Qualitative and quantitative approaches are grounded in different paradigms (Vishnevsky &
Beanlands (2004:234). Babbie (2007:32) defines paradigms as “models or frameworks for observation and understanding which shape both what we see and how we understand it”. In simple terms, paradigms are perspectives or ways of looking at reality (Hennick et al. 2002:11).
Polit, Beck, and Hungler (2001, cited by Vishnevsky & Beanlands, 2004:234) define paradigms as “belief systems about the nature of reality that direct all decisions about the approach to a research question and guides [sic] on how to conduct research”. In this research, the researcher was guided by the interpretive research paradigm. The definition of paradigms that are proposed by Denzil and Lincoln (2008b:31) is based on the definition of Hennick et al.
(2002:11). This definition contains the said researchers’ epistemology, ontology and methodology. The current study was framed within interpretive phenomenological research, where interpretive served as a paradigm and phenomenology served as a strategy of inquiry.
4.4.1 Interpretive paradigm
This study was framed within an interpretive paradigm (also known as descriptive-interpretive research or hermeneutics). According to Vishnevsky and Beanlands, (2004:234), qualitative research is “a way of knowing and learning about different experiences from the perspective of the individual”. Therefore, using an interpretive approach in a qualitative study means that the researcher seeks to understand social members’ definitions and understanding of situations;
“hence it is not concerned with the search for broadly applicable laws and rules, but rather
79
seeks to produce [a] descriptive analysis that emphasizes [a] deep, interpretive understanding of social phenomena (Henning et al., 2004). In simple terms, the focus of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the perceptions of IPID investigating officers on the topic under research. More specifically, the purpose was to understand the perceptions of IPID officials of police torture and assault and to see these phenomena from the viewpoint of their role as investigators within a unique context and background. According to Maree (2007:58), interpretivism has its roots in hermeneutics, which is the study of the theory and practices of interpretation that considers understanding to be a process of psychological reconstruction, where the reader reconstructs the original intention of the author.
Henning et al. (2004:21) contends that “ontologically, the interpretive paradigm denies the existence of an objective reality independent of the frame of reference of the observer. Rather, reality is mind dependent and influenced by the process or intentional reality, as it focuses on discovering the multiple perspectives of all players in a social setting”. The role-players associated with the problem of police torture and assault are mainly law enforcers, the public, IPID investigators, police officers and their superiors, prosecutors and the judiciary. However, the researcher focused on the perspectives of IPID investigators as professional role-players within the criminal justice system whose reality of police torture and assault is individually mind dependent.
The interpretive research approach enabled the researcher to probe the everyday working experiences of IPID investigating officers. To make sense of their experiences, the researcher interacted with these study participants in order to capture the essence of their reality of police torture and assault. In support of this process, Hennink et al. (2011:15) and Prasad (2005:14) emphasise that, by using an interpretive paradigm, the researcher recognises that reality is socially constructed as people’s experiences occur within social, cultural, historical and personal contexts. Therefore, even though as human beings “we are individually engaged in acts of making sense, we often do this from a wider social context and constructions and interpretations are usually shared and are inter-subjective” (Henning et al., 2004:22).
Therefore, by employing the interpretive paradigm, the researcher was positioned within the context and realities experienced by IPID investigating officers and was therefore able to elucidate meaningful interpretations of what they said during in-depth interviews.
The value of conducting qualitative research that is framed within an interpretive paradigm is, according to Garrick (1999:149, cited by Henning et al., 2004:21) that its fundamental
80
assumption is “that individuals are not considered to be passive vehicles in social, political and historical affairs, but that they have certain inner capabilities which permit them to make their own judgements, perceive and understand … experiences differently (maltifaceted realities), and make their decisions [accordingly]”. This means that by adopting an interpretative perspective the researcher was able to capture investigating officers’ judgements of and perceptions regarding police criminal behaviour (torture and assault), and that their experiences of investigating this problem could be evaluated. The nature and causes of police torture and assault, including the investigative challenges associated with these acts, were explainable with reference to multiple interacting factors and processes. Denzin (2010:271, cited in Guest et al., 2013:06) argues that in-depth understating requires “the use of multiple validities, not [just] a single validity, [and] a commitment to dialogue [which] is sought in any interpretative study”.
The interviews, which were interactional procedures through dialogue, allowed the elicitation of rich, descriptive data. These data were attained from the personal perspectives and roles of IPID investigators as they were influenced by their unique circumstances of investigating criminal offences by members of the SAPS, and therefore diverse rationalities were obtained.
Henning et al. (2004:22) argue that the “notion of the researcher being separate from the subject of the research is not compatible with [the] interpretive philosophy”. Hence, as the researcher was studying the perceptions and experiences of IPID investigators, she used the human mind achieve her goal. This process made it impossible for the researcher to completely separate herself from what was being investigated. Henning et al. (2004:22) argue that, if this is the case, the researcher is considered “as an ‘insider’ during the process if conducting the research”. Gray (2014:23) states that there are five examples of the interpretive approach, namely: symbolic interactionism, phenomenology, realism, hermeneutics and natural inquiry.
In this study, the researcher used a phenomenological inquiry.
4.4.1.1 Phenomenology as a strategy of enquiry
Operating at a more applied level are strategies or traditions of inquiry (Mertens, (1998, in Cresswell, 2003:13). These strategies of enquiry provide specific direction to procedures in a research design and contribute to the overall research approach. To this end, Heppner et al.
(2008: 269) state the following:
“The purpose of phenomenology is to produce an exhaustive description of the phenomena of everyday experience, thus arriving at an understanding of the essential
81
structures of the ‘thing itself’, the phenomenon…. The key subject matter studied by phenomenological researchers is the “lived world’ of human beings.”
The phenomenologist thus believes that people's lived experiences determine their subjective reality and that these experiences “ascribe significance to their understanding of specific events (Polit et al., 200, cited by Vishnevsky & Beanlands, 2004:236). The underlying philosophy of phenomenology is that humans are integrated with the environment; thus, “reality is a subjective experience unique to the individual” (Bums & Grove, 2003). Phenomenology is the study of subjective experiences in order to “understand the essence of experiences about a phenomenon, how people perceive or interpret the world in light of their own experiences, as well as how this affects patterns of human interaction” (Maree, 2007; Welman, 2005; Davies, 2007). The current study adhered strongly to these principles because its purpose was to capture the experiences, deeply held beliefs and worldviews as expressed by the language of the IPID investigators with specific reference to police torture and assault. According to Gray (2014:164), the aim of phenomenology is to understand the world from the participants’ point of view while, in the process, the researcher brackets out his/her own preconceptions.
The main source of the primary data that were obtained for this study was in-depth discussions between the researcher and the informants who participated in interviews. Purposeful sampling (Polit et al., 2001) was used as individuals were selected based on their knowledge of police brutality (torture and assault). The researcher choses a phenomenological inquiry because, according to Vishnevsky and Beanlands (2004:236), reports of phenomenological studies provide a "rich description of the meaning of a lived experience as the researcher identifies the essence of human experiences concerning a phenomenon, as described by participants in a study”. The researcher opted for the phenomenological strategy of inquiry because, in the view of Henning et al. (2004:38), the phenomenological researcher believes that the participants can give their experience best when asked to do so in their own words, in lengthy individual reflective interviews, and in observing the context in which some of this experience has been played out. This belief underlined all aspects of this research.
82