Within social science research methodology, pragmatism, as I understand it, emphasizes choosing methods based on those most well suited to answer a question without a priori epistemological and ontological stances. However, I am unclear as to how this might play out…
Take for example the topic of poverty. Various questions can be asked about poverty.
(Q1) What is the most effective way of reducing poverty in our city?
(Q2) How do the poor exit poverty on their own terms?
Both questions may best be answered by different sets of methods. Suppose research is completed and published on both questions. Within political discourse answers to Q1 are used to justify a policy of relocating the poor outside of city limits. Q2 is used to justify a policy of providing no strings attached cash transfers. This results in the revelation that we’ve failed to consider what questions should be asked. Thus, axiology is brought into play. However, this is also where I struggle to understand pragmatism.
To justify one’s research question as more important than another’s must a pragmatist must take an axiological stance?
In doing so are they taking the ontological and epistemological view that there is indeed a singular correct set of values?
Alternatively, would the pragmatist not believe their question is any better than another, suggesting multiple equally valid sets of values?
Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted something or my reasoning is flawed but guidance would be much appreciated. Thank you.
My questions came from reading the following articles:
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 48-76. doi:10.1177/2F2345678906292462
Biddle, C., & Schafft, K. A. (2015). Axiology and anomaly in the practice of mixed methods work: Pragmatism, valuation, and the transformative paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(4), 320-334. doi:10.1177/2F1558689814533157
If you define pragmatism as that articulated by Peirce, James and Dewey, then whatever helps us to achieve homeostasis or accommodation to the environment that permits us to live is the best thing. It is not so much that there is no metatheoretical commitments but rather that they are different from those of other philosophical schools. In this case, what you would do is to try various methods of alleviating poverty until you find the one that works the best. There is no single, correct approach. It will vary based on the solution. I have I'm sure grossly over simplified pragmatism but I hope that I am close.
Pragmatism in James, Pierce and Dewey priorities action insofar as concepts are relevant only to the extent that they lead to action. This does not mean taking a broadly contingency view of adaptation to the environment - and the missing contributor here is Bergson, who influenced James and Dewey in particular with his "practical philosophy". Methodologically, Bergson argued that philosophy should adapt its methods to the issue in focus (a particular construction of context) but this recognised context as being in flow - a process ontology. Bergson is very clear on differences between an ontology of being and one of becoming, and the effects of different analytical/methodological strategies on that. Sociological pragmatism can at times flatten the philosophy. It's always important to scrutinise how questions become constructed to do things (Bergson was not concerned with a discursive approach to the semantic niceties - he was suspicious of (analytic) language and more or less left it there). He also explores the relation between creativity and evolution in a way that contingency sociology does not. A good practical approach in the context of organizations, institutions and organising can be found in a range of works by Kelemen and Rumens who draw specifically on American pragmatism and have social impact as a goal.
While I'm sure Pragmatism plays a part here, I was immediately reminded of my undergraduate years in Ancient History where similar ideas were employed for writing essays, but in this instance the guiding principles seemed to come from sophistry-the goal being to make a well-argued essay similar to a barrister in court in which truth was irrelevant because it was uncertain.
Stanley Wilkin my apologies, I'm not sure I follow. By sophist do you mean this question itself is sophist, what I've described as pragmatist is more sophist than anything else, or am I totally off the mark?
Nicholas, pragmatism and sophism are different in so much as the pragmatist is not convicted of any truth while the sophist wants simply to construct a brilliant, well-written argument without necessarily providing inconvertible proof. A pragmatist is indifferent to the truth, a sophist wants to convince he or she has the truth.
Perhaps a political analogy might help. Political parties generally subscribe to ideological positions of some sort (e.g. conservatism, liberalism, socialism...). A political pragmatist is someone who is willing to suspend or forgo some ideological commitments, even to the extent of switching parties, if those commitments are judged not to achieve the desired outcomes, or at least not achieve them under current conditions or within a desired time frame. So Michael Cuellar is correct; it's not so much that the pragmatist has no commitments but that they are different in that they are more tentative and flexible, such that he may adhere to different isms at different times. A pragmatist does have to make value judgements about means and ends. But the basis for value judgements of that sort is a problem every approach faces, whether acknowledged or not. Also, whether a set of values is conceived of as singular or multiple is often just a function of the level of generality in terms of which they are described.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics