An interpretive paradigm

Within this qualitative research, an interpretative paradigm was chosen in order to explore the perceptions, experiences, and understandings of literature in policy and practice from the perspective of a group of secondary school teachers as opposed to the more frequently explored perspective of the student (Tehan, 2015; Mansworth, 2016; Wood, 2016), thus addressing a gap in current research.

50

Whereas a positivist design assumes that procedures can be applied to studying and explaining human behaviour (Bryman, 2012; Cohen et al. et al. 2011), an interpretivist position assumes that the role of the researcher is to ‘grasp the subjective meaning of social action’ (Bryman, 2012, p.30) with an emphasis on building understanding of the processes and actions of the individuals and interpreting their behaviours.

An important aspect of interpretive research is the context within which the research takes place (Hudson and Ozanne, 1998), an approach that ‘looks for culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social life-world’ (Crotty, 1998, p.67). Indeed it was an interest in

understanding literature at a very specific time in its teaching that inspired this research, at a time of GCSE English Literature reform. It has been argued that this reform was ‘widely viewed negatively and fearfully’ (Smith, 2015), one of a spectrum of complex assumptions about GCSE reform that needed challenging and exploring from the perspective of those for whom reform directly impacted. The interpretive position was thus appropriate for this study because of its concern for ‘the

individual persons or groups’ (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, pp.110-111) who were interacting with literature at this time of reform. The focus of this research was thus on how exploring how people thought and interrelated, how their worlds were constructed, and what understandings and perceptions they had about the world (Basit, 2010; Thomas, 2013).

An interpretive paradigm was also an appropriate position for the research due to its focus on thick descriptions that allowed for a representation of the complexity of situations (Geertz, 1973) in order to have an ‘in-depth understanding’ (Grbich, 2007, p.9) of the complexity of the discursive

construction of literature in policy and practice. This study was an attempt to understand events which were both unique to the teachers in the sample (Patton, 1985) but also universal – every English teacher was teaching the reformed GCSE in English literature. In doing this, it sought to privilege teachers’ opinions and experiences of the complex relationship between policy and practice (Mason, 2002; Creswell, 2003).

An interpretive position allowed the research to focus on the meaning and understanding of

situations in their uniqueness (Patton, 1985), from the perspective of the teacher (Merriam, 2009) in the very specific context in which they teach and where meaning was constructed (Crotty, 1998). It also allowed me, as researcher, to critically reflect on ‘the self as researcher’ (Lincoln & Guba, 2000, p.183) in order to articulate and clarify my ‘assumptions, experiences, worldview and theoretical orientation to the study at hand’ to better understand my perspectives, biases, and assumptions (Merriam, 2009, p.219) about the issues raised and challenged by the study.

51 3.5.1 Limitations of an interpretive paradigm

There were weaknesses to an interpretive approach that had to be considered. In accepting the centrality of subjectivity in an interpretive approach, it has been argued that the researcher’s values define the world that is studied and that the world beyond those values is never known (Ratner, 2002). If there is too much focus on the researcher’s experience as the primary instrument for data collection and analysis (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995) then the things that they do not know, will not be studied (Cohen et al. et al, 2005). This can result in conscious or unconscious bias

(Hammersley, 2008). Even if the aim of this research was understanding from the perspective of the participants, it was important to acknowledge that my own ‘professional experiences, personal intellectual concerns, and assumptions about knowledge’ were what ‘feed the dissertation’ (Piantanida and Garman, 1999, p.24). This is because it was these experiences, concerns and knowledge that mirrored the participants and had to be interpreted (Turato, 2005).As a consequence and to avoid criticisms of bias, the researcher’s values must be made explicit and visible throughout the research, with attention drawn to the level of involvement (Guba and Lincoln, 1981; Merriam, 2002). Responsibility must be taken for how bias might impact upon the research (Mason, 2002), resulting in the potential for such biases to be ‘virtuous’ (Peshkin, 1998, p.18) in this conversational space between researcher and bias (Owens, 2006).

3.5.2 Constructionism and social constructivism

Interpretive research is based on the belief that knowledge is socially constructed (Merriam, 2009) and created through an understanding that the world and what is considered to be true within this world, is a ‘product of our own making’ (Eisner, 1993, p.54).This subjectivity could be seen to be ‘essential’ because it is from these subjectivities that interpretation is made (Thomas, 2013, p.109).

Within this interpretive position, knowledge is not believed to be found but constructed and, as such, the term ‘constructivism’ is often used interchangeably with ‘interpretivism’ to describe researchers who seek this understanding of the world in which they live and work (Merriam, 2009). Indeed, such subjective meanings are negotiated socially and historically and are formed through interaction with others, hence ‘social constructivism’ (Cresswell, 2007): an emphasis on how individuals make meaning within a social context. Subjective meanings are not just ‘imprinted on individuals’, they are formed through interaction with others and through the ‘historical and cultural norms that operate in individuals’ lives’ (Cresswell, 2007, p.21), a definition that was important to this study.

Crotty (1998, p.58) suggests that the language around constructionism and constructivism has been inconsistent. It is suggested that it is useful to use the term ‘constructivism’ for epistemological

52

considerations focusing exclusively on the ‘meaning-making activity of the individual mind’ and to use ‘constructionism’ (yet, with the adjective ‘constructivist’) where the focus includes ‘the collective generation [and transmission] of meaning’. Constructivism is thus based on the idea of reality as ‘an internal construction where individuals assign meaning to experiences and ideas’ (Savin-Baden and Howell Major, 2013, p.63). This distinction informed this study. The focus is on the discourse of social interaction as opposed to the individual’s construction of meaning which is a more psychological concern (Doolottle, 2001).

Social constructionism emphasises ‘the hold that our culture has on us: it shapes the way in which we see things (even the way in which we feel things!)’ (Crotty, 1998, p.58). This definition underpins the decision to use discourse analysis as both method and methodology within this study. Within an interpretive epistemological position, social constructionism emphasises the essentially social nature of language. It argues that ‘the world is produced and understood through interchanges between people and shared objects and activities’ (Savin-Baden and Howell Major, 2013, p.62). Within this position, knowledge is created through the subjective world of people’s experiences and efforts must be made to ‘get inside the person and to understand from within’ (Cohen et al., Manion & Morrison, 2005, p.17).

Indeed, it has been argued that literature exists in the heads of teachers where the nature of the enacted subject is brought to life (Goodwyn, 2011, p.63). As a consequence, the social context within which this takes place must be considered as teachers as social actors. Within this social context, literature is not a ‘fixed entity’ (Radley, 1994, p.55) and the way it is brought to life will not be consistent, stable and predictive of social behaviour (Willig, 2001). This is because different heads of different teachers will think different thoughts. Instead, talk about literature can be seen as a social practice which is inextricably bound up with other areas of the speakers’ lives. The speaker, which in this study is the teacher, is likely to draw on different and often contradictory experiences in

different social contexts (Willig, 2001). Thus, social constructionism ought to be used to study the talk about literature which is available within a culture and not just the individuals who happen to talk at a particular point in time. Indeed, the ‘best teachers have deep insights into what makes their subject difficult (see Hattie, 2003) and how to represent those difficulties in a meaningful way’ (Goodwyn, 2011, p.72). Such expertise is continually revised as they negotiate their position in relation to literature in response to the requirements of a reformed qualification, among other things – the social context.

In conclusion, English teachers have strong subject identities (Ellis, 2007) and an interpretive paradigm was chosen because this study assumed that their world was not readily definable. It is constructed by different people in different ways, with words and events carrying different

53

meanings in every case (Thomas, 2013). This study sought to understand how teachers constructed literature in a context within which they were submerged. The key to this study was understanding: what understanding did the research participants have about their world, and how could I, in turn, understand these from my position as an insider (Thomas, 2013).