A QUALITATIVE FRAMEWORK

The choice of a particular research perspective is not simply a technical matter, but a rational decision to choose the best design to fit a research question in pursuit of research excellence. (Trinder, 1996: 234)

Sarantakos (1993) has listed various situations in which qualitative148 research is preferable to quantitative. In three respects, the qualitative framework fits the aim of this research and my orientation as researcher in this study:

…[1] there is a need to examine internal realities, i.e.: the meaning of the event for the participant …[2] the investigator perceives researcher and researched as elements of the same situation and the research process as a whole unit (and) …[3] the researcher wishes to capture the meaning and the regularities of social action. (Sarantakos, 1993: 107)

Qualitative methods are also said to offer practitioners/researchers the opportunity ‘to embrace research without submitting to the ‘context stripping’ and ‘reductionistic’ approaches of quantitative methods’ (Padgett, 1998: 373). Trinder (1996) suggests that qualitative analysis is useful in rendering complex processes and phenomena into manageable realities but warns that it must be done thoroughly.149

RESEARCH PARADIGMS

Guba and Lincoln (1994) suggest that although the choice of either quantitative or qualitative methods can be important, ‘questions of method are secondary to questions of paradigm’ which they define as ‘the basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigator, not only in choices of method but in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways’ (p. 105).

Witkin (1994) makes a further distinction between methodology and method: ‘Methods refer to the techniques that are used in evaluation such as an interview or a statistical analysis. Methodology refers to the overall guiding framework within which methods are employed’ (p. 330).

In this case, whilst some counting takes place, the overall guiding framework is a qualitative one. This needs elaboration on a paradigmatic level because ‘inquiry paradigms define for inquirers what it is they are about, and what falls within and without the limits of legitimate inquiry’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1994: 108, original emphases).

148 _{Qualitative research is simply defined as ‘research that produces descriptive data based upon spoken or}

written words and observable behavior’ (Sherman & Reid, 1994: 1).

149 _{‘The strength of qualitative research has traditionally been seen as providing an opportunity to develop}

rich understandings of processes and people, trading off the breadth of explanation of quantitative methods for depth of understanding. To make the trade-off worthwhile requires considerable analytic effort. Understanding and theory-generation through qualitative data-analysis is a complex and demanding process of interpretation. It requires careful and comprehensive analysis of the data, generating categories and building up the analysis from the bottom. Without that effort and understanding, there is a temptation to under-analyse and ‘cherry-pick’ data, by selecting dramatic and interesting quotations and capturing superficial understandings’ (Trinder, 1996: 237).

The aim of constructivist inquiry is to: ‘understand the complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it … (accepting that) to understand this world of meaning, one must interpret it’ (Schwandt, 1994: 118). The constructivist paradigm allows for the existence of multiple knowledge or interpretations, ‘depending on social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic and gender factors that differentiate the interpreters’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1994: 113). Rodwell and Woody (1994) note that

Constructivist inquiry is predicated on the assumptions that the nature of reality is multiple, constructed, holistic, divergent; that generalizations are not possible or desirable owing to the context and time-bound nature of reality; and that interactive mutual shaping, not causality, can be discovered in a research process that recognizes the value-bound, interrelated nature of the inquirer and the object of inquiry. (p. 316)

Constructivists take the view that what can be considered as objective knowledge and truth is the result of perspective, where knowledge and truth are created and not discovered by mind (Schwandt, 1994). Knowledge as a product of the research inquiry is seen to develop in the interaction between inquirer and respondents. Consequently the position of the inquirer and their subjectivity is seen to be a central aspect of the inquiry. What is emphasised in a constructivist venture is that the researcher’s position be made explicit, and not assumed to be objective, unbiased or value-free. Taking into consideration the criticism that constructivist approaches disregard issues of power and context (Laird, 1994), and that the focus of my study aims to explore both the individual meaning-making process and the collective generation of meaning through social processes, this study straddles both the constructivist and constructionist paradigms.

The implications of the research being so located are as follows:

(a) The researcher is not considered to be an objective and impartial observer of an external reality, but an integral participant in the creation of the reality being researched. The researcher’s own experiences and attitudes are therefore acknowledged as being of significant importance, and are fully outlined to enable the reader to evaluate the quality of the research.

(b) Constructivism allows for a research inquiry to be considered as a form of ‘participatory inquiry’ (Shaw, 1996)150

with the researcher and researched viewed as co-researchers with particular respect given to the validity of the participant’s perspective. This position does not however, deny the researcher’s interpretative role in analysing and making sense of the data collected.

(c) The acceptance that there are many different perspectives to any given situation or experience requires the researcher to identify and explore different perspectives, noting both similarities and differences.

150 _{Although it is acknowledged that true participation would have involved returning to the respondents}

(d) The quality of a research design is to be judged in relation to trustworthiness and authenticity.

(e) The social constructionist paradigm stresses the significance of the collective generation of meaning, affected as it is by the conventions of language and other social processes.