pregunta abierta(Texto Filosófico)

Guba and Lincoln (1981) argue that ‘while the concept of generalisability is appealing, it is proving to be a Holy Grail’ (p.61). Lincoln and Guba (1985) document a number of deficiencies associated with generalisability such as dependence on the assumption of determinism, inductive logic and the assumption of freedom from time and context. In terms of contextual issues, Cronbach (1975) argues that ‘in every field empirical relations change’ and that economic and social changes, aspirations and ‘community attitudes’ will be different (p.122). Therefore, ‘generalisations decay. At one time a conclusion describes the existing situation well, at a later time it accounts for rather little variance, and ultimately it is valid only as history’ (p.123).

124

Lincoln and Guba (1985) present the concept of ‘naturalistic generalisation’ (p.129) as an alternative to the ‘rationalistic, propositional, lawlike’ approach (p.121). Naturalistic generalisation they argue is ‘more intuitive, empirical, based on personal direct and vicarious experience’ (p.121). Naturalistic inquirers according to Guba and Lincoln (1981) ‘focus upon the multiple realities that, like the layers of an onion, nest within or complement one another. Each layer provides a different perspective of reality … the layers are intricately interrelated … It is these patterns that must be searched out … for the sake of understanding’ (p.57). They suggest that a ‘naturalistic paradigm relying on field study as a fundamental technique’ involves ‘sufficient immersion in and experience’ with a field which yields ‘inevitable conclusions about what is important, dynamic and pervasive in that field’ (p.55). However, Martin and Vallance (2008) argue that qualitative studies need to provide ‘enough detail to illustrate how a conclusion makes sense’ (p.36). Rigour is an important quality in qualitative research, and Merriam (1998) argues it ‘derives from the researcher’s presence, the nature of the interaction between researcher and participants, the triangulation of data, the interpretations of perceptions, and rich, thick description’ (p.120).

Cronbach (1975) endorses an ‘interpretation in context’ (p.123) approach where ‘an observer collecting data in one particular situation is in a position to appraise a practice or proposition in that setting, observing effects in context’ (p.124). Equal attention is given to the control of variables and ‘uncontrolled characteristics’ such as ‘personal characteristics’ (p.124). Factors unique to the context are considered to be what Geertz (1973) calls ‘thick description’ (p.6). Creswell (2014) argues that use of ‘rich, thick description’ can ‘transport readers to the setting and give the discussion an element of shared experiences’ (p.202). Furthermore, as Cronbach (1975) argues, how the uncontrolled factors ‘could have caused local departures from the modal effect’ are considered and ‘generalisation comes late’ (p.125).

Guba and Lincoln (1981) argue that ‘for naturalistic inquiry … meeting tests of rigour is a requisite for establishing trust in the outcomes of the inquiry’ (p.103). This firstly involves establishing confidence in the findings or internal validity (see section 4.7). In my study, the credibility of findings was enhanced by taking precautions ‘against potentially invalidating factors’ (Guba and Lincoln 1981, p.105). In a naturalistic inquiry, McCall and Simmons (1969) argue that interviewing may be ‘subject to various

125

contaminating effects’ such as: ‘(1) the reactive effects of the interview situation upon the received testimony; (2) distortions in testimony; and (3) reportorial inabilities of the interviewee’ (p.104). Dean and Whyte (1969) argue that interviewees present a picture of the world as they see it and that the interviewer is getting only what the interviewee ‘is willing to pass on’ (p.106). In this study, it was therefore important to be cognisant of the ‘objective reality’ and ‘subjective sentiments’ presented (p.106).

Furthermore, ‘the main consideration that makes the evaluation of reports of subjective data difficult is the fact that they are so highly situational’ (p.107). An interviewee may have ulterior motives that may influence their reporting of situations. The spontaneous sharing of negative aspects of a situation may be hindered if an interviewee feels that the information is for public consumption. Moreover, how an interviewee views the interviewer could influence responses. As Dean and Whyte (1969) argue, they may have ‘desires to please’ the interviewee and as a result, they may only communicate ‘one facet of his [or her] reactions to a subject’ (p.108). All of these variables were considered in this study and in order to avoid misinterpretation, the interview schedule and situation was carefully structured and handled. Care was taken to minimise the effect of selected sharing of views by issuing assurances of confidentiality. Efforts to establish an appropriate level of rapport with interviewees were made. However, it was important for me not to influence or be influenced by the emerging data during the interviewing process to avoid bias and distortions in findings. The nature of the respondents’ views was determined through dialogue with them. For example, questions were asked in many different ways until the respondents’ sentiments were more clearly understood. This was followed by a summarising of the responses and the process of respondent validation mentioned earlier.

It was important to acknowledge the ‘degree to which the findings of a particular inquiry may have applicability’, which Guba and Lincoln (1981) call external validity or ‘generalisability for applicability’ (pp.103-104). They argue that the concept of generalisability is viewed as a ‘chimera’ (p.116) and a ‘fragile concept’ (p.117) and that the applicability of findings of one particular evaluation to another setting are for many purposes ‘meaningless’ (p.115). However, ‘it is a truism that there can be no generalisability … unless there is a reasonable level of internal validity’ (p. 115). In this study, internal validity reinforces external validity to a degree, however, the locus of the

126

study was an examination of what Guba and Lincoln (1981) call a ‘slice of life’, rather than claiming to be representative of other ‘slices of life’ (p.116). In essence, similar to Cronbach (1975) who argues that generalisations decay, Guba and Lincoln (1981) posit that ‘replication is impossible because circumstances change so rapidly … A person viewing the same situation at different times will be forced to different conclusions’ (p.116). Not surprisingly therefore, it is open to the ‘audience’ of home economics professionals in particular, to determine how applicable this study is to current practice.

Summary comments

This research design involved a qualitative study centred on teachers and other stakeholders’ perceptions, a review of the evolution of the subject and its identity and an analysis of two of its key components, curriculum and testing. The outline of the various methods is further elaborated in the discussion of the results in the next chapter.

127