CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN
4.2 Ontological and Epistemological approaches
The ontological approach of any study indicates the stance the researcher takes towards the nature of reality (Goertz & Mahoney, 2012:207). Creswell and Poth (2016:17) explain that when qualitative methodologies are used in research, the possibility of researching multiple realities is presented. Mason (2017:14) argues that most individuals see the nature of social reality as given or obvious and therefore it is fundamental to question and critically approach the ontological approach of the research. In addition, research participants also embrace diverse realities informing their actions and perceptions (Creswell & Poth, 2016:17-18). According to Scotland (2012:9), epistemology entails the nature of knowledge, more specifically, how knowledge is created, communicated and acquired. In a qualitative study, the researcher seeks to establish a close-knit relationship with the subject under investigation (Creswell & Poth, 2016:18). Mason (2017:16) refers to a study’s epistemology as a theory of knowledge concerned with the rules or principles guiding how a phenomenon can be known. Scotland (2012:9) continues by stating that scientific or philosophical paradigms all have their own epistemological and ontological bases that inform their application. Moreover, Mason (2017:16) emphasises the importance of distinguishing between the research approach from the nature of knowledge (epistemology) and the nature of reality (ontology). Hence, different studies adopt different paradigms with their own ontologies and epistemologies, which implies subscribing to different perceptions of reality and knowledge (Mason, 2017; Scotland, 2012).
The present study’s ontological approach was informed through social constructionism in order to understand, explore and reflect on the ways in which the participants made sense of their own worlds and day-to-day activities and behaviours on campus (Adler-Nissen, 2016:28). The epistemological approach was informed by poststructuralism, as this allowed for the critique of structures maintained and informed by hetero- and homonormative norms and values (Holmes &
Gagnon, 2018).
4.2.1 Social constructionism
Social constructionism served as the ontological approach to the research. Proponents of social constructionism explore how individuals construct, deconstruct and reconstruct meanings related to their experiences in their “real” worlds (Adler-Nissen, 2016; Charon & Cahill, 1979; Elder-Vass, 2012; Galbin, 2014). Social constructionism assists researchers in investigating the ways individuals engage with their agency to interact with and make sense of the world around them (Adler-Nissen, 2016:28). According to Dickerson and Zimmerman (1996:80), those persons who reflect the tenets of social constructionism seek to investigate the understanding and meanings that emerge and develop over time in specific communities and contexts through interaction.
Anderson and Goolishian (1992:28) support this by stating “[w]e live in and through the narrative identities that we develop in conversation with one another”. The subjective experiences of people are constantly foregrounded (Walker, 2015). Therefore, the “inquirer must elucidate the process of meaning-construction and clarify what and how meanings are embodied in the language and actions of social actors” (Schwandt, 1994:222).
Adler-Nissen (2016:28) and Snow (2001:367) also highlight three assumptions conceptualised by Blumer (1969) and emphasised by the proponents of social constructionism. Firstly, specific human behaviour cannot be understood and analysed separate from the context in which it exists.
This implies that life is intersubjective and human behaviour and our understandings of nature are not universal (Adler-Nissen, 2016; Galbin, 2014). Second, our perceptions, definitions and understanding of the world and reality are deeply situated within certain contexts and may differ among individuals, and therefore, the context should be understood before an understanding of social reality and the world can be understood (i.e., context-specificity is imperative) (Adler- Nissen, 2016; Boghossian, 2001). Third, both approaches hold that individuals are active agents in their reality and thus assume that individuals are self-reflexive, where “the self is always contingent and incomplete” (Adler-Nissen, 2016:28). These three assumptions give social scientists the opportunity to explore interactions on the micro-level, as they occur between individuals and “[locate] individually constructed meaning within co-constructed social experience” (cf. Burbank & Martins, 2010; Handberg et al., 2015:1025).
Galbin (2014:83) argues that social constructionism in this way challenges the “common sense”
of how we understand ourselves and the world around us in order to generate knowledge outside our existing frameworks, requiring that such frameworks be changed and adjusted to incorporate new knowledge. Adjusting a framework also brings about change in how the psychological and social aspects of our world and reality are understood (Galbin, 2014:83). Hammersley (2013:3) states that reality is defined by everyday subjective experiences and how individuals make sense of the world rather than objective truths related to the natural world. Consider, for example, how self-identified gay and lesbian students continuously negotiate their actions and interactions based on the specific contexts in which they find themselves. Constructionists emphasise that
“sexuality, and sexual identities, are social constructions, and belong to the world of culture and meaning, not biology” (Epstein, 1998:11). Supporting this, Speed (1991:395-396) argues that constructionists assert reality as the thoughts one derive from meanings in one’s head; therefore,
“our ideas determine what we know”. In this regard, Berger and Luckmann (1991:13) claim that reality is then socially constructed using such meanings which are agreed upon and shared by means of language, denying the assumption that the perception of reality directly informs the
construction of knowledge (Tshilongo, 2018). Reality, then, originates and is maintained through the actions and thoughts of individuals (Berger & Luckmann, 1991:33).
Proponents of social constructionism underline the importance of cultural specificity and context in the construction of knowledge and, ultimately, hetero- and homo-normalised binaries. In this regard, proponents seek to understand the world and its systems through their analyses of the thoughts and interactions of individuals. By doing this, they elucidate the multiplicity and variance associated with the constructed realities which critique the supposed centrality of fixed and essentialist views of reality. In case of this study, social constructionism served as the ontological base for the research by viewing the nature of reality as continuously constructed and re- constructed based on students’ experiences of and interactions with the NWU campus context.
Employing social constructionism, enabled me to use the meanings participants reported to socially construct and understand the interdependence of their sex, gender and sexual orientation from their unique perspectives and their reportred interactions with other gay, lesbian and heterosexual students on campus.
4.2.2 Poststructuralism
Social constructionism served as the ontological base for the research, and the poststructuralist approach of queer theory represented the epistemological base. Dillet (2017:517) refers to poststructuralism as a reflective epistemological approach that navigates meanings in a vast landscape of philosophies. Poststructuralism as an epistemological research approach developed near the end of the 20th century and associated with the schools of social and humanities studies (Fox, 2014:1855). Dillet (2017:518) argues that those with a poststructuralist approach move beyond the idea that actors can only “know” by positioning themselves externally and objectifying knowledge; instead, they opt to “subjectivise” knowledge to “know” knowledge. Dillet (2017:518) simplifies this by saying “to know reality is to participate in it”. Proponents of poststructuralism focus on how structures govern power relations (Fox, 2014). Schweizer et al. (2018:2) support this, stating that poststructuralism focusses on analysing knowledge, power relations, and language, with the emphasis on the idea that knowledge is always context-specific but never neutral and, as such, shapes the relations that govern individuals. It seeks to bring to light narratives of dominance and/or control to challenge and reject domination (Fox, 2014:158).
Holmes and Gagnon (2018:1) posit that poststructuralism – as a somewhat non-conformist approach – emphasises and critically considers power relations, the production of knowledge, concepts of truth, normalisation processes, discourse and how these ultimately impact identity construction and individual narratives, such as those associated with one’s sexuality (Fox, 2014).
Holmes and Gagnon (2018:2), echoed by Fox (2014:158), underscore the difficulty of defining
poststructuralism, as it finds its roots in a collection of various authors’ work and disciplines (see Derrida, 1998; Foucault, 1980). However, Fox (2014:156) argues that the fundamental principle related to poststructuralism is its recognition of individual and, as such, multiple realities or truths (i.e., multiple sexualities). Therefore, a poststructuralist approach is not based on absolute truths but rather diverse perspectives of a phenomenon (Holmes & Gagnon, 2018:2). Proponents of poststructuralism all have diverse and dissimilar understandings of difference but ultimately share the aspiration to critique and challenge the view of something as “normal” and question that which we take for granted (Holmes & Gagnon, 2018). Those claiming to pose “truth” use this as means to achieve a role of authority, standing and a means to exercise control over others (Fox, 2014:157). Fox (2014:157) provides the example of societies directed by religious principles;
these principles inform the ruling members on how to define secular laws regarding what is right and wrong and how to reprimand those who do not abide by these laws. Poststructuralism is accordingly critical about the way in which knowledge is produced through social structures and systems (Holmes & Gagnon, 2018). In this regard, Williams (2005) posits that poststructuralism allows proponents to rebelliously approach, question and engage with common sense, perceptions, concepts of true and false, right and wrong, and good or bad. This allows for the deconstruction of discourse around us for a better understanding of how it structures society and our interactions (Holmes & Gagnon, 2018; Williams, 2005). To disrupt and deconstruct such governing structures, poststructuralism seeks to bring to light differences in and fluidity of meaning and interpretation (Murphy & Rafferty, 2015:479).
Poststructuralism served as the epistemological base for the current study, as it allowed me to analyse how knowledge is produced from various subjective experiences noted by participants in order to form and understand systems of control that rank individuals hierarchically according to gendered and sexualised behaviours that are deemed desirable and accepted, akin to heteronormative and/or homonormative ideals. Such systems of control helped me formulate how some gay and lesbian students may interpret their social interactions as being more stifled and inhibiting, as opposed to liberating on their particular campus.
The following section focusses on conceptualising the qualitative methods that were applied in this study.