Gulp!!

No. 1 - I can't really answer that except to say that I personally don't think you can be a positivist, based on my understanding of positivism, and use mixed methods. Pragmatism, the philosophy, does have elements of positivism particularly through one of its founders Peirce who by all accounts was a maths genius and heavily into semiotics. However others such as James and Dewey would not be considered positivists. For them, truth was what works based on experience. They do talk about scientific inquiry etc but again all in relation to experience.

No. 2 - the true pragmatist researhes with, not on their participants. The key thing is that although there is a role for the expert in pragmatic inquiry, it is not a privileged role. One of the key concepts in classical pragmatism is the 'community of inquiry' where together the reseracher (ie you) and your participants come together to try to solve a problematic situation.

No. 3 - the way I see it is that classical pragmatism is infused throughout my thesis. It affected how I formulated my reserach questions, how I went about the research, how I collected and analysed data (ie Grounded Theory) and the recommendations I will make, which for me have to practical and viable. I'm not out to change the world or call for revolution, for me it's change in small incremental steps.

So I have pragmatism in my introduction, my lit review and my methodology. However, by the time I got to my methodology my supv said "ok ok I get the messge, ease off making links between what you're doing and c.p. :$

Gosh, I must be absorbing some of what I'm reading - I've never written my approach so concisely before - thanks Sneaks (up)

There are several stances you can take, aside from pragmatism, such as multiple paradigms and the dialectical stance. I personally think that pragmatism goes best with mixed methods. As a pragmatist, you prefer action to philosophy and are concerned with choosing the most appropriate methods to answer your research questions, and you accept that reality can be multiple of singular. The proof is in the pudding with pragmatism, meaning that if you research has the desired effect and benefits then your methodological approach is justified - known as functional justification. The constructivist paradigm is inductive, positivism is deductive but pragmatism is adductive combining both the processes of induction and deduction - sorry if that all sounds a bit garbled.

Wow, Ady, that's really, really good!

Thanks :$:-) - some of what I'm slogging away at must be going in!

wow you all know your stuff! (want to write a methods chapter???)

I *think* I'm a pragmatist then (up) (will obviously read more on it!)

I reckon I can get away with it because my research is VERY applied (and therefore can justify using mixed methods) so it sounds about right.

Its certainly interesting reading the articles posted here.

I'm following a mixed method approach which involves a quantitative and qualitative study so that I can obtain both breadth and depth in my analysis......it's good to know that there is significant theoretical backing for this approach. I think I've been very lucky in coming up with my approach without any proper investigation into what might have been right, I just thought it was the way to go when I began without actually thinking about it in this way.

hi sneaks
I don't know much about mix methods
:-)
just wanted to say HI to you here :-)
I'm sure you will write your mixed methods approach section very well
love satchi

ok I am confused and have a stupid question.

What is the difference between epistemology and a philosophical stance? or are they the same thing??

I was hoping somebody else would answer 'coz I wanted to see what other people say :-( but here goes for me ...


My understanding is, is that philosophy (your philosohical stance as you put it) is your worldview, your fundamental 'take' on the world. Then, within this, a person's philosophy can be further sub-divided into:

1. Ontology - a 'branch' of philosophy that considers the nature and reality or being. So it is the set of assumptions which underly a theory, the 'what can be known'
2. Epistemology - how knowlege is derived at, so in effect assumptions about the 'how' we can know the world.
3. Ideology - the social or political reasons for seeking knowledge, and
4. Methodology - the rules and methods by which we investigate a problem or topic. This is covered by one's ontological and epistomological outlook.

I found this and actually thought it was succinct and helpful - http://www.lmu.ac.uk/research/postgradconf/Marie_Kerr.doc

This whole area freaks me out viva-wise


:-(

haha, I already had that word doc after lots of searching this morning! thanks Ady.

So basically I refuse to get bogged down in all this - I'm just going to briefly discuss post positivism, constructivism and then talk about my mixed methods stuff and pragmatism.

Now the real question is are they (positivism etc. ) 'epistemologies' (can't spell it) or are they something else (e.g. ontology, theories, methods ARGH!)

======= Date Modified 22 Feb 2011 12:18:28 =======
to clarify I basically want to know if this bit I've written is right or wrong

"The approaches of examining XYZ have been polarised by their epistemological stance. XX theories have adhered to a post-positivist perspective, whilst those emerging from disciplines, other than psychology, have adopted a constructivist or advocacy/participatory approach"

this is a very rough draft - so please don't go crazy over grammar or anything, I just want to know if I'm using the term "epistemoligical" right

then I can get on with my life!

Sounds [very] good to me - I think sometimes it's a case of semantics and people (and examiners, let's hope!) use different words interchangeably.

Thanks Ady - In our area this whole thing doesn't seem to crop up much, so I'm hoping the mere fact that I've 'tipped my hat' towards it means I get a tick in that box, if you see what I mean.

8-)