1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.6.2 Research paradigm/worldview
The selection of an appropriate research methodology commences with choosing a research paradigm that informs the study and is guided by philosophical beliefs about the nature of reality (ontology), knowledge (epistemology) and values (axiology) that enlighten the comprehension, interpretation and research practices of the study (Chilisa & Kawulich, 2012:3).
Kuhn (1962) coined the term ‘paradigm’, referring to it as a philosophical way of thinking. Creswell (2014:35), on the other hand, prefers the term ‘worldview’, which he defines as “a general philosophical orientation regarding the world and the nature of research that a researcher brings to a study”. Therefore, worldview is synonymous with paradigm (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019:1).
Therefore, paradigms or worldviews are vital, as they direct what should be studied, how it should be studied and how the findings of the study should be interpreted (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017:26).
The major research paradigms are positivism/post-positivism, constructivism, the transformative paradigm and pragmatism (Creswell, 2014:36; Masenya, 2018:42; Mertens, 2015:8).
The positivist paradigm is based on the philosophical notions of August Comte and is founded on the premise that the world is real and those realities can be studied (Antwi & Hamza, 2015:218;
Bhattacherjee, 2012:18; Walliman, 2010:21). Comte believed that observation and reason represent an optimal way to comprehend human behaviour, and that true knowledge is based on the experience of sense and can be acquired by observation and experiment (Antwi & Hamza, 2015:218). With that accounted for, positivists tend to rely solely on theories that can be directly tested (Bhattacherjee, 2012:18). However, there was criticism of the empirical nature of positivism, with concerns that it could not be entirely applied to humans and that the social world could not be studied similarly as the natural world, that the world is not value-free and that it is unfeasible to provide explanations of a causal nature (Antwi & Hamza, 2015:218; Bhattacherjee, 2012:18). Post-positivism arose as a result of these critiques.
Post-positivists recognise that reality is imperfect and the truth is not definitive, but likely to be true (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017:32). It permits observations without using experiments or the formulation of hypotheses to be tested, thereby holding a deterministic philosophy where causes probably determine effects or outcomes. Quantitative research is associated with post-positivism (Creswell, 2014:36).
Constructivism, also known as social or real constructivism (often combined with interpretivism), is a philosophy based primarily on the work of Vygotsky (Liu & Matthews, 2005:338). The constructivist paradigm emerged from hermeneutics, which studies interpretive understanding or meaning (Mertens, 2015:16). The researcher intends to interpret the meanings people have about the world; rather than beginning with a theory, as in post-positivism, the researcher develops a theory or pattern of meaning inductively (Creswell, 2014:37).
13
The constructivist paradigm is based on the fundamental assumption that knowledge is socially constructed (Schwandt, 2000:197). Individuals are thought to seek understanding of the world in which they live and work. Constructivism suggests that individuals do not find or discover knowledge, but construct or create it (Schwandt, 2000:197). In that, they create subjective meanings of experiences – meanings directed to particular objects or things – and their perceptions of reality may change throughout the course of the study (Creswell, 2014:37;
Mertens, 2015:18). Constructivists reject the notion of an objective reality that can be known, and therefore, the researcher aims to understand the multiple social constructions of meaning and knowledge (Mertens, 2015:18). Because of this, researchers should attempt to understand the complex world of life experiences from the viewpoint of individuals who live it (Schwandt, 2000:197). Typically, these experiences are gathered through qualitative methods. Researchers rely on research participants’ views to develop the subjective meaning of the research under investigation (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019:2).
The third worldview is the transformative paradigm that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s from researchers who critiqued post-positivists for imposing structural laws and theories that did not cater for marginalised individuals in society or issues of power and social justice discrimination and oppression (Creswell, 2014:38). Therefore, a transformative framework seeks to advance the needs of the underrepresented or marginalised populations (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011:96).
Transformative research is action-oriented, with researchers consciously and explicitly positioning themselves to advocate for the less powerful in a collaborative effort to address everyday social issues, such as those of empowerment, inequality, oppression, domination, suppression and alienation (Creswell, 2014:38; Mertens, 2015:21). This is done to effect social transformation in society (Mertens, 2015:21). Critical theorists, participatory action researchers, Marxists, feminists, racial and ethnic minorities and people living with disabilities are among the group of researchers involved in transformative research (Mertens, 2015:21).
In transformative research, participants are provided with a platform to assist in designing research questions, collecting and analysing data, and benefiting from the rewards of the study.
The research offers a voice for participants, raising their consciousness or advancing an agenda to improve their lives (Creswell, 2014:38). The transformative paradigm recognises multiple versions of what is perceived to be real, similarly to constructivism. The paradigm emphasises the ontological belief that what appears real could be ratified structures that are assumed to be real due to historical circumstances (Mertens, 2015:32). As a result, the idea of what is considered real should be studied in light of its ideological role in perpetuating oppressive social structures and policies (Mertens, 2015:32). Transformative researchers are pluralistic, depending on the type of research being conducted. Transformative empiricists typically employ quantitative methods, with an emphasis on avoiding sexist, racist or biased findings. The majority use
14
qualitative research, while others use mixed methods (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011:98; Mertens, 2015:33). The inclusion of diverse voices from the marginalised is a recurring theme in the methodology of transformative researchers (Mertens, 2015:33).
Pragmatism emerges from actions, situations and consequences instead of antecedent conditions, as post-positivism suggests (Creswell, 2014:10). The paradigm rejects the idea of a mono-paradigmatic orientation and argues that it is neither possible to acquire the truth about the real world solely by virtue of a single scientific method, as advocated by the positivist paradigm, nor is it possible to determine social reality as constructed under the interpretivism paradigm (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017:35).
Pragmatism is not committed to a single system of philosophy and reality. Pragmatists do not perceive the world as an absolute unity (Creswell, 2014:11). However, the pragmatic approach recognises the importance of epistemology and the centrality of one’s worldviews for research and focuses on elements that will make a difference and connect abstract issues on the epistemological and the methodological level (Morgan, 2007). Pragmatists advocate for practical research and employ pluralistic approaches, enabling the blending of multiple research methods to explain participants’ behaviour, their beliefs regarding those behaviours and consequences that are likely to result from different behaviours (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017:35). Emphasis is therefore placed on the research problem and the usage of manifold (mixed-methods) approaches to understanding the problem, instead of subscribing to a single method of collecting and analysing data (Creswell, 2014:11).
In studying the connections between theory and data, pragmatism uses abductive reasoning, drawing distinctions between induction and deduction – first converting observations into theories and then assessing those theories through action (Morgan, 2007:71). As deduction proves that something must be, induction demonstrates that something is operative, while abduction suggests that something might be (Fischer, 2001:7). Essentially, abduction is a form of inference that starts from observed consequences and tries to establish its relevant explanation (Jiang, 2001:14).
This study was conducted within a pragmatic research paradigm. In light of the above, the research was conducted from the standpoint of a relational epistemology position, i.e. the premise that relationships in research are best established by what the researcher considers appropriate to the study, a non-singular reality ontology (the assumption that there is no single reality and that each individual has their own and unique interpretations of reality), a mixed-methods research design (integrating quantitative and qualitative research methods) and value-laden axiology (conducting research that benefits people) (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017:35). The benefit will be in assisting mining organisations and the industry to determine factors that influence the attraction,
15
engagement and retention of women in technical mining positions and identify measures that could be implemented for their successful participation in the mining industry in South Africa.