As Guba and Lincoln (1998) point out, all paradigms constitute human constructions: ‘they are all inventions of the human mind and hence subject to human error’ (p. 202). Researchers cannot prove that their paradigm is incontestable and as such one has to rely on persuasiveness and utility (Guba and Lincoln, 1998). To this end, this section discusses and justifies constructionism as a research paradigm.
Any research paradigm entails certain ontological and epistemological positions. Ontology refers to the assumptions of the researcher regarding the nature of reality (Guba and Lincoln, 1998). It includes the researcher’s beliefs about things and entities that exist or may exist (Pernecky, 2012). As such, the assumptions about the nature of reality are directly linked to what the researcher thinks can be known about this reality – what counts as knowledge, truth or evidence. This is what is called the epistemological position. Epistemology thus is concerned with the nature of knowledge and truth (Macionis and Plummer, 2008). It is directly related to ontological questions as any researcher’s assumptions on the nature of reality will inform the views on what can be known about this reality and ultimately how it should be studied. As such it can be said that ‘[t]he ontological shapes the epistemological’ (Williams and May, 1996, p. 69). Pernecky (2012) defines epistemology as ‘the nature, origins and limits of knowledge’ (p. 1121).
Epistemology also includes the question on the relationship between the researcher and what is being researched, i.e. whether objective detachment and value freedom are possible and the researcher can be separate from the researched (Guba and Lincoln, 1998).
Constructionist qualitative research draws on Berger and Luckmann’s (1971) seminal work on the social construction of reality which states that ‘social order is a human product, or, more precisely, an ongoing human production’
(p. 69). However, Pernecky (2012) critiques how nowadays constructionism can be employed in a variety of different contexts and is thus not self-explanatory. The terminology is also contested, as the terms constructivism, naturalism, interpretivism and hermeneutics are sometimes used to refer to
85
the same paradigm (Pernecky, 2007), whereas at times they are discussed as distinct approaches in social science research (Crotty, 1998). Schwandt (1998) thus argues that the ‘particular meanings [of constructionism and related terms] are shaped by the intent of their users’ (p. 221). Furthermore, there are various nuances within constructionism. Patton (2002) emphasises how constructionist approaches range from ‘the radical “absolutely no reality ever” to a milder “let’s capture and honour different perspectives about reality”’ (p. 101). As such Pernecky (2012) states that ‘unless we are told by the author what it means and how it features in the research, constructionist notions will remain ambiguous’ (p. 1119). In this thesis, the author opted for the term constructionism, and only uses different terminology in direct quotes if used so by the original source. Furthermore, a less radical form of constructionism is adopted.
In line with Goodson and Phillimore (2004), the author supports the view ‘that the complex social world can be understood only from the point of view of those who operate within it’ (p. 36). Furthermore, it is believed that ‘[m]eaning is not discovered, but constructed’ (Crotty, 1998, p. 9). Crotty (1998) defines constructionism as follows:
…the view that all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context. (p. 42)
Constructionism is described by Lincoln, Lynham and Guba (2011) as a paradigm that employs a relativist ontology and a subjectivist epistemology.
This means that the ontological position is that realities are assumed to be
‘multiple, intangible mental constructions’ (Guba and Lincoln, 1998, p. 206).
Constructionist researchers assume that reality is subject to individual interpretation and constructed in social interaction instead of assuming that there is one true reality waiting to be discovered. Consequently, it is not assumed that there is no reality at all, but that there can be multiple social realities which may be conflicting (Guba and Lincoln, 1998). However, in this research it is not assumed that there is an infinite number of subjective realities of equal status (the view of extreme subjectivists (Chandler, 2007)),
86
instead the different realities can be far from equal and are constantly contested.
Furthermore, the epistemological position of constructionism is that there is no objective knowledge of the social world which can be proven with facts, but knowledge is subjective and will be impacted by the researcher’s worldviews. Research findings are interactively created during the inquiry process as the researcher and the researched are assumed to be linked (Guba and Lincoln, 1998). Therefore, constructionism does not aim at explanation and prediction but its aim is to ‘gain understanding by interpreting subject perceptions’ (Lincoln, Lynham and Guba, 2011, p. 102). The aim of the inquiry is to ‘elucidate the process of meaning construction and clarify what and how meanings are embodied in the language and actions of social actors’ (Schwandt, 1998, p. 222).
Chapters 2, 3 and 4 already argued that collective memory and identity are socially constructed, contested concepts and that commemoration is a political practice with multiple, potentially conflicting interpretations of the historical events. Considering this abstract and socially constructed nature of the concepts explored in this research, constructionism is the most appropriate paradigm to employ in order to describe the researcher’s position.
Generally speaking, researchers following a constructionist paradigm tend to favour qualitative research methods as they provide better access to people’s subjective meaning (Lazar, 2004). This is also emphasised by Denzin and Lincoln (1998):
Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationships between the researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry. Such researchers emphasize the value-laden nature of inquiry. They seek answers to questions that stress how social experience is created and given meaning. (p. 8)
Qualitative research does not result in quantified findings or involve measurement or hypothesis-testing and is thus different from quantitative approaches (Phillimore and Goodson, 2004). Generally, qualitative research aims at making sense of and interpreting various social phenomena and their
87
meanings (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998). In this sense qualitative methods are seen as the most appropriate approach for this study.
It is worth noting that there are a variety of alternative paradigms which could have been adopted for this study. In this regard, Lincoln, Lynham and Guba (2011) outline a distinction between five major paradigms: Positivism, postpositivism, critical theory, constructionism and the more recently added participatory or postmodern perspective. An overview of key characteristics of these paradigms can be found in Table 1.
Table 1: Overview of research paradigms (adapted from Lincoln, Lynham and Guba, 2011)
Generally it is important to note that transitions from one perspective to the other are fluid and as such researchers do not always have to operate within extremes of any of the outlined perspectives, as these are no ‘watertight compartments’ (Crotty, 1998, p. 9). However, the other four paradigms were dismissed for the following reasons. Most importantly, the constructionist paradigm is compatible with the author’s worldview more generally. The research aim and objectives were thus formulated within the constructionist paradigm. A constructionist researcher is unlikely to develop objectives that want to explain or predict as positivist research based on quantitative methods, such as the survey, often does (Botterill, 2001; Goodson and
88
Phillimore, 2004). However, constructionist qualitative research is also considered the most suitable approach for the topic. Considering that abstract concepts such as memory and identity are considered, it is unlikely that a positivist quantitative approach would be able to provide the required depth – the same applies to postpositivism. Critical theory and the participatory or postmodern paradigm are also not considered suitable for this research. This is primarily because such research aims to transform or emancipate which is not the aim of this exploratory research. Overall, constructionist qualitative research is seen to be the most appropriate choice for this study.