This research draws from the interpretivist paradigm which is based on discursive rather than statistical analysis (Nunan, 1992). Interpretivism tends to embrace the tenets of relativism, which Chambers (1982) defines as “the idea that the reality we perceive is always conditioned by our experience and our culture. We can never be sure that what we think is real is a true reflection of what is really there” (p. 48).
An interpretivist believes “an understanding of the context in which any form of research is conducted is critical to the interpretation of the data collected” (Willis, 2007). The data are qualitative and thus offer no statistics or quantitative data to be analyzed.
101
Within an interpretivist paradigm, a researcher is afforded intellectual and intuitive space to analyze, dissect and interpret data which may not have definitive or clear results. Wills (2007) states that in interpretivism, “The search for universal truths ends, and efforts to find local truth and understanding accelerate” (p.123). This ‘local truth’ can seen as the specific context in which the data are found and thus can and will vary based on the location of the context.
We will later see how Clifford Geertz notes that social inquiry such as this research creates an “undrawable line” between social reality and the study of it. This idea has been previous suggested by John Dewey when he writes that these entities are, in fact, separate and while complete objectivity may be impossible when observing or inquiring about it, there are implications to raising issues. He writes,
In social inquiry, genuine problems are set only by actual situations which themselves are conflicting and confused. Social conflicts and confusions exist in fact before problems for inquiry exist. The latter are
intellectualizations in inquiry of these “practical” troubles and difficulties. The intellectual determinations can be tested and warranted only be doing something about the problematic existential situations out of which they arise, so as to transform it in the direction of an ordered situation (Dewey, 1973, p. 408).
102
As this current research later offers implications and recommendations, an effort is made to provide the “direction of an ordered situation” that Dewey mentions. Further, this study posits the cultural and social situations as potentially problematic. To better understand them is to take initial steps to remedy potential detrimental effects of them. Pennycook sees this type of inquiry as “part of social critique and transformation” (Pennycook, 2001, p. 6). Inquiry such as this current study seeks to raise, as Pennycook (2001) continues “more critical questions to do with access, power,
disparity, desire, difference and resistance…and insists on an historical understanding of how social relations came to be the way they are” (p. 6).
Chapter 2 has provided the historical understanding, to better understand the data derived from the participants, an interpretive approach is taken with consideration to the following in mind. The current research’s data are qualitative, which has been defined by Miles & Huberman (1994, p. 5-8) and summarized by Perry (2008) using these points. Qualitative data are,
n in natural settings
n in concentrated contact over time
n holistic—“systematic, encompassing, integrated”
n from deep inside the situation with preconceived notions held in check, n presented by the researcher who is the “main ‘measurement device,’” n used to analyze patterns, comparisons, and contrasts,
103
n with interpretations constrained by theoretical interests and/or “internal consistency,” and
n consisting of mainly verbal data (Perry F. , 2008, p. 76).
The data collected were through structured interviews and focus groups. These interviews were expected to produce in-depth responses such as anecdotes, examples, exceptions and a depiction of the social reality of the experiences of the participants. This was in an effort to construct “culturally derived and historically situated
interpretations of the social life world” which can most effectively be collected through qualitative data such as interviews (Crotty M. , 1998, p. 67). In addition, interview items were constructed in a way to give me as the researcher as well as the reader a clearer sense of perceived stages of Bennett’s DMIS as well as other links to the literature (i.e. consistency or lack thereof to findings by Sawir [2011], Chapman et. al [2014] and others). This information is necessary to draw distinctions of cultural elements that exist not only between the faculty participants themselves but also the faculty participants and the students. As an interpretivist, I am not concerned with objective truth but rather, concerned with the truth through the lens of the participants (Burns, 2000). Crotty’s support of an interpretivist, qualitative methodology is echoed by Denzin (1978) who notes,
Only through dialogue can one become aware of the perceptions, feelings and attitudes of others and interpret their meanings and intent (p.101).
104
I found that as a researcher, it seemed only ethical that I approach each
interview with a subjective approach and resist the urge to attempt to separate myself from my own human, ethnocentric tendencies as someone who might have a different cultural point of view (Crotty M. , 1998). Considering the interpretivist position of this research, the findings and results gathered themselves can be combined and
complemented by my own experience in such a manner as to create a clearer and well- rounded understanding of what is actually happening in the classrooms. As Moustakas (1994) tells us,
From the perspective of transcendental philosophy, all objects of
knowledge must conform to experience. Knowledge of objects resides in the subjective sources of the self (p.119).
The constructivist relationship between the teaching faculty members and the students is one with which we make sense of the phenomena. We live among the dynamics of them and thus the impossibility of the participants or I as the researcher, to remove ourselves from these phenomena, is something we share. As a result, the idealistic notion of complete objectivity in this research and the separation of myself from the phenomena was an impossibility. I wished to learn more. I wished through research and collection of qualitative data, to have an exploratory and engaging process that enabled me to know myself within the experience being investigated.
105
Ultimately both personal and social knowledge are needed to arrive at valid understandings of reality, I must first be attuned to my own being, thinking and choosing before I relate to others’ thoughts, understandings and choices. I must arrive at my own sense of nature and meaning of something, make my own decision regarding its truth and value before I consider the point of view of others (Moustakas, 1994, p. 121).
An essential reason for undertaking this study is to know and understand if my lived experience of teaching Emirati students was shared amongst my colleagues yet at the same time to work within an open perspective in which different perspectives and findings would emerge.