CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3.4. RESEARCH PARADIGMS
3.4.1. Arguments on research paradigms
According to Creswell (2014:3); Mertens (2005:17); Davis (2014:10) and Patton (2015) the procedure and strategy for research originate from broad assumptions in research which narrow to specific methods of data collection, analysis and interpretation. These authors depart from a premise that describes research as a systematic process and investigation whereby data are collected, engaged through the screening process of analysis, interpreted in an effort to comprehend, and then used to provide a description and predict a phenomenon.
Many approaches to research present data and information in a progressive way to clarify the research approach, design and methods informed by the research paradigm. Creswell (2014:19) explains a paradigm as “a research tradition or worldview, whereby the researcher adopts a distinct manner in which to investigate a phenomenon”. This argument leads to the assumption that research is highly influenced by the researcher’s perspectives and beliefs, which is referred to as a research paradigm. There are other arguments about the terminology of research paradigms that a paradigm should be referred to as a cluster of beliefs that a researcher holds. These arguments dictate what should be studied and how the research should be conducted and interpreted (Bryman, 2012:630). Christensen and Johnson (2014:31) and Du Plooy-Cilliers et al. (2014:28) further indicate that that research paradigms operate as research approaches which lead the path to carry out research, shape the thinking and inform the individual’s interpretation of the world around them.
52
In an effort to understand the meaning and definition of a paradigm as a mental framework, a set of beliefs which influence the researcher’s view of the world, Sepeng (2010:46) states that the paradigm in which the researcher operates, consciously or sub-consciously sets the motivation for and expectations of the research. This argument reads true if one is realistic about the reality that one’s choice of approach stands to be shaped and influenced by one’s contexts which serves to inspire the researcher to engage in an investigation of the phenomenon. According to Christensen and Johnson (2014:31), a research paradigm is a perception of the research discussed and agreed upon amongst researchers, which is based on a collection of shared assumptions, ideas, practices and values. There are three dominant research traditions identified in Du Plooy-Cilliers et al. (2014:23), as follows: Interpretivism, Positivism and Critical Realism. This study was categorised using the interpretivist paradigm, which uses both the epistemological and methodological positions. With the understanding created in the above argument on the research paradigm, this study further used the qualitative research methodology. The chosen research approach and paradigms were suitable because the approach allowed qualitative investigation of the research topic which provided a great insight to the research topic, research situation and the gathering of information needed to meet the goals of the study.
3.4.2. The Interpretivist paradigm
The interpretivist view (Du Plooy-Cilliers, 2014:27) arises from the notion that people cannot be regarded as objects. The positivist worldview believes in the focus of research being on single empirical and scientific view of research evidence (Krauss, 2005:758). The goal of the interpretivist paradigm is to gain an in-depth understanding and to perceive the world through the lens of the population being studied (Du Plooy-Cilliers et al. 2014:28). The researcher relied on the participants’ views of the situation and their circumstances being studied and further recognised the impact of the research of their own background and experiences (Creswell, 2014:13). In this particular paradigm, Du Plooy- Cilliers et al. (2014:28) emphasise that it is the interpretivist’s duty to “interpret and gain an understanding of human actions and then describe these actions from the point of view of the person or the group being studied.
According to Brown and Strega (2005:126) “In interpretivism, the reality is about the meanings people construct in the course of their social interactions; the world around them is not about facts but rather meanings attached to the facts as people negotiate and create
53
meaning”. Brown and Strega’s argument is supported by the findings in Mukherji and Albon (2010:23) that “individuals need to be enabled to find themselves in a cultural framework in society and shared understanding, as well as own versions of the world that influences them”.
During the data collection phase of this study, the researcher employed the interpretivist paradigm to acquire data that were informed by participants’ perspectives and their lived experiences. The findings are presented in chapter four.
3.4.3. Critical realism
Parts of this study took a critical realist epistemological stance. According to Carter and Little (2007:1316) and Maxwell (2012), critical realism is a paradigm which acknowledges the ways in which knowledge is socially mediated, subjective and dependant on human interpretation and creation. The authors indicate that this framework is used in qualitative research and aimed at exploring complexity supports the idea that phenomena must be understood and studied in real life situations (ibid). They further allude to the fact that critical realists believe that there is a real world but that world is not objectively knowable. The researcher did not use her understanding of the phenomenon but that of the participants who shared their personal experiences of academic resilience. The critical realism was used in the study as the data was collected directly from participants based on the participants’
interpretation of their own experiences and meaning that they have attached to their experiences in Tembisa Township.
3.4.4. Epistemology
Epistemology relates to what and how we know concepts as per the acquired field related content. This means that as researchers, we are able to make implicit statements about the knowledge of concepts, systems, acts and even entities (Tennis, 2008:103). This understanding of epistemology is further explained by Carter and Little (2007: 1316) that epistemology is a method that describes assumptions and values about the type of knowledge that can be developed through a study. Litchman (2010: 83) supports definitions as he says that epistemology can be interpreted as the awareness of the knowledge around us. He further says that epistemological theory generates its stance from the influences of the truthfulness of the descriptions by either being valid or plausible (Lichtman, 2010: 83). This study, therefore, brought to light the study of knowledge and understanding, through addressing concrete arguments linked to the methodology.
54 3.4.6. Ontology
In contextualising this to this current study, the research purposed to understand the nature of being, becoming, existence and reality in the experiences of the post school youth. Theories and models were a part of the study to help with the understanding of the investigated topic.
According to Guarino, Oberle and Staab (2009:1), the word ontology deals with the structure and nature of reality if interpreted in philosophical terms. As a result, ontology can be defined as the science of “being” (Guarino et al, 2009:1). Du Plooy-Cilliers (2014:26) also states that ontology identifies with theories that influence the understating of social issues around us.