Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher

Like everything in life, extremes are excellent ways to not consider other possibilities and realities. A significant takeaway when going over these readings revolves around the idea that when one considers a perspective, other viewpoints may not be taken into consideration – that is, when possible solutions, theories, allegations, and conceptions are appraised, other equally relevant or perhaps even better inferences, attitudes, tenets, and explanations may not be pondered. This has attached implications regarding the theories, methods, methodologies, and research paradigms to be considered when doing research. Researchers ought to take into account a whole series of aspects to perform their task, while not paying attention to the methodological divide. Research paradigms and epistemological constructs offer nothing but tools and philosophical orientation that support a research endeavor. First and foremost, researchers need to focus on the problem and the sociocultural subtleties attached thereto.

I do believe in a serious rapprochement where solid argumentations are offered to validate the underlying principles of research paradigms. Words and numbers are not opposites whatsoever, they are complimentary. I am not saying that all research projects need to favor mix-method approaches, do not get me wrong. I am just saying that qualitative inquiry might benefit from statistical analysis and computer-assisted data assessment. Furthermore, the concept of validity is going over a transformation in which no single truths stand out. We are certainly in a new era with many different and valid “truths”. Research represents a continuum where practitioners of different approaches necessarily need to contemplate other people’s knowledge and ways to discuss, collect, represent, examine, and present data. Doing so would enable Verstehen and will limn new perspectives of collaboration possibilities. Further to this concept, Onwuegbuzie and Leech have pointed out that “… pragmatic researchers are more likely to be cognizant of all available research techniques and to select methods with respect to their value for addressing the underlying research questions…” (p. 385).

Pledging allegiance to a specific research paradigm could bring about devastating results of one’s perception regarding educational research – that is, the world of research deals with a whole variety of multifaceted realities and perspectives that cannot be addressed with a single approach whatsoever. Words and numbers requiring in-depth analysis can certainly benefit from different tools and research tenets. Likewise, subjectivity is a natural part of research. There is no such thing as an “objective” instrument or interpretation. The researchers’ background, context, age, beliefs and fears permeate the inquiry with particular and specific viewpoints and considerations.

Building upon these ideas, I also believe that some overarching concepts demand a more philosophical and theoretical analysis to fully engage readers in the benefits of incorporating mixed-method approaches. Furthermore, it is always advisable to include voices against the concept that is being advocated so as to shed a light on the “hidden side”, if any. Finally, I would like to comment on a colleague’s statement, “I had always imagined the goal of research to be exploration of a problem, for the purposes of the researcher to influence change at some capacity.” Change is definitely a keyword here. Change for the better, change to understand, change to transform lives. All things considered, might change not foster more equality and justice in people’s life? It is a thought-provoking question, indeed.  For my part, I firmly believe that change is to bring uncountable benefits to better understand people’s life and, hence, their true needs.

References

Image taken from www.google.com

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375-387.