Constructivist-interpretivist paradigm

A large body of published literature is in agreement that the philosophical stance adopted for a study determines the research design for that study (Denzin and Lincoln, 2013; Creswell, 2009; 2013; Schwandt, 1994; Bryman, 2012; Ponterotto, 2005). The choice of the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm in this instance was influenced by the nature of the research questions, insights from the literature review and the conceptual framework of the study (Creswell, 2009; 2013; Denzin and Lincoln, 2013; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009). In particular, the constructivist-

122

interpretivist paradigm facilitated gaining an in-depth understanding of social workers’ perceptions of decisions that may determine the effectiveness of interprofessional collaborative child protection decision making and practice (Bryman, 2007; Denzin and Lincoln, 2013; Ponterotto, 2005; Whittaker, 2009). The adoption of the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm followed an initial consideration of the pragmatist mixed methods research design which was discovered to be methodologically incompatible and unsuitable during the course of this research. Mainly, this was because of the incompatibility between the positivist component of the mixed methods research design with the current discourse regarding epistemological beliefs, practice and decision making in relation to risk. A constructivist-interpretive epistemological perspective to risk assessment and decision making was adopted because it is consistent with relationship based reflective practice which embraces ambiguity, uncertainty and unpredictability about risk (Broadhurst et al, 2010; Denney, 2005; Stalker, 2015; Titterton, 2005; Goddard et al, 1999; Ruch, 2007). The constructivist-interpretivist epistemological stance which was adopted in this study was in line with the recognition that it is not possible to predict future risk of harm accurately (Hawkins, 1988), and that there are limits beyond which uncertainty cannot be measured accurately such as in child protection practice (Heisenberg, 1962). Mason (1993) has argued that increasingly even in the positivist physical science world, uncertainty, rather than certainty, is also being embraced. Adopting a constructivist-interpretivist paradigm was consistent with the call to embrace ambiguity, uncertainty and unpredictability as argued above. The adoption of this constructivist-interpretivist philosophical stance was influenced by the need to fill the gap in knowledge regarding what social workers perceive as factors that are key influences to the effectiveness interprofessional collaborative child protection

123

decision making and practice. The term ‘constructivist-interpretivism’ is used in this study to convey the similarities rather than the differences between the two terms ‘constructivism’ and ‘interpretivism’. The debate about the differences between the two terms was avoided in favour of focusing on similarities which have been widely acknowledged by researchers (Denzin and Lincoln, 2013; Merriam, 2010; Ponterotto, 2005; Schwandt, 1994). Merriam (2010) observed that, “constructivism is a term often used interchangeably with interpretivism” (p.9). In line with the way the terms were used in this study, Denzin and Lincoln (2013, p.208) also used “constructivism (or interpretivism)” interchangeably to describe its aim as that of gaining understanding by interpreting subject perceptions. Schwandt (1994) asserted that “the constructivist or interpretivist believes that to understand this world of meaning one must interpret it” (p, 222). Ponterotto, (2005, p.129) also uses the term “constructivist-interpretivism” when describing “constructivist (interpretivist)” paradigm. The adoption of the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm was therefore inspired by the desire to interpret the meanings from social workers’ perceptions in order gain an in-depth understanding of the basis of their knowledge of interprofessional collaborative child protection practice and decision making. Yet, Shwandt (1994) also argued that to interpret meanings, itself is to construct and create the researcher’s own meanings. This interplay between the construction and interpretation of realities and meanings between the researcher and the social workers has implications for the nature of the relationship between researcher and the research participant which has been described as the distinguishing characteristic of constructivism (Schwandt, 1994). Schwandt argued that only through this interaction can deeper meaning and understanding be uncovered. Ultimately, both the researcher and the participants jointly create or as

124

Schwandt put it, they co-construct findings through their interactive dialogue and interpretation.

The interpretation of how social workers constructed their multiple realities with regard to their perceptions of the factors that influence effective interprofessional collaborative decision making and practice in this study, was consistent with one of the fundamental ontological beliefs in both constructivism and interpretivism. In line with the argument presented above the application of the hyphen (-) between the terms in this study denotes similarities in the beliefs upon which these paradigms are rooted. The adoption of the constructivist-interprevist paradigm therefore reflects the basis for the assumptions which were held about the nature of knowledge that this study sought to develop, which in turn determined the methods that were used in this study (Bryman, 2012; Denzin and Lincoln, 2013; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). This philosophical stance also reflects the basic set of beliefs and values that guided all nature and conduct of this study (Denzin and Lincoln, 2013; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). On the basis of that set of beliefs and values, the adoption of the constructivist-interpretivist stance in this study is therefore distinguishable from other paradigms or worldviews which were considered but deemed as unsuitable and incompatible such as the pragmatist paradigm, due to its positivist quantitative component as illustrated above (Denzin and Lincoln, 2013). Those beliefs included the nature of reality (ontological beliefs), how knowledge was gained in this study (epistemological beliefs), the role played by values in this study (axiological beliefs), and the process of this research (methodological beliefs) (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011; Denzin and Lincoln, 2013; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). These beliefs shaped this study with regard to the way the

125

world was seen and acted upon in line with the constructivist-interpretivist stance as illustrated further in the sections below.

Consistent with the constructivist-interpretivist stance, an inductive logic of reasoning was adopted in this study, which involved asking specific questions during interviews on participants’ perceptions, as well as, observing child protection meetings in order to interpret meanings and gain a better understanding of collaborative practice and decision making influences (Plano Clark and Creswell, 2008). In congruence with the constructivist-interpretivist ontological beliefs regarding the nature of realities, by interpreting meanings from multiple narratives, through the interactive dialogue with research participants and alone as the researcher, it was possible to obtain rich data that were required for answering the research questions. The decision to adopt the constructivist–interpretivist paradigm for this study, was informed by the beliefs and persuasion that research participants in this study had different worldviews or multiple views regarding the nature of reality regarding the research questions for this study (Denzin and Lincoln, 2013; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). The multiple narratives were then analysed thematically to enable interpretation of meanings and understanding as discussed later under the data analysis section of this chapter. According to Whittaker, (2009), while generalisations do not occur with findings from inductive qualitative studies, gaining an in-depth understanding and meaning, as was the case with this study, remains the primary focus of qualitative studies.

As described above, in this study a close relationship with research participants, was necessary in the joint construction of multiple realities and interpretation of meanings, which involved the interactive dialogue with research participants alone

126

as the researcher in order gain an in-depth understanding, despite the inherent subjectivity in constructivist-interpretivist research (Schwandt, 1994). Different descriptions have been used to illustrate this inseparable close subjective relationship between the researcher and what is being researched (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011) or between the knower and the known (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). While Ponteretto (2005) described this relationship as the interaction between the investigator and the object of investigation (p.129), Denzin and Lincoln, (2013) described the same relationship as between the enquirer and the known. This epistemological stance is also consistent with the critical and reflective relationship based professional decision making and discretion which embraces uncertainty, ambiguity and unpredictability about risk as alluded above (Broadhurst et al, 2010; Denney, 2005; Stalker, 2015; Parton, 1998; Ruch, 2007; Titterton, 2005).

The treatment of biases and subjectivity in this study was also informed by the constructivist-interpretivists’ belief that all social inquiry is value-bound (Plano Clark, 2008) and that researchers should actively talk about their biases and interpretations, according to Creswell and Plano Clark (2011), while recognising the difficulty of making completely value-free and objective (Snape and Spencer, 2003). While accepting that there are inherent biases and subjectivity associated with the adoption of a constructivist-interpretivist stance, it was possible to maintain reflective and reflexive attentiveness in order to enhance rigour and trustworthiness about this study and its findings (Bradbury-Jones, 2007; Savage, 2007). Accepting and dealing with biases and subjectivity helped reduce the influence of what was already known from practice, as an experienced social work practitioner, social work academic and passionate former child protection

127

chairperson (Peshkin, 1988). As discussed later under ethical considerations for this study, reflections were made at various levels or perspectives, as the experienced social worker, the social work academic and the former child protection chairperson, in line with this reflective framework by Peshkin, (1988). Constant reflection and reflexivity throughout the study acted as filter for the assumptions and interpretations already held, while also providing the critical insider-outsider perspective to issues, given the stated passion and experience in child protection practice (Rouf, Larkin and Lowe, 2011). Admittedly, standing back was sometimes challenging because of the deep-seated positions and stated passions on certain child protection issues, in particular, with regard to the assumptions held about certain factors that influence the effectiveness of interprofessional collaborative child protection decision making and practice. Since the distinguishing characteristic of constructivist-interpretivism is the centrality of the interaction between the investigator and the object of investigation (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011; Denzin and Lincoln, 2013; Ponteretto 2005; Schwandt, 1994; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998), the contribution of Peshkin’s reflective framework was critical throughout this study.

The language of research rhetoric writing used in this report was also influenced by the constructivist-interpretivist stance. This writing stance helped to tell the story regarding what actually happened, how it actually happened, why it happened, when it happened and with whom during the different stages of the research process in order to convey understanding and meanings from the study (Holliday, 2007). Writing in constructivist-interpretivist qualitative research becomes very much an unfolding story in which the writer gradually makes sense, not only of the data, but of the total experience of which it is an artefact (Holliday,

128

2007). The language used in this thesis was intended to convey the research process and outcomes, with the entire written text weaving through experiences, meanings and understandings into its analyses, explanations and the reading (Mason, 2002), and through credible descriptions (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009). The implications for this form of writing rhetoric is that for the meaning to be clear, from a constructivist-interpretive perspective, the voice of the researcher as the writer must become a major ingredient of telling the whole story and conveying the credible research process and the evidence.