Batería

According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2007, p.27) it is important for every research to be located in the appropriate philosophical foundation that illuminates its enquiry. Hence, the authors assert that the researchers must be aware of the implicit worldview they bring to their studies. In addition Creswell (2009, p. 5) states that philosophical ideas influence the practice of research even if they are hidden. Guba (1990) (cited in Creswell, 2009, p.19), defines a paradigm or worldview as “a basic set of beliefs that guide action”. Mouton (1996, p. 36) maintains that paradigms are not merely collection of research methods and techniques but also include certain assumptions and values regarding their use under specific circumstances. Paradigms underpin the actions of the researcher and methods used in the research project. A paradigm provides the largest framework within which research takes place.

1.9.1 Interpretive Paradigm: Narrative Approach

A dominant methodological perspective that underpinned the research design and methodology is consistent with interpretivist paradigm and narrative approach. Qualitative methods can be divided into “interpretive”, “artistic”, “systematic”, and “theory-driven” approaches (Creswell, 1994, pp. 143-172). I used a combination of interpretive and narrative-design approach in investigating how the SMTs, SGBs and Department of Education Officials interpreted and implemented section 21 of the South African Schools Act. The interpretive paradigm is a qualitative or “constructivist” (Guba and Lincoln, 1989, p.175) approach, which strives to comprehend how individuals in everyday settings construct meaning and explain the events of their world (Creswell, 1998, p. 119; Wimmer and Dominic, 2000, p. 103). This study sought to expose the underlying reasons for boundary management in schools and the inability of the school managers to manage it. The interpretive perspective assumes that an individual’s knowledge structure and mental representations of the world play a central role in perceiving, thinking, and acting of

14

the SGB and SMT leaders (Nkonki, 2009, p. 13). The importance of meaning-making, the perspectives of District officials such as the principals and the Education development officer and school governing body members and their interpretations of the social life-world were important in the boundary spanning phenomenon, which was investigated. The interpretivist paradigm made it possible for the researcher to interact closely with the participants. The researcher’s close interaction with the three education professional interviewees created an open and frank participant- researcher relationship that made respondents treat the researcher with confidence and shared with him some of their intimate experiences and secret insights of SGB and SMT implementation stories hidden from outsiders. The researcher attempted to make sense of the participants’ world by interacting with them, as well as appreciating and clarifying the meanings they ascribed to their experiences and stories. According to Cantrell (1993, p. 84), the aim of interpretivism is to understand and interpret the daily occurrences and social structures as well as the meanings people give to phenomena. As a researcher from the interpretive orientation, the central aim was to understand the boundary crossing phenomenon and to interpret its deepest meanings within the social and cultural context of the natural setting.

The study used mainly interpretive paradigm, which is a qualitative approach based on interpretivism. The interpretivist paradigm strives to comprehend how individuals in every day settings construct meaning and explain the events of their world (Creswell in Fouche and Delport, 2002; Wimmer and Dominic, 2000). The interpretivist paradigm allowed the researcher to interact closely with the participants to gain insight into and form a clear understanding of the culture of boundary spanning between school governing bodies and school management teams in schools.

Instead of exploiting only positivist techniques in ensuring validity, the researcher used mixed methods research approach composed of narrative, textual and critical discourse analysis approaches, which were further triangulated by quantitative interview-data–source. The blend of the quantitative interview-data-source with the major qualitative narrative-cum-interpretive methodological framework is intended to

15

enhance validity and reliability and to enrich the multiplicity of methods. This narrative analysis approach entails incorporating into the research design “constructivism”. Brooks and Brooks (1999, pp. 18-24) define constructivism as the conceptual framework that focuses on the premise that human beings construct their own meanings and understanding of the world they live in by reflecting upon their own individual and cultural experiences. In the researcher’s search for the hidden meanings and deeper insights embedded in the boundary spanning by SGBs and SMTs and the resultant tensions in schools, the researcher was guided by the interpretive theory.

1.9.2 Positivism

Another supporting methodological perspective that was used by the study is positivism. Positivism, which is sometimes referred to as scientific method or science research, is based on the rationalistic, empiricist philosophy that originated with Aristotle, Francis Bacon, John Locke, August Comte, and Emmanuel Kant (Mertens, 2005, p. 8). Gephart (1999, p. 6) observes that positivists are preoccupied with enhancing quality of quantitative findings by seeking rigour and using statistical criteria. Positivism assumes that an objective world, which scientific methods can more or less readily represent, can be measured. Hence, positivism seeks to predict and explain causal relations among key variables. In positivism, quantitative measures often exclude members’ meanings and interpretations from data which are collected. Positivism imposes outsiders’ meanings and interpretations of data and requires statistical samples. Its statistical outcomes often do not represent specific social groups nor do they allow generalisation to or understanding of individual cases. Positivist methods tend to exclude discovery from the domain of scientific inquiry (Gephart, 1999).

The positivists are concerned about uncovering truths and facts using experimental or survey methods. It assumes an objective world hence it often searches for facts conceived in terms of specific correlations and associations among variables. Positivists focus on experimental and quantitative methods used to test and verify hypotheses. However, positivist research methods have been superseded or complemented to some extent by an interest in using qualitative methods to gather

16

broader information outside the readily measured variables. Creswell (2003, p. 7) is of the view that positivism reflects a deterministic philosophy in which causes probably determine effects or outcomes.

According to Mertens (2005, p. 8), positivism may be applied to the social world on the assumption that “the social world can be studied in the same way as the natural world”. To put it differently, positivists believe that there is a method for studying the social world that is value free, and that explanations of causal nature can be provided. O’Leary (2004, p. 5) argues that positivism aims to test a theory or describe an experience through observation and measurement in order to predict and control forces that surrounds us. Positivism is most commonly aligned with quantitative methods of data collection and data analysis.

1.9.3 Pragmatism

Creswell and Plano Clark (2007, p. 23) also state that there is pragmatism which is typically associated with mixed methods research. This worldview focuses on the consequences of research, the primary importance of the question asked rather than the method. The researcher used the pragmatic approach which required multiple methods of data collection in order to find answers to research problem. Creswell (2009, p. 10), who supports this viewpoint, argues that pragmatism is the appropriate philosophical orientation for mixed methods research. The view that pragmatism is appropriate for mixed methods research arises from the fact that researchers are free to draw from both qualitative and quantitative assumptions in doing research. The appropriateness of pragmatism for mixed methods research stems from the fact it is not restricted to any one system of philosophy and reality. Since it was important for this study to establish the participants’ views about the issue of boundary crossing on financial matters in section 21 high schools the study intended to lean more towards philosophical assumptions of pragmatism. On the other hand, due to the use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches, which are often associated with interpretivism and positivism respectively as indicated above, the study could not be confined within a single worldview. Hence, the study was situated in multiple worldviews, namely, interpretivism and positivism.

17