INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 1245

www.rsisinternational.org

Revisiting Pragmatism in Governance and Administration in

Education: A Systematic Review in the Modern Era

Reyzamae D. Sagandilan, MS ,

Jay-ar A. Tino, MS ,

Gladys S. Escarlos, PhD

Instructor II, Don Carlos Polytechnic College, Philippines

Teacher I, Kitubo National High School, Department of Education, Philippines

Professor VI, College of Education, Central Mindanao University, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100098

Received: 14 November 2025; Accepted: 21 November 2025; Published: 01 December 2025

ABSTRACT

Pragmatism, rooted in the works of Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, is a philosophical

tradition that emphasizes the practical consequences of ideas and the evolving nature of truth. This paper

examines the background of Pragmatism and its applicability in governance and administration within education,

emphasizing its value as a flexible and results-oriented framework for policy and decision-making. Pragmatism

promotes adaptability, collaboration, and evidence-based practices that prioritize real-world outcomes over rigid

ideological or theoretical positions. Examples from the Philippines, such as participatory budgeting and the K–

12 education reform, illustrate how pragmatic governance supports inclusivity, continuous learning, and policy

relevance. However, the study also acknowledges key criticisms of Pragmatism, including its tendency toward

relativism, moral inconsistency, and overemphasis on efficiency at the expense of justice. In the Philippine

context, frequent policy shifts tied to political transitions reveal the risks of excessive flexibility and short-term

focus. The paper concludes that while Pragmatism offers a valuable guide for responsive and innovative

governance, it must be anchored in enduring ethical principles such as accountability, equity, and transparency.

Balancing practicality with moral responsibility ensures that pragmatic governance and education remain both

effective and just in promoting long-term societal development.

Keyword: Pragmatism, Governance, Administration, Education

Background Narrative of Pragmatism

Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that emphasizes the practical application of ideas by assessing their truth

through their practical consequences. Originating in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was primarily

developed by thinkers such as Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Pragmatism has

significantly influenced various fields, including ethics, social science research, and governance, by promoting

a flexible, problem-solving approach that values practical outcomes over abstract principles. This philosophy

promotes a continuous process of inquiry and adaptation, making it applicable to contemporary issues in various

domains.

However, modern Pragmatism as a formal philosophy originated with Charles Sanders Peirce (1839– 1914). For

Peirce, Pragmatism was fundamentally a philosophy of meaning, asserting that the meaning of any concept

applicable to reality is found in the relationship between its experiential conditions and observable outcomes. He

believed that a proposition’s meaning is determined by its practical, experiential consequences, assessed through

observation. Focused on scientific inquiry and predictive accuracy, Peirce’s Pragmatism stood in contrast to

idealism, offering a pathway toward objective and impersonal standards of thought.

Although Charles Peirce laid the foundations of Pragmatism as a significant philosophical theory, it was William

James (1842–1910) who popularized it through his highly influential 1907 book, Pragmatism: A New Name for

Some Old Ways of Thinking. James redefined Pragmatism by introducing a more personal and subjective

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 1246

www.rsisinternational.org

interpretation of its principles. For him, pragmatic effectiveness was not confined to an abstract community o f

scientists but was grounded in the experiences of real, diverse individuals. According to James, truth is what

reality compels people to believe, and it is determined by “what works” or “what pays” in the practical course of

human life. Thus, truth is not discovered as a revelation but created through human experience and action.

John Dewey (1859–1952) further expanded Pragmatism, applying it to practical areas such as education and

politics, thereby sustaining its influence in the United States until the Outbreak of World War II. Like Peirce,

Dewey viewed inquiry as a continuous, self-correcting process that must adapt in response to new experiences.

However, Dewey emphasized the social and communal nature of this process, grounded not solely in scientific

reasoning but in the shared values and everyday dispositions of ordinary people. For Dewey, knowledge was not

a static object of detached contemplation but a tool for purposeful action.

In essence, Peirce’s Pragmatism was scientifically rigorous, James’s was psychologically personal, and Dewey’s

was socially democratic. Today, the term pragmatism generally refers to a practical approach to thinking and

problem-solving, one that prioritizes action and effectiveness. However, while Pragmatism has been influential,

it has also faced criticism for its perceived lack of a solid theoretical core and methodological rigor. Critics argue

that its flexible, non-systematic approach can lead to a dilution of philosophical rigor and coherence. Despite

these critiques, Pragmatism's adaptability and focus on practical outcomes continue to make it a valuable

perspective in addressing contemporary challenges across various disciplines. Hence, this paper gives a

systematic review of Pragmatism and its application in modern governance and administration, particularly in

the field of education. This study aims to revisit the applicability of the philosophy of Pragmatism to today’s

education in the modern world.

II. Pragmatism in Governance and Administration in Education

Pragmatism has evolved beyond its philosophical origins to become a guiding framework in education,

governance, and administration, shaping how individuals and institutions address real-world challenges. Its

emphasis on experience, reflection, and practical outcomes has transformed abstract ideas into actionable

practices that promote progress and problem-solving. By highlighting the continuous interaction between thought

and experience, Pragmatism enables education and leadership to respond dynamically to social, cultural, and

institutional needs, addressing broader issues such as curriculum relevance, participatory governance,

organizational efficiency, and community development.

In governance, this philosophy translates into adaptive leadership and policymaking that values outcomes,

responsiveness, and inclusivity. It is a flexible, problem-solving approach that prioritizes practical outcomes over

rigid adherence to formal rules or ideological purity (Yang et al., 2025). Administrators and leaders are

challenged to base their decisions on evidence, stakeholder participation, and reflection, rather than rigid

ideology or tradition. Pragmatism thus frames governance as an ongoing, evolving process rather than a static

structure, a perspective that resonates strongly in a dynamic society like the Philippines.

In an increasingly complex and interconnected world, where rigid governance structures often fail to address

emerging challenges effectively, pragmatic governance allows for continuous learning and adjustment. This

approach is characterized by adaptability, stakeholder collaboration, and a focus on real-world results. Supporting

this view, Ansell (2022) highlights that Pragmatism values experimentation as a means to enhance governance

outcomes, promoting policies that evolve through testing, reflection, and refinement rather than static, one-size-

fits-all solutions. Thus, pragmatic governance fosters innovation, inclusivity, and evidence-based policymaking,

ensuring that public institutions remain responsive to the needs of their constituents.

John Dewey emphasized that democracy should not be confined to elections but should be a “way of life” rooted

in dialogue and shared problem-solving. In governance, this outlook encourages leaders to engage with citizens,

adapt policies based on feedback, and adjust programs to emerging realities. The Philippines offers several

examples of pragmatic governance. Participatory budgeting, institutionalized through the Bottom-Up Budgeting

Program (BUB) of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), reflects pragmatist ideals by involving

LGUs and civil society in identifying local projects that directly address community needs.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 1247

www.rsisinternational.org

Similarly, in the context of education in the Philippines, the K–12 education reform embodies Pragmatism by

aligning curricula with labor market requirements and global standards, showing how educational policies evolve

to meet practical and real-world needs (Reyes, 2020). This reform represents a shift from purely theoretical

instruction to competency-based learning, equipping students with practical skills that are relevant to the

demands of the labor market and the global economy. By extending the basic education cycle and integrating

contextualized curricula, the K–12 program, as an example, ensures that learning is not only meaningful but also

applicable to everyday life and future employment.

Moreover, this reflects the pragmatic view of education and governance as dynamic, participatory, and outcome-

oriented processes. Decision-making under this model involves continuous evaluation and adaptation, which is

evident in the ongoing revisions of the K–12 curriculum and the broader efforts of the Philippine education

system to implement timely and responsive changes. Thus, the K–12 reform embodies the essence of Pragmatism

by promoting flexibility, collaboration, and the pursuit of practical results in shaping educational policy and

practice. This pragmatic orientation acknowledges that education must continually adapt to social and economic

changes, thereby fostering lifelong learning, creativity, and critical thinking among students. In essence, the K–

12 reform demonstrates how educational policies grounded in Pragmatism can bridge the gap between schooling

and societal needs, ensuring that education serves both individual development and national progress.

Furthermore, according to the Kenyan Competency-Based Curriculum (CBC) study by Mugambi (2022), it

emphasizes that Pragmatism in education governance and administration focuses on reforming the curriculum to

meet real-world demands. It advocates for learner engagement and the utilization of prior experiences to create

empowered citizens. It recommends that to fully actualize the new curriculum, increased funding should be

initiated from the budget-making desk to support additional facilities, resources, and teacher development,

ensuring that the principles of Pragmatism are effectively integrated into the CBC framework.

Another study by Diago & Bercedo Páramo (2023) highlighted the role of Pragmatism in governance and

administration within education, emphasizing its potential to address contemporary societal challenges. It

underscores the importance of cooperative and associative approaches, as advocated by Dewey, which facilitate

equal participation and flexible institutional adjustments. Pragmatism encourages the resolution of common

problems through collaborative efforts among individuals, communities, and institutions, thereby enhancing

educational governance in democratic contexts. This perspective fosters a more responsive and effective

educational system aligned with democratic ideals.

In another study by Maltsev (2023), although it focuses on Pragmatism in education rather than governance and

administration, it discusses the philosophical foundations laid by C. Pierce, W. James, and J. Dewey, emphasizing

principles such as critical thinking, dialogue, and experiential learning. The article concludes that Pragmatism,

as a philosophy of education, offers valuable principles, including consensual practices, critical thinking,

dialogue, and a focus on experiential learning, which can serve as a counterbalance to negative trends in

education, such as commercialization and deprofessionalization.

III. Pragmatism in Educational Policy Implementation

Pragmatism provides a flexible and experience-centered framework for implementing educational policies,

emphasizing adaptability, responsiveness, and real-world relevance over rigid adherence to fixed doctrine. It

allows educational reforms to remain aligned with changing social, economic, and technological conditions. For

instance, similar to the study of Mugambi (2022) on the Competency-Based Curriculum (CBC) in Kenya which

incorporates pragmatic principles to ensure education remains relevant and functional in the face of economic

and social changes, the Merdeka Curriculum in Indonesia also emphasizes experience-based learning, aligning

with Dewey's Pragmatism to develop students' competencies in a rapidly changing world (Ubaidillah et al.,

2024). The curriculum encourages learners to engage in problem-solving tasks, collaborative projects, and

reflection, allowing them to connect academic content with real-life situations. It focuses on competencies

relevant to today’s rapidly changing world, such as creativity, adaptability, and interpersonal skills.

Beyond adaptability, Pragmatism fosters collaboration among stakeholders, which is essential for effective policy

implementation. In contexts such as Yemen, the resilience of local actors and communities demonstrates the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 1248

www.rsisinternational.org

importance of community-driven mechanisms, especially in the absence of centralized governance (Hezam et

al., 2025). Such an approach ensures that policies are grounded in the realities of the communities they aim to

serve. Strategic recommendations from these contexts often include decentralized governance, international

partnerships, and targeted investment in teacher development and school reconstruction to bridge the gap

between policy design and practice.

Moreover, Pragmatism promotes iterative feedback and continuous improvement, enabling educators and

policymakers to refine strategies based on evidence and contextual outcomes. Fullan (2019) emphasizes that

successful educational reform relies on adaptive leadership, reflective practice, and evidence-based

decisionmaking, principles that closely align with pragmatist thought. By integrating flexibility, collaboration,

and reflective evaluation, Pragmatism ensures that educational policies remain practical, relevant, and effective

in addressing the dynamic needs of learners.

IV. Critics Of Pragmatism

Despite its broad applicability, Pragmatism has drawn significant criticism from philosophers and scholars. One

of the most common critiques is its tendency toward relativism. By defining truth as “what works” in practice,

Pragmatism risks reducing truth to mere expediency, potentially undermining stable moral and epistemological

foundations. Tracing back, Barrett (1958) warned that such an orientation could lead to “an era of expediency,”

in which truth becomes dependent upon convenience rather than enduring principles. Even Rorty (1999), a

leading neo-pragmatist, acknowledged this internal tension, noting that Pragmatism often struggles to provide a

consistent moral foundation beyond immediate utility. He argued that when truth is equated with what “works,”

philosophical commitment to long-term vision and moral depth may be sacrificed for short-term effectiveness.

Dewey (1927) himself recognized this danger, emphasizing that practical inquiry must remain grounded in moral

responsibility; otherwise, Pragmatism could devolve into opportunism rather than a philosophy of intelligent

action.

This concern is evident in the Philippine socio-political landscape, where policies often shift according to changes

in political leadership (Ball & Bowe, 1992; Tadem & Tadem, 2020). Government programs are sometimes

discontinued or modified before their long-term benefits can be realized, reflecting a pragmatic but short-sighted

approach. For instance, educational reforms and agricultural initiatives may be restructured with each new

administration, revealing the tension between practical adaptation and the need for consistent, principle-based

governance.

Furthermore, in the Philippine Education context, frequent adoption of new strategies, frameworks, or curricula

sometimes lacks sustained ethical and empirical evaluation. Programs such as the K–12 curriculum or Outcome-

Based Education (OBE) reforms, although grounded in pragmatic goals, have faced implementation

inconsistencies due to shifting administrative priorities, highlighting how excessive flexibility can undermine

long-term stability.

Studies show that the Philippine education system has moved relatively quickly from one reform wave to another,

illustrating how the frequent adoption of new strategies or curricula, while well-intentioned and grounded in

pragmatic aims, can undermine long-term stability and ethical consistency when sustained empirical evaluation

and administrative continuity are lacking. For example, a systematic review by Cabaya et al. (2022) on the

curriculum transition (from K–12 to the new “MATATAG” curriculum) identifies stakeholder perceptions,

driving factors, and reform fatigue. Such rapid transitions create a landscape where educators and administrators

may not fully adapt to one reform before the next arrives.

In terms of its implementation inconsistency, multiple reviews highlight gaps in the K–12 program's

implementation, including insufficient teacher training, inadequate infrastructure, resource disparities (especially

between rural and urban schools), and misalignment with labor-market demands (Reyes, 2024). For instance,

despite the policy framework, the actual classroom experiences often deviate substantially from intended

curricula due to contextual constraints (Estrera, 2020).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 1249

www.rsisinternational.org

While reforms are ambitious, the literature highlights a deficit in longitudinal, evidence-based evaluation. For

example, a recent PIDS discussion paper questions whether the standard‑setting reforms post‑K–12 have resulted

in improved minimum standards in higher education (Largoza & Fernandez, 2025). Additionally, a news article

citing an EDCOM II national assessment notes persistent lagging performance in international assessments, such

as PISA, which suggests a lack of effective monitoring of outcomes.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

In both scholarly perspectives and local practices, it is suggested that Pragmatism makes a significant

contribution to governance and administration by promoting adaptability, democratic participation, and

evidence-based decision-making. Its strength lies in its flexibility, where leaders are encouraged to respond to

emerging challenges, revise policies, and test ideas through practice.

Nonetheless, critics highlight the dangers of relativism and inconsistency. In the Philippines, where policies are

often vulnerable to shifts in political leadership, Pragmatism’s rejection of fixed principles can sometimes lead

to policy discontinuity. To maximize its value, Pragmatism must be balanced with enduring ethical commitments

such as transparency, accountability, and social justice. Anchoring pragmatic governance in ethical values

ensures that it remains not only effective but also equitable. While Pragmatism encourages responsiveness and

adaptability, it requires balancing with enduring ethical values to ensure that governance does not devolve into

expediency at the expense of equity and justice.

REFERENCES

1. Ansell, C. (2022). Pragmatism (pp. 419–428). Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks.

https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371972.00046

2. Aparna, R. P. (2022). Pragmatism. Cognitio, 23(1), e51310.

https://doi.org/10.23925/23165278.2022v23i1:e51310

3. Ball, S. J., & Bowe, R. (1992). Subject departments and the “implementation” of National Curriculum

policy: An overview of the issues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 97–115.

4. Barrett, W. (1958). Irrational man: A study in existential philosophy. Doubleday.

5. Cabaya, J.D., Gerios, C.Q., Lano, J.B., & Valenzuela, E.B. (2022). From K–12 to MATATAG: A

Systematic Review of the Factors Driving Curriculum Transition. Indonesian Journal of Education

Research (IJoER), 6(4).

6. Diago, J., & Bercedo Páramo, P. (2023). Perspectivas educativas e investigativas del pragmatismo en

sociedades democráticas. https://doi.org/10.19053/22160159.v14.n36.2023.14769

7. Estrera, E. B. (2020). A Perception-Based Curricular Review on the K to 12 HUMSS Strand curriculum.

IAFOR Journal of Education, 8(4), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.8.4.02

8. Fullan, M. (2019). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.

9. Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., & McGuinness, L. A. (2022). PRISMA2020: An R

package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for

optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18, e1230.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230

10. Hezam, M. N. D., Mardani, D., Jahari, J., & Supiana, S. (2025). Educational Policy in Post-Crisis Yemen:

Between Regulatory Ideals and Implementation Constraints. International Journal of

11. Education and Literature, 4(2), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.55606/ijel.v4i2.232

12. Largoza, G., & Fernandez, C. G. (2025, June). Review of CHED Policies, Standards, and Guidelines

(PSGs) Pre- and Post-K to 12 reforms. https://doi.org/10.62986/dp2025.13

13. Maltsev, Y. (2023). Pragmatism in Education: Philosophical Foundations and Pedagogical Practice.

Filosofskaâ Myslʹ, 7, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8728.2023.7.40380

14. Mugambi, M. M. (2022). Application of Pragmatism to Competency Based Curriculum (CBC) in Kenya:

An Analysis of Basic Education Curriculum Framework. International Journal of Current Science

Research and Review, 05(10). https://doi.org/10.47191/ijcsrr/v5-i10-22

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS) 
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025 
Page 1250 
www.rsisinternational.org 
 
 
15. Prestwood,  M.  A.  (2024,  March  27).  30  Philosophers  companion  material:  The    80    Touchstones  | 
TouchstoneTruth.com.  Retrieved  from      https://www.touchstonetruth.com/30-philosopherscompanion-
material- the- 80-touchstones/  
16. Reyes, V. C. (2020). Understanding K–12 education reform in the Philippines:  A policy  
17. borrowing  approach.  Asia  Pacific  Journal  of  Education,    40(2),  209–222.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1725432  
18. Reyes, R. (2024, January 5). Why is the Philippines' K to 12 Implementation Failing? - The  
19. Filipino  Tech  Explainer.  Retrieved  from    https://www.bobreyes.com/why-is-the-philippines-k-to12- 
implementation-failing/?utm_source=chatgpt.com  
20. Tadem, T. S. E., & Tadem, E. C. (2020). Political dynasties and the Philippine state:  Crafting policies for 
the poor. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 39(1), 70–92.  
21. Ubaidillah, S. R., Laili, W. R., Wahono, S. S., & Machfudi, Moch. I. (2024).  Transformasi Kurikulum 
Merdeka  Dalam  Perspektif  John  Dewey.    Indonesian  Journal  of  Islamic  Teaching,  7(2),  338–  350.  
https://doi.org/10.35719/ijit.v7i2.2208  
22. Yang, M., Zhu, J., & Song, C. (2025). Pragmatism Versus Formalism:  Theoretical Analysis and Reform 
Reflections  on  the  Dilemmas  of    Modern  Governance.  1(1),  117–141.  
https://doi.org/10.63802/pemr.v1.i1.100  