Search for a command to run...
I read with great interest the recent article by Alfakhry et al, which sought to define pragmatism and outline its benefits for medical education researchers.1 This contribution is timely, given the growing visibility of mixed methods research—often aligned with a pragmatist stance—in the medical education literature.2, 3 I am currently in the first year of my doctoral studies, examining the emotions experienced by newly qualified doctors when managing medical emergencies and the implications of these experiences for learning. After considerable engagement with the philosophical foundations of my work, I elected to adopt a pragmatist approach. Like Alfakhry et al, I recognise the value of pragmatism in integrating insights from differing epistemological traditions. I was particularly drawn to its flexibility and its emphasis on generating findings with real-world applicability.1, 4 However, this decision also brought into focus a persistent perception within the research community, when a colleague remarked that I had made the ‘easy choice’ in adopting a pragmatist approach, suggesting that this obviates the need to engage deeply with established paradigms. Such views imply that pragmatism avoids true engagement with epistemology and learning theory. Although Alfakhry et al provide a thoughtful and nuanced account of pragmatism, they overlook this enduring perception and the associated implication that pragmatism is a ‘lesser’ or intellectually lightweight paradigm. They also give limited attention to the practical challenges of methodological pluralism, including the need for competence across multiple methodologies and navigating the currently limited guidance available for applying pragmatism within medical education research.5 Pragmatism should not be understood as a means of sidestepping philosophical commitments nor as a default position for those uncertain of their epistemological orientation. Such assumptions risk undermining the credibility and rigour that pragmatism—when approached intentionally and coherently—can offer.5 I therefore wish to counter the characterisation of pragmatism as the ‘easy choice’. It is a distinctive paradigmatic orientation that requires deliberate engagement, transparency and methodological integrity. Perpetuating misconceptions about its legitimacy risks disadvantaging early career researchers who are actively seeking to develop their methodological identity, engage meaningfully with theoretical assumptions and build rigorous scholarly foundations. Pragmatism should be recognised as a legitimate and robust paradigm, not positioned as an expedient means of avoiding methodological decisions. Emma Claire Phillips: Conceptualisation; writing—original draft; visualisation; writing—review and editing; project administration. None declared. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.