Multiple realities. Pragmatism, multiple realities and mixed methods

Multiple realities

Ontology is the study of the nature of reality, and in the social sciences an ontological position provides us with a ‘theory of the nature of social entities’, social phenomena and their meanings (Bryman, 2016: 693). The notion of multiple realities is an onto- logical position that can support the adoption of mixed methods. It suggests that there is no singular ‘correct’ ontological understanding of the social world, and that instead there are multiple ontologies or multiple understandings of reality and that each has validity. This acknowledgement can influence our understanding and measurement of social phenomena and the meanings we ascribe to them. More or less, this ontological stance means that good research practice, which best answers the central research question, is more important than getting bogged down in ontological considerations. Thinking again about researching female prisoners, there is legitimacy in looking at statistical data, as these will give you a certain truth. Interviewing the female prisoners will also give you a certain truth. Both of these truths are equally valid and multiple realities embrace this, bringing them together.

Much like pragmatism moves us away from the ‘paradigm wars’ in the realm of epistemology, so the notion of multiple realities moves us away from similar debates in the realm of ontology. It recognizes subjectivism, objectivism and intersubjectivism simultaneously and rejects the traditional dualisms of subjectivism versus objectivism/ constructionism and fact versus value (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). There is a ‘high regard for the reality and influence of the inner world of human experience in action’ (2009: 122) and, like pragmatism, the notion of multiple realities sees knowledge as inherently provisional; ‘current truth, meaning and knowledge are tentative and changing’ (2009: 122). Thus, attention is directed to the sense that ours is always a partial perspective, and the perspectives of others in different times, places and social situations may be very different but no less valid. In the absence of universally valid truth, there is no ‘magic bullet’ of a method that can uncover that which is applicable to all. Instead, the best research tools to use in a given situation are those that offer the best opportunity for a thorough investigation of the matter at hand. The similar- ity between this stance and that of pragmatism is clear.

Pragmatism, multiple realities and mixed methods

When creating research proposals, it is vital to make sure that there is a logical alignment between the different philosophical and methodological aspects. In terms of the research philosophy, it is important that the epistemology, ontology and research strategy all come together in a coherent whole which, in turn, under- pins the actual process of the research project. The links between, say, positivism, objectivism and a quantitative research strategy are clear and much discussed, as are those between interpretivism, constructionism and a qualitative research strat- egy. Similarly, for our purposes it is quite evident that pragmatism links well with

the notion of multiple realities and a mixed methods strategy. A ‘what works’ pragmatism (Denscombe, 2014) that considers knowledge to be provisional and based on practical outcomes clearly dovetails neatly with the sense that there are multiple realities and, in turn, with a mixed methods approach. In practice, prag- matism allows you to pick the best data collection methods to answer your central research question and multiple realities let you look at the world in a variety of different ways. This provides the foundation for combining quantitative and qualitative data and data collection methods in mixed methods. Continuing the example of researching female prisoners, this combination of pragmatism and mul- tiple realities brings together the quantitative and qualitative data to provide a more complete picture of their experiences.

Mixed methods researchers have also sought to avoid the inductive / deductive dual- ism often associated with qualitative and quantitative research, and have thus developed an alternative in the guise of the ‘abductive’ approach. As Morse and Niehaus (2009: 39) put it, abduction is ‘a third mode’ of inquiry where the aim ‘is to move back and forward between induction and deduction throughout the research by first developing conjectures and then systematically testing these conjectures’. Rather than the theory generation associated with inductive approaches, or the theory testing associated with deductive approaches, by blending the two the abductive approach is geared towards problem solving and thus fits in well with the pragmatic bent of mixed methods work. Table 5. 1 summarizes the epistemology, ontology, strategy and the role of theory across the three major epistemological positions in social (including criminological)

research, namely positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism.

As Table 5. 1 shows, the mixed methods strategy walks the line between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Mixed methods researchers look beyond the dualistic nature of the ‘paradigm wars’ and instead focus on determining what would be the best approach and the best methods to answer the research question(s) at hand; attention is turned to ‘what works’ given the circumstances of the project. Indeed, in an era where much criminological research is ‘policy based’ and funded by bodies that require easily digestible answers to very specific questions, there is a sense that the time has truly arrived for the mixed methods approach in the discipline of criminology.

TaBle 5. 1  Three Major Epistemological Positions in Social Research

Epistemology            Positivism           Interpretivism      Pragmatism Ontology                                 Objectivism         Constructivism     Multiple Realities Strategy                                 Quantitative        Qualitative          Mixed Methods