Scholars hold the diverse regarding their understanding of paradigms as ways in which we make assumptions about reality. Research paradigms, according to Babbie and Mouton (2001) posit a functionalist understanding of paradigms as frameworks and models that shape how we derive meaning of the phenomena. Bailey (2007) sees paradigms as mental windows by means of which researchers view the world. Maree (2010) concurs with the above views and considers paradigms a set of assumptions or beliefs about fundamental aspects of reality which gives rise to a particular world view. Denzin and Guba (2011) in a depth discussion consider paradigms to be the net contains the researcher‘s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises. The paradigm becomes more applicable in complimenting the nature of the research question to the study.
Ontological and epistemological elements of the research are concerned with the way the researcher views reality. In the choice of research approaches, particular assumptions are made with regard to the way we question reality. These philosophical assumptions consist of a position that we take as far as the nature of reality (ontology) is concerned. Furthermore, this also involves the consideration of how the researcher knows what he or she knows (epistemology) and the methods used in the process (methodology) (Creswell, 2007). In order to find out about the principal‘s use of systems thinking in conducting school development activities, it was critical to explain and also understand what in systems thinking. It is well known that the research philosophy that one adopts bears underlying assumptions about the way in which researchers view the world (Saunders, Lewis &
Thornhill, 2012).
The purpose of the paradigms is to serve as organising principles by which reality is interpreted. Literature is rife with different kinds of paradigms of which there is no
128
concurrence in terms of the way they are categorised (Creswell, 2003; Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006; Maree, 2010). For purpose of this study we will not endeavour to get into the philosophical debate regarding the different historical roots of the plethora of paradigms.
In the discussion below we will summarily point out some of the paradigms, as they are regarded as key for this study. Scholars categorise paradigms into several groups. The discussion below will focus on two paradigms, namely, the critical and interpretive/constructive paradigm.
4.4.1 Critical paradigm
The critical paradigm focuses on the reality of human action and seeks to address issues of social justice and marginalism (Crotty, 2003; Scotland, 2012). What counts as knowledge is determined by the social and positional power of the advocates of knowledge. The research embraces the emancipatory character in which knowledge is embraced by the participants as critical stakeholders. The knowledge that is generated is derived from the culture, history and is influenced by the way people think. The critical paradigm asks the axiological question:
what is intrinsically worthwhile? The critical paradigm is normative and takes into consideration how things ought to be and how reality is judged (Scotland, 2012). The approach in critical methodology is that data needs to be critically engaged with. This means that the researcher has to focus on critically interrogating values, and assumptions, exposing beliefs and also challenging the status quo by engaging in social action (Crotty, 2003).
Scholars concur that within this paradigm, research is considered to be influenced by a various factors which include values embedded in social reality (Maxwell, 2012; Bailey, 2007; Pring, 2000). Scholars hold similar opinions that the point of departure for the critical researcher is continuous reflective practice based on the awareness of the situation and how to influence change (Carr & Kemmis, 2003; Byrne & Sahay, 2007). In this emergent and recursive process Talmy (2010) adds that the researcher aligns theory, data and research questions and interpretation of the findings.
129
What is characteristic of critical research approach is the collaboration between the researcher and participants by means of continuous discussion based on how reality is critically analysed and also con-constructed (Frere, 1970). Added to that Creswell (2009) brings the mechanism of how this dialogue works, by suggesting that is data generated by means of semi-structured interviews, focus group discussion, reflection on journals and diaries and document review. The other recommended tools for critical approach include critical discourse analysis, critical ethnography and action research. The critical paradigm seeks to emancipate by means of engaging with the issues with the intention to bring about changes.
For this study I have proposed the adoption of the interpretive / constructive paradigm as the appropriate lens in examining the efficacy of systems thinking to school development.
Further justification for choosing this paradigm will be explicated in the following discussion.
4.4.2 Interpretive /constructive paradigm
These are closely related paradigms with few nuances. According to (Roling &
Wagemakers, 1998) the term ―constructionism‖ describes an epistemology that supports learning processes and guides the thinking around whole systems. The belief within the field of the interpretive /constructive paradigm, is that the researcher relies on the participant‘s views of the situation being studied (Creswell, 2007). As far as the interpretivist /constructivist lens is concerned, the researcher relies more on the qualitative data gathering methods and analysis. Social constructivism was described as one of a group of approaches that have been referred to as interpretive methods. Amongst the primary objectives of social constructivism is that the researcher seeks to understand the social construction of the world of individuals (Creswell, 2007). Furthermore, Sey (2006) considers that research that is conducted from a constructionist approach belongs to the postmodernist school of thought.
Lincoln and Guba, (2013) are of the opinion that it is difficult to categorise there paradigms during this era because they complement each other.
130
Social constructivism is a paradigm also associated with qualitative approaches based on understanding phenomena (Creswell & Clark, 2007). There is strong held assumption by constructivists that socially constructed knowledge is preferred over individually acquired knowledge (Kelly & Durrheim, 2006; Lincoln, Lynham & Guba, 2011; Lincoln & Guba, 2013). In the social constructivist paradigm language features prominently as a tool for constructing reality during the course of dialogue and discourse (Holland, 2006; Denzin &
Lincoln, 2009; Gerring & Skaaning, 2013). Language also features prominently during the course of includes data generation, construction of discussions and findings. Similar sentiments are shared that the community plays a critical role in determining the purpose and use of meaning in context (Lincoln & Guba, 2013). In a different vein Holland (2006) reiterated that constructivism refers to the mental process and conversions of knowledge.
Schunk (2008) shifts the emphasis away from the previous beliefs by placing the learner‘s skills at the centre stage as well as the contexts in which they construct knowledge (Gephart, 1999).
Constructivism asserts that we cannot discover meaning objectively, but rather that we construct them as we interact with the world. Another view is that we create meanings independently of experience, that is subjectively, and impose them on reality. Constructivism is based on the ontological assumptions that reality is neither orderly nor fixed, but in perpetual and continuous emergence. From an epistemological lens, knowledge is individually and socially constructed as a way of viewing the world (Sheppard, 2004;
Gephart, 1999). As part of the research design from a constructivist perspective, it accommodates reflection and conversation techniques for data gathering. There is a strong belief held by social constructivists that reality is a product of people‘s minds and is subjective (Sheppard, 2004; Gephart, 1999). Constructivist methods are qualitative and interpretive in their nature as they are centred on meaning. The focus in lately in research stage is the description of an individual‘s perception of meaning of an event or the art of understanding the perceptions and perspectives of participants and views of social reality of specific situations (Patton, 2002; Leedy & Ormond, 2005). Added to that is also the dimension that describes phenomenology as the principle of understanding in context the meaning of experiences of individuals in different contexts (Terre Blanche, Kelly &
Durrheim, 2006).
131
As a compliment to constructivism, Snape & Spencer (2003) describe interpretivism as the philosophy that focuses on interpretation and observation. The view held within this paradigm is that the primary aim of the interpretive paradigm is to interpret the actions of individuals (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 2013). There is agreement amongst scholars that in terms of this paradigm, the aim is to understand the interpretations of the world by placing people in their social contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 2013; Kraus, 2005;
Gephart, 1999). Interpretivist researchers seek to understand the definitions of the situation of members as well as to examine how objective realities are produced (Lincoln & Guba, 2103; Kraus, 2005; Denzin, & Lincoln, 2009). Denzin & Lincoln, (2009) argued that the search for patterns of meanings is the key focus of the interpretive paradigm. The co-authors emphasized trustworthiness and authenticity to be the criteria for assessing research to be.
Judging from the above discussion, it is clear that interpretive constructivism offers ways to understand the theories of the world and the meanings of individuals. The criticism levelled against the interpretive approach is that it does not utilise methods which are based on scientific procedures which are objective and focused on people‘s perceptions (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). One of the limitations, identified with the constructivist paradigm, is the cost in terms of time and resources required to conduct the research and gather data. The other related shortcoming is in the analysis and interpretation of larger amounts of gathered data (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Lowe, 2002). Denzin and Lincoln (2009) defended the interpretive paradigm against the critiques that were levelled against it, based on the gains that have been acquired by means of this paradigm.
The study is based on the interpretive/constructivist paradigm which supports the belief that knowledge is socially constructed (Lincoln & Guba, 2103) and influenced by power relations within society (Cohen et al., 2011). The study of systems thinking and its influence on school development will be conducted in different sites in which the participants experience different social backgrounds. This study proposes the systems thinking approach which seems to be an alternative to the reductionist and piecemeal models to school development.
The aim of the study is to examine the use of systems thinking to school development.
Furthermore, it examines the understanding of systems thinking, and also focuses on the benefits and challenges of employing systems thinking towards school development. Within
132
this approach the school is considered as a complex human activity system with different stakeholders, bearing a certain influence on the school issues.
In support of this paradigm, Mackenzie and Mouton (2006) posit that its strength lies on the gathering of data. I view this paradigm as key based on its epistemological and ontological strength and the nature of this study. The study uses the qualitative research paradigm with a view to applying some of the soft systems approaches, interpretation and making of meaning of data.