Pragmatic is a broad, multi-disciplinary area of inquiry concerned with language in context. In particular, pragmatics investigates the relationship between words and their meanings, interlocutors and context, and how people manage to communicate despite ambiguity and uncertainty. Pragmatics is often compared to semantics (the study of words and their meanings) but it has a more expansive remit than semantics. For example, pragmatic knowledge enables us to do things like politely hedge a request, cleverly read between the lines, negotiate turn-taking norms in conversation, or navigate ambiguity in context.
Pragmatists believe that utility is the test of truth. Consequently, they think that truth is in a state of constant flux. Consequently, pragmatists think that one searches for the truth and aim of life through experience and experimentation. Education according to pragmatism is the process of training children in a way that they become adaptable and adjust themselves with their environment. Pragmatists believe that education should not be confined to the school but should take place in society itself. Therefore the curriculum should be flexible and dynamic and based on the child’s interests aptitudes and capabilities.
The choice of a research approach is a significant factor in the success of any doctoral dissertation. This is especially true in the case of projects that are based on empirical data. The adoption of a pragmatic framework in both project examples enabled the researchers to manage dynamic and iterative analytical processes that were responsive to how case study NGOs enacted their evaluation practices. This allowed the research to evolve from observations to theories, a process known as abduction, rather than being restricted to deductive reasoning that starts with a predetermined theory and then tries to find evidence to support it.
This flexibility is largely attributed to the pragmatist principle of ‘what works’, which focuses on the consequences or meanings of an action, rather than its justification or description. In the context of the research methods employed in both projects, pragmatism also meant that the order and dose of data collection could be adapted to respond to emergent needs or concerns amongst staff in the field. This is a key feature of a pragmatic framework that distinguishes it from other research paradigms.
Lastly, the pragmatist principle of a continuous and interactive analytical process was enacted by encouraging ongoing interactions with respondents. This was done through repeat interviews, and the documentation of impromptu field-notes or ’emergent findings’ as the research progressed. Ultimately, this enabled the researchers to capture real-world contexts and the nuances of NGOs’ evaluation processes as they evolved in response to their implementation and practice of organizational development. This is a distinct advantage over many other research paradigms that may be prone to the error of extrapolating from observations or using a predetermined theory to guide subsequent data collection. It also enabled the researchers to build a richer understanding of the interconnectedness of experience, knowing and acting – another central tenet of pragmatism – throughout the entire analytical process.