We all know that we have to draw our research methods on one of paradigms or worldviews which provide the theories on reality (ontology), the route to reality (epistemology), and the procedure to acquire knowledge (methodology).
Case study research is mostly based on three methodologists: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. Some says that Merriam and Stake are more on constructionism, Yin is more on positivism (Yazan 2015 Three Approaches to Case Study Methods in Education).
My point is, with the flexibility of case study research, could we base this approach on pragmatism? I am inspired by the paper by David Morgan (2007) Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods, and think that I could use the adductive reasoning of pragmatist approach, rather just either inductive or deductive ones.
Thank you all.
Kien Nguyen-Trung
Certainly you can work from a pragmatist paradigm if it fits with the rest of your research project. Action research and critical realism fit with pragmatism very well (though I guess they are not the only choices). Try looking at:
Johnson, P. & Duberley, J. (2000) Understanding Management Research: An introduction to epistemology. Sage. London.
Coghlan, D. & Brannick, T. (2010) Doing Action Research in your own organisation. Sage. London
Houston, S. (2010) Prising open the black box: critical realism, action research and social work. Qualitative Social Work 9:pp.73-.
Best wishes,
John E
Dear John Steven Edwards ,
Thank you very much for your answer.
My research is actually not action research and critical realism. I do not aim to advocate for policy changes, although that consequence could be a surplus.
I started to design my case study research from constructionist perspective, trying to collect qualitative data and let those data speak for themselves rather than limiting them into a predetermined framework.
But as long as I am on the fieldwork, I have realised that I need to get quantitative data, and combine them into my interpretation. In addition, I also see that I should move back and forth between induction and deduction, namely, between theory and data, in order to answer to my research questions.
Thus, I would like to think of applying pragmatism to use adductive reasoning for my next data collection.
Thank you.
I think the following article may help you.
Article Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research
I think the pragmatism is not a paradigm. In my opinion it is a background inside the hermeneutic paradigm. However, colud you share your research question? In order to help you with more specific ideas.
Thank you Professor David L Morgan for sharing the paper. This is what I am looking for.
Dear Ebingen Villavicencio ,
Thank you for your answer.
My general research question is how have affected communities recover from the impact of the 2015-2016 saltwater intrusion? One of the sub-questions is how have they used social capital to aid their recovery.
Before the fieldwork, my data collection tools include in-depth interviews, direct observation, documentation, and archival records. However, during the fieldwork, the lack of households data and also social capital data intrigued me to conduct a name generator survey. Now I am thinking of a paradigm in addition to my original constructionism to help me in integrating those data together. I think paradigm could be a good one because it reflects my reasoning (abduction) and the pragmatist approach to data collection.
Regarding pragmatism as a paradigm, Creswell (2007), Morgan (2007, 2014) and many others have confirmed.
Cheers,
kien
Your question raises radical methodological issues. The real question is: how inventive are you prepared to be? I would read the final chapter of Richard Rorty’s Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature [again?]. I do not believe that you can ‘stake out’ your position in the normal sense by addressing the orthodox questions of ontology and epistemology from a contemporary Pragmatist perspective, which is critical of the assumptions that underpin their legitimacy. This inevitably upsets the prospect of underpinning methodological and research design decisions according to existing paradigmatic criteria. Go for it, by all means, but be prepared for a rough road.
Geoffrey Mark Matthews.
I'm not sure why an author should face a "rough road" for following the a pragmatist's rejection of ontology and epistemology (which would be advocated by John Dewey as well as Richard Rorty). In the present case, if the case study is well done with regard to current standards for collecting and analyzing data, who would really care what "paradigmatic criteria" it didn't or didn't follow?
The only situation I can imagine is if a student had problems with a committee that was not familiar with pragmatism. Beyond that, I've done reviewing for a wide variety of social science journals and I have never seen a review (let alone an editor's decision) refer to the author's choice of paradigms.
David L Morgan Geoffrey Mark Matthews
While personally I couldn't agree more with the position David is taking, I have to say that (in the business field) I have experienced both a PhD examiner and journal reviewers struggling to accept pragmatism. I think (hope?) it is becoming less of a problem, but I couldn't rule out the "rough road" as a possibility.
John E
Dear John Steven Edwards , I thought after the emergence of pragmatism as a paradigm standing shoulder-to-shoulder to constructivism and positivism/post-positivism, and widely use of mixed-method approach, it has been easier for academic communities to accept pragmatism?
Kien Nguyen-Trung
Easier, yes, but I don't think the battle is won yet. There are plenty of academics still active who don't even accept mixed methods. If it's PhD research, then examiners can be chosen suitably, but you can't give the same "steer" about reviewers to a journal editor.
John E
Thank you John Steven Edwards . Your warning is worth considering.
Best regards,
kien
David L Morgan and John Steven Edwards have both made valuable points. I am sure things have moved on in the past few years, and indeed there may be greater acceptance of the 'consequences of pragmatism' in some circles than in others these days. I received my doctorate over twenty years ago and was very astutely guided through my unorthodox approach to organizational research which was examined by carefully chosen, highly regarded, 'mavericks.' (I hope neither would mind me using the term now.) The viva was particularly rigorous and tough on the research design and thesis presentation, but I got through by being meticulous, confident and very thoroughly prepared. In my subsequent research career I certainly came up against reviewers and editors who kept the gates closed - I wasted a lot of time and energy on submissions to the wrong journals and on funding bids that were poorly targeted. I do not blame anyone else but myself. Post-doc research can be a tough game even if you have mainstream interests and methods, but I think in the end it is better to choose the path to which know you can remain committed, and never give up.
I think the word "pragmatism" has derailed the question, which shouldn't be about the eponymous philosophical system per se but a mode of inference (a form of which was elucidated by the pragmatist philosopher Peirce but which needn't be associated with the agendas of pragmatism). Abduction can be thought of as "inference to the best explanation" and is in some ways closely allied with, and often not clearly distinguished from induction. Although the simplistic formulation "generalization from a set of instances" is often regarded as the hallmark of induction, it can also be construed as a species of abduction – a generalization may be the best explanation.
My suggestion would be to stake out your methods clearly but avoid isms and technical terms that might raise concerns in people's minds. You can describe your inferential criteria or methodology without using the terms "induction" or "abduction" or referring to pragmatism. Abduction is ubiquitous and people will be familiar enough with the patterns; no need for a label to inadvertently call attention to ideological controversies.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/#toc
Dear Karl Pfeifer
Thank you for your insights. I think I learned a lot from your answer and the webpage.
Best regards,
kien
Everything you face or visualize rationally, around you, has a direct linkage with the bigger and smaller worlds of philosophical arrangements. Just you need a carbonated pencil to visualize a picture using the glasses of methods, methodology and paradigms or worldviews which provide the theories on reality (ontology), the route to reality (epistemology), and the procedure to acquire knowledge (methodology). That's it. Everything has a deeper connectivity with the philosophical roots of pragmatism, realism, post-modernism, interpretivism, and what else? Everything, philosophically rooted.
