A paradigm is the set of beliefs that constitutes the researcher’s perceptions regarding the nature of the reality of the world and what there is to know. The paradigm involves the researcher’s ontology and epistemology that also inform the methodology to be used in the study. The ontological assumptions, according to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2009), are based on the nature of the social realities under study, that is, the researcher’s theory of existence. In terms of my understanding that social realities are context bound, the participants were asked these questions: what do you understand about the concept of democracy? What do you understand about citizenship? My epistemological perspective was concerned with knowledge in its natural form, how that knowledge is produced and the relationship between human nature and the environment (Cohen et al., 2009). The above assumptions determined the methodology that was used in the study, informed by the appropriate paradigm. Three common paradigms in educational research are discussed:
positivism/post-positivism, critical and interpretive paradigms. This section ends by positioning the study within the combination of critical and interpretive paradigms, as the most appropriate ones, and provides the reasons for this selection.
94 4.2.1 Positivism/Post-Positivism Paradigm
The positivist paradigm is based on scientific means of knowing the truth. Chilisa and Preece (2005) opine that this approach aims to establish the truth by applying scientifically
objective methods. Similarly, Cohen et al. (2009) explain that, in this paradigm, the social reality or the world is interpreted as objective and the world is seen as existing as it really is – there is only one truth. Furthermore, Cohen et al. (2009) offer an example that the role of social science is to discover the laws of society and those of the human relationships within that society. In this paradigm emphasis is placed on the use of conditionalities and
controlling measures, in the form of experimental designs where numbers and control groups are mostly engaged. Generalization from the specific is common, using moderate to large selected samples. In this endeavour the researcher acts as an outsider, as an external agent who is goal-oriented, whose concern is to seek causes or explain behaviour (Cohen et al., 2009).
Chilisa and Preece (2005) illustrate that for positivists, the existence of something must be in the form of quantities that can be measurable. On the same note, reality must be viewed in a material form that can be studied, using scientific means of inquiry. It is clear therefore, that positivists advocate mainly the use of quantitative research approaches for the
gathering of knowledge.
The positivist paradigm has been critiqued on the basis that it defines life in measurable terms rather than from the inner experiences of those who are involved. The paradigm also excludes the notions of choice and freedom, individuality and moral responsibility of people (Cohen et al., 2009). How can people be controlled and conditioned as if they are acted upon as non-human? The positivist approach lacks the sense of humanism, as it is
concerned with the end result that is interpreted through the use of numbers. A discussion of the critical paradigm follows.
4.2.2 Critical Paradigm
The critical paradigm entails a view of what behaviour should be in a social democracy.
According to Cohen et al. (2009), this paradigm is framed around the assumption that society should be based on equality and democracy for its members and it strives to change situations rather than to simply understand them. It focuses on freeing the disempowered,
95 to redress inequalities and to promote individual freedoms within a democratic society, meaning that, it has the intention to transform the society and its individuals into a democracy (Cohen et al., 2009).
This paradigm has, however, been criticised for not really being able to emancipate society, even when empirical research has been conducted (Cohen et al., 2009). Since this study did not aim to contribute to the emancipation of Basotho society through the research process, the interpretive paradigm was also chosen as the other suitable used paradigm and is discussed in more detail below.
4.2.3 Interpretive Paradigm
The interpretive paradigm interprets social reality differently from the positivist and critical paradigms. In the interpretive paradigm, people view their world differently. Similar to critical paradigm, this paradigm recognises that truth is subjective because the researcher is part of the world under review and its organisations and institutions are viewed as a
constructed social reality (Cohen et al., 2009). That is, reality is constructed by people who live in their different social worlds. The role of social science is to discover how different people interpret the world in which they live, whether they act singly or in groups. The Interpretive paradigm uses methods of understanding by interpreting the subjective meanings which individuals place upon their actions. It is usually conducted in small scale research (see the research design section below) and does not use numerical data as the positivists do.
Chilisa and Preece (2005) explain that the interpretive paradigm is used for the purpose of understanding people’s experiences in their natural setting, that is, where participants in research live in different contexts. Thus, this paradigm believes that reality is socially constructed by different people: their personal way of making sense of the world around them. Knowledge is therefore dependent on the human experience and guided by the culture, history, and context in which people live (Chilisa & Preece, 2005). The
understandings of democracy and citizenship in this study were explored in terms of how Basotho make sense of these concepts in the context of their lives and the history of their country.
96 The interpretive paradigm has received critiques: for example, the suggestion that it
abandons scientific procedures for verification and has given up hope of generalizing about human behaviour; research in this paradigm is said to be less accurate in less controlled structures that are flexible, and therefore, results may be incomplete and misleading (Cohen et al., 2009). However, the interpretive along with critical paradigm, are considered to be the most relevant paradigms for this study, because of their focus on the subjective beliefs of the participants which need to be understood in relation to the local context. I initially took an interpretive paradigm perspective because my intention was not to transform society (a position that is more associated with the critical paradigm). However, during the process of data collection it became apparent to me that a more critical perspective was needed in terms of analysing the data.
This study therefore is now positioned within the interpretive and critical paradigms and has used qualitative methods. Both critical and interpretive paradigms are employed because they are concerned with understanding a whole phenomenon through the perspectives of those who actually live it and make sense of it - those who construct its meaning and interpret it personally (MacMillan & Schumacher, 2006; Patton, 2002). But a critical perspective is taken in relation to an analytical effort to critique inequalities and abuse of power in order to promote individual freedoms within a democratic society. Nevertheless, the goal of this study was primarily an investigation into the way citizens, leaders and educators in the context of Lesotho understand the terms democracy and citizenship and is primarily interpretative.
In its endeavour, the interpretive paradigm contributes to the generation of a theory rather than testing hypotheses in order to correct or confirm a specific theory. On this basis, I have developed conceptual frameworks which are derived from different theories evaluated in the literature regarding the concepts of democracy, citizenship and civic education and these are presented in Chapters Two and Three.
The interpretive paradigm concerns itself with the individual and his or her understanding of the world and according to Cohen et al. (2009, p. 21) it shows that, “efforts are made to get inside the person and to understand from within.” The actions, ideas, thoughts, and feelings produced through everyday contact of people, that end up as shared experiences in
97 understanding the terms democracy and citizenship, are the subject of this study (discussed in Chapters Five and Six). The next section discusses the design and the methodology that are used in the study.