It is incumbent on me as the researcher to state up front how I understand “the truth” and how this view provided the framework for the research (Connor, 1999, Hirschman, 1979). As a speech-language therapist whose initial undergraduate study was completed nearly 30 years ago, my early research training was cemented in positivism: the notion that good science finds the one real truth, normally by examining a cause and effect relationship between variables. However I have never felt comfortable with this. I applaud the growing legitimacy and recognition of alternative interpretive paradigms, even in health sciences which have traditionally been the domain of positivism, which is due to:
6 The difficulty in making this diagnosis and the merits or otherwise of using standardized assessment procedures such as IQ tests has been thoroughly explored in the second chapter of this research report.
…the decreasing relevance of the positivist ideology selectively coloured by the growing confidence of social science researchers in the capability of qualitative research to adequately respond to the needs of observing, interpreting and analyzing educational and social development data (Abdi, 2001).
Ontologically I believe, like Tinelli (2000) that “there are multiple realities,”
and epistemologically knowledge is produced and shaped by those in an interactive exchange. In other words, I believe in the subjective, constructed nature of reality (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003, Donnell, 1999). It is primarily for this reason that I have chosen phenomenology as a guiding meta-theoretical framework for my study. As Babbie and Mouton (2006) rightly point out:
The phenomenologist emphasizes that all human beings are engaged in the process of making sense of their (life) worlds.
We continuously interpret, create, and give meaning to, define, justify and rationalize our actions. According to the phenomenological position, the fact that people are continuously constructing, developing and changing the everyday (common-sense) interpretations of their worlds(s), should be taken into account in any conception of social science research (Babbie & Mouton, 2006:28).
I have situated my research within the interpretivist paradigm as I aim, through this research, to develop a fuller understanding of learning disability. The interpretivist paradigm allows for people to tell their stories, affording a researcher the opportunity to gain insight into the perspectives of the “story tellers” or research participants; the objective of research within this paradigm is understanding (Hall, 1998). As I aim, through this research, to develop a fuller understanding of learning disability by viewing the phenomenon from the inside, as it were, I shift my focus from “what it is” to “how it is experienced” (Hall, 1998). I am researching the views of children with LD – the views they have of their own (subjective/ perceived) reality (Donnell, 1999) and therefore the interpretivist approach with its relativist ontological
Furthermore, as mentioned above, I am attempting to move away from the reductionistic view that is perpetuated by much current research in the field, particularly that which is emerging from the health sciences. This is in order to understand holistically, in a manner that allows for the inclusion of the variables that add to the participants’ reality, rather than “isolating” these variables as in reductionistic approaches (Bolton, 2001:363). There is support for this in Laing’s view that one cannot understand a patient’s “existential position” by viewing him merely as a bundle of symptoms (Jenner, 2001). It is my argument that this is what current research tries to do. I deal with this in detail in Chapter Two.
I believe, like Henning (2004:20) that: “knowledge is constructed not only by observable phenomena, but also by descriptions of people’s intentions, beliefs, values and reasons, meaning-making and self-understanding.” According to Churchill (2000:45) when it is important to know the meaning of experience as lived, what is needed is the report of the experience; it is not necessary to look for the mechanism of the experience. Therefore in order to understand how children experience their learning disability, how they make sense of their experiences, I ask them to tell their own stories. It is in telling their stories that I believe these children show how they make sense of their world (Hall, 1998), as well as reflect their identities (McMillan, 2003). In addition to this, labels such as “learning disability” can be described as objective knowledge, or according to Giddens (Thursby, n.d.), as structure. I wish to explore the subjective, the experience of LD. I wish to illuminate the agents’ reality. I therefore attempt to shed light on how, or even whether, children with LD reproduce structure; in other words behave in a way that is defined by conventions, prior knowledge and expectations.
As mentioned earlier, the meta-theoretical paradigm or philosophy that best suits my purposes is phenomenology, particularly social phenomenology, described by Laing (1967) as “the science of my own and of other’s
experience,” and hermeneutic phenomenology. Giorgi (2002:9-10) describes phenomenology as a “philosophy of intuition” where “fidelity to the phenomenon” is what is important. Phenomenology looks at lived experiences, and goes as far as to debate whether reductionism is even possible. From my critique of the reductionistic nature of current research in the field of learning disability, it should be apparent why phenomenology appeals to me.
My motivation for this research is a deeply personal interest in the topic, and thus hermeneutic phenomenology seems to provide the most appropriate
“frame” within which to position myself. Ricoeur describes the nature of the link between hermeneutics and phenomenology by suggesting that “each presupposes the other.”7 Hermeneutic phenomenology is both descriptive and interpretive (Connor, 1999). In other words it allows for an exploration of what a specific experience is like for a specific group of people and “seeks to make meaning out of life-world experiences” (Connor, 1999:14).
Narratives, or “the stories people tell about themselves…reflect identity [and]
what they believe about themselves and others” (McMillan, 2003, citing Mclaren). Polkinghorne (1988:11) justifies narrative as the only way to understand human experience and behaviour:
Narrative meaning functions to give form to the understanding of a purpose to life and to join everyday actions and events into episodic units. It provides a framework for understanding the past events of one’s life and for planning future actions. It is the primary scheme by means of which human existence is rendered meaningful. Thus the study of human beings by the human sciences needs to focus on the realm of meaning in general, and on narrative meaning in particular.
Rodriguez (2002) tells us that compelling narratives encourage us to change the world and results in “interpretations that make new meanings, experiences,
understanding of the world.” Therefore this is an appropriate framing for such a study as I am attempting to understand the world of the child with LD.