Pragmatic is a word that describes people who make decisions and take actions in ways that are sensible, realistic and helpful. They are not afraid to try new things and are generally more interested in practical outcomes than ideological visions of how things should work. In general, pragmatic people are able to manufacture positive results in negative situations because they have a knack for finding a way around problems.
The term pragmatism is used in various contexts, but it often refers to an approach to philosophy and social science that emphasizes the link between thought and action. It has been embraced by many applied fields, such as public administration, leadership studies, political science, organizational research and international relations.
Philosophically, pragmatism can be seen as a philosophy, a methodology or a worldview (ideology). Pragmatist philosophers include Charles S. Peirce, William James, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead. Pragmatism is a major contribution to American philosophy and has been referred to as the “Chicago School” because most of its proponents were American. Pragmatism is sometimes viewed as the most authentic contribution to American philosophy because it was formulated by Americans and because it emerged from the practice of everyday life in America.
As a methodology, pragmatism offers a more constructive and less doctrinaire view of research than the objectivist and interpretivist perspectives that have traditionally dominated research in the social sciences. It encourages researchers to focus on ‘practical understandings’ of real-world issues and stresses the importance of interrogating the value and meaning of research data through examination of its practical consequences (Morgan, 2014a).
Pragmatist researchers are also encouraged to consider the role of interpretation in human experience, and to examine how knowledge, beliefs and practices interact to influence action. This enables a more comprehensive and holistic approach to the study of human behaviour, addressing issues that are rarely addressed by more traditional philosophical approaches.
Lastly, a pragmatist approach to research can help guide the choice of methodologies at the planning stage. For example, in two recent projects on the evaluative practices of NGOs, a pragmatist framework helped us identify the need to engage with staff at the programme implementation level in order to uncover the different and sometimes hidden evaluative activities they undertake in their daily work. This necessitated a qualitative research design that combined interviews and participant observation with formal documentation of the programmes.
In conclusion, pragmatism is an excellent lens for analyzing how we work in our everyday lives and is especially valuable when it comes to conducting research with non-profit organizations. By encouraging the exploration of the dynamic relationships between knowledge, beliefs and practice, pragmatism can reveal important aspects of organizational processes that might otherwise be obscured by more prescriptive theoretical models. It also helps us understand the complexities involved in translating a knowledge-based theory into a practical model that can be implemented to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of programs and services. It is therefore an invaluable addition to the toolkit for evaluating the impact of our social work practices.