People see the world in different ways. A paradigm constitutes a way of looking at the world and interpreting what is observed (Bertram & Christiansen, 2014; Creswell, 2012). There are different educational paradigms: positivism/post-positivism, interpretivism and the critical paradigm (Bertram & Christiansen, 2014; Jwan & Ong’ondo, 2011). Moreover, Scotland (2012) as well as Keçea (2015) assert that a research paradigm is made up of the following
62
components: ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods. This suggests that it is important for researchers to indicate the paradigm their studies adopt to ensure that the readers understand the process the research takes. Ritchie and Spencer (2002) as well as Bertram and Christiansen (2014) believe that working within a certain paradigm determines what kind of questions are supposed to be asked. For example, in post-positivisim questions are too structured since it is usually in the quantitative field of research (e.g. one-word answers), whereas in the critical and interpretive paradigms responses may be open-ended since they are in the qualitative field of research. Moreover, Creswell and Creswell (2017) as well as Bertram and Christiansen (2014) concur that paradigms also determine how data should be generated;
for example, the interpretive and critical paradigm usually use different methods of data generation that allow for in-depth answers. Futhermore, a paradigm is indicated by the way data are interpreted; for instance, in interpretive and critical paradigms inductive reasoning is mostly used to analyse, although theories are also used (Bertram & Christiansen, 2014; Denzin
& Lincoln, 2002).
This study falls within the interpretive paradigm, described as one that aims to understand the social world (Bertram & Christiansen, 2014; Creswell & Creswell, 2017). In the interpretive paradigm multiple interpretations are accepted as equal and valid, allowing subjective interpretations of questions asked. Interpretive research also seeks to understand values, beliefs and meanings of social phenomena and thereby extracts an empathetic understanding of human social activities and experiences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Hussain, 2015). This suggests that interpretivists do not expect the same responses from the participants, but rather allow different perceptions. Futhermore, interpretivists are concerned with understanding the values, beliefs and perceptions of individual participants (Maree & van der Westhuizen, 2009; Marshall &
Rossman, 2014). My study aimed to understand the strategies used by individual lecturers to decolonise their English curriculum. This suggests that in this paradigm data are generated through social constructivism and interaction between the researcher and the participants.
Taylor and Medina (2013) as well as Silverman (2013) believe that this paradigm permits researchers to build rich local understandings of the life-world experiences of lecturers and students and of the cultures of classrooms, schools and the communities they serve. Moreover, the ‘genuineness’ criteria of the interpretive paradigm focus on the principles of the relationship established by the researcher with their participants, and include: fairness: are the readers represented fairly?, educative: did the participants benefit by learning about their social world?, catalytic: did the participants benefit by identifying problems associated with their social
63
world?, and tactical: did the research empower the participants to improve their social situation? (Rule & John, 2011; Taylor & Medina, 2013).
Researchers need to take a position regarding their perceptions of how things really are and how things really work (Cohen et al., 2011; Cronje, 2013). Blewett (2015) as well as Scotland (2012) indicate that ontology is concerned with what constitutes reality. This suggests that researchers need to take a stand based on what they believe and how they view and perceive things. Different paradigms naturally contain different ontological views; thus, they each have different assumptions of reality which support their particular research approach (Creswell &
Creswell, 2017; Scotland, 2012). Futhermore, Guba and Lincoln (1994) as well as Marshall and Rossman (2014) believe that the ontological position of interpretivism is relativism. This suggests that reality is subjective to each and every individual; in this case, what makes reality for one English lecturer may differ from what another English lecturer views as reality.
Moreover, Scotland (2012) as well as Cohen et al. (2011) believe that reality is individually constructed, which means that realities are as many as there are individuals. This suggests that what we perceive to be reality may differ from one person to another – and no one would be wrong as long as each can give reasons for their interpretation.
In this study one participant believed that reality is that in order to decolonise the curriculum, lecturers need to ensure that they work with students through face-to-face contact, for example, encouraging groupwork among students in classes in order for them to share their values and beliefs between different cultures. On the other hand, another participant believed that in order to decolonise the curriculum lecturers should be the ones to impose the importance of valuing our African beliefs, by using examples and emphasising the beauty of African society with its different cultures and beliefs. This means that people will always view things differently, which is the beauty of subjectivity and the interpretive paradigm. Futhermore, this relates to the habitual strategy of decolonising the curriculum because individuals use different ways to fulfil one aim which is curriculum decolonisation. Epistemology can also indicate the paradigm used in a certain study, and is discussed below.
Cohen-, Manion, and Morrison (2002) as well as Rule and John (2011) assert that epistemology is the theory of knowledge with regard to its methods and the distinction between justified belief and opinion. Futhermore, the social world can only be understood from the position of individuals who are participating in it (Cohen et al., 2011; Kozleski, 2017). Both Ritchie and Spencer (2002) as well as Rubin and Rubin (2011) believe that the interpretive paradigm
64
concentrates on understanding a phenomenon from an individual’s perspective while exploring interactions among individuals as well as the historical and cultural contexts which people live in. This suggests that epistemology is concerned with how individuals construct, acquire and communicate knowledge. The above discussion suggests that knowledge is individually constructed; perceptions and experiences of individuals cannot be the same. Ensuring epistemology in this study was opening the discussion between the participant (English lecturer) and myself to unpack responses on lecturers’ strategies that they use when teaching.
For instance, through social constructivism between the participants and myself I was able to discover that some lecturers believe that when teaching international literature in their lectures they bring in the African context for practicality. In this way context and practicality were created as themes in decolonising the English curriculum.
Like any other research paradigm the interpretive paradigm has its limitations. Scotland (2012) and Richards (2003) assert that reaching a consensus is problematic in the interpretive paradigm; if reality is subjective and differs from person to person, then research participants cannot be expected to arrive at the same interpretations as some researchers might expect. This suggests that subjective responses may be disadvantageous when seeking to make a final decision on the data generated. Moreover, in most cases knowledge produced by the interpretive paradigm has limited transferability as other contexts may not produce the same results (Rice, 2000; Scotland, 2012). In addition, both Hussain (2015) as well as Rubin and Rubin (2011) assert that since the interpretive research is based on a subjective viewpoint, it is usually hard to generalise the findings, which can be problematic since policy-makers seek general observations in the field if any change must occur in the curriculum. Futhermore, researchers may have to be very careful about their contextualisation, that is not to reveal certain information so as to protect participants’ identities (Miskon, Bandara, & Fielt, 2015;
Silverman, 2013). In addition to the above, although interpretivists allow participants to raise their voices, the researcher is the one who has the final decision about the direction that the research takes. Moreover, the final interpretation of the data is made by the researcher himself.
For instance, the researcher decides on the best route to interpret their data and how they view participants’ responses. Also, while the researcher may have plenty of data, only certain information may be chosen to be made public (Marshall & Rossman, 2014; Miskon et al., 2015;
Scotland, 2012).
In adressing the above limitations to the interpetive paradigm, I as a researcher do not see subjectivity as a weakness since it reveals what individuals think about a particular issue.
65
Therefore, as a researcher my interest was not in participants’ consensus but rather in their individual strategies employed during teaching. This assisted me as a researcher in understanding different strategies which individual lecturers use in ther teaching. Moreover, to ensure trustworthiness in this study I used triangulation (different data generation methods), because this study cannot be generalisable or transferable. Moreover, I made sure that I didn’t reveal participants’ identities in order to protect them and to ensure anonymity and ethical behaviour. I display their responses in the data presentation section using numbers to code each participant, and I supported how I came to conclusions using confirmibility from the participants themselves.
This paradigm was suitable for this study as it allowed me to explore different strategies that individual lecturers used to decolonise the English curriculum at a South African university though social interaction with English lecturers. Moreover, this paradigm allowed me to get in- depth responses from the participants on the issue of their personal and social strategies to decolonise the English curriculum. Interpretivism yielded insight and understanding of behaviour and explained actions from the participants’ perspective, without the researcher dominating the participants. This was the right paradigm because the researcher was able to discover the strategies used and how they are formulated. Research style reflects beliefs regarding the most significant way of getting knowledge related to research, and is further discussed below (Bertram & Christiansen, 2014; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Research style simplifies the research paradigm.