4.3 Theoretical Paradigm Frame
4.3.2 System Based on Ontology and Epistemology
The second system of assumptions is based on ontology and epistemology. Various authors who write about this system use a range of categorization but fundamentally express similar ideas. For
44 The details of the number of people involved in this study is given in section 4.4.4.
45 See Chapters 5 and 6.
88
example Anderson (1998:4-5) identifies positivism and post-positivism. Williams (2003:11-17) uses concepts of positivism and humanism. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011:5) distinguish positivist, post-positivist, and critical assumptions. Rossman and Rallis (2012:43-45) discern positivism, critical humanism, critical realism, and descriptive interpretivism. In this section, this last classification is discussed as it comprises all these other categorisations and illustrates their genesis.
In illustrating the structure of this system, Rossman and Rallis (2012:35-45) part from Burrell and Morgan (1979)‘s typology of paradigms in sociology and identify the interconnection of two continua of assumptions, one about research, and the other about the social world. With regard to the research continuum, they isolate two polar extremes of the nature of knowledge and knowing the truth, namely, subjectivity and objectivity. Subjectivists argue that the notion of truth is problematic and that there is a scarcity of truths which constitute universal knowledge;
rather, there are human perspectives about the world (:36). As to the objectivists, Rossman and Rallis (2012) stress the existence of a determinable Truth about particular circumstances (:36).
In terms of the social world continuum, Rossman and Rallis (2012) discern two polar extremes of models of society and social process, the status quo and the radical change. For them, the status quo model ―presumes that society is basically well-ordered and functionally coordinated.‖
In this model, researchers assume that the function of the society is predictable and that knowing social process is a means to the improvement of social and organisational life (:41). Conversely, the radical change model assumes that ―social processes deprive individuals and organisations of important satisfaction‖ (:41). Thus, researchers holding this perspective seek the possibility of social transformation (:41).
Therefore, in the intersections of the four polar extremes of these two continua, Rossman and Rallis (2012) discovered four categories of assumptions that they named ‗four paradigms‘ as shown in the Table 1.
Table 1: Four Paradigms According to Rossman and Rallis.
Knowledge of Truth
Model of Society Subjectivity Objectivity
Radical Change CRITICAL HUMANISM Critical Realism Status Quo Descriptive Interpretivism Positivism Source: Adapted from Rossman and Rallis (2012:43)
89
In explaining these paradigms, Rossman and Rallis (2012:43) observe that positivists see the social world as oriented towards the status quo and their research aims to explain and improve its function. In their research, they apply methods from natural science assuming objectivity obtained through experimental and quasi-experimental designs and quantitative analysis (:43). As to descriptive interpretivists, they try to understand the social world as it is from the participants‘
individual and subjective worldviews. Researchers from this perspective use in-depth interviews and observation to generate ―thick description…of actor‘s worldview‖ (:43-44). With regard to critical humanists, Rossman and Rallis (2012) elucidate that individuals are viewed as agents to
―empower, transform, and liberate groups from dominating and imprisoning social processes‖
(44). Critical humanists believe that radical change happens at individual level and transforms social relation at local level (:44). As Rossman and Rallis (2012) also observe, researchers who hold this perspective use the same methods as the descriptive interpretivists but differ from them in terms of position. Here, instead of studying the social world as it is, researchers explicitly participate in the research project by sharing initiation and collaborating with research participants (:44). Concerning critical realists, they analyse power relations of political and economic structure rather than individual human consciousness. Rossman and Rallis (2012) clarify that researchers use large numbers of data quantitatively gathered and represented in order to highlight the extent of inequality in areas such as gender, race or wealth and power distribution (44-45).
This system of assumptions based on ontology and epistemology has similarities with the preceding one based on research approaches whereby quantitative research is ascribed to positivists and critical realists while qualitative research is ascribed to critical humanists and descriptive interpretivists. It is however noteworthy that, as Rossman and Rallis (2012:35) remark, there are no clear-cut boundaries between these paradigms because each research project is located on a particular point of these continua.
With this brief explanation the challenge is to know where the present study is located. On the continuum of the nature of knowledge of the truth, it weighs on the side of subjectivity.
Therefore, in investigating the response of the FMSKZN towards HIV and AIDS, it is assumed that there is no imaginary response to the pandemic. It is assumed that people refer their beliefs, background and social context to initiate and develop an adapted response. It is at this level that the WHCR is reclaimed as an inspiring resource for equipping the FMSKZN to respond to the pandemic because this resource is embedded in the essence of being a Church. On the continuum of the model of the society, this study weighs on the side of radical change. In
90
initiating this study, there was scepticism regarding the Church‘s response to HIV and AIDS and the research project was initiated to reflect on the possibility of discovering what changes if any were needed.
Therefore this study falls within the critical humanistic paradigm. However, since it is based on the continua, it has ramifications in other paradigms, although not in all aspects. As an example, although in-depth interviews were used to collect the data as descriptive interpretivists would do, the possibilities of improving the current attitude and concrete response to the pandemic46 were discussed with the participants, which descriptive interpretivists do not do. Also, although a change in the FMSKZN‘s current way of addressing HIV and AIDS was advocated,47 which critical realists would do, a small number of participants were used and the arguments were based not necessarily on the frequencies of the participants‘ responses, but on the deep description of the situation under scrutiny48, unlike what critical realists would do.