop statements (hypotheses) to be tested

12. I nterpretivism The Principle of Contextualization The Principle of Interaction between the Researchers and the Subjects The Principle of Abstraction (deal with ideas) and   Generalization

13. Cont.. The Principle of Dialogical Reasoning (Dialogue) The Principle of Multiple Interpretations The Principle of Suspicion (doubtful, unsure) Klein and Myers (1999)

14. Pragmatism Pragmatism research philosophy accepts concepts to be relevant only if they support action . Pragmatics recognize that there are many different ways of interpreting the world and undertaking research, that no single point of view can ever give the entire picture and that there may be multiple realities

15. Positivism, interpretivism and Pragmatism Types of research Research approach Ontology Axiology Research strategies Positivism Deductive Objective Value-free Quantitative Interpretivism Inductive Subjective Biased Qualitative Pragmatism Deductive/inductive Objective or subjective Value-free/Biased Qualitative and/ or quantitative

16. Strengths Can be easy to describe and report Can be useful when unexpected results arise from a prior study Can help to generalize data Helpful in designing and validating an instrument

17. Limitations Time required Discrepancies between different types of data Can be difficult to decide when to proceed in sequential designs (study different groups over a long period of time)

18. Conclusion Despite the variations between qualitative and quantitative approaches have in terms of ontological and epistemological assumptions, the combination of both in one study is not only possible, but it also provides a proper understanding of the phenomena (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).

19. Cont.. However, a mixed methods research may be designed only if there is a need to understand and confirm the social phenomenon at the same time.

20. References Bednarz , D. (1985). Quality and quantity in evaluation research: A divergent view. Evaluation and Program Planning, 8, 289-306. Beiser , F. (Ed). (1993). The Cambridge companion to Hegel. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, pp. 37- 46. Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally. Datta , L. (1994). Paradigm wars: A basis for peaceful coexistence and beyond. New Directions for Evaluation, 61, 53-70. Datta , L. (1997). A pragmatic basis for mixed method designs. New Directions for Evaluation, 74, 33-46. Greene, J. C., & McClintock, C. (1985). Triangulation in evaluation: design and analysis issues. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 523-545. Guba , E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Hammersley , M. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography? Methodological exploration. London: Routledge.

21. Cont.. Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Thompson Learning. Hughes, J. R., Gulliver, S. B., & Fenwick, J. W. (1992). Smoking cessation among self-quitters. Health Psychology, 11, 331-334. Hunt, W. A., & Bespalec , D. A. (1974). An evaluation of current methods of modifying smoking behavior. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 431-438. Kirkhart , K. E. (2000). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. New Directions for Evaluation, (88), 5-23. Krueger, R. A. (1998). Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 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. Velicer , W. F., & Prochaska , J. O. (2004). A comparison of four self-report smoking cessation outcome measures. Addictive Behaviors, 29(1), 51-60.

22. Thanks