La Teoría Sociocultural de Lev Vygotsky

Methodology refers to the framework of theories and principles that underpin the methods and procedures of a study. It constitutes the underlying logic of how research should proceed, including the assumptions, principles and procedures of a certain approach (Holloway & Galvin, 2016). As a way of approaching and studying social phenomena, a qualitative methodology encompasses the theoretical perspectives and practical considerations that underpin a study, including the choice of method and its suitability to the research aims (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). There are several different methodological

approaches within the wider framework of qualitative research, but they share the main aim of wanting to understand, describe and interpret social phenomena as experienced by the study participants (Wuest, 2011). Participant interviews and observation are typically used in interpretivist studies, with the researcher as the main research tool. The qualitative researcher collects, analyses and interprets data that are not easily reduced to numbers. Rather, these data relate to the social world and the concepts and behaviours of people within a specific context. Using an inductive approach, the qualitative researcher aims to generate knowledge from the ground up. In this way, hypotheses can be generated by exploring phenomena in their natural setting. Notwithstanding its name, inductive reasoning includes a combination of inductive, deductive and abductive thinking to account for the way in which the researcher can make abstract statements from the specific (Birks & Mills, 2015). Induction refers to the reasoning process in which the researcher proceeds from specific instances to general, abstract principles, whereas deduction is the process of testing a general hypothesis to explain a specific case. Abduction reasoning begins with an examination of the data, after which hypotheses are confirmed or disproved during the process of analysis, until a plausible interpretation of the observed data has been reached (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007b).

The interpretivist paradigm in general, and symbolic interaction, in particular, are considered appropriate to explain the processes by which older adults with depression self-manage their depression and optimise well-being.

Interpretivism

The assumptions that underlie social research can, in their most basic form, be grouped into the positivist and interpretivist paradigms. Quantitative research is based on a positivist approach in which knowledge is observable, measurable and objective (Blackstone, 2012). Interpretivism, as the basis for qualitative research, focuses on human beings and the way they make sense of their reality. The acceptance of an individual’s subjective reality is central to interpretivism, with Weber (1981) asserting that meaning could be found in an individual’s intentions and goals. Research that is situated within the interpretivist paradigm focuses on understanding human experience within a broader life context, thereby acknowledging a person’s reality as a social construction

(VanderStoep & Johnson, 2008). By accepting that there are multiple interpretations of reality, interpretivist researchers strive to generate meaning as understood by participants in a natural setting. One of the branches of interpretivism, symbolic interactionism, is particularly closely aligned to the study of human behaviour (Handberg, Nielsen, Lomborg, Thorne, & Midtgaard, 2015).

3.2.3.1.1 Symbolic interactionism

The foundations for symbolic interactionism were laid in the 1920s, but it was only in the early 1930s that George Herbert Mead [1863-1931] articulated the notion that the self was defined through social roles, expectations and broader societal perspectives (Mead, 1934). Drawing from behaviourism, Mead (1934) defined human behaviour as a response to interpretations of the world, rather than to the world itself. He expounded that behaviour and behavioural choices were influenced, but not determined, by context, history and social structures (Mead, 1934). In asserting that knowing occurs within the context of experience, Mead was concerned with the social act as the fundamental process from which all behaviour emerges (McKinney, 1955). The social nature and origin of the individual was that self is defined through a combination of social role expectations and perceptions imposed on the individual by society and groups within society (Mead, 1934). In other words, the self begins to develop when individuals interact with others and play particular roles in that interaction (Baumann, 1967).60 From this perspective, meaning is created through the individual’s own internal dialogue and interactions with others (Milliken & Schreiber, 2001).

Herbert Blumer [1900-1987], a former student of Mead, also viewed the concept of self as constructed through social interaction. He refined and extended the notion of symbolic interactionism as theory about human behaviour and an approach to enquiry into human behaviour, and has been credited with coining the term (Blumer, 1969; MacDonald, 2001). At the time, Blumer’s theory of symbolic interactionism was viewed as an opposition to mainstream sociology, which was dominated by quantitative and deductive

60 _{By proposing that the self is a result of experiential relations between the individual and the broader social group, Mead is} considered the father of role theory (Baumann, 1967).

approaches to social research (Puddephatt, 2009). Blumer’s (1969) three basic premises were:

That human beings act towards things on the basis of the meanings that things have for them … the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with one’s fellows … that these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in

dealing with the things he encounters (p. 2).

According to Blumer (1969), the actions and social lives of humans are based on a continuous process of interpretation. The premise that the self emerges out of social structures and social situations is supported by Denzin (1969), who agrees that social interaction forms human conduct, rather than merely being a means of expressing it. These interactions rest on common meanings and shared understanding that are achieved through the use of symbols or symbolic systems, of which language is considered the most common (Handberg et al., 2015). In other words, interaction is symbolic, as it is made possible through symbolic tools, such as language and gestures. By viewing people as active participants engaged in practical activities in their worlds, symbolic interactionism focuses on how they accomplish these activities. Social scientists in this tradition assert that human complexity can only be understood through inductive enquiry (Oliver, 2012). This is the process by which the researcher moves from specific observations to general principles and theories. By defining, labelling and naming actions and events, symbolic interactionism provides a perspective for developing a dynamic understanding of the process under investigation (Charmaz, 2014). In this way, symbolic interactionism orients enquiry to how people act and interact in their daily lives (Oliver, 2012). Indeed, Denzin (1972) notes that methods of social research are not simply tools, but are a means of responding to and making sense of the environment.

By claiming that qualitative research was the only real way of understanding and explaining how people perceive, understand and interpret the world, Blumer’s (1969) classic symbolic interactionism takes a micro-sociological perspective, in that it considers only the question of the individual in society, not the shape of society itself (Oliver, 2012). This stance that meaning is generated only through social interaction is inconsistent with Mead’s epistemology, which allowed individuals to adjust their action to other people

and their physical environment, within the context of their historical traditions and time constraints (Puddephatt, 2009). Although the inseparability of the individual and the context in which the individual exists are fundamental features of symbolic interactionism (Handberg et al., 2015), there is some debate around whether the process of making meaning should be limited to the sphere of social interaction (Puddephatt, 2009). However, Blumer’s assumptions form a popular foundation for the work of generations of symbolic interactionists who contribute to an improved understanding of the social and interactive nature of everyday life (Oliver, 2012).

The epistemological basis of symbolic interactionism makes it particularly relevant in the health care environment, as the individual and service providers find themselves in an interactive process of meaning making that is based on active engagement and communication within a specific context. As a theory about human behaviour and an approach to enquiring into human conduct, it is highly compatible with the qualitative research methodology of grounded theory (Annells, 1996; Bryant & Charmaz, 2007b). By engaging in symbolic interaction, the grounded theory researcher aims to illuminate and explain the actions and interactions of participants as they manage a particular social problem (Milliken & Schreiber, 2001).