Methodology is defined by a number of scholars to mean the study of procedures used in research to create new knowledge. It spells out the nature of the scientific method adopted and its implication for conducting social research (Blanche & Durrheim, 1999; Babbie, 2010; Blaikie, 2010; and Hammersley 2011).
Research design
Research design as is viewed by a number of scholars, denotes a technical document that is developed to guide a research project. It is an integrated statement of and justification for, the technical decisions involved in planning the research. It encompasses all the structural aspects of a study. It specifies whether the study will involve groups or individual participants; whether it will make comparison within a group, or between groups and how many variables will be included in the study. It addresses how to implement the strategy bridge between research questions and the execution or implementation of research (Durrheim, 1999; Gary, 2009;
Gravetter & Forzano, 2009; and Blaikie, 2010).
Having briefly defined what a research design encompasses, it is befitting to describe a research paradigm which is a linchpin, for all the processes that I discussed later in the chapter.
Research paradigm
The notion of a research paradigm stems from earlier scholars such as Guba and Lincoln (1994), and has since been adopted and used by other scholars such as Johnson, (2004), Krauss (2005), Ponterotto, (2005) and Weinstein and Foard (2006). In their definition of a research paradigm, Guba and Lincoln, (1994) see is as:
…a basic belief system or world view that guides the investigator not only in the choice of method but ontologically-theory of the essence of things, their true nature; and epistemologically - theory of the grounds of knowledge, i.e. how things can be known (Guba and Lincoln 1994, p. 107).
88
A paradigm represents a world view that defines for its holder, the nature of the world, the individual’s place in it and the range of possible relationships, to that world and its parts, in the same way that cosmologies and theologies do. Guba and Lincoln, (1994) and Ponterotto, (2005) add other dimensions to paradigms. These are the axiological (the study of the nature, types and criteria of values and of value judgement, especially in ethics) and methodological lenses to a study enquiry. As the discussion of the different paradigms unfolds, I must state that the section has drawn heavily on Ponterotto’s review of paradigms. A paradigm sets the context for the study. There are numerous paradigms that guide the research but key among them are those that are found to be the most concise and manageable. These are the ones commonly discussed by Guba and Lincoln, (1994): positivism, post-positivism, interpretivism and critical ideology. I focus on interpretivism, explaining its underlying philosophical assumptions and why it is an appropriate location for this study.
Interpretivism: This is regarded as alternative to the positivist orientation. Positivism holds an objective view of reality and a realist epistemology. It is based on the belief that social and natural science should incorporate the same hypothetical deductive method and should have the same goals. Interpretivism, in contrast, adheres to a relativist position that assumes multiple, apprehendable and valid realities. Ponterotto, (2005, p.128) cites Schwandt where he asserts that interpretivism maintains that reality is constructed in the minds of the individual rather than being an externally singular entity. Schwandt further points out that meaning is hidden and must be brought to the surface through reflection. This reflection can be stimulated by the interactive researcher-participant dialogue.
The key element that distinguishes this orientation from the rest, is its outstanding belief in centrality of the interaction between the researcher and the object of investigation. It maintains that it is by interaction that a deeper meaning can be uncovered.
89
Assumptions of this paradigm: This research philosophy holds a view that understanding of lived experiences from the point of view of those who live it day to day, is key. And that lived experiences occur within a historical social realities. They may be outside the immediate awareness of the individual but could be brought to consciousness. This orientation is often the primary foundation for a qualitative design (Krauss, 2005; and Ponterotto, 2005).
The study’s positionality within the paradigmatic continuum and the rationale for its choice I now position and justify this case study of a group of women living with HIV and AIDS, who are on HIV treatment, within the paradigm of interpretivism. The rationale for this approach lies in the very features or assumptions of the paradigm that holds a belief in a researcher-participant interaction as a way of exploring lived experiences by participants in order to uncover rich in- depth data from a phenomenon. This study therefore looked at perceptions and feelings of a group of women of child-bearing age who are living with HIV and AIDS and are on ARVs treatment. These women belong to (PBA). It examined the learning that took place, as the women went through their HIV and AIDS positive journey. It documented this journey, exploring deeply their emotions and feelings within the compass of this life threatening disease.
It documented their “lived experiences” in the context of their relationships with their environment (society, partners, children, in-laws and friends). It explored the meaning-making that their newly acquired identity and status generated among them and the perceptions of the community about their HIV positive status. These meanings were explored and brought to the surface using reflection (a key tenet in Mezirow’s ten-phase transformative learning). Krauss, (2005) citing scholars such as Frankl, Dewey, Lofland and Lofland and Chen, expounds on meaning and meaning-making and alludes to the fact that an individual draws meanings from or gives meaning to events and experiences. Meanings provides explanation and guidance for the experiences.
90
It is individual’s subjectivity or phenomenological world, that forms the very core for meaning originating and evolvement….meaning is the underlying motivation behind thought, actions and even the interpretation and application of knowledge (Krauss 2005, p. 763).
Krauss further posits that the construction of meaning is the task of qualitative research.
How the study fits within the interpretivist paradigm using the philosophical lenses of ontology, epistemology, axiology, rhetorical structure, and methodology (Ponterotto, 2005, p. 132)
Ontological review: This paradigm holds a belief that there exists multiple constructed realities rather than a single true reality. Reality, according to this approach is subjective and influenced by the context of the situation (a position known as the relativist position).
Conducting research within an interpretivist model: In order to elicit reality with the available data, this model interviews only a handful of clients for a longer period of time.
Using epistemological lens: The interpretivist model advocates a transactional and subjectivist stance that maintains that reality is socially constructed and therefore the dynamic interaction between researcher and participant, is key to capturing and describing the “lived experiences” of the participants.
Applying the axiological review of the interpretivist paradigm: Axiology is concerned with the values in the research process. The values and lived experiences cannot be divorced from the process hence the researcher should acknowledge, describe and bracket his/her values but NOT eliminate them. They refer to this process as an inter-dependent researcher-participant interaction.
91
Rhetorical review of the paradigm: More attention is paid to subjectivity. An interactive researcher role prevails when presenting the report. The orientation uses first person and the report is often personalized. The researcher’s own experience, expectations, biases and values are detailed comprehensively. Furthermore the impact of the research process on the emotional and intellectual life of the researcher, is reflected upon and discussed openly (Ponterotto, 2000, p.132).
Methodological review of the paradigm: The interpretivist paradigm’s stance rests on the centrality of intense researcher-participant interaction and on the need to be absorbed over longer periods of time in the participants. It embraces naturalistic designs whereby the researcher is entrenched in the community participating in day-to-day life with his/her research participants.
Methods such as in-depth face to face interviews and participant observation are key within this paradigm (Ponterotto, 2005, p. 132).
Having provided the paradigmatic position of the study, I now move on to discussing the participants, sampling process and the case study methodology with a particular discussion on the “case for this case study.