3.3.1. The Research Paradigm and Theoretical Position
A research paradigm is defined as “…a complex belief system, world view or framework that guides research and practice within a field” (Willis, 2007, p. 9). Understanding the researcher’s ‘philosophical world view’ in conceptualising the research is deemed to be essential as it is recognised that one’s “basic set of beliefs…guide action” (Guba, 1990, p. 17). The theoretical philosophical position underpinning this research, which has ultimately guided and influenced the resultant methodological decisions outlined in this chapter, is critical realism within a social constructionist paradigm.
3.3.2. Ontology
The term ‘ontology’ has been defined as the “theory about the type of fundamental entities that exist” (Robson, 2011, p. 529). It is thus concerned with questions about the nature of social reality and whether an external reality exists beyond our understandings of it. The question, ‘what is there to know?’ is applicable in discussions concerning ontology (Willig, 2007).
With regard to the present research, the philosophical assumptions held about the nature and orientations of the world are consistent with a critical realist ontological position. Critical realism offers a middle ground between the more extreme positions of naïve realism and radical relativism (Maxwell, 2012), and advocates that there is an underlying reality which can remain the same even when constructed differently by different individuals, or by the same individual at different times. Maxwell (2012) argues that critical realists retain an ontological realism (there is a real world that exists independently of our perceptions and constructions) while also accepting a form of epistemological relativism (our understanding of the world is inevitably a construction from our own perspective or standpoint).
Naïve realism’s ontological position is that entities exist as we sense them and thus there is a ‘real’ material world independent of human thought (Blaikie, 2007). This view contrasts with the radical relativist beliefs that there can be no truth; that personal constructions constitute ‘reality’; and that “there exists only numerous versions of events, all of which must theoretically be accorded equal status and value” (Burr, 1995, p.55).
A critical realist position affords the researcher an opportunity critically to reflect upon the society they are investigating and incorporates features highlighted by an emancipatory approach, such as taking note of the perspectives of participants (Robson, 2011). This was an essential prerequisite of the present research, which aims to elicit and understand the views of a traditionally marginalised population (Children and Young People (CYP) who have experienced school exclusion).
Critical realism, applied in the context of the present research, allows for the acknowledgement that the factors supporting a successful reintegration into mainstream education may be interpreted (and experienced) differently by different individuals. Although the strategies that support such individuals are ‘real’ and exist external of thought (for example the allocation of a Learning Support Assistant (LSA) in the mainstream setting), the discourse surrounding these strategies is made up of interpreted constructions of reality (for example pupils may differ in the extent to which they find the LSA helpful). Such constructions, from a critical realist stance, depend upon prevailing personal and social factors. In contrast, a relativist position would advocate that we have access to the discourse that surrounds the topic of ‘factors supporting successful reintegration’ but not to a reality underlying the discourse. The discourse would be determined by power relations and group interests, as opposed to a correspondence to an objective reality. At the opposing extreme, naïve realism would assume that the statements about factors that support successful reintegration represent accurate descriptions of reality.
3.3.3. Epistemology
The term ‘epistemology’ has been defined as the “theory of how things can be known” (Robson, 2011, p. 525) and is thus concerned with questions relating to how social reality can be transformed into knowledge and more specifically, ‘on what basis can we say we know something?’
With regard to the present research, the theory of knowledge that is embedded within the theoretical perspective is that of social constructionism. While there are many versions, a common assertion of social constructionist theories is that all that can be known about the world are the shared understandings, constructed through language, within a historically and culturally specific social sphere (Burr, 2015). Reality and ‘knowledge’ are constructed through social interactions and ‘truth’ can therefore be understood as the current socially accepted ways of viewing the world, as opposed to an objective account of reality. Consequently, the aim of the researcher is to use research methods that are interpretivist in nature and that seek to understand the socially constructed meanings ascribed by people to situations (Blaikie, 2007).
Social constructionism offers an alternative perspective to the opposing epistemological positions of positivism and constructivism. From a positivist stance, entities exist independently of humans and have objective meaning. Knowledge can be gained from direct experience or observations (Robson, 2011) and therefore researchers tend to adopt scientific approaches to inquiry and use quantitative methods to gather data and evidence (Creswell, 2009). The constructivist doctrine on the other hand, asserts that knowledge is merely subjective and thus there is no
external or objective truth. Individuals develop subjective meanings of their experiences and such meanings are varied and multiple (Creswell, 2009). The aim of research from this perspective is to rely as much as possible on individuals’ views of the situation being studied and therefore researchers tend to espouse qualitative methods in order to obtain rich data representing the complexity of views.
The present study aims to explore the views of multiple participants regarding the factors that supported their successful reintegration into mainstream education. More specifically, the research aims to identify ‘what works’ for this particular cohort of CYP and therefore identifying common factors and similar viewpoints is deemed to be critical in addressing the research question. Social constructionism provides a framework for understanding the range of individual views within a group as it is assumed that CYP would construct different accounts of the factors that supported their reintegration. Social constructionism does however, provide an explanation as to why similar viewpoints may be held by participants, as ways of talking and thinking about the world are shared and developed socially.
3.3.4. Ontological and Epistemological Assumptions of Q Methodology
Q methodology was initially advocated as a means of studying self-referent viewpoints or opinions. Thus, it may be considered to be constructivist in nature as it focuses on the personal aspects of meaning-construction, and the ways in which individuals interpret and make sense of the external world (Watts & Stenner, 2012). Constructivism is therefore associated with Q methodological studies involving a single-participant design where individual viewpoints are the primary research target (Watts & Stenner, 2012).
In line with the present research, Q methodology can also be affiliated to a social constructionist paradigm. Watts and Stenner (2012) highlight that Q methodology was identified as a research method capable of identifying the currently predominant social viewpoints and knowledge-structures that are relevant to a chosen subject matter. Multiple-participant designs are therefore consistent with social constructionism as the focus diverts from personal meanings, towards shared viewpoints and discourses that represent ‘social facts’ (Dewey, 1985). Indeed, Q methodology provides a means of understanding and mapping the current predominant viewpoints relative to a particular context or object of inquiry (Watts & Stenner, 2012).