Por qué trabajar el diálogo entre cristianos y judíos?

3.3.1 The history of pragmatism as a philosophical movement

Pragmatism as a philosophical movement originated in the United States during the latter quarter of the nineteenth century. Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), an American philosopher is often called “the father of pragmatism”. William James (1842–1910) and John Dewey (1859–1952) are credited with the popularization and refinement of the philosophy. Peirce saw pragmatism as more of a technique one could use in finding solutions, rather than as a philosophy or an actual solution to problems. James argued that the purpose of philosophy was to understand what had value to us and that ideas and beliefs have value to us only when they work. Dewey attempted to combine aspects of both Peirce's and James’ philosophies of pragmatism.

Pragmatism is the only major philosophical school originating from the United States and it challenged the major philosophical systems of the time. Recently the pragmatism movement, which had previously not been well known in Europe, has re-emerged and been reconstructed and has gained a strong foothold. In continental Europe, there is rising interest and increasing prominence in the application of pragmatism philosophy in the social sciences.

3.3.2 What is meant by pragmatism in the social sciences

Pragmatism can be considered a world view (ideology), as well as a philosophy, or even a method. When seen as a method, the value of a certain way to solve a problem is justified only by its success.

Pragmatism as a research paradigm underpins most mixed methods research and is very relevant to the social sciences, where a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods are often used to examine a research problem. Mixed methods are chosen to explore a concept from more than one perspective (whether that is world view, philosophy, or method/design). It is about looking at ‘practical’ in terms of overall impact and outcome. Pragmatism can serve as a philosophical program, however the appeal of pragmatism when working with mixed methods research is more about its practicality than the broader philosophical basis. Pragmatism shifts the study of social research to questions such as “how and why” researchers select their research choices and what is the impact of those choices (Morgan, 2014).

38

Pragmatic research does not require a particular methods mix or method; it does not exclude but rather aims to interrogate with the most appropriate research method. Pragmatism is a commitment to uncertainty and acknowledges that due to the

unpredictable human element, the researcher must be open and flexible to the emergence of unexpected data. In pragmatic research, different modes of analysis and continuous cycles of abductive reasoning are employed (i.e., using incomplete observations to seek the simplest and most likely explanation/prediction that may be true), with the process guided by the researcher’s wish to produce socially useful knowledge (Yvonne-Feilzer, 2010).

As a process philosophy, pragmatism has appeal to those interested in superseding rigid and dualistic approaches and pragmatism as a philosophy offers useful critical tools to make sense of social practices (Frega and da Silva, 2011).

Pragmatist research does not question ontology or epistemology to start but rather starts off with the research question to determine the research framework. Objectivist and

subjectivist perspectives are not considered mutually exclusive and research philosophy is viewed as a continuum rather than an option that must be chosen. The emphasis is on what works the best and pragmatists espouse that using both quantitative and qualitative data leads to a better understanding of social reality (Wayhyuni, 2012).

3.3.3 Pragmatism and other research paradigms

Table 3.1 summarizes the fundamental beliefs of pragmatism and details how they differ from the research paradigms of interpretivism/ constructivism, post-positivism/ critical realism, and positivism.

39

Research Paradigms

Fundamental Belief Pragmatism Interpretivism/

Constructivism

Post-Positivism/ Critical Realism

Positivism

Ontology: nature of reality

What is there? What is reality?

How can we understand existence?

e.g., What is a stone?

External, multiple subjective and object realities. View chosen to best achieve an answer to the research question

Socially constructed, subjective, may change, multiple

Objective. Exists independently of human beliefs or knowledge of their existence. Is

interpreted through social conditioning

External, objective, independent of social actors

Epistemology: knowledge

How do we know what we know?

What is valid knowledge? How can we obtain it? e.g., Why is that a stone? How do we know that is a stone?

Either or both observable phenomena and subjective meanings can provide acceptable knowledge dependent upon the research question. Focus is on practical applied research. Integration of different perspectives to help interpret the data. Accepts paradigm conflicts between quantitative and qualitative epistemologies. Anti- philosophy.

Subjective meanings and social phenomena. Focus is on details of situation, the reality behind the details, subjective meanings and motivating actions Only observable phenomena can provide credible data, facts. Focus is on explaining within a context or contexts

Only observable phenomena can provide credible data. Focus is on causality and law-like generalisations, reducing phenomena to their simplest elements Methodology:

research process Quantitative and qualitative (mixed or _{multi- method design)}

Constant modification loop.

Qualitative Quantitative or Qualitative Chiefly Quantitative

Chart is based on Saunders et al. (2009), Guba and Lincoln (2005), Hallebone and Priest (2009), and McManus et al. (2017). Table 3.1 Fundamental beliefs of research paradigms in the social sciences. Adapted from Wahyuni (2012).

40

3.3.4 Why choose pragmatism?

Pragmatism is a research paradigm suitable for this thesis’ research since it is a world view that today underpins most mixed method research. Mixed methods research does not easily fall within the world view of positivism/post-positivism or

constructivism/interpretivism (Yvonne-Feilzer, 2010). The approach focuses on the problem to be researched and on the consequences of that research. With the desire to use a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods to answer the research questions, the problem-oriented philosophy of pragmatism, takes the view that the best research methods are those that help to answer the research question most effectively.

Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies can be used to answer the questions of ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘who’ (Bryman and Bell, 2007). In this thesis work, these questions are concerned with ‘what’ can be done to encourage healthy choices for children inside of fast-food restaurants. The ‘why’ is because increasing childhood visits to fast-food

restaurants are no longer a treat but for many are now a part of the weekly, and in some cases daily, food intake. The ‘who’ is the QSR industry, who can nudge in multiple ways (e.g. default choices and labelling); the ‘who’ is the government, who can nudge (e.g., labelling legislation, sugar taxes); and the ‘who’ are the parents, who both need to be nudged and must themselves nudge (e.g. modelling eating, teaching children nutritional knowledge). In this thesis, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods were used as appropriate, to determine answers to the various questions posed.

According to Patton (1990), the philosophical approach of pragmatism matches the best method with the specific research questions, as opposed to universally advocating a specific approach, which is well aligned with the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods for the research performed in this thesis. Roy (1995) indicates that the approach of philosophical pragmatism allows for the possibility of creatively

combining philosophies, epistemologies, and methodologies. In order to influence change, the importance of both internal and external validity within the research design should not be underestimated. For the nudges, concepts explored in this research should be both internally valid by controlling major variables as best as is reasonable, as well as externally valid, such that the research results from the study of a variety of nudging approaches could reasonably be implemented in-restaurant, with the expectation that they would work in a similar manner in the 'real' environment. Validity criteria include the applicability of findings to broader contexts, being able to demonstrate the truth value of multiple perspectives, the dependability of findings amid variability, and that there is freedom from bias in the research process (Guba and Lincoln,1989). Whittemore et al. (2001) formulated specific questions to ensure validity based on assessments in terms

41

of primary and secondary criteria. Primary criteria for validity include credibility, authenticity, criticality, and integrity, while secondary criteria include explicitness, vividness, creativity, congruence, and sensitivity.

The data collection methods and analytic approaches were chosen based on the

aforementioned pragmatic approach, with a focus on both the consequence of action, and on how the individual research questions being explored influence the tool selection for each experiment, as opposed to a single data collection or analytic approach for all of the experiments in this thesis. For example, in-restaurant dining times were collected through observational research and not through consumer surveys, and for topics such as

individual food motives that have a large number of variables, factor analysis was used to both reduce the number of variables and to detect structure in the relationship between the variables.