Frenado por disco

According to Schnelker (2006:44), fundamental philosophical systems that distinguish approaches to research are referred to as research paradigms. Research paradigms are sets of basic beliefs, accepted on faith, that provide frameworks for the entire research. The various taxonomies used to distinguish paradigms share three fundamental elements: ontology, epistemology and methodology. Ontological assumptions concern the nature and form of reality and determine what constitutes “legitimate”, researchable questions. Epistemological assumptions deal with the nature of knowledge and what counts as knowledge. Methodological assumptions deal with the procedures researchers use to investigate what they believe can be known, and the rationale behind these procedures. Assumptions about the elements

99

are interdependent; that is, assumptions about the nature of reality (ontological assumptions) are logically related to assumptions about the nature of knowledge (epistemological assumptions), which are logically related to assumptions about procedures for investigating what can be known (methodological assumptions). Therefore, each paradigm contains a set of assumptions that are logically related in a unique manner and have practical implications for the conduct, interpretation and utilisation of research (Schnelker, 2006:44).

For the purpose of this study, the interpretive paradigm was selected for conducting the investigation. Denzin and Lincoln (2000:107) argue that interpretivists state that it is possible to understand the subjective meaning of action, yet do so in an objective manner. In order to understand the intersubjective meanings of human action, the researcher may have to participate in the life-world of others. It is therefore evident that interpretivist researchers want to develop an understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.

Vine (2009:1) states that, in the mid-twentieth century, Wilhelm Dilthey was influential in the interpretivist paradigm. Dilthey highlighted that the subject matter investigated by the natural sciences was different from the social sciences, in which human beings as opposed to inanimate objects could interpret the environment and themselves. In contemporary research practice, this means that there is an acknowledgement that facts and values cannot be separated and that understanding is inevitably prejudiced, because it is situated in terms of the individual and the event. Researchers recognise that all participants involved, including the researcher, bring their own unique interpretations of the world or construction of situations to the research. Therefore, the researcher needs to be open to the attitudes and values of the research participants or, more actively, suspend prior cultural assumptions. Interpretivist research methods include focus groups, interviews and research diaries – all methods that allow for as many variables to be recorded as possible. One of the criticisms against interpretivism is that it does not allow for generalisations, because it encourages the study of a small number of cases that do not necessarily apply to the whole population. However, other authors have argued that the detail and effort involved in interpretive inquiry allows researchers to gain insight into particular events

100

as well as a range of perspectives that may not have come to light without that scrutiny.

Lïchtman (2010:244) defines Interpretivism as a theory or philosophical doctrine that emphasises analyzing meanings people confer on their own actions, while Creswell (2009:8) likens interpretivism to social constructivism, which holds the assumption that individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work. Individuals develop subjective meanings of their experiences, directed towards certain objects or things. These meanings are varied and multiple, leading the researcher to look for the complexity of views rather than narrowing meanings into a few categories or ideas. The goal of the researcher is to rely as much as possible on the participants‟ views of the situation being studied. The researcher‟s intent is to make sense of/or interpret the meanings others have about the world. Instead of starting with a theory, researchers generate or inductively develop a theory or pattern of meaning. In addition, Porta and Keating (2008:27) contend that interpretive research aims at understanding events by discovering the meanings human beings attribute to their behaviour and the external world. The focus is on understanding human nature. More specifically, this type of social science aims at understanding the motivations that lie behind human behaviour, a matter that cannot be reduced to any predefined element, but must be placed within a cultural perspective. This type of research seeks explanations for social outcomes, but does not expect to derive these from universal rules. Rather, explanation comes from the interpretation of people‟s motives for their actions.

On the other hand, Briggs and Coleman (2007:23) claim that the basis of the interpretivistic approach is one in which research participants negotiate meanings about their activity in the world. Societal reality therefore consists of attempts to interpret the world. Gubrium and Holstein (2002:678) observe the following with regard to interpretivism: multiple realities exist; data reflect the researcher‟s and the research participants‟ mutual constructions; and the researcher enters into and is affected by the participants‟ worlds. The researcher aims to learn participants‟ implicit meanings of their experiences, to build a conceptual analysis thereof.

101

Interpretivists believe that reality is not objectively determined, but socially constructed. The underlying assumption is that placing people in their social contexts, will enhance the opportunity to understand the perceptions they have of their own activities. By its nature, interpretivism promotes the value of qualitative data in pursuit of knowledge. In essence, this research paradigm is concerned with the uniqueness of a particular situation, contributing to the underlying pursuit of contextual depth. However, while interpretive research is recognised for its value in providing contextual depth, results are often criticised in terms of validity, reliability and the ability to generalise, referred to collectively as research legitimisation. In reality, all the issues are interdependent and reflect on the layered complexity of the phenomenon at hand (Kelliher, 2005:123).

Similarly, Rowlands (2005:81-83) is of the view that interpretive research acknowledges the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is being explored. Interpretive research does not predefine dependent or independent variables, and does not set out to test hypotheses, but aims to produce an understanding of the social context of the phenomenon and the process through which the phenomenon influences and is influenced by the social context. An interpretive paradigm is based on the view that people socially and symbolically construct their own organisational realities. The research approach is consistent and compatible with the epistemological and ontological assumptions that the world and reality are interpreted by people in the context of historical and social practices. That is, experience of the world is subjective and best understood in terms of individuals‟ subjective meanings rather than the researcher‟s objective definitions. Interpretive researchers therefore attempt to understand phenomena through accessing the meanings that participants assign to them. Interpretive researchers reject the possibility of an “objective” or “factual” account of events and situations, seeking instead a relativistic, albeit shared (between researcher and participant) understanding of the relevant phenomenon. The intent is to understand the deeper structure of a phenomenon, which understanding can then be used to inform other settings. Schnelker (2006:45) maintains that interpretive researchers focus on how people make sense of their worlds, rather than on what people conclude about their worlds. Understanding the process occurs within the context of the individual or event of interest. The aim of interpretive research is to generate idiographic

102

knowledge; descriptions of individual and unique realities that provide readers with a deep understanding or vicarious experience of the individual or event of interest. Researchers are ultimately responsible for interpreting how others make sense of their experiences and conveying those interpretations to readers. Interpretive researchers use their own subjective experiences to develop an empathetic understanding of the feelings, perceptions, values, etcetera that influence the way in which participants make sense of their worlds.

Based on the body of literature studied, I came to the conclusion that the interpretive paradigm would be the most appropriate choice for my research, mainly because interpretive research would allow me as the researcher to gain insight into and interpret how my participants made sense of their experience of how they as educators were involved in their own CPD. The differing realities of the participants would enable me to improve my own comprehension of the phenomenon being studied, namely how to improve educators‟ professional confidence by improving their involvement in their own CPD.