Condiciones de vivienda de la población desplazada

Positioning myself within a specific research paradigm was a daunting process. Ormston et al. (2014) point out how overwhelming it can be for a novice researcher (such as myself) to become familiarised with all these various schools of thoughts or “isms” (p. 11) and their corresponding beliefs and methodological preferences. This was evident as early as the proposal phase of my research when I made reference to constructionist traditions and social constructionism in the same sentence. I received the following feedback from my supervisor: “Are you implying that these two constructs are used interchangeably?” (A. Barnard, personal communication, May 20, 2015).

My first step in attempting to make sense of the “isms” (Ormston et al., 2014, p. 11) was to go back to my ontological and epistemological assumptions (whilst constantly being mindful of the aim of my research). I identify this going back and forth as an iterative process (see Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002) that ensures congruence between design and implementation. Morse et al. (2002) specifically refer to this as “methodological coherence” (p. 18), which enables the researcher to ensure congruence between the aim of the research and the intended methodology. These assumptions I summarise as follows in Table 2.1 on the following page:

Table 2.1: My philosophical assumptions

Assumptions of:

Ontology Subtle/critical realism

The existence of an external reality, which is constructed through the human mind (Snape & Spencer, 2003).

Epistemology Constructionism

Knowledge and meaning is co-constructed by individuals and the researcher in relation to an external reality (Andrews, 2012; Crotty, 1998; Galbin, 2014).

To make sense of the applicability of all the various paradigms I also went back to my research aim:

The aim of this study was to enhance understanding of volunteer well-being and to develop a conceptual model of volunteer well-being through an in-depth exploration of volunteers’ work–life experiences.

Having identified the subtle/critical realism and constructionist elements in my research aim, namely, volunteer well-being as an external reality, the participants and their work–life experiences and my perspective as the researcher, I could not ignore the unique context8 _{of the study, which I identify as a South African volunteer context.}

In congruence with my constructionist epistemology, social constructionism emphasises the construction of meaning in relation to others and a specific socio- cultural and historic context (Andrews, 2012). Therefore, my ontological and epistemological assumptions and the context of the research are congruent with a social constructionist research paradigm (see Hammersley, 1992). My intention was to report on the way volunteer well-being is constructed within a South African volunteer community (Crotty, 1998). Although Crotty (1998) views social constructionism as a variant of constructionism and as an epistemological stance, Galbin (2014), for example, indicates that at times it is referred to as a movement,

8 _{Burr (2003) recognises that our understanding of the world is shaped by where and when in the}

world we live. In this regard, I could not ignore the unique context of this study, which I explicated in detail in section 1.6 of Chapter 1. The volunteer’s work–life experiences cannot be understood without acknowledging the historical and cultural relativity (Burr, 2003) of the South African volunteer context.

while at others it is referred to as a position, a theory, a theoretical orientation or an approach. Creswell (2014) categorises social constructionism as an interpretive research framework, whilst Terre Blanche and Durrheim (2006), on the other hand, consider it to be a paradigm. Geldenhuys (2015) likewise notes that it can be regarded as a paradigm. Irrespective of what it is called, when reflecting on the origins of social constructionism as developed by Berger and Luckmann in their 1967 book, The social

construction of reality, it remains a theory of knowledge construction, proposing how

knowledge is constructed in a social context (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2006). Thus, even though it may be labelled a paradigm, as I do in this study, social constructionism will always represent a theoretical orientation that is fundamentally epistemologically orientated. For the purposes of this study, I have thus adopted social constructionism as a paradigm, whilst acknowledging its inherent epistemological nature.

I expect that volunteers have realities that differ according to their different work–life contexts and therefore reject the existence of a single truth (Braun & Clarke, 2013). The notion of an ultimate truth does not exist in social constructionism; rather truth/knowledge is regarded as socially constructed by those who are involved in the meaning-making process (Bu & Paré, 2018; Galbin, 2014; Geldenhuys, 2015). In accordance with my philosophical assumptions, I believe in an external reality, which is culturally, historically and socially grounded (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Willig, 2008), as we are all born into a world where meaning already exists (Crotty, 1998). Meaning is the result of our engagement with the social world (King & Horrocks, 2010) and knowledge is constructed through the daily interactions between people (Burr, 2015). Crotty’s (1998) explanation is pertinent to my discussion. He uses the example of a tree to explain that we are born into a world of meaning. We (human beings) have construed trees, given the name ‘tree’ and attributed certain associations with it. In light of this, trees will have different cultural associations for the residents of a logging town as opposed to those in a treeless slum. It is nevertheless important to note that social constructionism is about the mode of meaning generation and does not have to involve people at all (Crotty, 1998). The tree is therefore the object and the cultural association is the meaning (reality) attached to that tree. Furthermore, I consider Gergen’s (2009) viewpoint to explain how within this paradigm social exchange is used to construct the world we live in. He states that “problems do not exist in the world as

independent facts; rather we construct worlds of good and bad” (p. 4). If we use the definition of social constructionism with the example of the tree, for a lumberjack a tree is a source of income and opportunity (good cultural association); however, in conversation with an environmentalist (cutting down of tress has a bad cultural association) the opportunity could be reconstructed into a problem.

I have adopted a social constructionist paradigm because all individuals live and exist in a society, and well-being should be understood within their particular context, culture and relationship to other people (Rojas, 2007). The volunteers’ various realities were brought together and coordinated through a relational process, together with the researcher’s meta-theoretical perspective (well-being), to create a truth/understanding of the research phenomenon, ultimately representing local knowledge (Geldenhuys, 2015).

Although at this point it would seem that I have already taken a firm qualitative research stance, I did not want to force myself into a “methodological straitjacket” (Ormston et al., 2014, p. 19). Because I was acutely aware of the various approaches, designs and methods that were at my disposal, my intention was to choose and implement an approach that was not only compatible with my philosophy of science but also most suitable for answering the aim of my research. This led me to re-visit the aim of my research to ascertain what type of answers I was looking for and thus reflect on the overall purpose of my research.