REFORMAS INSTITUCIONALES ANTE LA VIOLENCIA

Denzin and Lincoln (2008) describe a paradigm “as a basic set of beliefs that guide action” (p. 245). They suggest that a paradigm encompasses the four key elements of ethics,

epistemology, ontology and methodology. Each paradigm has its own criteria, assumptions

and methodological practices. It is important to both understand and articulate the way in which design choices are determined by paradigmatic beliefs.

The current study is positioned in the interpretivist paradigm, with an emphasis on the phenomenon of practicum assessment, and the experiences and meaning-making of

participants (Gray, 2004). Cohen, Manion and Morrison, (2007, pp. 20-21) provide a valuable definition of the beliefs that distinguish the interpretivist paradigm, which have been utilised in framing the following discussion, to explain the approach taken in the current study.

In interpretivist research, participants are seen to be active, purposeful and intentional; meaning makers who construct and interpret their social world (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). This methodological position is congruent with constructivism, with its underpinning epistemological position that people actively construct their own meanings through

engagement in their social settings (Guba & Lincoln, 2008). This study is predicated on the epistemological belief that the social world is constructed and mediated as a result of

interaction and engagement and does not exist independently of the participants (Gray, 2004). It is manifest as a result of inter-subjective awareness among people, constructed of ideas, norms, thoughts and practices at a given point of time and place. A social-constructivist approach is utilised as the predominant framework in accordance with the key purpose of the study: to discover the practices, beliefs and ‘lived experiences’ of all of the participants involved in the assessment of practicum (Patton, 2002b, p. 268).

For the constructivist researcher, the thoughts, actions, beliefs, expectations and assumptions of the participants are of utmost importance (Patton, 2002a). The appropriateness of utilising this approach is summarised by Trumball (2005, p. 101): “The qualitative approach is inductive, with the purpose of describing multiple realities, developing deep understanding and

capturing everyday life and human perspectives”. In defining the practicum as a socially constructed event, an interpretive approach within the constructivist paradigm appeared the most cohesive and appropriate framework to guide the research.

This study investigated the way in which student teachers, associate teachers and teacher educators actively engaged in the act of practicum assessment: both individually through the roles that they take and the meaning that they afford to assessment practices and

experiences; as well as collectively, in the way that participants join together within the context of the practicum triad. The research task was not thus to determine a ‘universal truth’ (Guba & Lincoln, 2008) about practicum assessment, but rather to determine the ways in which participants engaged in practicum assessment and made meaning of their experiences.

Interpretivism prioritises context. Behaviours and events are seen to be ‘situated activities’ that are affected by contextual influences (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007, p. 20). This study positioned practicum as a situated activity, and sought to capture understanding of the

institutional context, the social context, and the personal context that shaped the way practicum was enacted and experienced by the key participants. Consideration of the context of a phenomenon supports a focus on meaning making and understanding that is central to constructivist epistemology (Gray, 2004).

Interpretivism proposes a research approach that studies the social world in its natural state without the intervention or manipulation of the researcher (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). This study is illuminatory and exploratory in nature (Punch, 2009). Each phase of the research was designed to capture the practices that are enacted during assessment and the way in which the stakeholders experience these practices. The research did not begin with an hypothesis or foregone position that it was seeking to prove (Guba & Lincoln, 2008) and nor

did it involve any sort of intervention. It was instead driven by a series of questions that sought to illuminate a phenomenon from the perspective of those involved. Theory generation occurred as a result of, rather than a precursor to, the study (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007).

Interpretivist research acknowledges that there are multiple interpretations of, and perspectives on, events and situations and views knowledge as personal, subjective and unique (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). This belief was central to the approach to this study. From the inception of the study, the intent was always to explore the perspectives of all of the key participants in the assessment act, as well as the perspective of the institution. It was anticipated that student teachers, associate teachers and teacher educators would have different experiences and perceptions of practicum assessment, and that it was important to interrogate the perspective of each to establish a greater understanding of the practicum assessment phenomenon (Gray, 2004).

Interpretivism views reality as multi-layered and complex, and values ‘thick’ descriptions of an event that represent the complexity (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). My own experiences of practicum assessment, coupled with wide reading of the literature support the contention that practicum assessment is a complex event, influenced by many different elements. This study adopted a multi-phase, multi-site and multi-method approach in an effort to capture the complexity of practicum assessment. Foregrounding (Rogoff, 2003) was used to define each of the data collection phases, enabling attention to be given to specific elements of practicum assessment, without negating the complexity of the whole process.

Interpretivism values research that examines situations through the eyes of the participants (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). The current study was grounded in the experiences of the

participants, as shown in the research objective ‘to critically examine the beliefs, perceptions and experiences of the key stakeholders in the assessment of practicum in early childhood initial education’. Interviews with key participants were the primary source of data and form the basis of understanding the practicum assessment phenomenon.

Goldkuhl (2012, p. 138) proposes that “the core idea of interpretivism is to work with these subjective meanings already there in the social world; that is to acknowledge their existence, to reconstruct them, to understand them, to avoid distorting them, to use them as building- blocks in theorizing”. These principles were pivotal to the design and conduct of this research. At each phase of the study emphasis was placed on collecting, analysing and reporting data in a way that respected and honoured the unique perspectives shared by participants.

Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007) suggest that interpretivist research is particularly

appealing to the educational researcher for two reasons, both of which were significant to this research. The first is that interpretive research is a good fit for the inherently social context and practice-focused nature of educational settings. In this study, practicum is positioned as a temporary social system, where the key participants come together for the purpose of apprenticeship within a profession. It is intense, purposeful and highly relational and thus requires a research approach that allows for complexity and multiple perspectives. Second, interpretive approaches seek to preserve the integrity of the situation under investigation (Gray, 2004). The assessment of practicum needed to be addressed with validity. To achieve this, the study focused closely on the key participants in the practicum assessment, who could speak directly to assessment practice and the way it was experienced. The choice to include a case study phase that contributed data that was collected in the moment of assessment also enhanced the validity of the study.

In outlining the interpretivist theoretical perspective of the current study, it is acknowledged that data generation is typically co-constructed between the researcher and participants. Denzin and Lincoln (2011, p. 596) describe research approaches as falling along a continuum from qualitative/quantitative, soft/hard, artistic/scientific. They argue that there is a vast and varied middle ground between the most extreme positions that can yield valuable research possibilities that blend research traditions and practices. The current study falls in the middle realm of these continuums. As the researcher, I designed the research and determined the methods used. I framed the scope of the interviews as well as developing the online survey tool. In doing so, the participants did not have a significant role in co-constructing the study. However, in each phase of the study every effort was made to respect the contribution of participants, and to provide them with the opportunity to share their experiences and express their understandings of practicum assessment, in alignment with interpretivist principles.

This section has overviewed the link between the epistemology and theoretical perspective of the study, and in the following section will examine the link to the methodological framework of the study in greater depth.