LABORATORIO DE INVESTIGACIONES DE DELITOS INFORMÁTICOS

Qualitative and quantitative frameworks employ different techniques to collect data. The differences in methods and techniques of data collection imply the manner in which knowledge is constructed and interpreted by the participants in the qualitative and quantitative frameworks. Although this study followed a qualitative research approach, I also provide a brief description of the quantitative approach in order to illustrate the differences between the two paradigms.

Quantitative paradigm is believed to have its roots in the positivist tradition (Bryman 1984, Poggenpoel, Myburgh & van der Linde 2006; Babbie and Mouton 2001 & Caruth 2013). According to the positivist view, knowledge is gained through predicting, use of objective observational methods, measure and control of human behaviour (Babbie and Mouton 2001, Poggenpoel, Myburgh & van der Linde 2006). Babbie & Mouton explain that in quantitative paradigm the core area for knowledge construction is on experimental control, replicable

64

observations, generalisation and objectivity. This indicates that in quantitative research, the method of collecting data is characterised by proving hypotheses and conducting controlled surveys.

The qualitative approach, on the other hand, maintains that knowledge is socially constructed by individuals in interaction with their world (Merriam 2002). In other words, the research participants are not controlled by the researcher in the way they should interpret and understand their world in qualitative research. Furthermore, it is believed that the participants’ interpretation of their experiences is not controlled by the researcher and the interpretation can change because of the context (Merriam 2002). Johnson & Waterfield (2004) concur with this idea that knowledge is socially constructed by individuals, and further state that knowledge should be interpreted rather than measured. The interpretation of gathered knowledge in qualitative research is said to be unique to a particular context and this could strengthen the reliability of the study because the information cannot be reproduced. This implies that if the data is to be collected in the same school, it may not be the same when collected for the second time because the kind of information is determined by context, at a particular time and context. Similarly, Caruth (2013) claims that, the focus of qualitative paradigm is not to generalize and duplicate information. Hence the findings may not be the same even if they have been generated from the same environment, because the context and experiences are not the same.

The process of knowledge construction in qualitative research is associated with the interpretive framework (Denzil and Lincoln 2005, Babbie and Mouton 2001). According to this framework, knowledge is constructed by making use of different processes of observation. The use of different observation processes provides the researcher with multiple perspectives of how the people in their natural environment act, view the world and their beliefs and how they interpret, make meaning and understand their world (Babbie and Mouton 2001).

Merriam (2009) supports Johnson & Waterfield’s (2004) view that the qualitative research is located in people’s culture, and that there is no single truth in knowledge interpretation. This indicates that knowledge is experienced naturally in the society, and different people may interpret the same experience differently. This could result in different versions of the same experience as interpretation is subjective. Likewise, Poggenpoel, Myburgh & van der Linde (2006) agree to the existence of multiple perceptions about knowledge in qualitative paradigm,

65

and state that meanings about social life are interpreted differently by people and therefore, cannot be measured. In other words, meaning in qualitative research is not quantified in terms of statistics and numbers, but it is interpreted by both the researcher and the research participants. Studying and understanding the phenomena is seen as a crucial characteristic of qualitative research (Leedy and Ormrod 2005). According to Leedy and Ormrod (2005) the qualitative researcher’s ability to interpret and make sense of the phenomena does not complete the investigation, but it is a crucial factor in understanding the social world.

Studying people in their natural environment is another characteristic of qualitative research (Merriam 2009). This suggests that qualitative research studies people in their natural environment in order to understand the way they construct meaning and the kinds of meanings they make in a particular environment (Henning et al. 2004).

Henning, van Rensburg & Smit (2004) support the idea that the researcher co-constructs meaning with the participants in qualitative research. They are of the view that the interpretivist paradigm aims to understand and interpret the meanings the participants attach to their lives through participant’s views. Denzil and Lincoln (2005) reiterate the fact that meaning is interpreted differently by different people participating in social activity, and further state that qualitative researchers are guided by principles that combine certain beliefs in their context. These beliefs, according to Denzil and Lincoln (2005), help to shape or teach about the nature of knowledge and the meanings the participants attach to their everyday activities. The beliefs also teach the researcher about the relationship that exists between the researcher and the knowledge he/she is pursuing, and how people come to know about the world. This indicates that the researcher is able to understand how the world is interpreted by the research participants that are involved in the study.

Henning et al. (2004) refer to the role of the researcher in interpretive paradigm as taking an “insider” perspective when working on social action. This implies that the researcher has to be physically present in the research site in order to understand how the participants view their environment. They further explain that qualitative and interpretive investigations are often conducted in natural settings where different techniques are used in order to gather substantive information about the participants (Henning et al. 2004). The use of different techniques when

66

collecting data affords the researcher different perspectives about the social world, and that adds credibility to the data because the researcher does not rely on a single source of data. The use of multiple sources of data also allows the researcher to have a better understanding of the context under which knowledge is constructed.

In addition, Babbie and Mouton (2001) refer to the “insider” perspective as a phenomenon of studying research subjects in close proximity through observational methods. These methods may include unstructured interviews where the researcher has an opportunity to quote the participants’ words when working with findings, participant observation and the analysis of documents.

As mentioned earlier, this study followed a qualitative approach which is supported by the interpretive paradigm in investigating literacy practices of Grade 3 isiXhosa learners. According to the interpretive paradigm, reality is interpreted and not static. It makes use of different sources of data collection methods in order to interpret and validate data. The interpretive paradigm, according to Henning et al. (2004) is framed on the basis that human lives are interpreted in order for them to be understood. In interpretive paradigm the researcher becomes the co-creator of the meanings that participants attach to their lives.

Researchers who follow the interpretive paradigm believe that knowledge is constructed by people interacting in their environment. In other words, the interaction by participants results in different viewpoints which imply different forms of knowledge. As mentioned earlier, this qualitative study investigated people in their social environment. In a quest to understand people in their social lives, the qualitative approach makes use of ethnography in order to capture and understand the behaviours and attitudes of a particular social group (Collingridge and Gantt (2008). Therefore, a relationship exists between interpretive frameworks and qualitative approach in that both are concerned about understanding human behaviour. Secondly, the qualitative and interpretive approaches make use of multiple sources in order to establish and understand the meanings that are constructed by participants. This study followed the interpretive because the data collected by means of interviews, observations and document analysis was analysed and interpreted in order to construct the meanings that the participants’ actions and responses revealed. White, Oelke and Friesen (2012) support the idea that the qualitative researcher investigates people in their real situations and further state that it describes

67

participants’ experiences in an accurate manner. So, this study aligns with the qualitative approach in that I spent five months in the Grade 3 classroom, collecting data through observing, interviews and document analysis in order to understand literacy practices of Grade 3 learners in their natural environment. My interest in the Grade 3 classroom was to understand the pedagogical strategies the teacher used to teach reading and writing as a collaborative process, and the extent to which the strategies constrained or enhanced learners’ literacy skills. In the next section, I provide a description of the research design which corresponds with the qualitative approach used in this study.