Proponents of the pragmatic approach argue that allegiance to one paradigm (such as, positivism or constructivism) and the associated assumptions about the nature of reality and knowledge connected to it can have negative consequences on research (Morgan, 2007). Loyalty to one way of finding out about the world can limit the potential of a research project by restricting possibilities. This is particularly so when philosophical assumptions constrain the choices of research focus, research questions and the methods to be used. Placing top down boundaries on research decisions in this way has been critiqued by Morgan who argues that adhering to rigid philosophical assumptions to guide the research process can restrict the scope of knowledge that can be gained. Morgan also argues that the assumption that knowledge types are incommensurable can further constrain the potential for knowledge by limiting the researcher to one methodology thereby reinforcing these divisive boundaries
(Morgan, 2007). To remedy these issues Morgan campaigns for a pragmatic approach in which commitment to one philosophical paradigm is replaced by allowing the research project itself to be the driving factor. Morgan’s proposed approach allows a free and flexible style whereby the most salient issues related to the research topic and questions lead the decisions, and not adherence to prescribed philosophical assumptions. Thus, for this exploratory study into the complex area of the
management of BPSD in CHs, which is situated between the biomedical and social spheres, the pragmatic approach was particularly appropriate since it afforded me the freedom to choose what I judged to be the most apposite research method/s to better illuminate this area. Therefore, to explore this area adequately and answer the differing types of research questions, which had emerged from the literature a
pragmatic approach was employed (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005).
Pragmatism is a philosophy which arose from the work of Peirce, Mead, James and Dewey (Creswell, 2003); its proponents focus on the practical consequences of an idea, theory or proposal. Generally pragmatists believe an external reality exists independently from the individual and that there are many explanations of that reality and not one absolute truth (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Since no one method is
64
prioritised within a pragmatic study, the most suitable methods/s to best answer the research questions can be utilised and thus, allow the most appropriate data to be collected (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Cherryholmes states that pragmatic research is:
“driven by anticipated consequences. Pragmatic choices about what to research and how to go about it are conditioned by where we want to go in the broadest of senses. Values, aesthetics, politics, and social and normative preferences are integral to pragmatic research, its interpretation and
utilization” (Cherryholmes, 1992, p.13).
Thus, rather than a prior allegiance to one philosophical stance or method, research choices are driven by the researcher’s judgement of, for example, the needs of the research question, the constraints and affordances of the setting, and the purposes of the research. The use of mixed methods is included as a viable research design; as long as the methods used are optimal to best answer the research questions. An inherent assumption of this approach is that multiple sources and forms of evidence derived from differing paradigms can be brought together to illuminate an issue. There are proponents who would argue this is not possible or desirable, since the philosophical underpinnings of separate paradigms, methods or data types are not compatible (for example, Blaikie, 2000; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Kushner, 2002). For example, how can subjective data in the form of words derived from the actors themselves and generated through interactions (such as, from interviews) be valued as a truth as well as (assumed) value free numerical data arising from questionnaires or experiments? Taken back to their philosophical roots these types of data are vastly different and rely on different epistemological and ontological beliefs.
However, pragmatic researchers are more concerned with addressing the research problem or questions in a way that works than whether philosophical beliefs are commensurable. This means respecting, acknowledging and connecting with the associations and assumptions different approaches bring, but using them to enhance the knowledge that can be gained rather than limiting or constraining it (Greene, 2002). Pragmatists generally believe that reality is a process, constantly evolving and
65
that inquiry into this process can be conducted with multiple tools or methods
(Maxcy, 2003). Baert argues that methodological unity within disciplines is a myth and that methodological pluralism can enhance the social sciences by eliciting new
viewpoints on any given topic (Baert, 2005).
In this way the use of a pragmatic approach sidesteps the need for researchers to align themselves to any philosophical position with a claim to knowledge. The
approach proposes that underlying philosophical beliefs can be constraining and that by circumventing them methodological freedom can be obtained. Thus, the design and methods chosen for this study were those that appeared to be the most suitable to thoroughly answer the research questions and illuminate the management of BPSD in CHs; regardless of inherent ontological and epistemological differences.
Philosophical debates are circumvented in pragmatic research since, they are
perceived as superfluous. However, although the underlying philosophies of methods are no longer relevant, the link between the methods used and the type of data that can be obtained cannot be ignored.