Pragmatism as a research philosophy - or paradigm, or approach? What’s it all about?

Pragmatism - is it a research philosophy, a research paradigm? What’s the deal?! Keep reading because in this blogpost, I’ll explain what pragmatism is, how it works and I’ll introduce you to some of the issues around the whole paradigm / not-a-paradigm thing!

If we’ve not met before, hi, I’m Dr Elizabeth Yardley and I help PhD students get out of their own way and finish their doctorates.

Paradigms can be a challenge for PhD students, because it’s likely you’ve not really spent a lot of time studying or applying them before you arrive at grad school. You might have an awareness of them, but they’ve always seemed quite abstract, quite philosophical, quite fluffy!

Then in amongst all the stuff about paradigms, like positivism, interpretivism, critical realism, post-positivism, there’s this thing called pragmatism and you’re like, “Oh, what’s that?”. Well, let’s get into it.

Before we do if you want a quick introduction to paradigms, check out my 60-minute express course, Paradigms for Beginners.

In one hour, you’ll know what you’re talking about when it comes to paradigms. Click here to learn more and try the first two lessons free.

What is pragmatism?

Pragmatism is often described as a practical approach to research, focused on what works in addressing a particular problem rather than adhering strictly to a predefined set of philosophical beliefs.

Unlike paradigms that prioritise discovering objective truths or understanding social constructs, pragmatism is more concerned with practical outcomes and the utility of research findings.

However, here’s where things get interesting: not everyone agrees that pragmatism should be considered a paradigm at all.

Some argue that paradigms should have a well-defined set of assumptions about what it is we’re should actually be studying (ontology), how we should be studying it (epistemology), and the methods we use to do that (methodology). From this perspective, pragmatism is seen more as a stance or an approach rather than a fully-fledged paradigm.

This debate about whether pragmatism qualifies as a paradigm stems from its flexibility.

Pragmatism doesn’t insist on a particular view of reality or knowledge. Instead, it allows researchers to adopt whatever methods and assumptions best suit their research questions. This flexibility is both its greatest strength and the reason why some critics argue it lacks the philosophical rigour to be considered a true paradigm.

For PhD students, this debate can seem abstract and irrelevant to the actual work of doing research. But it’s worth considering what it means to adopt pragmatism. If you see pragmatism as a paradigm, you’re aligning yourself with a tradition that values practical outcomes above theoretical purity. If you see it as an approach, you’re essentially choosing a toolbox that allows you to mix and match methods to suit your needs without worrying too much about underlying philosophical questions.

Applying pragmatism: a case study

To make this discussion more concrete, let’s look at how pragmatism can be applied in a research project.

Imagine you’re studying law students’ experiences of finding internships using social media, personal networks, and official application processes. This is a complex topic with multiple variables at play, making it an ideal candidate for a pragmatic approach.

A pragmatist researcher might begin with practical questions like:

• What strategies do law students use to find internships?

• Which strategies are most effective, and why?

• How can law schools better support students in securing internships?

Given the diversity of factors involved -online platforms, personal relationships, and formal application processes - a pragmatist might choose to use a mixed-methods approach. You could start with a survey to gather quantitative data on how students use each strategy and their success rates. This might be followed by qualitative interviews to explore the students’ personal experiences, challenges, and perceptions of each method.

Pragmatism allows you to select methods based on what will best answer your research questions, rather than being bound by a single methodological tradition. For example, if your survey data reveals that social media is becoming a dominant tool, you might decide to conduct a deeper analysis of social media usage patterns among law students. Conversely, if interviews reveal that personal networks are more influential than formal applications, you might shift your focus accordingly.

Flexibility in action

One of the hallmarks of pragmatism is its adaptability. As you collect data, you might discover new factors that weren’t part of your original research plan. For instance, what if you find out midway through your research that there’s a growing trend of law firms using AI-driven tools to screen internship applications? A pragmatist wouldn’t hesitate to incorporate this new development into the study, even if it wasn’t part of the original design.

This flexibility is where pragmatism shines, but it also raises questions. Does this adaptability make pragmatism a superior approach, or does it suggest that pragmatism lacks the coherence and structure that characterise true paradigms? Critics might argue that a paradigm should provide a stable foundation for research, not just a flexible toolkit that can be adapted on the fly.

Paradigm or not, pragmatism has value

So, is pragmatism a true paradigm? The debate continues! But what’s clear is that pragmatism offers a valuable approach for those focused on practical, real-world problems. Whether you view it as a paradigm or simply as a flexible methodological stance, pragmatism allows you to home in on what matters most - producing research that can make a difference.

If you want a deeper dive into paradigms, as I said at the start, check out my course, Paradigms for Beginners, it’s great, it’s jargon-free and if you liked this blogpost, it’s worth checking out. Link below!

Paradigms for Beginners