CHAPTER: 2- LITERATURE REVIEW
2.14 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.14.7 Response
If we subscribe to this view then it becomes possible for a multiplicity of responses to emerge during the data collection process. This has enormous implications for my study. These multiplicity of responses need to be explored and analyzed in detail, in order to understand fully, how educators use language to convey meaning and
understanding. The rationale behind classroom practices, and how this impacts on the process of making meaning, will also have to be considered. This will assist in
establishing if there is a mismatch between the researcher's interpretations of the participants' responses and what the participants actually meant. This brings me to a discussion of how to counteract and minimize the effects of such a situation, should it emerge.
In St Pierre's ethnography, she raises the notion of "member-check" response. She expands on this to explore a new response category- "Imaginary Response" within her study.
2.14.7.2 Member-check Response
Pierre (1999), in her ethnography on a group of older white American Southern women in her hometown, concluded that "member-check response" data is produced when she gives back to the participants of the research, her (St Pierre's) representation of the data produced. This data was produced from the source of knowledge used by the participants in constructing their subjectivities, during the course of their long lives. The next step calls for participants to respond to the data that was constructed by the researcher. This, St. Pierre calls "member-check response"- an activity common to fieldwork process for data production.
In my study, my critique and interpretation of the pre-observation interviews and observation sessions will be discussed and re-visited in the post-observation interview sessions. This is where participants will be able to respond to, clarify and confilm or even dispense with any of the misconceptions or incorrect perceptions that may have arisen during the data collection process. This can serve as an "audit" or a check on the way in which the data obtained has been represented. Itwill also provide ample opportunities for "member-check" responses on the interpretation of my
representation of the participants' perceptions in this study. I addition, it will assist in minimizing the effects of my personal bias and prejudices that may have manifested themselves in the representation of the data that was produced. The participants' responses to my critique and interpretation of their actions and responses during the data collection process, gives rise to yet another level of deconstructive analysis.
2.14.7.3 Imaginary Response
St. Pierre (1999) also makes reference to "Imaginmy Response".
"Imaginary response is the response we imagine our work or research will produce, as well as others' response to what they imagine our work will produce" (St. Pierre;
1999:271).
Frequently as researchers, we assume in our analysis that the research participants respond to the purpose of our enquiry. We also take it for granted that this is clearly articulated to the participants in a manner that supports this purpose. Consequently,
The following questions need to be considered when conducting research:
- Are we clear as researchers, about the nature ofthe responses FOn? the participants?
- How do we ascertain whether the participants are responding to an imagined outcome ofthe research project or not?
- How can we establish whether or not there is a difference in the way participants respond?
- How do we assess the impact these different kinds ofresponses have on the analysis ofthe study?
A consideration of the above questions becomes particularly problematic, as they emerge. These questions were instrumental in St. Pierre's ethnography (discussed above), which led her to conceptualize the second type of response, namely
"Imaginary Response ".
St. Pierre (1999) contends that a multiplicity of responses can be established and this was demonstrated in the reporting of her ethnography. These could indicate, amongst others, the different orientation one takes in their response, the audience the data is being produced for, the variables that you wish to prioritize for interpretation and the impact you want to construct. Deconstructing and unpacking the responses from participants in the study (including the researcher), would offer valuable insights wTtliin the enquiry to create new meanings within research. One way to accomplish this is through acknowledging and understanding the possibility that "imagined response" exists and thatit can influence meaning making, as in the case of S1.
Pierre's (1999) ethnography.
Expanding on the discussion presented above, the possibility of the existence of responses motivated by a plethora of reasons other than that of an imagined response, also needs to be explored. One way of doing this, according to Ramrathan (2002) is through the adoption of the concept of"Interrogated Response ".
2.14.7.4 Interrogated Response and HowItIs Used to Create Meaning and Understanding within this Research Project
According to the concept of"interrogated response", data is produced from research participants through analyzing the interrogated responses to a signifier by the research participants. Inthis study, an attempt to use "interrogated response" as a strategy to deconstruct or unpack the stance researchers take in the reporting of research, was made. The possibility of arriving at new meanings within a particular context of HIV/AIDS enquiry will be explored. According to Parker in, Simons and Usher (2000), deconstruction assumes that the linguistic vehicle that conveys content cannot be taken for granted. This content is not independent of the way it is expressed, but rather owes its meaning to the particular language and stylistic devices in which it is expressed. "The said cannot be separatedFom the saying ".
Following a brief explanation of what is meant by "interrogated response", an attempt to highlight how information about HIV/AIDS can be created or produced through response to different relevancies and driving forces behind this response, unfolds.
This provides yet another reason as to examine the knowledge of educators on
HIV/AIDS because the different philosophies, ideologies and frameworks from within
In addition, this will give rise to different ways in which they employ language to convey meaning and understanding to their learners within the classroom context. The pre-observation interview sessions will enable me as the researcher, to adopt the
"interrogated response" as a strategy to ascertain the participants understanding of key concepts and ideas associated with HIV/AIDS. The manner in which this influences how teachers communicate about HIV/AIDS to facilitate meaning and understanding, will also be analyzed.
The translation of meaning into practice within the classroom context will be explored in the observation and post-observation interview sessions. Through probes, repetition and re-iteration during the interviews, responses can be unpacked and elaborated upon. Issues that have not been given prior and due consideration can receive attention and a deeper level of understanding as to why the participants react or respond in a particular way, can emerge, as both the researcher and participants actively engage in the co-production of data.
In this way, I can ascertain whether my interpretation of the responses of the
participants is a "true" reflection of what they are trying to say. This will assist me in a more accurate representation of the participants in the reporting of the research, as an attempt to obtain rich and meaningful data throughout the research process is sought after. The adoption of the "interrogated response" mode of enquiry will assist to this end.