In this section, I outline the methodological framework for this inquiry. I begin by explaining my justification for selecting a qualitative approach to this inquiry before introducing the methodological paradigm of constructivism. By methodology, I am referring to the underlying theoretical and philosophical perspectives, values and knowledge assumptions that informed my selection and application of research methods (Crotty 1998, p. 3).
From a social work perspective, this study is concerned with the ethical and political dimensions of research inquiry for informing change. D’Cruz & Jones (2004, p. 30) argue that social work research is more than the pursuit of knowledge. The overarching objective is to generate knowledge that will assist to ‘achieve social justice and improve the social conditions of individuals, groups and communities’ (D’Cruz & Jones 2004, p. 30). In alignment with the purpose of my study and the social work principle of social justice, I sought to incorporate a transformative element to the research process. Complementary to a social work perspective, Angen (2000) discusses the principle of ‘ethical validation’ in qualitative research, which gives emphasis to the moral
components of the research. From this principle, Angen (2000) urges researchers to attend to the practicality of their research and its generative potential for social
transformation. The esteem of research should be measured by its capacity to contribute to our collective knowledge of humanity and what is required to generate equitable social conditions. In this study, this meant being continually attuned to the ways in which research as a process of knowledge-generation could enrich social workers’ understandings of the social and cultural constraints young queer people face in workplace settings.
Justifying a qualitative approach
I decided that a qualitative approach was extremely appropriate for addressing the purpose and aims of the study. A qualitative approach was complementary to addressing the purpose and aims of the study first, by generating rich descriptions of the research problem and second, by focusing on the constraints of everyday working life as
experienced by young queer people. Denzin and Lincoln (2003, p. 16) argue that an emic, idiographic perspective is best suited to an inquiry that seeks rich descriptions of
individual experiences. Similarly, Liamputtong and Ezzy (2005) state that ‘Qualitative research aims to elicit the contextualised nature of experience and action, and attempts to generate analyses that are detailed, “thick”, and integrative’ (p. 2). Emphasis is given to understanding the meanings and interpretations individuals give to their actions. The interpretative process resides at the heart of qualitative research; that is, seeking to understand the way people attribute meaning to events and experiences, and then linking these interpretations to wider meaning systems and social arrangements (Liamputtong & Ezzy 2005, p. 4; Shaw & Gould 2001, p. 7). Through applying qualitative methods, I was able to examine the meanings young people generated from their experiences in work settings.
From a critical research perspective, qualitative methods are highly suitable for learning how dominant sexual discourses, beliefs and assumptions impact on people’s lived experiences and understandings of sexuality (Gamson 2003, p. 358). This was relevant to my research in seeking to develop a detailed understanding of how broader institutional arrangements affect social and sexual relationships within the workplace context. My decision to adopt a qualitative approach was also informed by Cresswell’s (1998, p. 17– 18) discussion of eight reasons for undertaking qualitative inquiry:
1) Selecting a qualitative approach for research questions starting with a how or what in contrast to quantitative approaches which ask explanatory questions; 2) Emphasis on the research topic to be explored rather than explained;
4) Intention to study individuals in their ‘natural settings’;
5) Interest in writing in a literary style that uses the personal pronoun and recognises the author’s presence in the study;
6) Sufficient time and resources to spend on a comprehensive process of data collection and analysis;
7) Having an audience that is receptive to qualitative research and findings, including one’s supervisors and wider discipline;
8) Emphasising the researcher’s role as an active learner rather than positioning oneself as ‘the expert’.
My research met all eight criteria except for Criterion 4—I did not undertake field research with young people in the ‘natural setting’ of the workplace. I discuss the reasoning behind this decision in later consideration of ethical issues.
Selecting a constructivist paradigm
The methodological framework for my inquiry was informed by a constructivist paradigm. A constructivist approach to qualitative research lies mid-point between postmodernist and post-positivist approaches as it ‘…aims to include multiple voices, views and visions in the rendering of lived experiences’ (Charmaz 2000, p. 525). From a constructivist approach, researchers focus on the individual meaning-maker and uphold each individual as a unique interpreter of their own life-experiences and events (Crotty 1998, p. 58). In the research process, this entails privileging participants’ accounts of their life-experiences. The aim is to build an understanding of how and why people construct meanings in particular ways within the context of specific situations (Charmaz 2006, p. 130). The philosophical underpinnings of the constructivist paradigm are informed by the ontological standpoint of relativism and the epistemological standpoint of constructionism.
Ontology is the ‘study of being’: theoretical and philosophical propositions of how reality is structured and understood by the human mind (Crotty 1998, p. 10). From a relativist ontological position, human perceptions of reality are constructed through local and specific social interactions. In contrast to a naive realist perspective, reality does not exist as an external dimension that is universally experienced but is alternatively
generated through human engagement and dialogue (Denzin & Lincoln 1998, p. 206). As Crotty (1998) states ‘What is said to be “the ways things are” is really just “the sense we make of them”’ (p. 64). Human understandings of reality are contingent upon cultural and historical location as varying contextual conditions produce alternative
interpretations of the same social phenomena (Crotty 1998, p. 64). On this basis, there can be no single reality, only multiple realities.
While ontological theories invite us to consider ‘what do we know about reality?’, epistemological theories build on these assumptions by inquiring as to ‘how do we know what we know about reality?’ Guba and Lincoln (1989) emphasise the relationship between the researcher and the researched, and pose the crucial question ‘What is the relationship of the knower to the known?’ (p. 83). A constructionist epistemology recognises that there is no single truth or one valid interpretation of the social world (Crotty 1998, p. 47). From a constructionist standpoint, there are always competing knowledge-claims about the social world, generated through social practices and human interactions: ‘...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’ (Crotty 1998, p. 42). Meaning-making is central to knowledge-generation, as the human consciousness constructs meaning of and about the social world. However, this is not to deny the existence of a material world as no object or action can have meaning prior to human engagement and equally no meaning can be bestowed without the presence of an object or other subject to be perceived by the human mind (Crotty 1998). While social realities are still experienced as material reality, the interaction between object and subject is crucial in this interactive process of meaning-making and knowledge- generation (Crotty 1998; Patton 2002).
how we attribute meanings to objects and subjects, social constructionism is chiefly concerned with the methods through which we generate shared systems of meaning- making. We inherit shared systems of meaning through culture, discourse and language; these systems provide a lens through which we view, interpret and make sense of the world (Crotty 1998, p. 54). From a critical perspective, social constructionists attend to how certain meaning-systems can be regarded as more valid than other forms of knowledge; these are meaning-systems that often serve the interests of a privileged few (Patton 2002, p. 100). Social constructionist perspectives have sensitised qualitative researchers to the voices of people who have been silenced and marginalised by the dominant authority of science and positivism (Crotty 1998, p. 48; Gergen 2001, p. 8). In my research, I approach constructivism as a methodological paradigm that is distinct, but not divorced, from social constructionist and constructionist standpoints.
From a constructivist position, the researcher values transparency and accountability throughout the process of data gathering and openly acknowledges their own influential presence in the research; as Charmaz (2005) states ‘we share in constructing what we define as data’ (p. 509). The presence of the researcher shapes all elements of the research process including defining the research question, relating with participants, and selecting and applying methods of data gathering and analysis (Charmaz 2005, p. 509). The researcher is recognised as the co-constructor of both interview accounts and interpretive accounts of participants’ stories (Charmaz 2006, p. 130). In this sense, like Jennifer Mason (1996, p. 36), I prefer the term ‘data generation’ as opposed to ‘data collection’. This term re-positions the researcher as an active participant in the process of knowledge-creation in line with a constructivist methodology. I further elaborate on the links between a constructivist paradigm and my interview and analysis methods