The aim of this study is about a practical practice issue; that of decision making around the need to transfer. In particular my interest was in the transfer decisions made in regard to well women near term who could reasonably plan to birth in their rural area. Therefore it was important for both midwives and women to be included. In addition to their voices, a survey was designed to capture a snapshot of transfer patterns and reasons for transfer. As noted in chapter one, this information was not available at the beginning of this study. A survey also offered the opportunity to capture extant, local, logistical and service arrangements, plus provide an environmental context for the transfer statistics and interview data. The complexity of this descriptive study required a flexible and responsive approach. Thus the ideas of pragmatism, which fit well with a mix of methods was used to inform the data gathering processes.
Mixed Method Research study designs have roots in the pragmatic research tradition (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003). These ideas emerged in the latter part of the 19th century to challenge the dominance and methodological constraints of the traditional, positivist and post positivist research conventions (ibid). To provide an overview of the pragmatic tradition and theorists I have drawn on Maxcy’s (2003) work. The theorists included are Peirce, James, Dewey, Mead, Bentley and Rorty (ibid).
It is suggested that these founders of pragmatism were all influenced by their rural American experience and belief in the ability of humans to improve their lives (Maxcy, 2003). Ideas were seen as merely instruments that ought to be tested in the turmoil of real life. In other words the researcher, as all others, should be judged on their deeds rather than ancestry, class or theorising. Therefore thought needed to be linked with action, and theory to practice, within a dynamic environment (ibid).
While each of these scholars brought their own take on pragmatism and pragmatic research methods, they were united in rejecting any notion of a fundamental truth; in particular the assumption that the post positivist research method was the only way to inquire into social phenomena (Maxcy, 2003). Their challenge came at a time in history when there was a move to find more creative ways of exploring subjective experience and social behaviour (ibid).
Peirce, a scientist, is considered the father of pragmatism (Maxcy, 2003). His belief was that in order to survive; habits are developed that then become beliefs. Thus in response to a problem there is the option to flee or explore it. For this, a mix of methods and strategies could be deployed using both inductive and deductive experimentation (ibid). William James’ twist on pragmatist inquiry was the use of mixed methods to explore psychology and religion. He divided the sciences into two groups, ‘natural’ which involved observation and ‘pure’ which involved classification, logic and maths. Thus the former was hands on whereas the latter was very much a theoretical exercise (ibid).
Mead advanced James' work into social psychology much influenced by Darwin (Maxcy, 2003). James was interested in the relationships between mind, self, arts, language and society, plus the relationships between these concepts. His belief was that all reality was in process and did not favour any one perspective (ibid). The construction of thoughts and perceptions he believed, were born of action rather than theorising. Thus positioned he did not accept the simplicity of cause and effect but rather “a theory of probabilities” (p.69). Science was viewed as a continuous adjustment to the new or novel, consistent with human behaviour.
A pragmatic theory of inquiry was pursued by Dewey. This began with a problem which was reflected on, reasoned about, and then tested out (Maxcy, 2003). This pragmatic inquiry method Dewey also applied to values. He did not accept objectivity or impartiality, nor relative subjective meaning for individuals or groups (ibid). In place of these extremes Dewey settled on ‘naturalistic’ and fluid inquiry; a common sense approach informed by ethics (ibid).
Building on Dewey’s pragmatic traditions, Bentley focussed on the process of government, suggesting that behaviours were governed by lobbyists and officials (Maxcy, 2003). His transactional idea was that action prompted behaviour which then developed relationships. Thus knowledge was seen as the outcome of behaviours (ibid). For example the researcher cannot sit outside of the behaviour in the field, but rather engages as an integral part of that field (ibid). So, with a pragmatic approach, multiple methods and tools were considered “subservient to the tasks” of the inquiry (p.75).
In the latter part of the 20th century the focus for science knowledge was on logical and empirical methods seeking the origin of the problem (Crotty, 1998). However this time in history also saw the re-emergence of hermeneutics and critical theory. Rorty (1999) included aesthetic elements of poetry, language and context into the research inquiry. He saw the structures of the science vocabulary as ‘language games’ which were not necessarily congruent with the
was not seen by Rorty as just social relativism but rather a “philosophical pluralism” (p. 276). This was not to suggest that every culture or position had intrinsic worth, but rather that all findings are considered equally valid. Nonetheless, all are subject to a level of critical evaluation as to their utility.
This notion of utility means that pragmatism has been associated with ideas of the most convenient or tidy outcome, which ignores conflict and power relationships between people (Crotty, 1998). In defence of the pragmatism founders, Crotty (1998) suggests that “[t]hese charges against pragmatism are harsh and, insofar as they are levelled against the founders of pragmatism, betray a simplistic and distorted reading of pragmatism” (p.62). And further that “…pragmatism has more than enough in common with both phenomenology and critical theory for fruitful dialogue to take place” (p.63). Thus the potential for such a dialogue provides a bridge across paradigm boundaries, even if only through a mixing of methods.
While no particular pragmatic theory or theorist is followed exclusively in this research, the processes used in the data collection are informed by pragmatic ideas. The criterion for pragmatists is effectiveness or what will get the job done with validity resting on the usefulness of the method. The utility goal however still requires transparent and ethical conduct on behalf of the researcher with each step in the process clearly communicated and justified. These elements include acknowledgement of the underlying assumptions of the researcher as outlined at the start of this chapter, plus the adoption of reflective and flexible procedures when research occurs within dynamic, evolving environments; thus naturalistic and fluid inquiry, informed by ethics (Maxcy, 2003).