CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH DESIGN AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.2 Theoretical Positioning
28
29
140). In constructionist terms, critical reflexivity means “the attempt to place one’s premises into question, to suspend the ‘obvious,’ to listen to alternative framings of reality, and to grapple with the comparative outcomes of multiple standpoints” (Gergen, 2008, p. 13).
For the specific purpose of this research I look towards a relational constructionist approach in terms of which ontology is viewed as a relational process and reflexivity is viewed as relational rather than an ‘individual act.’ (Hosking & Pluut, 2010). This approach enables a view of reflexivity as
constructed as an "ongoing dialogue" that moves beyond reflexivity as a process of "minimizing bias", and "making bias visible" (p. 59). The authors note: “Our different starting point has been to centre an ontology of becoming in which the relational realities of self-other and relations (persons and worlds) are in ongoing construction in local-cultural, local-historical, language-based processes of inter-action” (p. 63).
Social constructionism and critical reflection as envisaged by Gergen (2008) and Hosking and Pluut (2010), above, is compatible with the narrative dialogical approach which is used in this research.
‘Suspending’ our taken for granted assumptions means that we recognise our strongly held beliefs as culturally and historically situated traditions rather than facts. On the same terms we can recognise the beliefs and traditions of others as equally legitimate, and this opens us to dialogue in such a way that we might find common ground.
Constructionism is not, then a candidate for the truth. Nor is it a belief system. Rather, the constructionist dialogues represent invitations to a way of understanding. As constructionist ideas enter our ways of talking, they may also transform our actions. The major question asked from a constructionist perspective is ‘what happens to our lives together’ when we construct the world in various ways? (Gergen, 2008, p. 29).
Exploring our lives is done through the telling of our life stories. For this reason my starting point is narrative theory within a constructionist paradigm that fits well with storytelling and understanding experience (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Narrative methodology is used both in the data collection and participatory intervention through the sharing of life stories and experiences by participants, and in the research analysis which is based on dialogical principles as well. Turning to narrative is considered useful in a reflexive study that is focused on people and stories, as it is through our stories that we discover our truths about our experiences, connect to others, and create meaning in our lives (Riessman, 2008). Narrative inquiry is viewed “first and foremost as a way of understanding
experience” (phenomenon) and as a research method for “narratively inquiring into experiences over time and context” (Clandinin & Caine, 2008, p. 542). Within a narrative view stories are understood within larger social and contextual narratives and there is an emphasis on the relational nature of the engagement between the researcher and the participant (Clandinin & Caine, 2008).
30
In applying a narrative theory approach and in asking participants to share their personal stories I have incorporated dialogical principles to encourage an egalitarian relationship between the research team and participants. A dialogical narrative approach and practice of interpretation is based on Mikhail Bakhtin’s principle of ‘non-finalizability’ - that there is no one final meaning or authority, but that
“every voice contains multiple other voices” (Frank, 2010, p. 16). Frank (2010), following a socio- narratology approach, argues that researchers have no claim to interpretative authority and need to take a dialogical attitude towards interpretation in terms of which participants are experts in their own lives. This fits well with Paulo Friere’s (1970) notions of dialogue which he describes as “an
existential necessity,” as it is through our dialogical encounters that we name and transform the world.
Dialogue, further “cannot occur between those who want to name the world and those who do not wish this naming – between those who deny others the right to speak their word and those whose right to speak has been denied them” (p. 88). In Freire’s (1970) view ‘real’ dialogue inspires trust and is built on love, faith, humility and hope. Further, dialogue, he says, both requires engagement in critical thinking and generates critical thought.
Bower (2005) describes both Bakhtin and Freire’s views in relation to education as seeing “the movement of dialogue as a movement from technique to epistemological relationship. Teaching conveys ideas, but always with a view to an external object of knowledge…Process is key, and only through dialogue can ideas be conveyed, tested, rejected, accepted, revised, and made possible”
(p.376). This allows for equal participation and reflection, openness to different perceptions and should be free from pressure or coercion (Bower, 2005). Rule (2009) draws on Bakhtin’s and Freire’s ideas of dialogue as open-ended and the principle of ‘unfinalizability’ to develop the notion of
‘dialogic space’ to “characterise educational projects with emancipatory potential” and to locate these ideas in an African context (p. 3). For both Bahktin and Freire, Rule (2009) says “dialogue is central to what it means to be authentically human” (p. 7); and for both humans are “social beings” (p.11).
As Frank (2010) argues for researchers to take a dialogical “attitude” towards interpretation, this then becomes a necessary approach for educators as well. In this research I attempt throughout to have such an attitude, to act in terms of the knowledge that participants are the experts of their own lives and to listen to their voices, always being open to possible multiple interpretations.
Using both narrative life story research and dialogical philosophies fits well with the principles of Critical Communicative Methodology (CCM) (Suarez-Ortega, 2013). CCM acknowledges the constructed nature of our interactions and stems from a belief that all people have the ability to analyse their realities and contribute to knowledge. In terms of CCM, “there is a recognition that scientific knowledge about the social world results from egalitarian dialogue among multiple and diverse voices” and is considered a methodological response to the ‘dialogic turn’ in societies (Gomez, Puigvert, & Fletcha, 2011, p. 236). There are a number of principles in CCM that are
31
expounded on by Gomez et al. (2011) that fit well with the aims of this research. First, the principle of ‘cultural intelligence’ is applied as part of CCM and is in line with Freire’s theory of critical consciousness in terms of which ‘ordinary’ people have the ability to find meaning and make changes to their own situation. Cultural intelligence means that “every individual has communicative,
practical, and academic abilities,” which aims at breaking stereotypes about marginalised groups and those with little formal education having the capacity to contribute to research (p. 237). Second, CCM brings together ‘systems’ (the international academic community) and ‘lifeworlds’
(interpretations by people on daily experience) which, in turn, brings ‘new knowledge’ (p. 238).
While the voices of participants are bought to the fore, the role of the researcher is not diminished but acts as a resource for academic knowledge that could be useful for participants to reinterpret their experiences. Thirdly, CCM is aimed at “building a social science of possibility” and the methodology is used to recognise both inherent inequalities in the participants’ context and possibilities for
transformation built on participants own knowledge (p. 241). In education, it is also important to consider more specifically Critical Social Theory (CST) which is considered as a “multidisciplinary framework with the implicit goal of advancing the emancipatory function of knowledge,” and that advocates criticism and critical thinking for transformative educational outcomes (Leonardo, 2004, p.
11). Criticism is central to developing students' ability to question assumptions and to deconstruct current knowledge and then to reconstruct it for emancipatory purposes (Leonardo, 2004). This is also in keeping with Friere’s pedagogy of the oppressed “which must be forged with, not for, the oppressed” (p. 48) and his call for “critical and liberating dialogue” (p. 65).
Having a dialogic attitude means that the door is opened for a transformative and social justice agenda. Increasingly throughout the research and especially when engaged in the community practice project, I reflected on outcomes and the ‘usefulness’ of the research. What happens afterwards? Is there any ‘real’ value for the participants after the research has been completed? These are questions I need to come back to and address in the final chapter but in discussing paradigms and belief systems that guide research, it is also important to consider outcomes. Although I did not begin the research specifically with a transformative agenda visibly in mind it was always in the background – to do research that was useful to the participants involved and not just for an academic accolade or audience (a hard bound thesis sitting lonely in a library). For ethical reasons it becomes important to reflect on this and to action it. The narrative and dialogical approach I have chosen fits well within a
transformative paradigm described by Mertens (2010) as “a framework of belief systems that directly engages members of culturally diverse groups with a focus on social justice” (p. 470). As such, when we refer to social justice and human rights we are faced with ontological and epistemological
difficulties in terms of a social constructionist framing - as Mertens (2010) asks: “Whose reality is privileged in this context?” (p. 470). Despite these complications, Mertens (2010) has used the transformative paradigm or the “spirit” of transformation in a number of projects as an ethical guide
32
for research that prioritises social justice, ensuring respect for cultural norms, and bringing
participants into the research throughout the process. She concludes that the transformative paradigm is relevant in all cases where there is discrimination or oppression and in relation to power structures that propagate inequality. This is particularly apt in guiding research in a SA context which has been deeply divided by past apartheid injustices and inequality that continues into the present. In this sense, I believe that research in SA demands a transformative agenda as a guide to seeking and negotiating transformative outcomes and social justice. I am of the view that the contradictions that may unfold in following this type of approach can be alleviated or at the very least negotiated in terms of a narrative dialogical approach that takes all views into account and focuses on participatory and collaborative understandings. Following the ‘spirit’ of transformation is in keeping with a dialogical approach and what Gergen (2008) describes as being the most important aspect of what he terms the
‘constructionist message’: “the moment we begin to speak together, we have the potential to create new ways of being” (p. 29). The overall theoretical positioning is illustrated in Figure 2 below;
demonstrating the theoretical framing for the conceptual model (Critical Reflexive Model or CR Model) which is an integral part of the research and is detailed below in 2.3.
Figure 2: Theoretical positioning
Key: CCM: Critical Communicative Methodology; CST: Critical Social Theory; CR Model: Critical Reflexive Model