Pragmatic people are concerned with matters of fact, as opposed to idealists who prefer theories. They are interested in things that have real-world applications and can be applied to everyday problems and situations. This practicality fosters efficiency and effectiveness in problem-solving, decision-making, and achieving goals.
The word pragmatic comes from the Greek “pragma,” meaning action, or the ability to apply an idea. The word has a wide variety of meanings and uses, but is most often used to contrast with idealism. It can refer to an approach that takes into account what has been experienced, or to a person’s level of practicality. People who are pragmatic can be described as realistic, down-to-earth, and clear-thinking.
Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that was developed in the mid- to late 19th century by Charles Sanders Peirce and William James. These early self-conscious pragmatists promoted an epistemological and social science that is grounded in experience and that promotes progress and change. They were also critical of metaphysical and moral doctrines that relegate change to a mere practical matter and to the lowest rung in life’s hierarchy of values.
While pragmatism does not assume that it is the ultimate political perspective or true social theory, its ethics-based pursuit of democracy, equality, and justice for everyone sets it apart from other approaches to social research (Biesta 2010). Pragmatism also promotes a problem-solving research process with a focus on what is possible and practical rather than on what is the best or most complete knowledge-generating method. As such, a researcher who adopts the pragmatist approach will have a warranted belief that the choice of methodology they choose for their research will produce the desired results and will be useful to them in meeting their objectives and purposes (Morgan 2014a).
The pragmatist approach prioritizes the research question, sidelines epistemological and ontological arguments, and makes it possible to conduct research that integrates quantitative and qualitative methods. It has a number of advantages over other research methods, including an emphasis on the importance of the research environment and the need for all relevant information to be included in the analysis (Biesta 2010). This pragmatic philosophy is gaining increasing popularity among researchers. For example, the number of articles per year catalogued in MEDLINE with a pragmatic or naturalistic research design has increased since 2010, and more researchers are choosing to conduct their studies using a pragmatist approach. (See the figure below). This growth is most likely due to an increasing recognition that a pragmatic research approach produces more valid and reliable findings than other methodologies. This is because it promotes the use of evidence based on the outcomes of the study and the context in which it was conducted, rather than its theoretical justification. This makes it a good research practice for the evaluation of public health interventions. In addition, it provides a solid framework for developing new health policies and practices.
