RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.2 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH PARADIGM
3.2.2 Rationale for the use of Constructivism
Referred to as “created realities” Guba and Lincoln (1994) explain that every individual is influenced by conditions such as history, cultural context and values which, in turn, shape and influence the individual’s view of the world. Constructivism is a research paradigm that denies the existence of an objective reality, asserting that realities are social constructions of the mind (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994; Guba and Lincoln, 1989). The premise of constructivism, or social constructivism as it is sometimes referred to, is that multiple realities of the phenomenon exist.
As the name suggests, constructivism assumes that meaning is not discovered, but is constructed (Crotty, 1998). This paradigm also assumes that individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live (Crotty, 1998). Moreover, the assumption is to make sense of people’s multiple realities through sustained and complex social interaction (Appleton and King, 2002; Crotty, 1998; Lincoln, 1995; Guba and Lincoln, 1994). The aim within research inquiry is to make complex meaning of the participants’ viewpoints and experiences, which are negotiated socially and formed through interactions with others, thus the label of ‘social’ constructivism (Creswell, 2002). It is, therefore, within this premise that the aim of social constructivist research is to
46 explore the ‘processes’ of interaction among individuals. Thus, the paradigmatic assumptions of constructivism were explored in relation to this study in the following manner:
Ontologically: Constructivism is underpinned by relativism, which acknowledges that there are multiple realities, which are socially and experientially based. Relativists claim that concepts such as rationality, truth and reality must be understood “as relative to a specific conceptual scheme, theoretical framework, paradigm, form of life, society, or culture, meaning that there is a plurality of such conceptual schemes” (Crotty, 1998). In other words, the world consists of multiple individual realities influenced by context and that the nature of reality is underpinned within the local context of language, symbol and culture. The aim of inquiry is, therefore, to understand and reconstruct the meanings of the participants’ experiences while being mindful of the local context of those experiences (Crotty, 1998; Guba and Lincoln, 1994).
In the context of this study, the researcher assumes that the nature of establishing CoPs among HIV/Aids nurse practitioners would have multiple realities. These realities can be unique in terms of the participants’ experiences in terms of the setting of being in an urban or rural setting with unique experiences shaping the reality from each one. Furthermore the realities of each participant will be unique in terms of the experience of engaging in a CoP and in terms of the cognitive learning of critical reflection.
Epistemologically: Constructivism is premised on the subjectivist and transactional relationship between the researcher and the participant, and asserts that in the process of research inquiry and construction of meaning to the researched phenomenon, there is an interactive process, thus meaning is co-created (Creswell, 2002; Crotty, 1998; Guba and Lincoln, 1994).
47 It is noted within the discussion of epistemology and constructivism that researchers, in their
“humanness”, are part of the research endeavor, rather than objective observers, and their values must be acknowledged by themselves and by their readers as an inevitable part of the outcome (King and Appleton, 1997). In the context of this study, the researcher acknowledges that the interactive relationship between the researcher and participants in terms of the establishment of the CoPs and the process of capacity development in critical reflective practice among the HIV nurse practitioners will assist in the constructed meaning that will be created regarding this phenomenon.
Methodologically: Grounded theory methodology, which is premised on a Symbolic Interactionsim theoretical perspective, will be employed within this study. Crotty (1998) suggests that in establishing the philosophical assumptions, specifically the methodology assumption, researchers should be mindful of the theoretical perspective underpinning the chosen philosophical assumption. Common theoretical perspectives housed within interpretivism, include Symbolic Interactionism-Grounded Theory, Hermeneutics-Phenomenology, Critical Inquiry and Feminism, to name a few (Creswell, 2002; Crotty, 1998).
Wilson (1995) explains that the nature of qualitative research is to capture the essence of human lives, meaning to capture what other people’s lives are about without inferring any preconceived categories into which the information will fit into. Explaining further Wilson (1995) mentions anthropologists such as Margaret Mead, Robert Hubert Mead and Herbert Blumer described the social nature of qualitative research within several tenants of social philosophy. One of these tenants is called Symbolic Interactionism and provides a perspective on society and people.
According to Wilson (1995), Symbolic Interactionism emphasizes the need to conduct research
48 in natural settings, focusing primarily on the way people define their reality and construct meaning and actions thereof over time. The author further explains that there are three premises underpinning the symbolic-interactionist philosophy, these include:
1. Human beings act towards things on the premise of the meaning these things have for them.
2. The meaning of things in life is developed from the interactions a person has with others.
3. People handle and modify meaning through an interpretive process.
Relating these theoretical underpinning of Symbolic Interactionism (SI) to the study phenomenon, the researcher’s philosophical assumptions of the phenomenon were aligned to SI in the following manner:
1. Learning is emically and etically constructed: In keeping with Mead’s interpretation of SI, the researcher believed that the process of learning and engaging with critical reflection will have different meanings for each research participant.
2. Learning is a social process: The researcher acknowledges that learning is social in nature, that the togetherness of like-minded people coming together will foster learning and a construction of meaning to the shared experience.
3. Dynamic nature of meaning construction: The researcher acknowledges that the process of emergent CoP will be dynamic and evolve in relation to the participants’ experiences within the CoP and the meaning they attach at varying points in terms of engagement and skill development in critical reflective practice.
49