EPISTEMOLOGY
3.9 Aligning the study with constructionism and symbolic interactionism
94
However, West and Turner (2007) opined that although symbolic interaction has its critics, it still remains an enduring theory. In fact, it supports research in multiple contexts, and it is constantly being refined and extended. Ultimately, symbolic interactionism is a theoretical approach to understanding the relationship between humans and society and in the case of this study, learners and school history. The basic notion of symbolic interactionism is that human action and interaction are understandable only through the exchange of meaningful communication or symbols. In this approach, humans are portrayed as acting, as opposed to being acted upon.
95
of participants as they carry out their particular roles as learners of history. In fact, as the researcher I can only know what is happening if I understand what the participants themselves believe about their world through the subject history. As such there is “no manipulation of variables, simulation or externally imposed structure on the situation” (Wiersma, 1991, p. 219).
Positioning a research project within constructionism and symbolic interaction also places a particular focus on the context in which the research takes place. The purpose of this study is to explore the reality of a particular social and cultural context. As indicated above the context of this study is the chosen schools in contemporary South Africa each with its own ethos and characteristics, and the particular role the participants carry out as learners of schools within the particular school setting. From a symbolic interactionist perspective there are a number of influences coming to bear on learners when having to define situations they are confronted with, and when expressing their views of history as a school subject.
These influences could be based on the historical context of the schools under investigation and could involve the type of school, the size of the school, learner population, facilities, discipline, and subjects offered amongst others. Furthermore, outside factors such as parental influence, peer influence, communities and the media could also play a role in influencing and shaping learners’ views of school history. In fact, Goodson and Marsh (1996) pronounced that by studying school subjects we rapidly come to understand them as the most essential of social constructions. By this view, school subjects, such as history, are seen as social constructions that intersect with patterns of social relations and social structure and are intimately implicated in the reproduction thereof and in processes of cultural transmission. The notions of constructionism and the theoretical perspectives of symbolic interactionism therefore, fit perfectly into the purpose and context of this study.
Embedded in this theoretical framework is an epistemology of ‘Constructionism’ that assumes a pluralist and relativist view of the reality (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In this view, realities such as history as a school subject will be viewed in terms of multiple, mental constructions held by individuals in a group setting. These mental constructions are socially and experientially based and although local and specific in nature may often be shared across communities and cultures.
96
Such mental constructions are not more or less ‘true’ in an absolute sense but simply more or less informed and/or sophisticated. Here, research is framed as an intentional process of knowledge construction, leading to knowledge accumulation, with mental constructions becoming more informed and sophisticated which leads to consensus construction across the group. A strong consensus demands that the researcher has heard a wide variety of voices with the constructions of the powerless deserving equal consideration with those of the powerful.
Moreover, this consensus must have links to the data and it must be credible and relevant in the situation. Here, I as the researcher was cast as an orchestrator and facilitator of the inquiry process. This was not an authoritative role as I actively engaged in facilitating a multi-voice dialogue that lead to the construction of my own constructions as well as those of the participants.
Consistent with this philosophical stance, as the researcher, I had decided to use concrete research methods to generate, analyse and interpret the data related to the research question. It is now understood that the study required approaches to data generation, analysis and interpretation that are hermeneutical and dialectical in nature (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Here, data collection involved me as the researcher eliciting and refining the constructions of the research participants through interactions between and among myself and the research participants.
In the proposed study an attempt was made to focus on learners’ subjective meanings, motivations and interpretations arising out of their engagement with history as a school subject at their respective schools. Symbolic interactionist theory views the socialized individual as capable of thought, intervention and self-determination. The peculiarity consists in the fact that human beings interpret each other’s actions instead of merely reacting to them.
Denzin (1992) lists four implications of symbolic interactionism. The first implication is needed for me as the researcher to take a closer look at the symbols used in interactions, and the settings in which interactions take place. The second implication is studying phenomena from the point of view of those being studied. Thus, in order to understand things from my research subjects’ perspectives as the researcher, I had to obtain information data in the form
97
of descriptive accounts from the research subjects. The third implication is the need for me as the researcher to link the participants’ views with those of his/her society. The fourth implication identified by Denzin is that I needed to record the dynamics of the situations that I observed, and in which practices are situated. The above implications of symbolic interactionism on methodology are important and will be revealed later in the study.