DISCUSIÓN DE LOS RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES

Before discussing the design for this research, it is necessary to recall the three main research questions and four objectives for the study. As suggested by Creswell (2003), research questions are very important because they help to determine the design and the methods to use in a piece of research. This view is supported by Clough and Nutbrown (2007, p.40), who argue that the questions researchers ask ‘inform the creation of research methods’. In addition, the research questions and objectives of a study help to give focus to the research. In view of this, my three research questions are as follows: RQ1. What have been the key language and literacy policies since Ghana’s independence, as seen through a postcolonial lens? RQ2. How have teachers experienced changes in language and literacy policy in terms of their classroom practices? RQ3. What are teacher’ views on how language and literacy policy has been developed and implemented?

There were four specific research objectives, which informed the above questions: (1) To critically examine the different language and literacy policies for early grades from independence until the present time; (2) To assess the effectiveness of the different policies on

67 classroom practices from teachers’ perspectives; (3) To identify and understand the key perceived sociocultural factors and how these have affected the language and literacy policies for 4-8 year olds in Ghana; (4). To develop a conceptual framework aimed at addressing the language and literacy teaching and learning of early graders in Ghana

Before discussing the philosophical assumptions of this research, it is necessary to explain the terms methodology and methods, which, though related, have different meanings, especially because of the use of the life history methodology in this study, which may appear confusing.

3.2.1 Research methodology

Tight (2013) asserts that some researchers appear to use the terms methodology and methods interchangeably although there is a difference between the two words. Wellington (2015, p.33) defines research methodology as ‘the activity or business of choosing, reflecting upon, evaluating and justifying the methods you use’ when conducting research. Wellington’s definition suggests that methodology involves the concepts and theories that a researcher considers when doing research, which include: deciding or making a choice on philosophical issues, the research design, the tools for collection and analysis of data, as well as ethical issues that may be encountered during the study. Similarly, Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011) see research methodology as making choices on the use of a particular philosophical paradigm, methods and procedures for collecting data, analysing and interpreting the data collected from participants. In this definition, Cohen et al. (2011) clearly reveal the difference between methodology and methods; the former requires researchers to make a decision about their philosophical assumptions for the research, while the latter requires researchers to choose the methods to be employed, and to explain how they are used to collect data from participants and how that data will be analysed. Clough and Nutbrown (2007, p.23) differentiate between the two as follows, ‘…this distinction can be seen in terms of methods as being some of the ingredients of research, whilst methodology provides the reasons for using a particular recipe’. This shows that research methodology relates to the general design of the research and the methods are the tools for data collection. The relationship between research design and the methods therefore requires researchers to find the appropriate approach and methods suitable for their study and be able to justify their use.

In deciding the research approach for this study, I was guided by Clough and Nutbrown (2007, p.34), who said ‘it is the task of methodology to uncover and justify research assumptions as

68 far as practicably as possible and…. to locate the claims which the research makes within the traditions of enquiry which use it’.

3.2.2 The research paradigm and philosophical issues

It is important for every researcher to consider how the choice of a research paradigm may affect their study, as what one studies is important to knowledge construction and everyday activity (Bryman, 2008). As the research questions show, this study is concerned with examining the different language and literacy policies in lower grades since independence and how these policy changes impacted on teachers’ practices. This is an indication that this study is interested in understanding teachers’ knowledge and experiences and how these inform their classroom practices. This undoubtedly means that as a researcher I am interested in the interpretations and meanings of the social reality of my participants, which will influence my choice of philosophy, strategy and methods of data collection (Bryman, 2008).

Guba (1990) argues that the philosophical assumption or paradigm chosen by the researcher is underpinned by his/her epistemological and ontological stance, together with the choice of methodology. According to Creswell (2007), these philosophical assumptions deal with the ‘nature of reality, what counts as knowledge and how knowledge claims are justified, the role of values in research and the process of research’ (p.20). In other words, these philosophical issues deal with what Clough and Nutbrown (2007, p.33) refer to as ‘the study of being and of knowing respectively’. These arguments appear to suggest that there is a close relationship between a researcher’s ontology, epistemology and methodology. The next section will discuss my ontological and epistemological position with regard to this study and a justification for the choice of an interpretivist paradigm.

3.2.2.1 Ontology

Ontology, according to Crotty (1988, p.10), is about the ‘study of being’ or ‘what is’. Bryman (2008) also sees ontology as the nature of reality or what constitutes a fact and whether reality can be learnt from a subjective or objective view. In other words, ontology deals with what people see as the reality and how they interpret something. To Cohen et al. (2011, p.33), ontology is the ‘nature of reality or of a phenomenon’ and it is based on ‘politics and interest’. This suggests that ontology is about peoples’ belief systems and how their beliefs influence how they interpret what they see. Thus, the question of ontology in social science research is associated with knowing things objectively or subjectively (Blaikie, 2010). In other words, do social entities exist by themselves and can they therefore be known independently or are they influenced by social actors? (Bryman, 2008). Bryman asserts that having an objective ontology

69 means accepting that reality exists by itself or has its own existence and, as a result, is not influenced by social factors. On the other hand, holding a subjectivist view suggests that individuals have a part to play in the understanding of the social world and, therefore, reality can change depending on how it is perceived. I hold the belief that, for the participants in this study, social reality is constructed differently based on their family circumstances, their educational background and teaching experiences. By adopting a subjective position, I was able to collect in-depth qualitative data on personal beliefs, values and classroom experiences, which were not only unique to individual participants, but also provided a deeper understanding of teachers’ use of language and literacy policy in Ghana. As Germeten (2013, p.616) argues, Life history research is a paradigm where people, situations, events, and experiences are in focus’.

I will now discuss how my subjective ontology influenced my epistemological position.

3.2.2.2 Epistemology

Epistemology deals with the nature of knowledge, or what is regarded as ‘acceptable knowledge in a discipline’ (Walliman, 2006, p.20). This philosophy holds many positions on what constitutes knowledge or how people come to know something; however epistemology is often reduced to two main positions on the nature of knowledge (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). First, some argue that the truth is out there and it is up to the researcher to find it through scientific testing (positivism). Those who hold such a belief use objective means to come to the truth with less involvement by the researcher. On the other hand, some believe that knowledge is not out to be tested or observed, as in the case of positivists, but human interpretation (subjectivism) of the social world can lead to knowledge (constructivism or interpretivism). Knowledge, according to Sumner (2006), is therefore based on the knower or the relationship between the knower and the knowledge, so both positivists and interpretivists will perceive knowledge differently based on their ontological assumptions. I agree with Goodley (1996, p.338) that the, ‘personal qualities of life history, its commitment to subjectivity’ defies the notion of positivism. The choice of life history and my ontological position makes the adoption of an interpretivist approach the best option for this study. Hanson (2015, p.854) argues that interpretivism or social constructivism is based on the ‘idea that meaning, learning and wisdom are context bound and therefore not amenable to singular models for deciding what matters, or is real’. This appears to suggest that, because people experience reality differently, there cannot only be one way of knowing things. May (2011)

70 also suggests that interpretivism is an epistemological position, which believes in the existence of multiple realities and the acceptance of multiple interpretations of a given phenomenon. This is because interpretivists believe peoples’ perception of reality is based on their opinions, understanding and feelings, rather than on a single unitary reality. Since the concern of this study is individual teachers’ life histories and perceptions of policies relating to language and literacy teaching in lower grades, this study has adopted an interpretivist paradigm, and I see myself positioned on the ‘inside’ of the research.