Crotty’s theoretical framework

According to Crotty’s (1998) framework shown in Table 3.1, research should be guided by the researchers’ epistemological perspective, their theoretical perspective, methodology, and methods, which together “can help to ensure the soundness of our research and make its outcomes convincing” (p. 6).

Epistemology, according to Crotty, denotes the theory of knowledge underlying the research, while the theoretical perspective presents the specific philosophical position providing a context for the research. On the other hand, methodology provides the overall strategy, or plan of action, for conducting the research, and the methods, the means of data collection and analysis.

75 | P a g e

Table 3.1. Crotty’s theoretical framework for research (Source: Crotty, 1998, p. 5)

Epistemology Theoretical perspective Methodology Methods Objectivism

Constructivism Subjectivism

(and their variants)

Positivism (and post- positivism) Interpretivism • Symbolic interactionism • Phenomenology Hermeneutics Critical inquiry Feminism Postmodernism etc. Experimental research Survey research Ethnography Phenomenological research Grounded theory Heuristic inquiry Action research Discourse analysis Feminist standpoint research Case study etc. Sampling Measurement and scaling Questionnaire Observations • Participant • Non- participant Interview Focus group Case study Life history Narrative Visual ethnographic methods Statistical analyses Data reduction Theme identification Comparative analysis Cognitive mapping Interpretive methods Document analysis Content analyses Conversation analyses etc.

Gray (2009) states that there is an interrelationship between the researcher’s epistemological perspective, their theoretical perspective, methodology, and methods:

Despite the natural tendency for the researcher (and especially the novice researcher) to select a data gathering method and get on with the job, the choice of methods is influenced by the research methodology chosen. This methodology, in turn, is influenced by the theoretical perspectives adopted by the researcher, and, in turn, by the researcher’s epistemological stance …whether they are aware of it or not. (p. 19)

3.1.1 Epistemology

The epistemology guiding the methodology for this research can best be described as

Constructivism. Unlike Objectivism, which claims that “things exist as meaningful entities

76 | P a g e

objects” (Crotty, 1998, p. 5), or Subjectivism which holds that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, indeterminate realm which can be altered, Constructivism holds that:

Truth and meaning do not exist in some external world but are created by the subject’s interactions with the world. Meaning is constructed not discovered, so subjects construct their own meaning in different ways, even in relation to the same phenomenon. Hence, multiple, contradictory but equally valid accounts of the world can exist. (Gray, 2009, p. 20)

Thus, socio-cultural-constructivists (e.g. Dahms, Geonnotti, Passalacqua, Schilk, Wetzel & Zulkowsky, 2007; Hamza & de Hahn, 2012; Vygotsky, 1978) hold the belief that cultures, and societies provide people with the cognitive tools to construct and internalise meanings.

3.1.2 Theoretical Perspectives

The second component of Crotty’s (1998) schema is theoretical perspective. This research employs Interpretivism as its theoretical perspective. This perspective is founded on the belief that reality is socially constructed and fluid. As Howe (1998, p. 14) states, “knowledge, particularly in social research, must be seen as actively constructed and accordingly, as not neutral but culturally and historically contingent, laden with political values and serving certain interests and purposes”. In this vein, what we know is continuously negotiated within cultures, social settings, and relationships with other people.

An interpretivist theoretical perspective on teacher professional development has its origins in a socio-cultural theory of learning (Cammarota, Moll, Gonzalez & Cannella, 2013; Ellis, Edwards & Smagorinsky, 2010). Within socio-cultural theory, we have situative theorists who conceptualise learning as changes in participation in socially organised activities, and individuals’ use of knowledge as an aspect of their participation in social practices (Greeno, 2003; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Peressini, Borko, Romagnano, Knuth & Willis, 2004). Thus, many scholars – for example, Cobb, Stephan, McClain, and Gravemeijer (2011), as well as Driver, Asoko, Leach, Scott, and Mortimer (1994) – have reasoned that learning comprises both individual and socio-cultural features, thereby regarding the learning process as enculturative and constructive.

77 | P a g e

research (e.g. Borko, 2004; Cobb et al., 2011; Nel, Engelbrecht, Nel & Tlale, 2013), with Boko (2004) stating that researchers “can use socio-cultural conceptual frameworks … to examine the social context of the classroom and patterns of participation in learning activities” (p. 4).

3.1.3 Case Study Methodology

This research uses case study methodology. As stated by Yin (2014), Stake (2013), and Merriam (1998), case study methodology is suitable when the research focuses on answering “how” and “why” questions, the context of the research is unique, and the researcher has little or no control over the behaviour of participants. These and many other arguments make case study methodology appropriate for this research as it seeks to answer the question of “how” lesson study is implemented in mathematics, in the Zambian context. Many scholars propose case study as the best option when an in-depth understanding of contextualised programmes is required (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 2013; Yin, 2014).

The process, context, and discovery are at the core of case study methodology. Merriam (1998, p. 19) stated that “The interest is in the process rather than outcomes, in context rather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than confirmation”. Case study methodology helps researchers to “study complex phenomena within their contexts” (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 544).

The advantage of using a case study design is that it provides an orderly way of studying events, collecting data, analysing information and reporting the results, and entails a detailed and intensive analysis of a single case (Bryman, 2012). Furthermore, case study approaches “account for and include difference – ideologically, epistemologically, methodologically and most importantly, humanly. They do not attempt to eliminate what cannot be discounted” (Shields, 2007, p. 12).

However, a case study approach has its limitations. Bell (2010) stated that a focus on a single case could make it difficult to cross-check information. Also, case studies have limitations of reliability and validity. Hamel, Dufour, and Fortin (1993), for example, stated that

case study has been faulted for its lack of representativeness ... and its lack of rigour [sic] in the collection, construction, and analysis of the empirical materials that give

78 | P a g e

rise to this study. This lack of rigour is linked to the problem of bias ... introduced by the subjectivity of the researcher and others involved in the case. (p. 23)

Similarly, Yin (2014) stated that case studies suffer from a lack of external validity, partly because of the small samples associated with them. To lessen the limitations of a case study design, data should be collected through multiple sources. This increases confidence in the interpretation of data, confirms the validity of study processes, and reduces biases that may arise from using one method (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).