The pragmatic worldview

The pragmatist point of view rejects the forced choice between positivism and interpretivism with regard to methods, logic and epistemology (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Pragmatists maintain that scientific inquiry is not formalistic and the researcher may be both objective and subjective in epistemological orientation over the course of studying a research question (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Pragmatic researchers place at the heart of their endeavours their research questions (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), rather than pre-occupied with ontological and epistemological debates about truth and reality (Cherryholmes, 1992). Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003, p. 713) define methodological pragmatism as:

… a deconstructive paradigm that debunks concepts such as “truth” and “reality” and focuses instead on “what works” as the truth regarding the research questions under investigation. Pragmatism rejects the either/or choices associated with the

115

paradigm wars, advocates for the use of mixed methods in research, and acknowledges that the values of the researcher play a large role in interpretation of results.

Morgan (2007) advocates the “pragmatic approach” as a new guiding paradigm in social science research, as a basis for supporting work that combined qualitative and quantitative methods. Table 12 summarises the framework proposed by Morgan (2007) where he contrasts qualitative and quantitative research approaches in the social sciences with the pragmatic approach.

Table 12 : Alternative to the key issues in Social Science Research Methodology Qualitative approach Quantitative approach Pragmatic approach Connection of theory and

data Induction Deduction Abduction

Relationship to research

process Subjectivity Objectivity Inter-subjectivity

Inference from data Context Generality Transferability Source: Morgan (2007, p. 71)

Rather than favouring deduction or induction, pragmatism espouses abduction (Nelson & Evans, 2014). The pragmatic approach uses abductive reasoning which moves back and forth between induction and deduction by firstly converting observations into theories and then assessing those theories through action (Morgan, 2007). Morgan (2007) contends that one of the most common uses of this type of reasoning is to further a process of inquiry that evaluates the results of prior inductions through their ability to predict the workability of future lines of behavior. He reasons that the inductive results from a qualitative approach could serve as inputs to the deductive goals of a quantitative approach, and vice versa. The advantage of such an approach is that it combines loyalty to the existing theorywith loyalty to the new data, instead of taking sides (Sinkovics & Alfoldi, 2012).

Pragmatism emphasizes inter-subjectivity, rather than favouring objectivity or subjectivity (Nelson & Evans, 2014). In explaining inter-subjectivity, Morgan (2007, p. 72) argues the usual forced dichotomy between subjective and objective is an equally forced artificial summary of the relationship between researchers and the research process, and that any practicing researchers have to work back and

116

forth between various frames of reference. Morgan (2007, p. 72) thus claims that with a pragmatic approach there is no problem in asserting both that “there is a single ‘real world’ and that all individuals have their own unique interpretations of that world”. Transferability proposes that findings need not to be so unique that they have no implications beyond the research context or so generalised that they would apply across the board in any setting (Dures, Rumsey, Morris, & Gleeson, 2010; Morgan, 2007).

Morgan (2007) advocates transferability as arising from a solidly pragmatic focus on what people could do with the knowledge they produce and how much existing knowledge might be usable in a new set of circumstances. Morgan (2007) concludes his arguments for a pragmatic approach by indicating that the great strength of this approach to social science research methodology was due to its emphasis on the connection between epistemological concerns about the nature of the knowledge that are produced and technical concerns about the methods that are used to generate knowledge.

Creswell (2014, p. 11) claims that pragmatism provides a basis for the following knowledge states:

1. Pragmatism is not committed to any one system of philosophy and reality. This applies to mixed methods research in that inquirers draw liberally from both quantitative and qualitative assumptions when they engage in their research.

2. Individual researchers have a freedom of choice. In this way, researchers are free to choose the methods, techniques, and procedures of research that best meet their needs and purposes. 3. Pragmatists do not see the world as an absolute unity. In a similar

way, mixed methods researchers look to many approaches for collecting and analysis data rather than subscribing to only one way (e.g., quantitative or qualitative).

4. Truth is what works at the time. It is not based in a duality between reality independent of the mind or within the mind. Thus, in mixed methods research, investigators use both quantitative and qualitative data because they work to provide the best understanding of a research problem.

5. The pragmatist researchers look to the what and how to research based on the intended consequences- where they want to go with it. Mixed methods researchers need to establish a purpose for their “mixing,” a rationale for the reasons why quantitative and qualitative data need to be mixed in the first place.

117

6. Pragmatists agree that research always occurs in social, historical, political, and other contexts. In this way, mixed methods studies may include a postmodern turn, a theoretical lens that is reflective of social justice and political aims.

7. Pragmatists have believed in an external world independent of the mind as well as that lodged in the mind. But they believe that we need to stop asking questions about reality and the laws of nature (Cherryholmes, 1992).

Pragmatism was suggested as the philosophical assumption by many social scientists (see for example: Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Morgan, 2007; Onweugbuzie, 2002; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) for mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches. Consequently, pragmatism is associated with mixed methods research (Feilzer, 2010). It enables researchers to combine elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (Creswell, 2014). Mixed methods research designs have been growing in popularity in the accounting literature (Birchall, Murphy, & Milne, 2016; Brown & Brignall, 2007; Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al., 2008; Martinov-Bennie & Mladenovic, 2015; Modell, 2005, 2010; Vaivio & Sirén, 2010).