CHAPTER SEVEN: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
7.4 Research philosophy
7.4.4 Pragmatic viewpoint
Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) agree that pragmatism is a research approach that proposes that different methods could be integrated inside one study (Creswell & Garrett, 2008). This is amplified by Hesse-Biber (2008) report that inherent in both the quantitative and qualitative methods are strengths and weaknesses which could be beneficial in making understanding available to researchers of social trends (Yin, 2006). Impliedly, integrating both methods could enhance the quality of research and yield information that may be generalisable across the population. The pragmatic approach gives researchers room to be flexible in adopting analytical techniques in addressing the variety of questions that arise in the research process (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005).
On the basis of Benz and Newman (2008) report, pragmatists could be said to have more likelihood of viewing research as a holistic effort needing extended commitment, relentless examination and triangulation (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011). Morgan (2007) suggests that pragmatism does not in any way overlook the importance of the conceptions of epistemology and philosophical knowledge, rather it discards the privileged top-down ontological theories postulated earlier by theorists (Hacking, 1983, p. 2000; Zammito, 2004) as being too constricted to address issues around philosophical knowledge.
To a pragmatist researcher, matters around language and significance are key; inclusive of the real interactions between actors involved in resolving these matters. According to Morgan (2007), it will be deceitful to assume that people all over the world will ultimately come to the point where everyone has absolute understanding of others; however, the pragmatist focuses on basically the amount of understanding that could be achieved and the boundaries of behaviour that may be mutually acceptable.
Pragmatist researchers could exhibit fair dispositions to both qualitative and quantitative methods. This aptitude, according to Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005), places the researcher in
154
an ample position to better employ qualitative research to update the quantitative aspect of a study and in the same manner update quantitative aspect with qualitative research. For instance, in the present study, quantitative data compensated the un-generalisability of qualitative data.
While the adoption of qualitative data assisted the researcher in making explanations concerning connections observed in the quantitative information collected in the study.
Pragmatism gives researchers the flexibility to hone in on the efficiency of empirical studies and clarity of descriptive research (Onwuegbuzie, 2003) to achieve full-grained study outcome.
Researchers using both qualitative and quantitative research designs (pragmatist researchers) can easily conceptualise a framework to substantiate the outcomes of quantitative data with the qualitative aspect of the research and at the same time use the indices present in qualitative research to explain quantitative data (Powell, Mihalas, Onwuegbuzie, Suldo, & Daley, 2008).
Even though a pragmatic researcher is free to choose any method(s) that he/she judges appropriate (Freshwater & Cahill, 2013; Creswell, 2009), Saunders et al. (2009) are of the opinion that the problems to be solved by the study should form the basis of the ontological, epistemological and axiological decisions. This could be as a result of the pragmatist view that the world is entirely diverse, therefore different methods are needed to solve its problems (Hanson, Creswell, Clark, Petska, & Creswell, 2005; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004;
Creswell, 2009).
The pragmatic approach to research although not new to the behavioural sciences, has many outstanding reviews as an overall principle for behavioural sciences (Maxcy, 2003) and a particular validation for mixing quantitative and qualitative research techniques (Onwuegbuzie
& Johnson, 2006). Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) are of the opinion that pragmatism is the most suitable approach for a mixed methods study.
Morgan (2007) proposed an organised Table (see Table 7.1) to make the understanding of what pragmatism brings into the behavioural science research procedures clearer. This researcher adopted the Table for the sole purpose of clarifying understanding of pragmatism in the present study and how it will aid in data analysis and interpretation in comparison to the qualitative and quantitative approaches to research.
In the view of Saunders et al. (2009), a particular approach could be appropriate and adequate in solving a research problem or answering the research question, yet the mixing of the three viewpoints might be more appropriate in solving a problem under investigation. For instance,
155
the integration of theory and data mixed with the benefits of objectivity and subjectivity could result in a reliable outcome that may be generalizable. Pragmatism preluded the advent of what is called the mixed method technique to evaluating social phenomena (Hay, 2011).
Table 7.1 Appraising the four research viewpoints in behavioural research
Research philosophies
Positivism Realism Interpretivism Pragmatism
Epistemology: The researcher’s views of what comprises acceptable knowledge.
Just observable objects have the capacity to provide reliable information and facts. Focus is on cause, effect, impact and law to make generalisations. It reduces constructs to the simplest elements.
Observable objects give dependable information and facts.
Insufficient data implies inaccuracies in feelings (direct realism) while objects provide feelings which are vulnerable to misconceptions (critical realism).
Emphasis is on discussions within the framework.
Concentrates on perceptual connotations and social constructs.
Focus is on the information surrounding the situation, the background of the information, perceptual values and rationale behind the actions.
Any or combinations of observable constructs and perceptual values can lead to acceptable knowledge. This is dependent on the nature of the research questions at hand.
Emphasis is on applied research, adopting multiple techniques for data collection and interpretation of results.
Ontology: The investigator’s perceptions of what constitutes the nature of reality.
Objects are seen as external and possess a reality that is different from that of the investigator.
Objective in nature, its existence is completely different from the thoughts and beliefs of social actors (realist); its interpretation comes from social circumstances (critical realist).
Social constructs built into social interactions and actions of others.
Subjectivity and variation is inevitable
Emphasis is on better ways to provide answers (solutions) to the research questions (problem).
The decision on the suitable techniques is dependent on the research questions.
Axiology: The investigator’s perceptions of the role of values in investigation.
The investigation is carried out in a value- free way; the investigator is alienated and upholds an objective mind set.
Investigation is value loaded; the
investigator’s point of view is subjective based on their social experiences and background which often impact the outcomes of the study.
Investigation is value assured; the
investigator is part of the investigation, not possible to be indifferent; this makes the whole exercise sometimes subjective.
Values play a significant role in interpretation of results; the investigator adopts both objective and subjective perspectives.
Main methods of data collection.
Very organised, big samples,
measurement, quantitative and permitted to use qualitative when necessary.
Techniques adopted must be aligned with the research questions, qualitative or quantitative.
Takes small samples with deeper examination, more qualitative.
Takes mixed or multiple approaches, that is, qualitative and quantitative.
Source: Adopted from Saunders et al. (2009, p. 119).
Based on Table 7.1, this researcher’s epistemological, ontological and axiological stance is rooted in the pragmatic research approach.
156