Chapter 10: Development of multi-disciplinary model for OVC
7.2 RESEARCH PARADIGMS
Research methodology resides in paradigms that, according to Chilisa and Kawulich (2012) are a way of looking at and understanding the world. De Vos, Schultze, and Patel (2021) postulate all scientific research is conducted within a specific paradigm. In their
view, it is important for the researchers to decide within which paradigm they will be working with. The importance of the research paradigm is to provide a step by step guide about how the research proceeded and how the researcher managed to answer the research question or attained the research objectives (Babbie, 2016; Niewenhuis & Smit, 2012).
Scientific inquiry is aligned to broad paradigms, which are positivism and interpretivism.
Kivunja and Kuyini (2017) view it as a particular way of thinking that is shared by a community of scientists in solving problems in their field. Ellington (2019) expands on the subject and states that paradigm represents the commitments, beliefs, values, methods, outlooks and so forth, across a discipline. Chilisa and Kawulich (2012) summed it up as a way of describing a world view that was informed by philosophical assumptions about the nature of social reality, which is what one believes about the nature of reality. For this study’s purpose, the researcher selected the interpretive paradigm.
7.2.1 Interpretive paradigm
The interpretive paradigm holds the belief that it is important to look at the unit of investigation as individuals with feelings, thoughts and will (Chilisa et al., 2017).
Therefore, the purpose of investigation in this study was seeking to understand the world of human experience (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2017). Ontologically, it held the subjective epistemology that accepts multiple meanings about phenomena (Sefotho, 2016). Therefore, in its position, reality is not objectively determined but socially constructed (Sefotho, 2016). To understand the individuals being researched, the researcher must be in their social contexts. This is usually done by means of observing and interviewing the individuals in their natural environment; and thus, the researcher and the object being researched cannot be separated.
In order to understand individual behaviour, one must first understand their belief and value systems that influence their particular behaviour (Neumann, 2014). The Bronfenbrenner ecosystem perspective postulated that individuals and their natural contexts cannot be separated (Ettekal & Mahoney, 2017).
In the ontology of the interpretive paradigm, social reality is influenced by multiple perspectives (Cohen et al., 2017). This implies that people experience and interpret occurrences in their lives differently and in order to “understand how people construct meaning with multiplicity, one has to enter their world and observe it from the inside through direct experiences of people” (Maree, 2016). In Maree’s argument, there are assumptions that anchor the interpretive paradigm as outlined below:
Reality is not objectively determined by a social construct.
Human life can only be understood and observed from an external reality.
The human mind is the purpose source of meaning.
Human behaviour is affected by knowledge and the social world.
The social world does not exist independently of human knowledge.
7.2.1.1 Epistemological issues related to the study
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge (Chilisa & Kawulich, 2012). Epistemologists study the nature, origin and the scope of knowledge, the epistemic justification, the rationality of the objectives, and various related issues. Ellington (2019) contends that epistemology is the study of the debates about ways in which people know things and have knowledge. He further classifies two categories of epistemology, which are empiricists and rationalists. In the empiricists’ argument, all knowledge arises through a sense of perception, while rationalists believe knowledge arises through reason alone (Grover, 2017).
Epistemology looks at how one knows reality, the method of knowing and the nature of reality (Chilisa & Kawulich, 2012). In addition, it assumes the relationship between the knower and the known (Ellington, 2019). For the purpose of this study, the researcher adopted the interpretive epistemology, as the investigation was done on human subjects.
In the opinion of the researcher, adopting a scientific approach such as positivism, which disconnects the researcher from the subjects of investigation, was found to be unsuitable to achieving the objectives of the study. The in-depth knowledge and experience gathered from participants was crucial in this study.
In the argument of interpretivism, knowledge is personal, subjective and unique (Babbie
& Mouton, 2012). Furthermore, the world is made up of people with their own assumptions, intentions, attitudes, beliefs, values and experiences (Schwartz-Shea &
Yanow, 2011; Bless Higson-Smith & Sithole, 2013). The implication was that the researcher needed to understand the meanings participants gave to their actions. It was therefore necessary for the researcher to enter their world to gain an understanding of their individual interpretation of the world around them. It was crucial to identify and interpret their interaction and interpretation.
In social inquiry, knowledge is subjective, and therefore produces subjective relationships between elements of inquiry (Maree, 2016). It is generated through observations and learnings made subjectively by a human observer. This explains the suitability of this paradigm to unpacking life experiences of OVC, as they face challenges subjectively in the school context. The methodological design and data gathering instruments such as interviews and focus group discussions within the PAR approach gave the researcher an opportunity to interact with OVC and principals to explore and describe the challenges OVC face in schools.