4.7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.7.3 Research Paradigm
The study followed the pragmatic paradigm. It was necessary to briefly state why the study chose the pragmatic paradigm against other paradigms such as the transformative, post- positivist, participative action research and constructivist perspectives.
4.7.3.1 Transformative research
Dietz and Rogers (2012: 22-23) viewed the transformative research (TR) paradigm as characterised by innovation, high risk, boldness, exploration, thinking out of the box and pioneering. Transformational research can be defined as ideas that have the potential to radically change the research status quo, in the process creating a new paradigm. The paradigm is based on ideas that challenge the current status quo, introduce large changes in the field of science and transform paradigms. It should be noted that this paradigm does not normally fit in project-focused and disciplined environments and is generally understood not to have a set formula.
The TR paradigm was found to be in contradiction with the objectives of the study. The study was guided by the Republic of South Africa (2007a: 4) frame of thinking, that argued for the M&E tools to be embedded within the existing management internal systems, such as the planning, budgeting or reporting systems. The research aimed to table findings that were enhance, supplement, maintain and add to the body of the existing knowledge in the implementation of the existing M&E policies which can be understood as the current status quo. The research does not intend to radically change the status quo; instead it aims to add to the existing body of knowledge.
93 4.7.3.2. Participative action research
Ozanne and Saatcioglu (2008: 423-425) presented Participative Action Research (PAR) as driven by the end-goal in mind, of empowering underprivileged constituencies. The PAR understands local constraints and opportunity, and is sensitive to the needs and desires of its constituencies. Participative Action Research originates with the people’s problems in mind and directed by the notion that people have the solution or solutions to their problems. The research was concerned with not only the present social theories in the local context but aims to empower and change society as whole. The research agreed with the notion presented by PAR of social change but did not choose this paradigm as it was characterised by the principle of empowering underprivileged constituencies. The debate angle of the PAR paradigm was in contrast with the research as it aimed to present its findings to the PHRDF made out of HRD managers, which cannot be categorised as an underprivileged constituency.
4.7.3.3 Constructivist approach
The constructivist approach is occupied with establishing casual, contextual and constitutive effects. Constructivists scholars view the social world as made up of inter-subjective understandings, material object and subjective knowledge. This research approach is composed of broad spectrum of researchers that involves being linguistic, radical and critical, as well as sub-approaches from modernists, (Lupovici (2009: 195-197). The School of Government (2015: 16) found relations between the constructivist and interpreteivist paradigms. The latter paradigm refers to interpreting and observation in understanding the social world. This approach lacks systematic interpretative methods and application of such an approach and can limit the research. The study was not be guided by the constructivist approach as the study is aligned to GWM&ES.
4.7.3.4 Qualitative approach and quantitative approaches
According to Krauss (2005: 759-761), the epistemology and ontology of qualitative research is premised on the understanding that the best way to study a phenomenon is in its natural state.
The qualitative approach views quantitative approach as limiting as it is focused on one portion of reality instead of the whole phenomenon. Qualitative researchers do not believe in a single or unitary reality. Further, the qualitative researchers are often linked to the constructivist paradigm presented earlier by the study, and may be opposed to aggregating as it normally occurs in the quantitative researcher’s religiosity. The constructivist qualitative researcher’s religiosity is based on the understanding that each individual is unique. Qualitative approach
94
argues that research is essentially biased since the researcher has his or her own perceptions while conducting research.
Maree et al (2016: 162) viewed qualitative research as based on linguistic words while quantitative research bases its existence on the systematic and objective methods of utilising numerical data from a certain population in order to generalise findings of the studied phenomenon. Quantitative approach uses a process of analysis, which is based on complex and structured methods in confirming or disproving the hypothesis. Further, the quantitative approach is aimed at understanding the research from the outsider’s perspective, and holds the stability of the research process in high regard, as opposed to qualitative research, where a study can be dynamic and changeable depending on the nature of reality, (Welman et al (2012:
8-9).
4.7.3.5 Pragmatic and mixed methods approach
The debate between qualitative and quantitative purists highlighted in the previous quantitative and qualitative discussion has occurred for more than a century. These discussions persuaded the research to choose the mixed methods technique with the aim of extracting the benefits from both the quantitative and qualitative methods to complement the study. A pragmatic approach refers to the mixing of research approaches fruitfully. The study looks for the best opportunities of using different and suitable approaches, for the best opportunity to answer the research question. The pragmatic approach is based on the pluralistic and/or compatibilist approach. The mixed method approach originates from the pragmatism approach. Mixed methods refer to the researcher choosing what method or methods, or techniques would answer the research question best, (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004: 15-17). The Republic of South Africa (2011e: 15) stated that qualitative and quantitative methods have advantages and disadvantages, thus a mixed method approach to collect, collate and analyse data allows for the study to utilise positive aspects of both methods in order to increase the validity and accuracy of research. The study chose the pragmatism approach as it allows for triangulation. The research finds synergies between the pragmatic approach, mixed methods approach and the triangulation research technique. The concept of triangulation has been discussed earlier in the study.
95