Pragmatic research methodology in education: possibilities and pitfalls

References

• Alldred, P., and V. Gillies. 2012. “The Ethics of Intention: Research as a Political Tool.” In Ethics in Qualitative Research. 2nd ed., edited by M. Birch, T. Miller, M. Mauthner, and J. Jessop, 140–156. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, P., S. Delamont, and M. Hammersley. 2003. “Qualitative Research Traditions.” In Educational Research: Current Issues, edited by M. Hammersley, 40–60. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, P., and M. Hammersley. 2007. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 3rd ed. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J. 1987. The Micro-Politics of the School: Towards a Theory of School Organisation. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, H. S. 1996. “The Epistemology of Qualitative Research.” In Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry, edited by R. Jessor, A. Colby, and R. Shweder, 53–71. London: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biesta, G., and N. Burbules. 2003. Pragmatism and Educational Research. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Birch, M., T. Miller, M. Mauthner, and J. Jessop. 2008. “Introduction.” In Ethics in Qualitative Research., edited by M. Birch, T. Miller, M. Mauthner, and J. Jessop, 1–13, 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Blatchford, P., P. Bassett, P. Brown, and R. Webster. 2009. “The Effect of Support Staff on Pupil Engagement and Individual Attention.” British Educational Research Journal 35 (5): 661–686.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blatchford, P., A. Russell, P. Bassett, P. Brown, and C. Martin. 2007. “The Role and Effects of Teaching Assistants in English Primary Schools (Years 4 to 6) 2000–2003. Results From the Class Size and Pupil–Adult Ratios (CSPAR) KS2 Project.” British Educational Research Journal 33 (1): 5–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blatchford, P., A. Russell, P. Bassett, P. Brown, and C. Martin. 2010. “Engaging with the Question ‘Should Teaching Assistants Have a Pedagogical Role?” European Journal of Special Needs Education 25 (4): 347–348.
   Google Scholar
• Blatchford, P., A. Russell, and R. Webster. 2012. Reassessing the Impact of Teaching Assistants. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Blatchford, P., A. Russell, and R. Webster. 2013. Maximising the Impact of Teaching Assistants. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Blatchford, P., A. Russell, and R. Webster. 2016. Maximising the Impact of Teaching Assistants: Guidance for School Leaders and Teachers. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2013. Successful Qualitative Research: A Guide for Beginners. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. 2006. “Paradigm Peace and the Implications for Quality.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 9 (2): 111–126.
   Google Scholar
• Burr, V. 2003. Social Constructionism. 2nd ed. Hove: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Caelli, K., L. Ray, and J. Mill. 2003. ““Clear as Mud”: Toward Greater Clarity in Generic Qualitative Research.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2 (2): 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Chamberlain, K., T. Cain, J. Sheridan, and A. Dupuis. 2011. “Pluralisms in Qualitative Research: From Multiple Methods to Integrated Methods.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 8 (2): 151–169.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Cherryholmes, C. 1992. “Notes on Pragmatism and Scientific Realism.” American Educational Research Association 21 (6): 13–17.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, E., and J. Visser. 2016. “How do Teaching Assistants View Their Role in Managing Behaviour and Cultivate Their Learning and Understanding in Relation to Managing Behaviour?” TEAN Journal 9 (1): 66–79.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2011. Research Methods in Education. 7th ed. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Coyle, A. 2010. “Qualitative Research and Anomalous Experience: A Call for Interpretative Pluralism.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 7 (1): 79–83.
   Google Scholar
• Cresswell, J. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Denscombe, M. 2010. The Good Research Guide for Small Scale Social Research Projects. 4th ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, Y., and N. Lincoln. 1994. “Major Paradigms and Perspectives.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Y. Denzin, and N. Lincoln, 99–104. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education. 2014. Statistical First Release School Workforce in England: November 2014. Accessed October 1, 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440577/Text_SFR21-2015.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Devecchi, C. 2005. “Teacher and TAs working together in a secondary school: should we be critical?” BERA research conference: University of Glamorgan. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/170933.doc.
   Google Scholar
• Downing, J., D. Ryndak, and D. Clark. 2000. “Paraeducators in Inclusive Classrooms.” Remedial and Special Education 21 (3): 171–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feilzer, Y. 2010. “Doing Mixed Methods Research Pragmatically: Implications for the Rediscovery of Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4 (1): 6–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finlay, L. 2002. “Negotiating the Swamp: The Opportunity and Challenge of Reflexivity in Research Practice.” Qualitative Research 2 (2): 209–230.
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher-Campbell, F. 2010. “Double Standards and First Principles: Framing Teaching Assistant Support for Pupils with Special Educational Needs: A Response.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 25 (4): 339–340.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. 2001. Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frost, N. A., and S. Nolas. 2011. “Exploring and Expanding on Pluralism in Qualitative Research in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 8 (2): 115–119.
   Google Scholar
• Frost, N., S. M. Nolas, B. Brooks-Gordon, C. Esin, A. Holt, L. Mehdizadeh, and P. Shinebourne. 2010. “Pluralism in Qualitative Research: The Impact of Different Researchers and Qualitative Approaches on the Analysis of Qualitative Data.” Qualitative Research 10 (4): 441–460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giangreco, M. F., J. C. Suter, and M. B. Doyle. 2010. “Paraprofessionals in Inclusive Schools: A Review of Recent Research.” Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 20 (1): 41–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, K., C. Warhurst, D. Nickson, S. Hurrell, and J. Commander. 2012. “New Initiative, Old Problem: Classroom Assistants and the Under-Valuation of Women’s Work.” Industrial Relations Journal 43 (1): 22–37.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G. 1999. “The Future of Grounded Theory.” Qualitative Health Research 9 (6): 836–845.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldkuhl, G. 2012. “Design Research in Search for a Paradigm: Pragmatism is the Answer.” Communications in Computer and Information Science 286: 84–95.
   Google Scholar
• Goodbody, L., and J. Burns. 2011. “A Disquisition on Pluralism in Qualitative Methods: the Troublesome Case of a Critical Narrative Analysis.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 8 (2): 170–196.
   Google Scholar
• Graves, S. 2013. “New Roles, Old Stereotypes – Developing a School Workforce in English Schools.” School Leadership and Management 34 (3): 255–268.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. 1994. “Qualitative Programe Evaluation: Practice and Promise.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Y. Denzin, and N. Lincoln, 530–544. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, M. 1995. “Making a Difference: Feminism, Post-Modernism and the Methodology of Educational Research.” British Educational Research Journal 21 (2): 219–235.
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. 1999. “Introduction.” In Researching School Experience: Ethnographic Studies of Teaching and Learning, edited by M. Hammersley, 1–15. London: Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. 2005. “Countering the “New Orthodoxy” in Educational Research: A Response to Phil Hodkinson.” British Educational Research Journal 31 (2): 139–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, S. 2010. What is Constructionism? London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hodkinson, P. 2004. “Research as a Form of Work: Expertise, Community and Methodological Objectivity.” British Educational Research Journal 30 (1): 9–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holloway, I., and L. Todres. 2003. “The Status of Method: Flexibility, Consistency and Coherence.” Qualitative Research 3 (3): 345–357.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, J. 2006. “Teaching Against the Text: The Case of Qualitative Methods.” Teaching Sociology 34: 207–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howes, A. 2003. “Teaching Reforms and the Impact of Paid Adult Support on Participation and Learning in Mainstream Schools.” Support for Learning 18 (4): 147–153.
   Google Scholar
• Janesick, V. 1994. “The Dance of Qualitative Research Design: Metaphor, Methodolatry and Meaning.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Y. Denzin, and N. Lincoln, 209–219. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M., T. Long, and A. White. 2008. “Arguments for “British Pluralism” in Qualitative Health Research.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 33 (2): 243–249.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. B., and A. J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004. “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time has Come.” Educational Researcher 33 (7): 14–26.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, T. J. T., and L. A. Lingard. 2006. “Making Sense of Grounded Theory in Medical Education.” Medical Education 40 (2): 101–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd, P. S., and M. B. Parshall. 2000. “Getting the Focus and the Group: Enhancing Analytical Rigor in Focus Group Research.” Qualitative Health Research 10 (3): 293–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitzinger, J. 1995. “Qualitative Research. Introducing Focus Groups.” British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) 311 (7000): 299–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohli, W., and N. Burbules. 2013. Feminism and Educational Research. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Lamont, M., and A. Swidler. 2014. “Methodological Pluralism and the Possibilities and Limits of Interviewing.” Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 153–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehane, T. 2016. ““Cooling the Mark Out”: Experienced Teaching Assistants’ Perceptions of Their Work in the Inclusion of Pupils with Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Secondary Schools.” Educational Review 68 (1): 4–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Letherby, G. 2003. Feminist Research in Theory and Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S. 2010. ““What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been … ”: Twenty-Five Years of Qualitative and New Paradigm Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 16 (1): 3–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggs-Rapport, F. 2000. “Combining Methodological Approaches in Research: Ethnography and Interpretive Phenomenology.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 31 (1): 219–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, J. 2006. “Mixing Methods in a Qualitatively Driven way.” Qualitative Research 6 (1): 9–25.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. L. 2007. “Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (1): 48–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. L. 2014. “Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 20 (8): 1045–1053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse, J. M., and S. E. Chung. 2003. “Toward Holism: The Significance of Methodological Pluralism.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2 (3): 13–20.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. 1990. “Introduction.” In Feminist Research Methods, edited by J. Nielsen, 1–8. London: Westview Press Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Oakley, A. 1981. “Interviewing Women.” In Doing Feminist Research, edited by H. Roberts, 30–61. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and N. L. Leech. 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.
   Google Scholar
• Pansiri, J. 2005. “Pragmatism: A Methodological Approach to Researching Strategic Alliances in Tourism.” Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development 2 (3): 191–206.
   Google Scholar
• Papert, S., and I. Harel. 1991. “Situating Constructionism.” In Constructionism, edited by S. Papert, and I. Harel, 1–11. New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Accessed September 4, 2016. http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html.
   Google Scholar
• Pring, R. 2015. Philosophy of Educational Research. 3rd ed. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
   Google Scholar
• Robson, C. 2011. Real World Research. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Roffey-Barentsen, J., and M. Watt. 2014. “The Voices of Teaching Assistants (are we Value for Money?).” Research in Education 92 (1): 18–31.
   Google Scholar
• Rubie-Davies, C. M., P. Blatchford, R. Webster, M. Koutsoubou, and P. Bassett. 2010. “Enhancing Learning? A Comparison of Teacher and Teaching Assistant Interactions with Pupils.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 21 (4): 429–449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandelowski, M. 2000. “Whatever Happened to Qualitative Description?” Research in Nursing and Health 23 (4): 334–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savin-Baden, M., and C. H. Howell Major. 2013. Qualitative Research the Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt-Felzmann, H. 2003. “Pragmatic Principles? Methodological Pragmatism in the Principle-Based Approach to Bioethics.” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28 (5–6): 581–596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sechrest, L., and S. Sidani. 1995. “Quantitative and Qualitative Methods: Is There an Alternative?” Evaluation and Program Planning 18 (1): 77–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharples, J., R. Webster, and P. Blatchford. 2015. Making Best Use of Teaching Assistants: Guidance Report. London: Education Endowment Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J., H. Bekker, and F. Cheater. 2008. “Theoretical Versus Pragmatic Design in Qualitative Research.” Nurse Researcher 18 (2): 39–51.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. 2002. The RCBN Consultation Exercise: Stakeholder Report. Cardiff: Cardiff University School of Social Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Teddlie, C. 2005. “Methodological Issues Related to Causal Studies of Leadership.” Educational Management Administration and Leadership 33 (2): 211–227.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, G. 2007. Education and Theory: Strangers in Paradigms. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, G. 2013. How To Do Your Research Project. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, G., and D. James. 2006. “Reinventing Grounded Theory: Some Questions About Theory, Ground and Discovery.” British Educational Research Journal 32 (6): 767–795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorne, S. E. 1991. “Methodological Orthodoxy in Qualitative Nursing Research: Analysis of the Issues.” Qualitative Health Research 1 (2): 178–199.
   Google Scholar
• Thorne, S. 2011. “Toward Methodological Emancipation in Applied Health Research.” Qualitative Health Research 21 (4): 443–453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorne, S., S. Kirkham, and J. MacDonald-Emes. 1997. “Interpretive Description: n Noncategorical Qualitative Alternative for Developing Nursing Knowledge.” Research in Nursing and Health 20 (2): 169–177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trent, J. 2014. “‘I’m Teaching, but I’m not Really a Teacher’. Teaching Assistants and the Construction of Professional Identities in Hong Kong Schools.” Educational Research 56 (1): 28–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Usher, P. 1996. “Feminist Approaches to Research.” In Understanding Educational Research, edited by D. Scott, and R. Usher, 120–142. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wahyuni, D. 2012. “The Research Design Maze: Understanding Paradigms, Cases, Methods and Methodologies.” Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research 10 (1): 69–80.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, D., P. Bayliss, and G. Pratchett. 2013. “Pond Life That “Know Their Place”: Exploring Teaching and Learning Support Assistants’ Experiences Through Positioning Theory.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 26 (1): 100–107.
   Google Scholar
• White, P. 2013. “Who’s Afraid of Research Questions? The Neglect of Research Questions in the Methods Literature and a Call for Question-Led Methods Teaching.” International Journal of Research and Method in Education 36 (3): 213–227.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, E., and D. Bedford. 2008. ““New Partnerships for Learning”: Teachers and Teaching Assistants Working Together in Schools - the Way Forward.” Journal of Education for Teaching 34 (2): 137–150.
   Google Scholar