Pragmatic relates to the context-dependent interpretation of language and is an important element of linguistics. It has numerous branches including the theory of utterance meanings, speech acts and conversational implicature (see the Blackwell Companion to Pragmatics, ed. Carston, pp. 1-2).
A central aspect of pragmatism is that the relevance of an utterance to its hearer can only be determined through comprehension processes on their part, not by means of theoretical assumptions and concepts such as ‘pragmatic properties’ (Sperber & Wilson 1986/1995). This makes it an approach that is particularly well suited to examining human-to-human communication.
Unlike other research approaches, which may be rigid and theory-driven, pragmatism is iterative and focuses on actionable knowledge. This enables researchers to frame research agendas anchored in respondent experience and ensures that the research is of practical relevance to case study organizations. In both project examples, pragmatism informed the choice of methodologies at the design stage and contributed to an emphasis on uncovering staff interests and perceived benefits from the research, which helped shape the scope of the studies.
A pragmatist approach also provides the flexibility to manage dynamic and iterative analytical processes throughout data collection and analysis, a key feature in both project examples. This was achieved through documenting field notes and emergent findings throughout the research process, rather than waiting until final report writing to present them. This enabled the researchers to recognise and capture the interconnectedness between experience, knowing and acting – another pragmatist principle – in both project examples as respondent organisations implemented and amended their organizational practices.
The pragmatist framework also contributed to an understanding of the need to make room for multiple perspectives, thereby enabling researchers to identify, articulate and analyse complex themes that are often overlooked or hidden in organisational documentation or rhetoric. In particular, in Project example 1, pragmatism guided the use of an ethnographic methodology which augmented interviews with participant observation to help uncover the often subtle and informal evaluative practices of implementing staff that are not captured in formal documentation.
In both project examples, pragmatism also informed the decision to engage with staff at a programme level rather than at an organisational or individual level, which was a crucial component of the research. This contributed to the development of a richer and more in-depth understanding of the ways in which staff implement and amend their own evaluative systems, particularly as they enact them in real-time. This, in turn, facilitated the identification of common evaluative dynamics and practices across the two NGOs. This was a vital element in ensuring the transferability of the research findings to other similar programmes. It also helped to maintain an open-minded and responsive research agenda that could be adapted as required by the respondent organisations. This exemplifies pragmatism’s focus on pragmatic intrusion, which combines elements of phenomenology and sociology with an emphasis on the importance of contextual factors. This makes pragmatism an important approach for research in the context of social innovation and policy implementation.