CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3.2. The qualitative, interpretive approach
In an attempt to get a depth of understanding of how each girl constructs her
relationship to Mathematics I adopted a qualitative, interpretive approach. At this point it is necessary to highlight the features of this approach and why it is suitable for my study as opposed to a quantitative approach.
Over the years, social science researchers have disagreed on a number of issues regarding the purpose of social research as well as appropriate methods to study the social world. The dominance of the ‘scientific method’ in the early 1930’s led to social scientists adopting it to make sense of human behaviour. However, over the years, “social science researchers began to challenge the view that the social world is like the natural world, and that there are a series of laws that can be discovered and that hold true across the universe”
(Mthiyane, 2007, p. 55). Hammersley & Atkinson (1995) write that this dissatisfaction led to the emergence of two conflicting paradigms: namely, positivism, which advocated the use of quantitative methods, and the interpretive approach which promoted the use of qualitative methods to study the social world. Mthiyane (2007) writes that it is important to note that there is great diversity within the interpretive approach, but the common thread running through these methods is the rejection of the positivist’s view of conducting social research.
Positivism advocates the use of scientific methods operated on the physical science.
Theories that are generated by scientific methods are constantly put to test, where they are either confirmed or disputed. The quantitative methods employed in collecting data are presumed to be objective, free of researcher bias, controllable and capable of replication.
Experiments and surveys are the most widely used methods of data collection, and the data
generated is analysed using quantitative methods. A key feature of positivism is that it searches for universal patterns and laws that are generalisable across all circumstances.
In opposition, the qualitative approach may be described as a “generic approach in social research according to which research takes as its departure point the insider
perspective on social action” (Babbie & Mouton, 2001, p. 270). This approach focusses on the importance of listening and is concerned with seeing the world from the perspectives of the research participants. It puts the individual at the centre of the research process, and views people as actively constructing their social world, giving personal meaning to their situations and events, and making informed decisions to act in particular ways. According to Mthiyane (2007) the role of the researcher is to understand the individual’s interpretation of the world, rather than to impose the researcher’s interpretation on the individual. Cohen, Manion, & Morrison (2000) pen that the qualitative approach challenges the belief that there are universal laws that govern human behaviour, and that these laws can be
discovered by an objective, detached researcher, using neutral methods of data collection.
I found the qualitative, interpretive approach suitable for this research because the aim of the research was to understand the ways that Grade 11 girls in a Catholic private co- educational school construct their relationships with Mathematics. This meant studying these girls in their ‘natural’ school environment rather than under artificially created conditions. I also wanted to understand what participants did and the meanings that they attached to their actions. The interpretive framework was the logical choice for this study as it is not concerned with producing generalisable laws, but rather aims to produce thick descriptions that emphasise interpretation and deep understanding. It is important under the qualitative approach that “thick descriptions” (Henning, 2004) of conceptualised behaviour be documented. The purpose of this study was also not to make any generalisations or to arrive at an absolute truth, but rather to gain a deep understanding of the Mathematical stories generated in this specific school environment all the while acknowledging multiple realities from different perspectives.
In addition to the interpretive approach, I borrowed from poststructural feminist research approaches (Mendick, 2004, 2005a, 2005c, 2006; Paechter, 2001b) in my study and therefore employed methods and methodologies that would theorise the identities of the participants as fluid, contradictory, transforming and relational. I took cognizance that there is no knowledge beyond or outside of relations of power. Drawing on a feminist research approach that rejects positivism, I put gender and other social divisions such as race and class at the centre of my research process and understood these divisions as inequalities of power. Mendick (2006) writes that at the centre of feminist critiques is the need to acknowledge the situatedness of the researcher and to reject the goal of objectivity that the knower should detach themselves as far as possible from the situation they are studying. It is important that I, as a white, thirty-four year old, middle-class, female teacher take cognisance of my role as researcher in the study, and the effects that my research may have had on both the participants and myself. Drawing on feminist research requires that I acknowledge the use of a multiplicity of research methods in this study in order to expand on the existing body of knowledge on gender and Mathematics by seeing things differently and in a different context.
The research methodology that I employ in this research will be that of narrative analysis, which “may be seen as a specialised form of discourse analysis because it searches for the way participants make sense of their lives by representing them in story form” (Henning, 2004, p. 122). Central to poststructural theory is discourse. Discourses are structures of language and practice through which objects come into being. They are knowledges about objects which are powerful because they determine what can be said about something a well as who can say it. In the next sections I describe the process of data collection and analysis.
3.3. THE RESEARCH PROCESS