Can You Describe How The Perspective Of A Pragmatist Works

Can you describe how the perspective of a pragmatist working in the Use Branch may differ from that of a postpositivist working in the Methods Branch? What do you think is the most important difference? Continue to gain comfort in searching academic databases by locating the following journal article using the information given in its citation: Davis, M., Jonson-Reid, M., Dahm, C., Fernandez, B., Stoops, C., & Sabri, B. (2020). The Men’s Group at St. Pius V: A Case Study of a Parish-Based Voluntary Partner Abuse Intervention Program. American journal of men's health, 14(1). If you did not have access to library databases, would you be able to read the study listed above? (yes or no) Based on the material presented in chapter 4, is the Davis et al., 2020 article a design evaluation, process evaluation, or impact evaluation? Explain your thinking. If you were to evaluate the Masters in Social Work program at UTA using a pragmatic paradigm, what might that investigation involve? Link to book.

Can You Describe How The Perspective Of A Pragmatist Working In The

This assignment explores the differences between pragmatic and postpositivist paradigms in research, specifically focusing on perspectives within different branches and applications in empirical studies. It begins by examining how a pragmatist's approach in the Use Branch may contrast with a postpositivist's approach in the Methods Branch, emphasizing the core philosophical distinctions. It then guides the student to learn how to efficiently locate an academic article using proper citation details, encouraging familiarity with academic databases. Further, it asks whether an individual without database access could read the specified study, fostering critical reflection on resource accessibility. The assignment also prompts an analysis of the type of evaluation—design, process, or impact—used in a particular research article, with an explanation grounded in chapter 4 content. Finally, it challenges students to conceptually consider how a pragmatic paradigm would shape an evaluation of a specific program, linking theoretical understanding to practical application in social work.

Paper For Above instruction

The distinction between a pragmatist’s perspective and that of a postpositivist lies at the heart of philosophical paradigms guiding research methodology. A pragmatist adopts a flexible, outcome-oriented approach emphasizing practical solutions and the utility of research findings, regardless of the specific philosophical underpinnings. In contrast, a postpositivist philosopher insists on objectivity, measurement, and the verification of hypotheses through empirical evidence, often emphasizing a scientific approach that seeks to minimize bias and subjectivity. This fundamental difference influences how researchers approach their studies, analyze data, and draw conclusions, especially across different branches of inquiry.

Specifically, within the Use Branch, a pragmatist would tend to prioritize real-world relevance and practical implications. They focus on what works best in specific contexts to produce meaningful change, often employing mixed methods to address complex social issues. Pragmatists are open to using qualitative and quantitative data synergistically, valuing stakeholder input and contextual factors to inform their decisions. Conversely, a postpositivist in the Methods Branch may emphasize rigorous, objective measurements, controlled experiments, and the testing of hypotheses to establish generalizable knowledge. Their approach aims for replicability and statistical validity, often favoring quantitative methods over qualitative ones.

The most important difference between these paradigms is arguably their worldview regarding what constitutes valid knowledge. Pragmatists take a pragmatic, pragmatic approach where the value of research depends on its usefulness and practical outcomes, whereas postpositivists prioritize empirical verification and scientific rigor. This distinction influences not only research design and methodology but also the interpretation and application of findings in social and behavioral sciences.

Regarding the academic article by Davis et al. (2020), this study is best classified as a process evaluation. The focus on a specific program—the Men’s Group at St. Pius V—and examining how it operates within a community context aligns with a process evaluation’s goal of understanding program implementation, delivery, and functioning. This type of evaluation is often used to assess whether a program is being executed as intended and to identify contextual factors affecting its operation (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004).

If access to library databases were unavailable, reading the above study might be difficult or impossible, particularly because academic articles are typically behind paywalls or authentication barriers. Therefore, the correct answer to whether one could access it without database access is “no.” However, sometimes similar studies are summarized in open-access repositories, or authors upload preprints or related materials that might be accessible without institutional credentials.

In the context of chapter 4, the Davis et al. (2020) article aligns with a process evaluation, given its emphasis on examining the implementation and functioning of a community-based intervention without necessarily measuring its outcomes or impact directly. Impact evaluations usually assess the long-term effects of a program, whereas process evaluations focus on the delivery mechanisms and contextual factors influencing execution.

If conducting an evaluation of the Masters in Social Work (MSW) program at UTA from a pragmatic paradigm, one would likely employ mixed-methods research to gather diverse data reflecting multiple stakeholder perspectives. Such an evaluation might involve collecting quantitative data on student graduation rates, employment outcomes, and program completion statistics, complemented by qualitative interviews or focus groups with students, faculty, and community partners to explore perceptions of program effectiveness and areas for improvement. This approach emphasizes actionable, practical insights that can inform decision-making, policy adjustments, and program refinement, consistent with pragmatic principles that value utility and real-world impact (johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The evaluation would, therefore, be designed to produce results that are directly applicable, actionable, and sensitive to the specific context of the program.

References

• Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
• Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage Publications.
• Davies, M., Jonson-Reid, M., Dahm, C., Fernandez, B., Stoops, C., & Sabri, B. (2020). The Men’s Group at St. Pius V: A Case Study of a Parish-Based Voluntary Partner Abuse Intervention Program. American Journal of Men’s Health, 14(1).
• Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Sage.
• Cresswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
• Kang, S., & Kim, K. (2019). Evaluating community programs: Methodological approaches. Community Development Journal, 54(2), 230-247.
• Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.
• Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage Publications.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
• Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage Publications.