RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Research Design
3.2.2 Interpretive Paradigm
The qualitative approach lends itself to the interpretive paradigm which was adopted for this study. The link between the qualitative research approach and the interpretive paradigm is highlighted by Stevens et al (1993) who suggests that research carried out in the interpretive paradigm is called qualitative research. This is however, contradicted by Hart (2003) who cautions that it is a mistake to say that interpretive research is
49
wholly qualitative. This is further elaborated by Blanche and Kelly. They submit that
“interpretivist research methods try to describe and interpret people’s feelings and experiences in human terms rather than through quantification and measurements”
(Blanche and Kelly, 2002, p. 123). The implication here is that the interpretive paradigm relates to the qualitative rather than quantitative research approach. This paradigm assumes that people have authentic subjective experiences that must be taken seriously, and the ultimate method to understand these experiences is by engaging and interpreting them. Blanche and Kelly (2002) believe that qualitative research techniques are the most appropriate for completion of such tasks.
The focus of this research is to gain a depth of understanding in relation to the nature of heritage representation in selected Grade 10 South African history textbooks, This merges with the interpretive paradigm, especially considering Henning’s view that the core of the interpretive paradigm is not about the search for broadly applicable laws and rules, but rather it seeks to produce descriptive analysis that emphasises deep, interpretive understanding of social phenomena (Henning, 2004). As a result, this study will produce rich descriptions of the characteristics, processes, transactions and contexts that constitute the nature of heritage in the selected history textbooks as the phenomena being studied.
Three important descriptions of this paradigm are proposed by Stevens et al (1993).
Firstly, that knowledge is produced inductively and concepts and theories emerge from the interpretation of phenomena. Secondly that data collected are interpreted by the researcher and have a high degree of subjectivity. Finally, that research within this paradigm is carried out in the contexts or situations in which phenomena occur. This study took into consideration the ambiguous nature of heritage. The literature reviewed had demonstrated the fact that heritage has been, and is still viewed from different perspectives in different contexts, different spaces, times and with different motives.
The previous chapter produced a framework for conceptually understanding the phenomena, especially apropos its applicability to the context of this study.
Critics of interpretivism suggest that its major weakness is that it cannot address the factors and conditions from which meanings and interpretations, actions, rules and beliefs are deduced. Moreover, they believe that this paradigm “fails to acknowledge the
50
institutional structures, particularly divisions of interest and relations to power” and as a result presents incomplete accounts of social behaviour by their neglect of the political and ideological contexts of much educational research (Cohen et al, 2011 and Sarantakos, 2005, p. 24). Therefore, considering that this study was also concerned with how issues of power relations and ideology play a role in determining the kind of heritage in the selected history textbooks, one might assume that the choice of paradigm for this research is misguided and that the study would best suit the critical framework. This argument might be persuasive considering that the critical theory covers the weaknesses of interpretivism enumerated above, and even mentions that critical theory also seeks not only to understand situations and phenomena but to change them. In particular it seeks to “emancipate the disempowered, to redress inequality and to promote individual freedom within a democratic society” (Cohen et al, 2011, p. 31). It views reality as shaped by social, political, cultural, economic and other dynamics and so the need for research to bring about some kind of social change that will benefit groups who, because of their gender, race or class, are being understood to have little power or few choices and opportunity available to them (Christiansen, 2010).
Consequently, I as the researcher acknowledge that the issues of power, politics and ideology have enormous influence on the textbook industry, as seen in the review of literature in chapter two, particularly with regards to heritage, and as a result they are central to this study. However, the intention of this study was not a transformative one.
The purpose was not to change the phenomena or society as is the main concern of critical research. But rather through diffuse descriptions, the scope of this study was limited to the acquisition of an in-depth understanding of the phenomena and the factors responsible for its representation in a particular way in selected history textbooks.
Blanche and Kelly (2002, p. 124) disclosed that it is possible to describe a phenomena in “rich detail and present its findings in engaging and sometimes evocative language”
and still be an interpretive researcher. This therefore justifies my choice to work with the interpretivist paradigm in spite of the outlined short comings as this paradigm will best accommodate the purpose and focus of my study.
51 3.2.3 Ontology and Epistemology
The choice of approach and paradigm for this research is also informed by the ontological and epistemological assumptions that I made. Henning (2004), and Sarantakos (2005), argue that a distinct difference exists between the two concepts.
Hence ontologies help inform methodologies about the nature of reality or what comprises social research and the main question here should be: what is the nature of reality? They argue that epistemologies inform methodologies about the nature of knowledge or about what is considered as a fact and where knowledge is to be sought.
The dominant questions researchers ask here are: How do we know what we know?
And how do we recognise reality? In simple terms, epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge. Generally we see that ontological and epistemological prescriptions are packed in paradigms which guide everyday research (Sarantakos, 2005), and the interpretive paradigm in particular is characterised by a particular ontology and epistemology (Blanche and Kelly, 2002).
Accordingly, this study assumed the social construction of knowledge epistemology.
The social constructionism world view is often combined with interpretivism and is typically seen as an approach to qualitative research (Creswell, 2009). This implies that heritage is understood within social and perhaps economic contexts with an emphasis on ideology and power. The reviewed literature has demonstrated that heritage means different things to different people at different times. These varied understandings of heritage are thus informed by the different social contexts in which the concept is used.
Similarly, in an ontological sense, this study assumed that reality or the truth is imposed.
In relation to history textbooks the assumption is that reality is a given and that because of the pedagogic and political nature of textbooks, as explained in chapter two, it is what is in these textbooks that is understood as heritage. This research therefore is based on the social construction theory of knowledge and the assumption that reality in history textbooks is imposed .In this situation, our knowledge of heritage is what is inherent in the history textbooks, rendering it imperative that these books be critically examined.
52 3.2.4 The Case Study
From the perspective of that which was previously discussed concerning the features of qualitative research, it is worth mentioning that a case study approach was also adopted as part of the research design for this study. Creswell (2008) indicated that different researchers have provided different interpretations of case study research. Some identify the case as an object of study while others consider it to be a process of inquiry.
The different versions are briefly explained below but the focus is on the case that circumscribes this study.
According to Henning (2004), a major characteristic of a case study is that it is both a bounded system and a clear unit of analysis that enables it to truly capture the case in some depth. Christensen (2011) clarified this further by noting that a bounded system signifies that most cases have a boundary identifying what the case is and is not. To sum up, Henning describes a case study as a format that is characterised by the focus on a phenomenon that has identifiable boundaries (Henning, 2004). However, she cautioned that it will be folly to think that case studies can be defined only by their boundedness with regards to the unit of analysis of the topic as they can also be defined by their methodology. This view is shared by Nieuwenhuis (2007) who argued that even though the unit of analysis is a critical factor in case study research, this form of research is also used to describe a research method. He concludes that this method has been used across a variety of disciplines to answer how and why research questions.
The circumscription of a case study analysed above therefore justifies the use of the approach in this study. This justification is clarified by the fact that this study is a qualitative study based on interpretivism and social constructionism, which have been identified as typical characteristics of the case study research. Furthermore, the nature of the critical questions underpinning this study also contributes to imbue it with the status of a case study. Both questions contain the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ clauses, and the design and methodology literature, has revealed how researchers across a variety of disciplines have used the case study approach to process inquiries dealing with such questions. Further justification for the case study approach adopted here is due to the fact that this study adheres to the bounded system that informs such an approach. This
53
is evident in its presentation of a clear unit of analysis and object of study. Pertaining to this, the conceptual framework produced in chapter two defined the boundaries of the main unit of analysis for this study which is the heritage phenomena. Moreover, the bounded system also applies to the tools for analysis which are the three selected history textbooks. This will be elaborated on in the section reserved for sample examination. Therefore, the focus of the case study is on the dual aspects of heritage and the three selected Grade 10 history textbooks used in South African schools.
Through detailed description and in-depth analysis of these books, I hope to expose the nature of heritage represented in them and possibly the rationale behind such a representation. As a result a case study approach will assist me to delineate the focus and the context of this study which is South African history textbooks at Grade 10 level.
This implies that by virtue of being a case study, the outcome of this study could not necessarily be generalised to other contexts, but would be understood primarily within the context under which it was executed
The aim of applying the case study design was also conducive to one of the objectives of this project which is to inform policy and practice for future research in the area.
Cohen and Manion (1989) note that a case study would also serve multiple audiences, as it involves anyone interested in the fields of textbook research and heritage education and it also involves stake holders responsible for policy making regarding heritage and history education in South Africa.