One the most important features of Pragmatism is that it rejects the distinction between realism and anti-realism, which has been the core of debates about positivism versus interpretivism in the social sciences. For pragmatists, there is indeed such a thing as reality, but it is ever changing, based on our actions. So attempts to find an enduring, external reality are doomed to failure. Dewey called this attempt to find a reality outside of ourselves a "spectator theory" of knowledge.

The emphasis on actions and their consequences creates a gap between pragmatism and most versions of interpretivism because it does away with the idea that we are free to interpret our experiences in whatever way we see fit (e.g., relativism). Instead, our action have outcomes that are often quite predictable, and we build our lives around experiences that link actions and their outcomes.

Of course, this all depends on your version of "interpretivism." Most people tend to take it as inter-chagable with constructivism, but for an alternative argument see:

Schwandt, T. A. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretativism, hermeneutics and social constructionism. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and issues. (pp. 292-331). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Also, within constructivist/interpretivist approaches it is grounded theory that owes the most debt to symbolic interactionism, through Mead's student Herbert Blumer, who was in turn one of A. Strauss' key professors. Mead himself was a leading pragmatist, but that connection is only recently being explored again in GT.

Hi Rayed,

I am in the process of my PhD and using pragmatism, but I found J.Pansiri's papers useful

Pansiri, J. (2009). Evolution of a doctoral thesis research topic and methodology: A personal experience. Tourism Management, 30(1), 83-89.

Pansiri, J. (2005). Pragmatism: A methodological approach to researching strategic alliances in tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 2(3), 191-206.

Hi Rayed .. I have used it in my Thesis, and I think it is the best approach to adopt for in an original research.. but not an easy approach.. and people hardly go for it..

Reg. Examiners comment .. my 2 examiners had 2 extreme views... one was very positvive and other was full of doubts...

what I feel is people with pragmatic view need to have strong background of both qualitattive and quantitative techniques.

Hi Rayed,

I came across an interesting article which you might find useful...justifications for use in modern-day research

Ormerod, R. (2005). The history and ideas of pragmatism. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(8), 892-909.

Thanks Jennifer and Abdullah!

I have attached a copy of an article I have, which is currently online before publication. The argument is that pragmatism can serve as a general paradigm for social research, with a special emphasis on John Dewey's approach to Inquiry.

Thanks David!

According to my understanding pragmatism is the most appropriate epistemology for social research. As constructivist often are confined to a critical perspective by deconstructing hegemonic interpretations pragmatism looks at the way different worldviews derive from lived-experiences (as Dewey says). In the course of socialisation and every-day life people develop experiences which are not only individual but also a way to become socially experienced. On a societal level experiences integrate common knowledge, conventionalised practices and emotional processes. Truth in pragmatism is thus constructed but is nonarbitrary because it has a trajectory and is rooted in practice. This gives an idea why contingent knowledge is so binding to individuals.

I find this epistemology very useful to explore social fields where diverging opinions and practices compete against each other. Exploring the trajectories and roots in experiences can help to understand social conflicts in more detail.

I’m not an expert on the topic. Reading the comments, I was wandering about relationship between pragmatism and interpretivism. Couldn’t they be complementary approaches to understanding a social phenomenon?

As I know interpretivism somehow bases on symbolic interactionism which was largely influenced by pragmatist thinkers, especially from G.H. Mead.

One the most important features of Pragmatism is that it rejects the distinction between realism and anti-realism, which has been the core of debates about positivism versus interpretivism in the social sciences. For pragmatists, there is indeed such a thing as reality, but it is ever changing, based on our actions. So attempts to find an enduring, external reality are doomed to failure. Dewey called this attempt to find a reality outside of ourselves a "spectator theory" of knowledge.

The emphasis on actions and their consequences creates a gap between pragmatism and most versions of interpretivism because it does away with the idea that we are free to interpret our experiences in whatever way we see fit (e.g., relativism). Instead, our action have outcomes that are often quite predictable, and we build our lives around experiences that link actions and their outcomes.

Of course, this all depends on your version of "interpretivism." Most people tend to take it as inter-chagable with constructivism, but for an alternative argument see:

Schwandt, T. A. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretativism, hermeneutics and social constructionism. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and issues. (pp. 292-331). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Also, within constructivist/interpretivist approaches it is grounded theory that owes the most debt to symbolic interactionism, through Mead's student Herbert Blumer, who was in turn one of A. Strauss' key professors. Mead himself was a leading pragmatist, but that connection is only recently being explored again in GT.

David, I’ve been scanning your ideas from your unpublished article (thanks a lot), and also your previous “Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained” (still reading). I’ve been also reading Pansiri (great article Jennifer!).

During this process, I asked myself how these ideas would be applied to study a specific case. For instance, the case of a university professor that took a year designing, implementing and teaching a MOOC course. He/she wants now to study and share the experience so other can ‘replicate’ it. What research methodology would he/she use?

She/he can clearly recall and describe the course of action that led to MOOC success, but how to explain it? Before reading this thread, my answer would undoubtedly be a case study/qualitative/grounded theory-interpretivism approach. Right now, I’m not sure.

Probably someone here might be interested. I integrated pragmatist epidemiology in some works. In "thinking dimensionally in social sciences" I related it to quantitative and qualitative research on the basis of a concept of space. If interested, you find the link in my profile.

Ferran, deciding on the right questions to ask & answer should I feel dictate the research methods used under a pragmatist approach. "Pragmatism, as a paradigm, is driven by consequences, thus it is essential that the “right questions” are asked by the research (Fendt et al., 2008, p.473). Distinguishing what these “right questions” are innately involves the values of the researcher. In addition, according to Owuegbuzie and Leech (2005), pragmatic research often involves prolonged engagement and triangulation, which allows the researcher to pursue their own concerns, as well as capturing the voice of others; in essence, it accommodates multiple stances and values" (Fendt, J., Kaminska-Labbé, R., & Sachs, W.M. (2008). Producing and socializing relevant management knowledge: re-turn to pragmatism. European Business Review, 20(6), 471-491.)(Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375-387.)

Following Jennifer's hint, I found plenty of answers to ‘practical' doubts about using pragmatism approach. In that regard, two more readings for the list:

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & others. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation.

Being the supervisor of a research scholar in one of the eminent management university in Malaysia, I have a severe experience in pragmatic research topic selection for one of my student. During the proposal defence, an examiner who does not have any idea about realism and pragmatism has brutally criticised the researchable area and finally the student has to move with positivist research philosophy. Ignorance wins and pragmatism lose. Being motivated with this approach, we have indirectly continued this research area and produced one monograph detailing the way the pragmatic approach has effectively implemented, leaving implications at practical, policy, methodological, theoretical, and social level.

If this issue comes up again, you might look at a series of articles on pragmatism and public administration in the journal Administration and Society.

In my professional doctorate research (applied in nature), my goal is to explore the training and learning strategies that have successfully reduced time to proficiency in the organizations. I interviewed over 70 industry experts to figure out "what works". It is a qualitative research conducted using interviews.

I was having hard time positioning my research in "interpretivism / constructionism". While writing the method chapter, I had quite many internal conflicts given that for me the reality is what has worked out there in the market. Pragmatic paradigm seems to define well what I have been doing.

However, one clarification I want to seek. Mine is pure qualitative and not mixed method research. Can pragmatic paradigm still be used for purely qualitative research?

Thanks Dr. Morgan for directions. And great question. I enjoyed Dr. Morgan's article. To Dileep's point, I am concerned too that by using this relatively "less known or less accepted paradigm", how examiner is going to react to it?  

Does anyone know which researcher is  well-known pragmatic paradigm advocate in current times?

Raman,

Here is an article I wrote that is more about pragmatism in qualitative research, rather than mixed methods.

Article Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research

Dear Dr. Morgan.

I am also really interesting in reading on Pragmatism Paradigm. Thank you very much for sharing your article.

i  did in my paper. You can find in my profile. I haven´t any comment of reviewers about this paradigm.

Dr. Morgan,

Your expositions on Pragmatism and the pragmatic approach in mixed method research are so refreshing- the relevance for applied research is under appreciated. The acceptance of rampant relativism and obeisance to paradigm necessity (and other hold overs) in social science research have unduly influenced some in MMR: Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner's suggestion that there certainly must be a flavor of pragmatism for everyone (2007:125). You, Biesta and Gorard provide ballast-thank you (!).

My PhD utilised an action research approach, which was informed by the classical pragmatism of Dewey.

In this approach I explore the relationship between knowledge and action to arrive at 'warranted assertions'. I adopt Dewey' idea of 'theoretical maps'. (Dewey does utilise theory but sees theory as a tool for informing action, rather than reflecting reality). Drawing from best practice and several theoretical frameworks I started by creating a practice model for improving the accountability of organisations working with children and young people in challenging contexts. To get away from the spectator theory of knowledge, I then took this knowledge into action. I spent a year working with young people in the slums of Kampala.

Over a year I worked with 20 young women and conducted youth-led research. I delivered 69 three hour sessions with young people. The young people designed, delivered and analysed two, 250 person surveys and started their own youth led business. I also conducted weekly reflection meetings with colleagues/ co-facilitators and undertook interviews and FGDs with those involved. I returned six months later and undertook an evaluation. 

During this time I recorded my experience and engaged in reflective practice. I then took this data and looked for themes and patterns. I reflected on what theories and part of the practice model worked and what parts of the model didn't.

In the thesis I assert, like Dewey that knowledge is only generated through action. As such my unique contribution to knowledge was generated through the action and experience - not the production of a thesis. The PhD thesis and is subsequently viewed as not knowledge in itself but the  rigorous documentation of the knowledge generated through action and evidence for what Dewey calls 'warranted assertions'. 

Unfortunately, I haven't published anything except the thesis yet. As a pragmatist I prefer taking action to writing! 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzDJeNZc2EUIMUNCNk00MVY2NWc

Yes i did in My phd thesis

I took Dr. Morgon's papers and his advice. I am using Pragmatism paradigm in my Ph.D. which is a qualitative research. I will be getting examined in 1 month's time I will know more then. But fundamentally I have argued that pragmatism looks at the usefulness of the outcome and chooses methods appropriate to see "what works". Interestingly i had chosen the methods which otherwise, interpretivism would not have guided me even though doing the same qualitative research. In any case, my research aim was to find the business strategies "that works" for a certain business problem. So the definition of pragmatism worked well for me. I did not use MMR but i used several qualitative methodologies to do the research. Further, I did not use any specific orientation or method like case study, ethnography or so. I do not have the name of the methodology I used - which I think is best described rationally by pragmatism. 

Cite this paper to support ur work

Article Pragmatism for Mixed Method Research at Higher Education Level

I had no problems with mr DOS and Supervisors in adopting a pragmatic/mixed methods* approach in my Dr... but at my viva the examiners didn't like it and I had to revise my diss'n to strengthen my argument for it. THe David Morgan article is useful re this.

*not necessarily the same thing

Some of the responses above are very throught provoking and insightful. I have been 'doing' qualitative research in industrial relations for over 25 years using semi-structured interviews with managers, unions and staff. I see these interviews (which are fascinating but not understood epistemologically) as a two-way street: I learn much from practitioners or 'doers' about the nature of negotiation, work experience, organisational structure and process and its effects on real people as well as the rhetorical nature of language. In listening and 'bringing out' this knowledge, the practitioners learn through reflection on their practice. I thus seethis as a form of 'action research' which subtly impacts at an ontological level, the nature of the real making it a form of pragmatism?

Are there any people that have applied pragmatic inquiry itself? As a form of pragmatism that “transforms” situations? I am developing a research approach for pragmatism combined with a process ontology. But I wonder if in other fields people have embraced pragmatism more fully.

Dear Frithjof, sounds interesting. Aktion research draws the consequences from the insight that research, if only by the presence of the researcher, in other words by changing the situation, transforms the object of investigation. Why ontology? Isn't that a too big word, since it means "science of existence", if one actually only means an implicit vocabulary?

I am developing a research approach for mixed method phenomenological research design for my PhD. dissertation. Are there anyone that have applied a pragmatic approach to this kind of research design?

Your phenomenological stance should be the source of your research design. There is nothing about pragmatism as a paradigm that will tell you how many people to interview, what kinds of questions to ask them, or how to analyze the data, etc.

As far as a citation on this type of research goes, the best one I know is Mayoh & Onweugbuzie (2015) in the Journal of Mixed Methods Research.

Klaus Geiselhart

I missed your answer. Ontology is more related to the process ontology of pragmatism. see for example: Farjoun, M., Ansell, C., & Boin, A. (2015). PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World. Organization Science, 26(6), 1787–1804. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1016

It seems to me that without the processual thinking especially of James, it would be difficult to engage in pragmatic inquiry.

I'm using pragmatism in my current PhD thesis. Two books which should be on the must read list for anyone thinking of using pragmatism in the social sciences:

Bernstein, R. J., & Polity Press. (2015). The pragmatic turn. Cambridge: Polity.

HICKMAN, L., NEUBERT, S., & REICH, K. (Eds.). (2009). John Dewey Between Pragmatism and Constructivism. NEW YORK: Fordham University. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x04bp

Yes

i am using pragmatism for my research

Thanks @David L Morgan for sharing your paper. It is well written and very useful.

I am planning to use pragmatism for my research, thank you Curtis for the books that you recommended.