The Pragmatic Approach

Values, or Axiology, within pragmatism as a framework play a large role in interpreting results. The pragmatist decides what to research, and makes knowledge claims in terms of what knowledge is, how this can be known as knowledge, the role of values and the methods of study (Creswell 2003). This process is guided by the researcher’s personal value system and study’s what is important in the research. David Morgan (2007, p.71, cited in Groenewald 2010) concisely captures the pragmatic alternative to the key issues in social science research methodology a table that summarises a framework:

85

Research approach:

Qualitative Quantitative Pragmatic

Connection of theory and data

Induction

Deduction

Abduction

Relationship to research process Subjectivity Objectivity

Intersubjectivity

Inference from data

Context

Generality

Transferability

Morgan acknowledges Michael Patton's 1975 divisions.

Figure 4 – Pragmatist Framework

To a pragmatist, the mandate of science is not to find truth or reality, the existence of which are perpetually in dispute, but to facilitate human problem-solving and “to gain the kind of

understanding which is necessary to deal with problems as they arise” (Powell 2001, p. 884). Therefore, it must be realised that pragmatists do not in any way try to offer any alternative methods and they agree with the positivists regarding the existence of an external world independent of people’s minds whilst also with the non-positivist emphasising on choosing explanations that best produce desired outcomes. This is particularly important in this research as it results in pragmatism to provide no separation between the deductive and inductive approaches. The theory of deduction owes much to what we would think of as scientific research and therefore, is often linked to positivism. In order to pursue the principle of scientific rigour, deductive

reasoning dictates that the researcher should be independent of what is being observed, therefore, taking quite an objective view of the whole process. This is unlike the inductive approach which takes into account more of an understanding of the way in which participants interpret the world and the context in which the research processes are taking place. Researchers, within this approach, tend to work with more qualitative data, adopting more of an interpretivist position. Dewey argues that the acquisition of knowledge is both an inductive and deductive process and that “knowledge in some form exists as a ‘reality’ and in other forms where the ‘knower’ constructs it” (Maxcy 2003, p.72).

“Science becomes understandable only if we drop the conception of science as a system of absolute truths” (Maxcy 2003, p.72)

By adopting the pragmatic approach within this study, the research processes can break away from the rigid structures of traditional educational and social sciences, and propose methods where qualitative and quantitative mixed-methods can co-exist to inform the research question, within a sequential design (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004).

The particular approach of the pragmatic abductive process combines both qualitative and

quantitative methods in a sequential fashion (Ivankova, Creswell and Stick 2006) without having to combine them both together within one specific stage. In which the inductive results from the qualitative approach serves as inputs to the deductive goals of the quantitative approach (Morgan 2006). Morgan (2006) places great emphasis on using theories to account for observations through an aspect of inductive inferences and the only way to assess these inferences is through the method

86

of ‘actions’. The idea is that knowledge claims arise out of actions, situations and consequences, rather than through antecedent conditions (as in positivism).

In determining an appropriate approach for this research design, the process of abduction, taking into account the inductive-inductive-inductive-deductive sequence has been adopted where the first inductive cycle lends itself to scoping out the research gap and relevant questions for this study. The second inductive cycle leads to understanding the nature of the research question and in understanding the current practices of technology use in the early years playrooms. The third inductive process builds upon an appropriate pedagogy and the framework of data analysis. This eventually leads to the fourth and final approach of deductive reasoning in transferring the

proposed pedagogy over to the early years practitioners and in using Laever’s scales of Well-Being and Involvement for validating the data. The table below shows the combination of both

approaches for this particular research design (adopted by Saunder, Lewis and Thornhill 2007). Abduction (research-oriented)

Induction Emphasis Deduction Emphasis

 A close understanding of the research context.

 The collection of qualitative data

 A more flexible structure to permit

 A realisation that the researcher is part of the research process

 Gaining an understanding of the meanings humans attach to events

 Less concern with the need to generalise

 Moving from theory/concept to data

 The collection of quantitative data

 A highly structured approach

 The application of controls to ensure validity of data

 Researcher independence of what is being researched

 More need to generalise (although not necessarily indented for this study).

In terms of subjectivity and identity in research, the pragmatist view also believes in

intersubjectivity where pure or complete subjectivity and objectivity are theoretical concepts. Where there is criticism of both ‘complete objectivity’ and ‘complete subjectivity’, between the various types of quantitative and qualitative methodologies, pragmatism argues that within a research process it is acceptable to work back and forth between various frames of references. In reality pragmatists believe that the researcher often works through the research interchangeably and therefore the theory of the pragmatism approach adopts a more philosophical stance which is determined by how well it works in solving given problems (Morgan 2006). Consequently the research fits into a situation where there is a degree of mutual understanding between the

participants in the research (including the researcher), but also at the same time with the colleagues who review the products of the research and adopts the appropriate theoretical concepts.

The final dualism of pragmatism is the distinction between knowledge that is either specific and context-dependant, or universal and generalised. The pragmatic approach rejects having to choose from one of the pair of extremes where research results are either completely specific to a particular context or an instance of some more or generalised set of principles. This concept of transferability

87

is questioned by Lincoln and Guba (1985, p.297) “on whether the things learned in one context can be applied in another as an ‘empirical’ issue”? The answer is not in selecting methods and/or approaches that can make the results both context-bound and generalizable. The solution is in investigating the factors that affect whether the knowledge the researcher gains can be transferred to other settings taking the approach:

“On what people can do with the knowledge they produce and not on abstract arguments about the possibility or impossibility of generalisations. Instead, we must always need to ask how much of our existing knowledge might be usable in a new set of circumstances, as well as what our warrant is for making any such claims” (Morgan 2007, p.72).

From this perspective, this research is concerned with not one extreme of a specific set of data analysis where findings are so unique that it has no implications for other settings, and neither are they so generalised that the findings can be applied in every possible early years learning settings. The important determinant is the extent to which “we can take the things that we learn with one type of method in one specific setting and make the most appropriate use of that knowledge in other circumstances” (Morgan 2007. p.72).