Hennink et al (2011:8) state that qualitative methodology cannot be easily defined as it is a broad term that covers a wide range of techniques and philosophies. Sarantakos (2005:36) also states that since qualitative methodology “contains elements from many different schools of thought” it is “diverse [and] pluralistic”. It is usually used when there is a need to explore, describe and explain social phenomena and issues (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2011). It is holistic as every component of the research is interrelated and the issue under investigation is studied in its entirety (Sarantakos, 2005; Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2011). The information gathered is informative and detailed and it offers „thick‟ descriptions of subjective social constructions of people (Sarantakos, 2005). In addition, its approach is inductive, meaning that it begins with obtaining specific data which is narrowed down to general categories during analysis to gain an understanding of the topic (Sarantakos, 2005; Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2011). It also stresses „openness‟ during the gathering data procedures. Questions that are directed to participants are open-ended “allowing for a multiplicity of findings to emerge”
(Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2011:9). It is also „open‟ in the sense that the researcher enters into the field with “no preconceived ideas or pre-structured models or patterns, there is no strict design, no hypotheses, no limits in its focus, scope or operation” (Sarantakos, 2005:45). Its openness leads to versatility and flexibility in the research. During the course of research if new information comes to hand that requires a change in methods or processes, qualitative
45 methodology allows for change and is thus valued for its flexibility in the research process (Sarantakos, 2005).
“Qualitative researchers also study people in their natural settings to identify how their experiences and behaviour are shaped by the context of their lives, such as the social, economic, cultural or physical context in which they live” (Hennink et al, 2011:9). It is thus said to be naturalistic as the research process is undertaken in a natural setting (Sarantakos, 2005). It is also context specific as participants lives are studied within the political, economic, social and cultural context in which they live that impacts them in a multitude of ways. It studies a small number of people as its aim is to attain an in-depth understanding of the phenomena under investigation and it is concerned with the “process or meanings individuals attribute to their given social situation” (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2011:45) rather than measuring or enumerating social happenings. Sarantakos (2005:45) also states that “it presents the information gathered verbally in a detailed and complete form, not in numbers or formulae”. The analysis of the data is presented in written form. Along with the above mentioned points this approach also values the emphatic approach or Verstehen approach (discussed further below) in engaging with participants; subjective meanings of participants;
reflexivity of the research process as well as seeing the researcher as an integral part of the research process. These attributes of interpretive qualitative methodology will be discussed below.
Mason (2002:1) indicates that qualitative methodology can be used to “explore a wide array of dimensions of the social world, including the texture and weave of everyday life, the understandings, experiences and imaginings of our research participants, the ways that social processes, institutions, discourses or relationships work and the significance of the meanings that they generate”. Qualitative methodology also allows one to discover issues from the perspective of the participant and understand the meanings that they allot to their behaviour.
(Hennink et al, 2011:9). Issues that are understood from the viewpoint of the participant with the aim of understanding the meanings they give to the social phenomena are seen as the empathetic approach or Verstehen. This concept was derived by Wilhelm Dilthey and was used extensively by Max Weber (Snape and Spencer, 2008; Sarantakos, 2005). Snape and Spencer (2008:7) indicate that Verstehen means learning about people‟s lived experiences which take place in a specific historical and social context. According to Hennink et al (2011:17) Verstehen refers to understanding people from their own perspective and context
46 and describing their social word using their own words and concepts. While Sarantokos (2005:40) indicates that Verstehen relates to people‟s views, opinions and perceptions which are experienced and expressed in everyday life. All definitions of Verstehen point to understanding the lived experience of people from their perspective within a specific context.
It is the meanings that they create by the words that they use to describe their social reality that is important.
Hennink et al (2011) also points out that a distinction should be made between
„understanding‟ and „Verstehen‟. According to Hennink et al (2011:18) “understanding refers to understanding issues from the researcher‟s own interpretive framework or the outsider‟s perspective; Vesterhen refers to understanding the issues from the interpretive framework of the study population, or from the „insiders‟ perspective”. This research aims to follow the Verstehen approach, however it must be noted that during the participant observation phase of the research (which is broadly discussed in the sections to come) the researcher is seen as the primary instrument for collecting and analysing data and thus the researchers understanding of the social interactions of the participants under study in a specific political, economic, social and cultural context is also given importance (Terre Blanche et al, 2006). In order to gain an appropriate interpretation of the issue under study I needed to be reflexive concerning relationships and interactions of the study population.
Reflexivity requires that the researcher be self-aware of the processers and actions taken in the research. Reflexivity means that “researchers take constant stock of their actions and their role in the research process and subject these to the same critical scrutiny as the rest of their data” (Mason cited in Liamputtong and Ezzy, 2005:43). The researcher needs to be aware that actions taken and the identity which is imputed on the researcher by the participant will affect the research process and will affect the outcome of the data collection process. Finlay and Gouch (2003:ix) states that reflexivity allows the researcher to “reflect on their subjectivity, on how their social background, assumptions, positioning and behaviour impact the research process and how the study participants react to the researcher and the research setting”. Pillow (2003:175) also states that reflexivity is important as it legitimises, validates and questions the research process. Thus researchers need to “use reflexivity continually throughout the research process” in order for the research to validate the research process (Hennink et al, 2011:20).
47 Hennick et al (2011:19) states that “it is during the coming together of the researcher and the study participant that each will react to the background, characteristics and positioning of the other and this will contribute to the co-construction of reality during the interview process”.
The interview is also seen as a place where identities are relationally constructed and the interview itself is socially constructed. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2006:146) indicates that there are two forms of reflexivity namely: personal reflexivity and interpersonal reflexivity.
Personal reflexivity refers to how researchers reflect on their own backgrounds and suppositions which may have an influence on the research process, while interpersonal reflexivity recognizes that the personal dynamics between researcher and participant as well as the interview setting can influence knowledge creation (Hennink et al, 2011:20). This research employs both personal and interpersonal reflexivity to understand how data was created through the data gathering process. Reflexivity was also used during all process of the research in order to ensure validity.
Since issues are understood from the perspective of the participant, qualitative research is said to study the subjective meaning of participants (Sarantakos, 2005; Terre Blanche et al, 2006; Hennink et al, 2011; Hesser-Biber and Leavy, 2011). Terre Blanche et al (2006: 277) indicate that “subjectivity is not considered the enemy of the truth, but the very thing that makes it possible for us to understand personal and social realities empathetically”.