Running head: INNOVATION IN ADJUNCT 1

Critical Pragmatism: A Framework for Identifying and Influencing

Change

Jonathan Hsu

George Mason University

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

Critical Pragmatism: A Framework for Identifying and Influencing

Change

Personal Philosophy

Through my 16 years of teaching experience I have come to

realize that students fall into patterns, and students love to

unknowingly break those patterns. Teaching martial arts to

students of all ages and levels of expertise, consistencies

emerge from observation. I can reliably identify exactly which

areas students will have trouble with, and what "type" of student

will have difficulties. That being said, over the course of time

I have witnessed the structural changes that occur. New school

owners, managers, and shifts in the student body all have

affected my development and performance as an instructor. The

way I teach now is not the exact same way as how I taught 10

years ago.

I have continually made small inductively reasoned

adjustments to my practice. These changes were not to adhere to

any framework of teaching or to seek universality in my treatment

of students, they were in the hopes of helping the students

directly in front of me. This mentality of producing actionable

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

outcomes to improve the present has been a defining

characteristic of my motivations. Through my immersion in an

Education doctoral program, I am surrounded by teachers and

students who hope to save the world, but my primary concern

focuses on the immediacy of my role as an educator. My

aspirations may portend to wide-sweeping, paradigmatically

altering findings, but my responsibilities lie with the students

to whom I am tasked with improving.

Theoretical Framework

In order to understand the basis for, justification of, and

applicability of a critical pragmatic perspective it is necessary

to unpack the precursory frameworks of classical pragmatism and critical

research, so as to identify the harmonious and divergent beliefs

that define critical pragmatic thought. Influential figures,

primary tenants, and criticisms establish the prominence,

strengths, and weaknesses of each perspective.

Classical Pragmatism

William James is credited with being the first self-

identified pragmatist philosopher (Ormerod, 2005; Patton, 2002;

Stuhr, 2010) through his book Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

of Thinking (James, 1907). Heavily influenced by Peirce (Ormerod,

2005), James asserts that meaning is based in practical bearings,

a heavy emphasis on experience. James (1907) defines pragmatism

through the actions of the individual:

[A pragmatist] turns away from abstraction and

insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad a priori

reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and

pretended absolutes and origins. He turns towards

concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and

towards power. (p. 28)

Pragmatists combat the absolutist and universalist perspectives

of positivism by positing that there are no universal truths.

Ulrich (2007) describes pragmatism as a cyclical line of

reasoning that aims to constantly verify knowledge through

inductive reasoning. However, criticisms of classical pragmatism

claim it is methodologically arbitrary (Ulrich, 2007), fails to

guide social transformation (Wagenaar, 2011), and complacent by

inferring neutrality to concepts of gender, race, and class

(Given, 2008). The critiques of pragmatism coalesce into two

areas: lack of methodological rigor and foregoing any sense of

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

societal responsibility. Proponents of pragmatism would assert

both these claims are due to a misinterpretation of the pragmatic

essence.

Traditionally accepted methodologies, while having varying

degrees of separation from positivism, ascribe to a belief of

foundationalism in order to address what is known as the regress

argument (Fumerton, 2010; Poston, 2010). In brief, the regress

argument is a logical fallacy regarding the need for a

proposition to be verified through justification; however, the

justification is a proposition itself, thus, creating a cycle of

regression (Fumerton, 2010; P. D. Klein, 2004; Murphy, 2006;

Olsson, 2014). Foundationalists believe in basic noninferential

knowledge (Fumerton, 2010) which is the basis for all other

justification; conversely, coherentism – the theory of epistemic

justification for pragmatism – assumes a holistic justification

(Elgin, 2005; Murphy, 2006) based on consistency within the

system. Supporters of pragmatism claim that the arbitrary nature

of pragmatism is no different than the arbitrary nature of

noninferential knowledge in order to address the regress argument

(Murphy, 2006; Olsson, 2014).

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

With regard to the claimed naivety pragmatists display

towards topics of inequality, Ormerod's (2005) accounts of John

Dewey rebut critics by describing a framework that promotes "true

democracy". Dewey is credited with being an iconic figurehead in

the pragmatist movement, refining the burgeoning thoughts of

Peirce and James while influencing modern philosophers such as

Putman, Habermas, and Rorty (Festenstein, 1997). Central to

Dewey's beliefs is his assertion that knowledge, morals, and

ideals are never certain or immune from criticism or revision.

Dewey continues by deriding justice as being known through the

juxtaposition of unjust acts, both of which are defined through

daily life and not abstract ideals (Dewey, 1916, 1927; Hickman &

Reich, 2009; Kadlec, 2006; Ormerod, 2005). In actuality, because

pragmatism's epistemic justification is temporal, the continual

reexamination of any knowledge, moral, or ideal is the embodiment

of a democratic system where actors are both being shaped and

shaping their environment. This element of reaffirmation for the

purpose of inductive reasoning is paramount in the transition

from classical pragmatism to a critical pragmatic perspective.

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

Critical Research

Exploration into the critical school of thought clarifies

the shift from classical pragmatism towards a definition of critical

pragmatism. According to Brewer and Miller (2003), critical

theory involves a high-level evaluation of society, and

specifically society's constriction on the thoughts and actions

of individuals. Influenced strongly by Marx, and often labeled

as neo-marxists, critical theory emerged from the Frankfurt

School in Germany (Corradetti, 2011). Horkheimer's (1993)

definition of critical theory is contingent on being explanatory,

practical, and normative. Critical theorists aims to create

social change through the identification and explication of those

with less power (Bohman, 2013; Brewer & Miller, 2003; Corradetti,

2011).

Critical theory extends beyond the realm of theory; as

Wagenaar (2011) describes how a critical theory perspective

is applied to the planning process. Wagenaar asserts that

the core task of a planner is to protect the involvement of

those who are excluded from the decision making process.

This belief is reiterated by Brewer and Miller (2003) who

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

synthesize the dominant thinkers in critical theory to state

the aim of critical theory as "to look beneath the surface

of knowledge and reason (Kant), in order to see how they are

distorted in an exploitive society (Marx), and thus show the

possibility of less distorted forms (Hegel)".

Both at a functional level as well as a theoretical level,

it is consistent within critical theory to help explain the

dynamics of everyday life. Critical research is not necessarily

a framework, but a disposition to be critical of existing theory

or practices. In this way, critical research harkens to the

democratic desires of modern pragmatism and paves the way for the

symbiosis of pragmatic and critical thought.

Critical Pragmatism

The premise of critical pragmatism is to take the strengths

of both pragmatic thought and a critical lens in order to foster

a healthy balance. Harwood & Hadley (2004) describe the self-

contentious and subversive accusations of both pragmatism and

critical theory as being prescriptive and reactionary. By

applying a critical lens to pragmatic thought, pragmatism's

perceived inability to process difference is alleviated. The

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

helical nature of critical pragmatism is echoed by Bourgeois

(2010) who asserts critical pragmatism leverages the focus on

practice from modernism and the emphasis on high theory from

postmodernism. Forester (2013) asserts the distinguishing

feature of critical pragmatism from classical pragmatism is the

attention to contingencies of power relations and authority that

can affect alternative frames in addition to the consequences of

current framing. Thus, the theoretical intent is to critically

examine the status quo's affect on marginalizing other

alternative potentials in an attempt to improve practice.

Iterative social transformation as the goal of critical

pragmatism positions the framework in a non-absolutist non-

universalist ontological stance. The essence of existence is

temporal, tied to its context, and may not ever be absolutely

true, only reaffirmed. Epistemic contextualism implores a

critical pragmatic methodology to reassess claims of knowledge

and belief. Thus, methodologically critical pragmatism works

towards prescribing contextual improvement and not knowledge that

can be declared as universal.

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

To better understand research under a critical pragmatic

perspective, Forester (2013) identifies five broad attributes of

a critical pragmatic mode of analysis: (1) co-constructed and co-

generative, critical pragmatism focuses on both process and

outcomes; (2) knowledge is treated as fallible, thus the analysis

is of how knowledge claims reflect systematic and structural

framing; (3) critical pragmatism helps rethink the result of

deliberative processes by identifying disparities between

practical processes of dialogue, debate, and negotiation; (4) to

inform process design; and (5) the aspiration of shifting from

"deconstructive skepticism" to "reconstructive imagination". To

synthesize these five attributes, critical pragmatism analyzes

processes and structure to identify incongruence through co-

constructed knowledge of the system and its actors for the

purpose of informing design and democratizing imagination.

Whether critical pragmatism is interpreted as a pragmatic

perspective with a critical lens made explicit, or a critical

theory perspective with an emphasis on creating change, critical

pragmatism is a methodological framework well-suited for adaptive

and functional environments. Given my predominance of experience

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

as a practitioner in the education and technology fields, my

affinity to critical pragmatism is not surprising. I believe

understanding the system is equally as important as the actors

within it, and in order to foster a democratic culture of

innovation and positive change a critical perspective is

necessary.

Research as a Critical Pragmatist

I believe educational innovation is the embodiment of hope

within the education field. To stagnate in the adoption of

innovative ideas is to stymie the ability to adapt as the demands

upon education evolve. There is an extensive body of literature

detailing theories of the diffusion of innovation, much of which

centers on Everett Rogers's 1962 work: "Diffusion of Innovations"

(Rogers, 2003). Authors such as Everhart & Doyle (1980); Murray

(1970); Papagiannis, Klees, & Bickel (1982); and Westera (2004)

constitute a substantive, but not extensive, body of literature

specifically addresses the diffusion of educational innovation.

In the spirit of critical pragmatism, even if the body of

literature was more substantial, its intermittence demands

renewed inquiry to better understand the structure and its impact

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

on the diffusion of educational innovation. Taking a critical

perspective, I wish to investigate specifically adjunct faculty

and their role in the diffusion of educational innovation. The

assumption I am making with this line of inquiry is that current

systems impinge on the adjunct population's ability to realize

and introduce alternative frames of knowledge.

As critical pragmatism is heavily contingent on producing

actionable conclusions, it is important I explicitly state the

goal of my research. I hope to gain a better understanding of

how concepts of power, class, and culture are impacted by the

current structure of university teaching faculty; and to

determine ways to better democratize discourse amongst the system

so as to improve the ability to inductively affect decision-

making.

Diffusion of Educational Innovation

The existing literature concerning the diffusion of

educational innovation is scattered across methodologies.

Researchers such as Everhart & Doyle (1980) inquire through an

phenomenological methodology about the symbolism of educational

innovation. Others such as Murray (1970) employ a positivist

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

epistemology to quantify the importance of the different facets

concerning the diffusion of educational innovation. A critical

pragmatic perspective is found in some research such as

Papagiannis et al. (1982) who propose the failed materialization

of educational innovation may be better understood by a critical

examination of ideological and paradigmatic underpinnings. Their

investigation stems from their proposition that the conventional

theory at the time did not properly understand institutional and

structural factors as they pertain to class-based societies.

Papagiannis methodologically falters as a critical

pragmatist by acknowledging the desire for social transformation,

but not striving to operationalize this desire. Without an

emphasis on informing change, a critical pragmatist is only

performing the role of a critical researcher contributing to a

constructionist epistemology. It is imperative to maintain the

goal of democratically impacting the system's inductive reasoning

abilities.

Adjunct Faculty

As a population, adjunct faculty have continued to grow,

outpacing the growth of full-time faculty 400% to 70% from 1970

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

to 2003 (Kezar & Maxey, 2012). Kezar and Maxey continue to

describe the adjunct faculty as having highly diverse backgrounds

and motivation broken into four categories: (1) career enders;

(2) specialists, experts, and professionals; (3) aspiring

academics; and (4) freelancers. These four categories stretch

across a wide range of ages (aspiring academics to freelancers),

career aspirations (freelancers to specialists), institutional

loyalty (aspiring academics to freelancers), commitment to

industry (career enders to specialists), and many other facets.

Universities are becoming increasingly reliant on this population

that has a broad range of characteristics making them difficult

to understand.

The literature suggests a divide between adjunct faculty and

full-time university faculty. Klein, Weisman, and Smith (1996)

report that part-time faculty are not interested in relationships

with their full-time colleagues. An administrative perspective

infers the same distance seems to be maintained. Hoyt (2012)

reports that only 56% of adjunct faculty surveyed attended an

orientation provided by their academic department. Furthermore,

Hoyt's findings describe a low percentage of adjunct faculty as

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

being adequately informed concerning university-level policies

such as tutoring (49%); security and responding to emergency

situations (49%); and advising, counseling, and student services

(57%).

While these reports portray adjunct faculty in a negative

light, it is vital to understand the construct of the adjunct

professor. Adjunct faculty often hold multiple employment and

value the flexibility of part-time teaching (Hoyt, 2012) yet

desire opportunities for professional development (Sandford,

Dainty, Belcher, & Frisbee, 2011) while reporting considerably

lower satisfaction regarding autonomy (Antony & Valadez, 2002).

Conclusion

The diversity and growth of the adjunct population coupled

with universities' increasing reliance on part-time faculty and

inability to foster the diffusion of educational innovation has

created an area of deficient understanding. I believe a critical

pragmatic perspective is not only appropriate, but advisable. To

improve the development of educational innovation, adjunct

faculty must become active members in the discourse community;

however, the current working paradigm leaves them as marginal

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

fringe actors. Understanding the perspective of adjunct faculty

is not enough, in order to inform change, the structure they

reside in must be analyzed through a critical lens. It is my

hope that empowering adjunct faculty will have a democratizing

effect on universities to inform functional change.

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

References

Antony, J. S., & Valadez, J. R. (2002). Exploring the

Satisfaction of Part-Time College Faculty in the United

States. Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 41–56.

Bohman, J. (2013). Critical Theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013.). Retrieved from

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/critical-

theory/

Bourgeois, N. (2010). The Critical Pragmatist as Scholar-

Practitioner. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 4(3), 233–244.

Brewer, J. D., & Miller, R. L. (2003). Critical Theory. In The A-Z

of Social Research : A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts.

London: SAGE.

Corradetti, C. (2011). Frankfurt School and Critical Theory.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from

http://www.iep.utm.edu/frankfur/

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Macmillan

Company.

Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry. New

York: Holt.

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

Elgin, C. Z. (2005). Non-foundationalist epistemology: Holism,

coherence, and tenability. Contemporary Debates in Epistemology,

156–67.

Everhart, R. B., & Doyle, W. J. (1980). The Symbolic Aspects of

Educational Innovation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 11(2),

67–90.

Festenstein, M. (1997). Pragmatism and Political Theory: From Dewey to

Rorty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Forester, J. (2013). On the theory and practice of critical

pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations.

Planning Theory, 12(1), 5–22. doi:10.1177/1473095212448750

Fumerton, R. (2010). Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic

Justification. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Summer 2010.). Retrieved from

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/justep-

foundational/

Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). Critical Pragmatism. In The SAGE

Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. 2455 Teller Road, 

Thousand Oaks  California  91320  United States: SAGE

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

Publications, Inc. Retrieved from

http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/research/n85.xml

Harwood, N., & Hadley, G. (2004). Demystifying institutional

practices: critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic

writing. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 355–377.

doi:10.1016/j.esp.2003.08.001

Hickman, L. A., Neubert, & Reich, K. (2009). John Dewey between

pragmatism and constructivism. New York: Fordham University

Press.

Horkheimer, M. (1993). Between philosophy and social science: selected early

writings. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Hoyt, J. E. (2012). Predicting the Satisfaction and Loyalty of

Adjunct Faculty. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60(3), 132–

142.

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking.

Indianapolis: Hackett.

Kadlec, A. (2006). Reconstructing Dewey: The Philosophy of

Critical Pragmatism. Polity, 38(4), 519–542.

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2012). The Changing Faculty and Student Success:

National Trends for Faculty Composition over Time. Pullias Center for

Higher Education.

Klein, P. D. (2004). What “IS” Wrong with Foundationalism Is That

It Cannot Solve the Epistemic Regress Problem. Philosophy and

Phenomenological Research, 68(1), 166–171.

Klein, W. C., Weisman, D., & Smith, T. E. (1996). The Use of

Adjunct Faculty: An Exploratory Study of Eight Social Work

Programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 32(2), 253–263.

doi:10.2307/23043197

Murphy, P. (2006). Coherentism in Epistemology. Internet Encyclopedia

of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/coherent/

Murray, F. B. (1970). Credibility of Information for Educational

Innovation. The Journal of Educational Research, 64(1), 17–20.

Olsson, E. (2014). Coherentist Theories of Epistemic

Justification. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Spring 2014.). Retrieved from

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/justep-

coherence/

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

Ormerod, R. (2005). The history and ideas of pragmatism. Journal of

the Operational Research Society, 57(8), 892–909.

doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602065

Papagiannis, G. J., Klees, S. J., & Bickel, R. N. (1982). Toward

a Political Economy of Educational Innovation. Review of

Educational Research, 52(2), 245–290.

doi:10.3102/00346543052002245

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods.

Thousand Oaks, Calif. [etc.]: Sage.

Poston, T. (2010). Foundationalism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/found-ep/

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

Sandford, B. A., Dainty, J. D., Belcher, G. G., & Frisbee, R. L.

(2011). Perceptions of the Willingness of Part-Time

Instructors in Community Colleges in the U.S. to Engage in

Professional Development Opportunities and the Best

Method(s) of Delivering These Experiences. Journal of Career and

Technical Education, 26(1), 48–61.

Stuhr, J. J. (Ed.). (2010). James’s Pragmatism and American

Culture, 1907 - 2007. In 100 years of pragmatism William James’s

CRITICAL PRAGMATISM

revolutionary philosophy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University

Press.

Ulrich, W. (2007). Philosophy for professionals: towards critical

pragmatism. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(8),

1109–1113.

Wagenaar, H. (2011). “A Beckon to the Makings, Workings and

Doings of Human Beings”: The Critical Pragmatism of John

Forester. Public Administration Review, 71(2), 293–298.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02341.x

Westera, W. (2004). On Strategies of Educational Innovation:

Between Substitution and Transformation. Higher Education,

47(4), 501–517.