Pragmatism, Paradigms,
and
Research as Reflective
Practice
Martyn Hammersley
The Open University
Doctoral Weekend,
University of Greenwich School of Education,
May 2013
Three Conceptions of the
Proper Nature of Social and
Educational Research
• Research as pragmatic
• Research as paradigm-specific
• Research as reflective practice
Research as Pragmatic
Commonsense meaning of ‘pragmatic’ =
‘matter-of-fact, sensible, down-to-earth,
commonsensical, businesslike, having one’s
feet on the ground, hardheaded, nononsense’.
• Social and educational research as a
pragmatic matter: researchers must select
from the full range of available techniques
those that are ‘fit for purpose’ – those most
appropriate for the research problem being
investigated (see, for instance, Gorard, 2002)
Methods not Methodological
Identities
• A pragmatic orientation rejects the
development of distinct methodological
identities, for example researchers’ selfidentifications as qualitative or quantitative
researchers, as discourse analysts, action
researchers, etc.
• Researchers are simply researchers. The
terms ‘qualitative’, ‘quantitative’, ‘discourse
analysis’, ‘action research’, etc refer to
different methods that are useful for
particular purposes.
Research as Paradigm-Specific
• It is argued that any piece of research
operates within a particular paradigm: a set of
assumptions about the nature of what is being
studied, how it can be understood, and what
the purpose of inquiry is.
• And there are competing paradigms whose
validity is ‘incommensurable’.
[This meaning of the term ‘paradigm’ was
developed by the philosopher and historian of
science Thomas Kuhn (see Kuhn 1970;
Hammersley 2007; Bird 2000; Sharrock and
Read 2002).]
Implications of a Paradigmatic
Approach
• One must be aware of the conflicting paradigms
that are available.
• Commitment is necessary to one or other of
these, and the research must be framed in
terms of the guiding assumptions of this
paradigm.
• Commitment to a paradigm is not an
instrumental matter, but derives from political or
moral beliefs, or perhaps from aesthetic
sensibility (see, for example, Lincoln 1990).
Interlude
Which of these two orientations best fits what
most researchers actually do?
• There is a great deal of pragmatism in how
researchers go about their work. Indeed, it is
almost impossible not to adopt a pragmatic
orientation to some degree, or in some
respects.
• At the same time, to a large extent,
educational research is structured in terms of
different ‘paradigms’, theoretical as well as
methodological (see Hammersley 2008).
Conflicting Methodological
Paradigms
• Positivism
• Interpretivism
• ‘Critical’ research
• Constructionism
(see Hammersley 2007 and 2013)
The case of action research: technical
(positivist), practical (interpretivist), and
emancipatory (‘critical’) versions (see
Kemmis 1993:186-7).
The Curious Case of
‘Mixed Methods’
• Mixing methods can be seen as one of
the consequences of a pragmatic
approach to educational research.
• Mixed methods as a ‘third paradigm’.
• Pragmatism as a paradigm
underpinning mixed methods
• Conflicting paradigms for mixed
methods (see Tashakkori and Teddlie
2010)
No Recipes!
There are no recipes for doing research,
even though there are some books that
might give you the impression that there
are. In particular, neither of the following
recipes works:
1.Identify your research questions and do
what is required to investigate them
OR
2.Choose your paradigm and follow it
Research as a Practice
It cannot be reduced to the implementation of
some explicit, pre-defined conception or plan:
• It relies upon tacit knowledge and judgment,
what Aristotle called phronesis (see Dunne
1997)
• It is a process, involving adaptation and
change
• It requires taking account of the particular
character of particular circumstances
• But it also demands reflexivity
Reflexivity
While research is a practical matter, it cannot be
reduced to ‘following one’s instincts’ or even to
trial and error. It is a complex practice.
Moreover, reflection is required not just about
what are the best means to achieve one’s
research goals but also about what those goals
should be. Research questions may need to be
reformulated, thereby affecting the intended
product of the research.
Researchers progressively gain an understanding
of what they are, and should be, doing only in
the course of doing it!
Conclusion
I began by outlining two contrasting ways of
thinking about educational research: as an
entirely practical matter, and as involving
paradigmatic commitment.
There is an element of truth in both: research is
necessarily pragmatic in character, but at the
same time it does rely on assumptions, and
there is scope for reasonable, as well as
unreasonable, disagreement about these.
Given this, I suggested that a useful way of
thinking about it is as reflective practice.
However, this doesn’t solve all the problems!
Bibliography
Bird, A. (2000) Thomas Kuhn, Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press.
Dunne, J. (1997) Back to the Rough Ground: Phronesis and Techne in Modern
Philosophy and in Aristotle, Notre Dame IN, University of Notre Dame Press.
Gorard, S. (2002) Overcoming the methodological schism, Occasional Paper
47, Cardiff: School of Social Sciences. Available at (accessed 16.5.13):
http://www.tlrp.org/rcbn/capacity/Papers/schism.pdf
Hammersley, M. (1996) 'The relationship between quantitative and qualitative
research', in J Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods
for Psychology and the Social Sciences, Leicester, British Psychological
Society Books.
Hammersley, M. (2003) Making educational research fit for purpose? A
hermeneutic response, Building Research Capacity , 5, pp2-5. Available at
(accessed 16.5.13): http://www.tlrp.org/rcbn/capacity/Journal/issue5.pdf
Hammersley, M. (2007) Methodological Paradigms in Educational Research.
British Educational Research Association on-line resource. Online at
(accessed 16.5.13):
www.bera.ac.uk/system/files/Methodological%20Paradigms.pdf
Hammersley, M. (2008) ‘Educational research’, in G. McCulloch (eds.) The
Routledge International Encyclopedia of Education, London, Routledge.
Bibliography Contd.
Hammersley, M. (2013) What is Qualitative Research?, London, Bloomsbury
Kemmis, S. (1993) ‘Action research’, in Hammersley, M. (ed.) Educational
Research: Current Issues, London, Paul Chapman.
Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1990) ‘The making of a constructivist: a remembrance of
transformations past’, in E. G. Guba (ed) The Paradigm Dialog, Newbury
Park, Sage.
Sharrock, W. and Read, R. (2002) Kuhn: Philosopher of Scientific Revolution
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Symonds, J. and Gorard, S. (2010) ‘The Death of Mixed Methods: Research
Labels and their Casualties’, paper given at The British Educational
Research Association Annual Conference, Herriot Watt University,
Edinburgh. Available at (accessed 16.5.13):
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/174130.pdf
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (eds.) (2010) Handbook of Mixed Methods in
Social and Behavioral Research, Second edition, Thousand Oaks CA, Sage.