This study applies the concept of theory triangulation. Theory triangulation entails the use of more than one theory or several perspectives to make sense of a single data set (Neuman, 2014).
Mohan Dutta’s (2008) culture centred approach (CCA), and James and Prout’s (1990) ‘new’
sociology of childhood is used as the conceptual frameworks for this study. The most compelling reason for using this approach in the current study is dual; it is both methodological and philosophical. A combination of both theories informed the methodological approach (qualitative design) adopted in the execution of the study and offered the relevant philosophical perspective (interpretivism). This was necessary, because, triangulation sought to encompass the youth in their complexity, and ultimately guide the execution of the study starting from literature review to data collection and analysis. According to Delport and Fouché (2005), theory assists in directing inquiry into those areas with the potential to reveal useful patterns and explanations.
This section describes both the origins of the culture centred approach (CCA), and its place in theorising health communication, as well the ‘new’ sociology of childhood and its relevance to critical youth studies. These two theories form the bedrock upon which this study is firmly grounded. The CCA has its roots in several disciplines such as critical theory, cultural studies, post-colonial theory and subaltern studies (Dutta, 2008). As such, its theoretical, methodological and application-based focus is to a large extent, influenced by these disciplinary roots. While the CCA is not a theory per se, it is an important approach to health communication. The CCA is an approach that is in the process of becoming a theory (Dutta,
63
2008). This section seeks to briefly motivate for the choice of the conceptual frameworks, present the main concepts, and lastly apply these to the study.
The decision to use the CCA as the overarching conceptual underpinning for this study was consciously arrived at. Two important factors informed the decision to use this conceptual framework. Firstly, the researcher’s background and training in both education and cultural studies respectively, played an important role. The researcher subscribes to renowned Brazilian educationist, Paulo Freire’s (1970) critical pedagogy, and is inspired by his work with peasants in Brazil. Loyalty to Freire’s seminal and germane work inspired the researcher to appreciate the empowering character of research. As such, learner participants who are the primary source of data for this study were, contrary to mainstream pedagogy, viewed not as empty vessels in need of the all-knowing educator/researcher’s expert knowledge. Instead, the researcher opted for doing research with, and not on the learners through the provisions of both the CCA and the ‘new’ sociology of childhood. The intention was to enhance dialogic engagement between the two parties (researcher and participants) as they converged at what Kvale (1996) described as, a site of knowledge construction.
Secondly, as implied by the title of this thesis, school youth are mostly a marginalised group. They are particularly communicatively marginalised, hence the absence or erasure of their voices from mainstream discursive spaces is often presumed to be normative. By default, the CCA has roots in subaltern studies where the marginalised are given a voice to articulate their concerns. Therefore, due to his understanding of the importance of empowering the marginalised, the researcher saw it appropriate to use the culture centred approach (CCA) to inform, implement and analyse the data generated from in-depth qualitative interviews and focus group discussions. Importantly, it must be acknowledged though, that empowerment means different things to different people. In the theory and practice of health promotion, empowerment is viewed as a process of assisting people to take control of the factors that affect
64
their health (Gibson, 1991). Similarly, identifying school youth as study participants and key producers of knowledge related to ASRH and well-being is quite empowering.
The CCA is made up of three different but intertwined concepts which are culture, structure and agency. According to Glanz, Rimer and Lewis (2002, p.27), concepts are “the building blocks or primary elements of a theory.” Further, these concepts function as the window through which to view the social world. The following paragraphs explain each of the three concepts of the CCA in detail.
3.11.1 Culture
Within the ambit of the CCA, the concept of culture relates to the local contexts within which health meanings are not only constituted but negotiated and interpreted. Importantly, culture is both constitutive and dynamic in nature (Dutta, 2008). Culture is embedded in the day-to-day practices of groups or communities as they negotiate their health, among other important social facets of their lives.
3.11.2 Structure
Structure refers to the various aspects of a social system, which simultaneously constrain and enable the capacity of social members to either access certain health care resources or engage in some health-related behaviour (Dutta, 2008). Structure refers to “the institutional frameworks, ways of organizing, rules and roles in mainstream society that constrain and enable access to resources” (Dutta, 2011, p.9). It is through structure that certain population segments have their access to health care services either limited or promoted. As a function of structure, certain population groups are relegated to the margins of the health care system, and vice-versa (Dutta, 2008). Consequently, marginalised individuals and communities are structurally sidelined and cannot access certain health care resources. Furthermore, their voices do not feature on the various important health communication platforms. It is at such discursive
65
spaces that health care policies are discussed, and health information disseminated (Dutta, 2008).
3.11.3 Agency
Agency, in this context, relates to the ability of cultural members to make decisions relating to their health as well as to participate actively in negotiating the existing structures that impact their health. The concept, agency entails the conscious process through persons, groups or communities are involved in actions that directly interrogate the structures constraining their lives, and, concurrently, seek to engage with the structures in identifying or supporting initiatives that enhance their health and well-being. Importantly, where culture, structure and agency meet, openings for listening to traditionally marginalised voices are created, and discursive spaces for negotiating the erasure of those on the margins enacted, and opportunities for co-constructing the voices of the subaltern are made available (Dutta, 2008). Similarly, Bandura’s (2006) agentic theory attests that human beings have the potential to influence their circumstances hence they are not merely products of the systems within which they exist.