RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.2 Interpretive Paradigm
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter I explored literature related to this study with the aim of gaining in-depth understanding of the topic and debates related to the phenomenon under study.
In this chapter I discuss the methodology and research design that were employed to answer the research questions. Creswell and Poth (2018, p. 32) define research methodology as “a plan that constitutes multiple aspects used by researchers that are related to one another to get findings that answer research questions identified in the study”. It is critical for the researcher to ensure alignment among various aspects of the research process. These aspects include the paradigm, research strategy, research approach, sampling frame, selection of participants and sites, data generation instruments, data analysis, ethical considerations, and the limitations of the study. This means that I had to systematically apply these aspects to generate and analyse data to answer the research questions. I thus clarify how I ensured a relationship among these aspects and why they were used in this study. I describe my role as a qualitative researcher, the strategies I used to generate the required data, and how these were used to answer the research questions. These questions were:
• What are teachers’ understandings of the case-based method in teaching Tourism in Grades 10-12?
• How do teachers use the case-based method when they teach Tourism in Grades 1012?
For the purposes of this study, I chosen to use a qualitative research design underpinned by the interpretive paradigm to provide a detailed description of selected teachers’
understandings and use of the case-based method in teaching Tourism in Grades 10-12.
3.2 Interpretive Paradigm
A research paradigm represents a particular world view and identifies the lens that the researcher uses to view a phenomenon. It shapes the study and gives a sense of direction
in terms of the research phenomenon. For instance, researchers who use the interpretive paradigm want to understand human behaviour rather than predict it (Bertram &
Christiansen, 2014). As noted by Check and Schutt (2011), the use of a paradigm advocates particular ways of asking questions and of approaching and thinking about problems. Cohen et al. (2018) believe that the interpretive paradigm aims to understand humans’ experiences of the world by relying on the views of participants who live and work within a given situation. Interpretivism was thus employed in this study because it enabled me to explore human behaviour and actions in a real-life setting while it also guided me to understand the subjective world of human experience (Kivunja 2017). This paradigm was also used to emphasise the understandings of the individual teachers and their interpretations of the world around them, which was their Tourism classrooms. The interpretive paradigm is underpinned by observation and interpretation. To observe is to collect information about events while to interpret is “...to contend that a phenomenological study describes the meaning of the lived experiences of several individuals about a concept or the phenomenon under study” (Creswell & Creswell, 2017, p. 289).
When using the interpretive approach, the researcher does not stand above or outside the event under study but “...is a participant observer who engages in the activities and discerns the meanings of actions as they are expressed within specific social contexts”
(Creswell & Creswell, 2017). This implies that the focus of interpretivism is on subjective human experiences, and this focus allows in-depth, detailed understandings of the participants within their specific contexts. Cohen, et al. (2018) also state that the interpretive paradigm helps the researcher to focus on the lived experiences of the participants. This stems from the belief that reality consists of peoples’ subjective experiences of the world. The interpretive paradigm was therefore relevant to this study as I aimed to examine teachers’ understandings and uses of the case-based method in teaching Tourism in Grades 10-12.
The interpretive paradigm naturally allows researchers to explore and understand research participants’ meanings and interpretations of their perspectives. This suggests that my use of this paradigm enabled the teacher participants to respond to the research questions by referring to their deep knowledge of the phenomenon under study. I was
thus able to construct meanings of their views so that that the findings of this study are a true reflection of their understandings and use of the case-based method in Tourism.
However, due to the limited scope of the study these findings may not be generalised to all schools and all teachers of Tourism (Creswell, 2014).
Interpretivist researchers conduct what is known as naturalistic research in naturally occurring contexts with the researcher aiming to be non-intrusive (Cohen, et al., 2018).
For the purpose of this study, I interviewed and observed the teachers while they were teaching Tourism (Grades 10, 11 and 12) to establish how they understood and used the case-based method.
As reality consists of people’s subjective experiences of the external world, they may adopt an inter-subjective epistemology and the ontological belief that reality is socially constructed
(Creswell & Poth, 2018)). In this context, my exploration of teachers’ uses of the case- based method while teaching Tourism sought to understand their authentic views. Leedy and Ormond (2010) argue that an interpretive paradigm is a way of looking at the world based on philosophical assumptions that direct thinking. However, as this paradigm is subjective in nature and does not assume any understanding to be applicable to every context by allowing participants to tell their experiences, there are shortcomings associated with it. According to Creswell and Creswell (2017), one shortcoming of the interpretivist approach is that it assumes that, by understanding the contexts and perceptions or beliefs of individuals, we can then interpret their understandings and uses of case-based method. This can be misleading as researchers could interpret people’s situations incorrectly. Therefore, to avoid this, I made use of interviews, observations, and teachers’ personal reflections for triangulation and accuracy of data.
Most researchers argue that the qualitative approach and the interpretivist paradigm share the same characteristics (Creswell & Poth, 2018; McMillan & Schumacher, 2014) as they attempt to establish how participants make meaning of a specific phenomenon by analysing their perceptions, attitudes, understanding, knowledge, values, feelings, and experiences in an effort to appropriate their construction of a given phenomenon (McMillan & Schumacher, 2014). It was for this reason that I adopted a qualitative research approach.