Interpretive /constructive paradigm

In this section I discuss interpretive/constructivist paradigm. These are two closely related research paradigms with few nuances that distinguishes one from the other. According to Roling and Wagemakers (1998), the term ‘constructivism’ describes an epistemology that supports learning processes and guides the thinking around whole systems. Within this field, there is a belief that the researcher relies on the participants’ views of the situation being studied (Creswell, 2007). As far as the interpretivist/constructivist approach is concerned, the researcher relies more on the qualitative data gathering methods and analysis. Social constructivism can be described as one of a group of approaches that have been referred to as interpretive methods. Amongst the primary objectives of social constructivism is that the researcher seeks to understand the social construction of the world of individuals (Creswell, 2007). Furthermore, Sey (2006) argues that the research conducted from this perspective belongs to the postmodern school of thought. Drawing from the views of these scholars, whilst acknowledging that interpretive and constructive paradigms are not synonymous, I use them interchangeably to refer to the life view that foregrounds participants’ construction of meaning from their perspectives.

66

Constructivism is a paradigm that is associated with the qualitative approaches based on understanding phenomena (Creswell & Clark, 2007). There is a strongly held assumption by constructivists that socially constructed knowledge is preferred over individually acquired knowledge (Kelly & Durrheim, 2006; Lincoln, Lynham & Guba, 2011, 2013). In the area of social constructivist approach language features critically as a tool for constructing reality during the course of dialogue and discourse (Denzin & Lincoln, 2009; Gerring, & Skaaning, 2013; Holland, 2006). Language also features critically as it includes data generation, construction and discussion of findings. Similarly, sentiments are shared that the community plays a critical role in determining the purpose and use of meaning in context (Lincoln & Guba, 2013). In a different vein, Holland (2006) reiterates that constructivism refers to the mental process and conversions of knowledge. Schunk (2008) shifts the emphasis away from the previous beliefs by placing the learner’s skills at the stage as well as the contexts in which they construct knowledge (Gephart, 1999).

Constructivism emphasises that we cannot discover meaning objectively, but rather that we construct them as we interact with the world (Kim, 2001; Vrasidas, 2000). Another lens is that we create meanings independently of experience, that is subjective, and that we impose them on reality. This notion of constructivism is founded on ontological assumptions that reality is neither orderly nor fixed, but that it is on perpetual and continuous emergence. From the epistemological view, knowledge is socially constructed as a way of viewing the world (Gephart 1999; Sheppard, 2004). From a constructivist perspective, the research design accommodates reflections and conversation techniques for data gathering. The main belief held by social constructivists is that reality is a product of people’s minds and is interpretive in their nature as they are centred on meaning.

Neuman (2011) surmises that theinterpretivist paradigm is a systematic analysis of socially constructed, meaningful action through the direct detailed observation of people in natural settings in order to arrive at understandings and interpretations of how people create and maintain their social world. It is also known as social constructivism, wherein people seek an understanding of the world in which they live and work by developing subjective meanings of their experiences (Zongozzi, 2015). Interpretivists presume that reality is socially constructed by the individuals acting in it (Hussey, 2009). Guldkuhl (2012) further contends that in the interpretivist paradigm, participants are viewed as interpreters and co-producers of meaningful data. This means that interpretivism is premised on the assumption that human beings create

67

meaning in their world and that this meaning is constructed as a product of interactions with others. The goal of interpretivism is therefore to understand the lived experience from the standpoint of the participants (Gruyter, 2011). Snape and Spencer (2003) describe interpretivism as a philosophy that focuses on interpretation and observation. The idea held within this paradigm is that the primary aim of the interpretive paradigm is to interpret the actions on individuals (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 2013). Scholars concur that in this paradigm the aim is to comprehend the interpretations of the world by placing people in their social contexts (Gephart, 1999; Kraus, 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 2013).

Interpretive researchers seek to understand the definitions of the situation of members as well as to examine how objective realities are produced (Denzin &Lincoln, 2009; Kraus, 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 2013). The argument advanced by Denzin and Lincoln (2009) is that the search for patterns of meanings is the key focus of the interpretive paradigm. Furthermore, these scholars assert the criteria for assessing the authenticity and trustworthiness of the research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2009). It is therefore, clear that interpretive/constructivism offers ways to understand the world and meanings of individuals. The criticism against this approach is that it does not utilise the methods that are based on scientific procedures which are objective and focused on people’s perceptions (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). The identified limitations within the interpretivist/constructivist paradigm, is that it is a costly exercise in terms of the assigned resources and time required to conduct research and data gathering (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Love, 2002). The defence advanced for the interpretive approach is that the critiques levelled against it were based on the gains that have been required by means of this paradigm (Denzin &Lincoln, 2009).

This study was guided by interpretive/constructivist paradigm which supports the view that knowledge is socially constructed and influenced by power relations within society (Cohen, et

al., 2011). The study of transformational leadership and the lived experiences of principals in

deprived contexts was conducted in different research sites in which the participants experience different social backgrounds. This study was underpinned by assumptions that transformational leadership offers alternative approaches to reductionist and piecemeal approaches to turning around underperforming schools in deprived contexts. Furthermore, it examines the understanding of the lived experiences of the principals in transforming underperformance of schools located in deprived contexts. Within this approach, the school is considered as a

68

complex place influenced by a variety of socio/economic and cultural factors that mirror its performance.

In support of the paradigm, scholars assert that its strength lies in the gathering of data (Guldkuhl, 2012; Mackenzie & Mouton, 2006; Neuman, 2011). The study used qualitative research approach to understand the manner in which principals transformed their schools from underperformance to normal performance, from their own perspectives. The tenets of this paradigm fit well with this research as I sought to understand the lived experiences of principals who have successfully transformed underperforming schools into performing schools in deprived contexts. Interpretivists use open-ended or semi-structured questions (Phothongsunan, 2010). All research paradigms are distinguished by their ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions. Similarly, the paradigm I adopted in this study is guided by these ontological, epistemological positions, and below I briefly discuss each of these philosophies underpinning various research paradigms.

Ontologically, the interpretive paradigm denies the existence of an objective reality; its focus is on discovering the multiple perspectives of all the participants in a setting (Henning, van Rensburg & Smit, 2004; Hussey, 2009). The aim of the interpretive paradigm is to capture people’s perspectives on their lived experiences and not some objective notion of that experience (Henning, et al., 2004). Research that uses interpretive analysis is therefore able to produce a descriptive analysis that emphasises a deep and interpretive understanding of the social phenomenon (Henning, et al., 2004). In this study, this was realised through my close interaction with principals at their schools in order to understand their contexts and work situations. My ontological belief is that multiple realities exist and that social, economical, political and cultural values influence the construction of these multiple realities. In this study, this is acknowledged, amongst other things, by accommodating different views of the participants, as the study embraces a multiple case study approach.

Epistemology is about the nature of knowledge and the way people understand the world (De Gruyter, 2011). My view of knowledge (Epistemology) is that it is subjective and is built from experiences and interpretations and can only be understood from the point of view of the individuals who are directly involved in the phenomenon being studied. It has multiple realities and is context and time bound. In this study, I sought to understand the lived experiences of sampled principals in turning around underperforming schools in deprived contexts. This was

69

achieved through observing and listening to their stories of lived experiences. I believe that the principals’ stories carry multiple realities and these can be drawn from their experiences related to their schools only. This make the interpretivist to be relevant in this study.