Scribd
Upload
3 views

Pragmatic Approach and the Choice of Methods

The document discusses the conflict between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms, emphasizing the philosophical divide between positivists and interpretivists. It advocates for a pragmatic approach and mixed methods as a means to bridge the gap between these paradigms, highlighting the strengths of combining both approaches. The conclusion suggests that researchers should choose methods based on their research questions rather than preconceived biases, recognizing the value of methodological pluralism in social sciences research.

Uploaded by

Fatima Noor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3 views

Pragmatic Approach and the Choice of Methods

The document discusses the conflict between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms, emphasizing the philosophical divide between positivists and interpretivists. It advocates for a pragmatic approach and mixed methods as a means to bridge the gap between these paradigms, highlighting the strengths of combining both approaches. The conclusion suggests that researchers should choose methods based on their research questions rather than preconceived biases, recognizing the value of methodological pluralism in social sciences research.

Uploaded by

Fatima Noor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 18

Pragmatic Approach and

the Choice of Methods



Dr. Muhammad Islam
PhD (University of Leeds, UK)
Assistant Professor
University of the Punjab, Lahore
Introduction

 Paradigmatic conflict of the Quantitative and
Qualitative approaches
 Philosophical Divide between Positivists and
Interpretivists
 dichotomy between the ‘deductive-objective-
generalizing’ and ‘inductive-subjective-
contextual’ approaches (Morgan, 2007, P. 73)
 Recent Voices against strict qualitative –
quantitative demarcation and the emergence of
new views – e.g. pragmatism
Points to Consider

 Does insistence on mono-method
research pose any threat to the
advancement of the social sciences?

 Does pragmatic approach (or its


philosophical companion -Mixed Method
approach) offer a way out?
Can Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches Co-
exist?

Three Major
Situation-
Schools of Purists Pragmatists
Thought alists
Differences Continued…

 Incompatibility Thesis (Howe, 1988)
"accommodation between paradigms
is impossible . . . we are led to vastly diverse,
disparate, and totally antithetical ends" (Guba,
1990, p. 81)
 Two separate research cultures- "one
professing the superiority of 'deep, rich
observational data‘ and the other the virtues
of 'hard, generalizable' ... data“ (Sieber, 1973,
p. 1335).
Issues with Paradigm
Conflicts

 Focus on ‘Differences’ rather than on the
‘Similarities’
 Viewing epistemology and method as being
synonymous
 Narrow definition of the concept ‘Science’ –
objective verification
Subjectivity + Objectivity = Subjectivity
‘fully objective and value-free research is a myth’
(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.16)
 Near-perfect reliability is not achievable in social
sciences
Continued

 Interpretivists’ claim of multiple and valid
accounts of ‘reality’ always exist can be
misleading.
 Unqualified relativism of qualitative purists
 Qualitative analysis ‘often remain private and
unavailable for public inspection’ (Constas,
1992, p. 254)
 Feelings of anxiety and alienation by the
researchers with different orientation
Commonalities Between Qualitative
and Quantitative Approaches

 Use of empirical observations to address
research questions
 Use of safeguards to minimise confirmation
bias and other sources of invalidity (e.g.
triangulation, narrative conclusions and
implications)
 Derivation of meanings from the interpretation
of Data
 Use of ‘data reduction’ in both methods of
inquiry
Continued

 Role of ‘theory’ is central for both paradigms
Qualitative Approach: theory initiation + theory
building
Quantitative Approach: theory testing + theory
modification
 Both empirical and qualitative data are
interchangeable
Gueulette et al.’s (1999) analysis of 339 randomly
selected qualitative articles – 44 % invloved the
blending of qualitative & quantitative
Need for a methodological
Pluralism – A Way Forward

 All research in the social sciences represents
an attempt to understand human beings and
the world around them
 Need to focus on removing the barriers
against the merging of two methods
 De-emphasize the terms qualitative and
quantitative, instead subdivide research into
‘exploratory’ and ‘confirmatory’ methods
 A pragmatic approach to research instead of a
blind following of methodological divide
Pragmatism – the philosophy
of mixed method approach

 The meaning of an idea may be discovered in its
consequences
 Both methods may be useful in certain research
situations and can be put together to produce a
superior product
 Provides a useful middle ground philosophically as
well as methodologically
 The goal of mixed methods research is not to replace
either of these approaches but rather to draw from
the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of both
in single research studies and across studies.
A Comparison of Research
Approaches

Research Qualitative Quantitative Pragmatic
Approach
Connection of Induction Deduction Abduction
the theory and
data

Relationship to Subjectivity Objectivity Intersubjectivity


research
process

Inference from Context Generality Transferability


data
Strengths of Mixed Method
Research

Mixed Method can:
 Use narrative to add meaning to numbers
 Use numbers to add precision to words
 generate and test a grounded theory
 answer a broader and more complete range of
research questions
 Use the strengths of an additional method to
overcome the weaknesses in another method
 Provide stronger evidence for a conclusion through
convergence and corroboration of findings
Continued

 Increase the generalizability of research
 Produce more complete knowledge to inform
theory and practice
 Enable researchers to be flexible in their
investigative techniques
 Merge the researcher’s concerns and the
participant’s voice in a single study
Five Rationales for Mixed
Method Research

1. Triangulation – seeking convergence and
corroboration of results from different
methods
2. Complementarity - seeking elaboration,
enhancement, illustration, and clarification of
the results from one method with results from
the other method
3. Initiation - discovering paradoxes and
contradictions that lead to a re-framing of the
research question
Continued

4. Development - using the findings from one
method to help inform the other method
5. Expansion - seeking to expand the breadth
and range of research by using different
methods for different inquiry components
Conclusion

 Mixed method approach based on pragmatism has
a great potential to address multi-faceted issues in
social sciences research.
 Researchers should select methods and
approaches with respect to their underlying
research questions, rather than with regard to
some preconceived biases about a research
paradigm
 Research methodologists formally recognize the
third research paradigm and begin systematically
writing about it and using it

Thank
You

You might also like