Relanzamiento de la OTCA: ¿estrategia de seguridad regional en el

The Integrated Behaviour Model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000) can be critcised on the basis that it focuses more on the Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behaviour (the reasoned action approach), ignoring emotion or affect as part of attitude although Karspryzyk and Montano (2007) mention both the cognitive and affective components of the attitude. The present study addressed this issue by probing individuals on how they felt with regards to TAM use. These feelings appeared to be very important determinants of the attitude subsequently affecting behavioural intentions to use TAM (see results section on attitude based TAM use). IBM can also be criticised for its lack of emphasis on an individual’s background and experiential life as important determinants of their attitude and behavioural intention. Instead, Ajzen et al. (2007) identified background factors like personality, race, gender and past action to indirectly influence behaviour through their effects on salient beliefs. The present study revealed that respondents who grew up in families practicing TAM-use reported difficulties in stopping the practice and stressed it as a major perceived motive for their continued TAM use even with the CM available and accessible.

83

Ajzen and Fishbein (2010) admitted that there is a weakness in their reasoned action approach with respect to their assumption of concordance between the two factors of the attitude (instrumental and experiential). They did not forsee a situation where one can be negative while the other is positive, resulting in conflicting evaluations of the same superordinate attitude towards a behaviour. The instrumental attitude has to do with ratings of the extent to which the behaviour is useful or beneficial, whereas the experiential has to do with ratings of behaviour as pleasurable or boring. The present study gives an elaborate discussion on this finding not anticipated by the IBM. There were reported perceptions of the usefulness of traditional medicines, including claims that they cured AIDS (positive instrumental attitude) whereas problems related to dosages, hygiene and bitter taste rendering it not suitable for young children were also reported (negative experiential attitude). The superordinate attitude was clearly illuminated as full of tension. The study proposed a neither positive nor negative position which was coined “ambivalent” (see Results section).

The IBM also emphasises the importance of normative beliefs in determining an individual’s behavior. It identifies two types, the descriptive norm and the injunctive norm. Both norms require a generalised social agent for correct evaluation. The injunctive norm has to do with perceptions of others’ expectations or what others think one should do and motivation to comply whereas the descriptive norm has to do with perceptions about what others in one’s social or personal networks are doing. The issue is which of the two outweighs the other in terms of their relative importance in influencing the behaviour? These scenarios are adequately articulated in the present study. The study also observes that although some IBM constructs were taken from the Social Cognitive Theory, the model should have considered the reciprocal determination construct from the same theory. The present study revealed this scenario, where the important others within the environmement were themselves influenced by the individual whom the model had assumed to be influenced by the same in a one way linear manner. As is captured in the recommendations section, the model should consider the aforementioned issues in addition to the inclusion of additional variables or factors in order to improve its predictive validity.

84

CHAPTER FOUR

METHODOLOGY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The first part of this chapter presents the methodological issues or the general approach that was used for the present study as directly informed by the ontological and epistemological position of the reseach, which is qualitative and specifically a phenomenological study. The choice of the methodology was informed by Berman and Symth’s pedagogical model for conceptual frameworks in the doctoral research process, which emphasises the need for alignment between the ontology, epistemology and methodology of doctoral research, with specific articulation of aspects of each dimension (Berman & Smyth, 2013). They highlight that the theoretical framework of a study (see Chapter 3) informs the research design and contributes to the trusworthiness of the study. Hammond and Wellington (2013) make a related point when they state that “ontology occupies the top of the hierarchy where epistemology, methodology and methods all get into line” (Hammond & Wellington, 2013, p. 115). This part of the chapter ends with a dicsusion of the theoretical underpinings of the Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis and how they offered theoretical insights for this research.

Accordingly, the second part of this chapter articulates the research method or technique that was used in this study in terms of the design, participants and sampling instruments (inluding inclusion and exclusion criteria) and the pre-test and data analysis within the theoretical framework of the Integrated Behaviour Model (see Chapter 3) as a point of reference. The application of the Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) which was adopted as a tool for data collection and analysis within the context of the Integrated Behaviour Model, will also be discussed. The chapter concludes with the presentation of the trustworthiness of the study and the study’s ethical considerations.

85

4.2 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

4.2.1 Qualitative research

Descombe (2008) viewed qualitative research as a wide term for various styles of social science research, drawing on various diciplines such as sociology, social anthropology and social psychology. This observation converges with Willig’s (2013, p. 8) position that “there are ‘qualitative methodologies’ rather than ‘qualitative methodology.’” She further points out that although qualitative researchers differ in their epistemological positions, for example empirists and social constructionists, they share common concerns which are commonly referred to as “qualitative methodology”. These studies have certain common elements that make them qualitative. Descombe identifies two preferences for qualititave research as the concern with meanings and the way people understand things as well as qualititave research’s interest with patterns of behaviour. Qualitative research is a systematic, subjective approach used to describe life experiences and give them significance (Descombe, 2008). He goes on to indicate that, in addition, the qualitative methodological styles are similar in their special approach to the collection and analysis of data, which are different from the quantitative approaches.

Newman (2011) points out that qualitative studies give data meaning by beginning qualitative interpretation from the point of view of the participants (first-order interpretation) followed by the researcher’s discovery and reconstruction of this first- order interpretation, resulting in a second-order interpretation. He further points out that when the researcher goes on to to generalise or link the second-order interpretation to a theory or general knowledge, they move to third-order interpretation. A third order interpretation involves assigning general theoretical significance to the data. Willig (2013) also indicates that qualitative researchers are concerned with meaning, that is how people make sense of the world and how they experience it. The aim is to describe and explain events and experiences and the meanings given to the events by the research participants themselves from their own ways of making sense of the phenomenon under investigation.

86