CONCLUSIONES

A research design enables a researcher to move from questions to answers (O’Leary, 2010) and thereby offers a “flexible set of guidelines that connect theoretical paradigms first to strategies of inquiry and second to methods for collecting empirical materials”

89 (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005, p. 25).52

The theoretical perspectives that inform a research strategy are commonly categorised as:

This section and the one following will explore these areas in relation to this doctoral research.

• The relationship between theory and research, and especially whether a deductive (theory precedes the research) or inductive approach (theory emerges from the research) is employed.

• Ontological issues, which focus on what there is to know about the world and the nature of reality.

• Epistemological issues, or a concern with ways of knowing and learning about the social world.

• Quantitative and qualitative methods.

• Ethical issues that may impact on the research process (Bryman, 2004).

Inductive and deductive logic: the relationship between theory and research

Consistent with an inductive logic, this research proceeds from the particular to the general. While this approach may eventually lead to the generation of theory it is founded on the perspective that not all knowledge can be known from the outset or before the generation of empirical materials begins (Gillham, 2000, p. 15). An inductive approach stands in contrast to a deductive logic which applies the principles of a theory to a particular case to see if the observations fit the predicted hypothesis (Patton, 2002). In other words, a deductive process starts with a theoretical hypothesis and then seeks to test this proposition.

While in reality most research is neither purely inductive nor deductive, research designs usually lean towards one type or the other (Bryman, 2004). In a general sense, most quantitative research draws heavily on deductive logic while qualitative research is usually inductive (Creswell, 2003; Davidson & Tolich, 2003). My doctorate primarily takes an inductive approach, through the use of qualitative methods and analysis, due to

52 _{Denzin and Lincoln (2005) note: “Empirical materials is(sic) the preferred term for what traditionally}

90 the limited available knowledge on the research topic. However, the research question was informed by a familiarity with the existing literature as outlined in Chapters Two and Three. Rather than establishing a hypothesis at the outset, the research began with a series of questions and moved toward a descriptive and critical understanding of the issue under examination (Davidson & Tolich, 2003). It was, therefore, premised upon the view that the research question could be best illuminated by interviewing people that were, in some way, connected to the research area. It was anticipated their considerable knowledge of the topic could elicit greater understanding of the factors affecting the development of SHRAs in the Pacific (Davidson & Tolich, 2003; May, 1997). In this way the perceptions of the participants were seen to be most important instead of starting with preconceived ideas or possible answers to the research question. The material generated from the interviews and the use of secondary sources enabled the development of explanations, consideration of implications for Pacific leaders, and critique of the selected theoretical framework on agenda setting.

Ontological considerations

Ontology is concerned with the nature of existence or beliefs about what we can know about the world (Hay, C., 2011; Marsh & Stoker, 2002; Snape & Spencer, 2007). In particular it is focused upon whether social entities are seen to exist externally to social actors (an objectivist ontology) or whether individuals are perceived to be socially constructed and dynamic and construct their own meanings of events or situations in the world (a constructivist ontology) (Bryman, 2004; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). The ontological position of objectivism claims that social phenomena such as organisations exist independently of the individuals who occupy it. Rules and structures provide constraints that individuals must abide by otherwise negative consequences may eventuate (Bryman, 2004). Constructivism, in contrast, is an ontological position that maintains that social phenomena and their meanings are being continually produced and revised by social actors (Bryman, 2004).

In this thesis I have taken the ontological position of constructivism as there may be multiple perspectives by individuals on the phenomenon of SHRAs in the Pacific. While the interviewees all work in the wider fields of governance, education, or human rights, it was anticipated they would have a range of viewpoints given their different

91 institutional and philosophical positions.53

Epistemological considerations

Although the participants were purposefully selected because of their expertise, due to their own interactions and understanding of the world it was expected they might attribute different meanings to the research topic (Snape & Spencer, 2007). These differing opinions would, in turn, be further interpreted by me as the researcher as I managed and analysed the empirical materials through my own interpretive lens and the application of the theoretical framework of agenda setting. In regards to my research, this diversity adds richness to the understanding of the phenomenon under examination. Other research in the field of political science has also acknowledged the dynamic and socially constructed environment in which state and non-state actors operate and influence policy development (Carstensen, 2011; Hay, C., 2011; Peters & Pierre, 1998; Rhodes, 2011, 2011a; Wanna & Weller, 2011).

Epistemology is concerned with what we know and how we know it, or what may be regarded as legitimate knowledge in a discipline (Bryman, 2004; Marsh & Stoker, 2002). The central tenet of epistemology is how understanding of the nature of knowledge can be acquired. Epistemology can be separated into two main stances, positivism and interpretivism (Sarantakos, 2005). A positivist epistemology asserts the social world can be studied as if it was the natural world and, therefore, independent, objective and value-free research is possible (Snape & Spencer, 2007). In contrast, the interpretivist branch affirms the necessity of studying the social world in a way that interprets and understands behaviour from the viewpoint of the social actors (Bryman, 2004; Hay, C., 2011; Travers, 2002). The epistemological stance of positivism is generally linked with an objectivist ontological approach, whilst interpretive epistemology is associated with the constructivist perspective (Sarantakos, 2005).

The interpretivist approach was pertinent to my study as I was concerned with how an aspect of society, in this case, institutional human rights arrangements at the sub- regional level, may be interpreted, understood, experienced, and/or produced by individuals or organisations that are associated with or have knowledge of the situation (Marsh & Stoker, 2002; May, 1997; Rhodes, 2011a; Travers, 2002). The assumption

53

Participants have been identified according to their occupational position which enables the reader to consider the participant comments within this construct. See Appendix C for a list of the participants according to their assigned code, country of abode, and occupation at the time of interviewing. The codes are also mentioned below.

92 behind an interpretive methodology is that social reality is constructed and negotiated through interactions, relationships and value systems and thus lends itself to an inductive method. Therefore, as mentioned, insight and knowledge was sought from a limited number of participants in order to gain an in-depth appreciation of what these individuals perceived to be the factors shaping the development of SHRAs in the Pacific and the likelihood of agenda success.

Whilst a significant proportion of research conducted in the political science domain follows a positivist approach, there is space for the utilisation of interpretive methodologies (Bevir, 2011; Bevir & Rhodes, 2004, 2008; Hay, C., 2011; Rhodes, 2011, 2011a; Wanna & Weller, 2011). For instance, Mathur and Skelcher (2007) incorporated an interpretive method in their study of governance in public administration as it enabled tacit meanings to be revealed and explained. Bevir and Rhodes (2004), in their examination of governance in Britain, argued that an interpretive approach enabled a rich understanding of the particular situation and the respondent’s frame of reference.54

We develop the argument that people can engage in a practice only because they hold certain beliefs or concepts. So, political scientists can explore that practice by unpacking the relevant beliefs and explaining why they arose. … When political scientists interpret beliefs in this way, they provide insights into the behaviour of particular individuals (Bevir & Rhodes, 2004, p. 131).

They comment:

Thus, in my research and in agreement with an interpretive methodology, the participants’ experiences and subjective reality are accepted as valid data and as contributing to the meaning and understanding of the research area (Bevir, 2011; Rhodes, 2011a; Sen, 1977). Consistent with this interpretive approach, as the researcher I acknowledge my influence in the research process (Locke, 2001; Snape & Spencer, 2007). For example, I have actively shaped both the process and conclusions of the research through my determination of the research questions, selection of participants, methods of enquiry, management and analysis of the empirical materials, interpretation of the findings, and choice of theoretical framework.

54 _{See also Rhodes (1997) and Wanna & Weller (2011) for further examples of the application of an}

93

Quantitative and qualitative research

Quantitative research tends to be premised on a positivist epistemology which generally draws on a deductive method and is associated with objectivist ontology (Bryman, 2004). It is usually equated with a ‘scientific’ approach which emphasises hypothesis testing, prediction, and causal explanations arrived at through statistical or other quantification procedures (Ritchie, 2007; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

A qualitative approach, however, aligns with the interpretive paradigm and constructivist ontological perspectives which were applicable for this doctoral research. Qualitative research is “especially effective for studying subtle nuances in attitudes and behaviours and for examining social processes over time. As such, the chief strength of this method lies in the depth of understanding it permits” (Babbie, 2004, p. 307). Similarly:

Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that makes the world visible. … At this level qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, p. 3).

Secondly, qualitative research tends towards the use of more general research questions and the use of non-numerical data (Punch, 2000). The research method, explained in detail below, followed this strategy. Thirdly, qualitative research is largely descriptive and so by focusing in detail on one specific case a wealth of detailed or ‘rich’ data can be generated (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2002). As the research was exploratory I was not seeking to test a hypothesis but rather to gain a ‘thick description’ of the ways people understand and attach meaning to the issues at the heart of the research topic (Bryman, 2004; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Geertz, 1973; Lewis & Ritchie, 2007; Minichiello, Aroni, Timewell & Alexander, 1996). Qualitative research is appropriate when collecting information from experts given their specialist perspectives and the complex nature of the subject area (Ritchie, 2007). Examining the participants’ responses to the interview questions allowed for an in-depth understanding of their views on SHRAs in the Pacific and the prospects for agenda success. Fourthly, by taking a constructivist perspective, I was aware that people can see different things, examine them through different lenses, and come to different conclusions (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). It was, therefore, anticipated the participants might respond differently to

94 the research questions. For these reasons adopting a qualitative approach was considered most appropriate.

Ethical considerations

Ethical principles are commonly divided into four main areas of concern: harm to participants, lack of informed consent, invasion of privacy, and deception (Bryman, 2004, p. 509). All of these areas were taken into consideration during the doctoral process.

While it was not anticipated that any harm would befall the participants, I was aware of the sensitive nature of human rights both as a contested concept and actuality throughout the Pacific region. In particular, during the period of interviewing in Fiji the political situation was still very tense as a consequence of the 2006 military coup. This particular circumstance impacted on my research. For example, I was aware that some of the participants in Fiji had publicly attempted to discredit the views of other people whom I was interviewing. Subsequently, some of the interviews with these individuals contained slanderous material. I was, however, aware that during elite interviewing personal animosities and factions may become apparent (Woliver, 2002). Although I had chosen to speak with people from across the Fijian political spectrum and I did not have specific questions about the coup or the interim regime, significant amounts of material on the political situation was provided by all of the Fiji-based participants. In addition, one contributor arranged for me to interview two prominent people working for the military regime, neither of whom were on my list of possible participants. Only one of these individuals allowed me to audio record the interview and agreed for me to use the interview material in my thesis.55

The use of Framework (discussed below) as a tool to organise, manage, and analyse the empirical materials enabled me to determine what material was pertinent to the research question. The defamatory material did not emerge in the thematic categories as it was not directly related to the research topic and so it has not been included in the thesis. On reflection, it seemed that the initial participant had wanted to ensure I did not ‘stack’ the interviews in favour of people opposed to the interim government.

55 _{This individual is counted as the 22}nd _{participant although no material from the interview with this}

95 Information pertaining to the political situation in Fiji was also only noted if it was linked to the subject of SHRAs in the Pacific.

The contributors were fully informed as to the purpose of the research and the interview questions before they consented to an interview.56 They were all given the opportunity to withdraw from the research and also determine the location for their interviews. The rationale for the research was reiterated before interviewing commenced as this could have affected the interviewees’ decisions to consent and divulge particular information (Lewis, 2007). Prior to the interviews I discussed the issues of anonymity and confidentiality. All participants, except one, agreed to named attribution of their comments. Initially I thought this would be beneficial, however, during the analysis process I realised that attaching names to quotes would not significantly enhance the meanings conveyed. In addition, I did not want future readers of the thesis or publications arising from it to dismiss certain comments because they were made by someone with opposing political or personal views. Several participants held reservations about the use of quotes in the final dissertation and requested that the quotations be sent back to them in the context of the chapters for checking prior to publication. Clearly this created a practical issue as it was unknown how long a participant might require before agreeing to the inclusion of a comment. The participants had each checked, edited, and agreed to the transcript of their interview, and so it seemed that keeping the quotes confidential, by using a descriptor instead of actual names, would be appropriate as well as practicable. To every extent possible the participants’ privacy has been protected and the clarity and extent of information given to the interviewees during the research process has ensured that deception has not occurred. Ethical approval was granted by the appropriate research body prior to the interviews.57

Studies aiming to generate knowledge either by describing a social problem or conceptually mapping it may have indirect influence on policy-makers and it is hoped that my research will provide significant knowledge for future Pacific policy

56

All participants received an information sheet and the interview questions prior to agreeing to the interview and signed a consent form at the beginning of the interview (See Appendices A and B).

57 _{The Massey University Human Ethics Committee granted ethics approval for the research on 5}

September 2007. This process involved a peer review panel to explore the potential ethical issues as well as a written application to the Committee.

96 developments in the domain of sub-regional human rights arrangements (Marsh & Stoker, 2002). A summary of the findings of the research will be available to participants and relevant sub-regional and national human rights organisations. In this respect there may be an element of reciprocity to the individuals and agencies involved in the doctoral research if the findings contribute in some way to their ongoing work (Scheyvens, Nowak & Scheyvens, 2003).

The generation, management and analysis of empirical