By Richard Heeks 

When it comes to tackling real-world problems, researchers often find themselves choosing between two big philosophical approaches: positivism, which focuses on hard facts and objectivity, and constructivism, which highlights how people shape their reality. Both approaches have strengths, but also big weaknesses. This has left a gap in development studies, where action and change are as important as understanding the problems.

Here’s where pragmatism and critical realism come in. They offer something more grounded and flexible for researchers—but, on their own, they have their flaws too. So, what if you took the best of both worlds? Enter Pragmatist-Critical Realism (PCR): a research philosophy that blends these approaches to create practical solutions while tackling deeper systemic issues.

The post below explains PCR and its use in practice, drawing on the paper, “Pragmatist-critical realism as a development studies research paradigm”.

 

What’s the Big Deal About Pragmatism and Critical Realism?

 

Pragmatism is all about what works. In pragmatism, the “truth” of an idea depends on whether it helps solve a problem in real life. But there’s a catch: pragmatism doesn’t always dig deep into why things work, nor does it necessarily address questions of power, ethics, or inequality.

Critical realism, on the other hand, steps back and asks: What are the hidden forces and structures causing the problems we see? It has a three-layer view of the world:

1. Empirical: what we observe and experience
2. Actual: events and non-events
3. Real: underlying mechanisms and structures that generate these (non-)events

This approach helps researchers uncover the “why” behind social problems. However, critical realism can get stuck at the theory level, failing to connect research to practical, real-world action.  It can also be complex to operationalise.

 

Why Combine the Two?

 

Pragmatist-Critical Realism merges pragmatism’s focus on action with critical realism’s deep explanatory power. Here’s the big idea:

• Use critical realism to uncover the mechanisms causing problems.
• Use pragmatism to test solutions and drive meaningful change.

This combination is especially powerful in development studies, where researchers often aim to understand and transform inequalities, poverty, and injustice.  It allows a twin-track approach to knowledge-building and truth-testing, as illustrated below.

How Does PCR Work in Practice?

 

PCR can be operationalised via a four-step, action-research methodology. We illustrate this with the example of the Fairwork Project, which applied this blended approach to improve working conditions for gig workers in the Global South.

1. Plan: Researchers identified a broad problem—gig workers in countries like India and South Africa often face low pay, poor conditions, and little protection. Then they looked at deeper mechanisms driving the problem, such as weak regulations and the power of digital platforms.
2. Act: The team developed “Fairwork Principles” (like fair pay, fair conditions, and fair management) that reflected the mechanisms. They scored platforms based on these standards. Publicising scores through league tables created pressure on companies to change.
3. Observe: Some platforms responded—changing policies, improving wages, and committing to better conditions.
4. Reflect: Researchers reflected on these outcomes, tested their ideas, and improved their methods for the next cycle.

Why Should We Care About PCR?

 

Pragmatist-Critical Realism is more than just academic jargon. It’s a practical, impactful, and critical approach to research that directly connects theory with action. For development studies, it offers a way to:

• Address power and inequality.
• Bridge the gap between understanding problems and solving them.
• Create change that is grounded in evidence and practical solutions.

Ultimately, PCR doesn’t just ask, “What works?” It asks, “What works to make the world more just, and why does it work?”

So, if you’re a researcher, policymaker, or practitioner in development studies—or just someone passionate about real solutions to global problems—Pragmatist-Critical Realism might just be the missing piece.  To find out more, please refer to our open-access paper, “Pragmatist-critical realism as a development studies research paradigm”.

 

[1] Johnson, P., and J. Duberley. 2000. Understanding Management Research. London: Sage.

Photo by Miguel Henriques on Unsplash

 

Note:  This article gives the views of the author/academic featured and does not necessarily represent the views of the Global Development Institute as a whole.

A first draft of this post was created using ChatGPT

Please feel free to use this post under the following Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Full information is available here.