Interpretivism/Constructivism paradigm

Interpretivism is also known as the humanistic, constructivist or naturalistic paradigm. This paradigm is believed to have come as an alternative for the dominant positivist paradigm (Mustafa, 2011). The paradigm focuses on a holistic perspective of the person and environment during inquiry. The goal of interpretivist research is to understand and interpret the meanings of human behaviour rather than to generalize and predict causes and effects (Brown, 2014; Wright & Losekoot, 2012). Interpretivism is concerned with exploring why actions or reasons lead to a pattern of behaviour, which leads the researcher to question beyond measurements with the key objectives being understanding and interpreting (Silverman, 2013).This paradigm proposes that it is vital for a researcher to understand motives, meanings, reasons and subjective experiences which are time and context bound. Blaikie (2009) opines that interpretivism follows the traditions of classical hermeneutics, which maintain that meaning is hidden and must be brought to the surface through deep reflections. In light of these assumptions, it then follows that interpretivist researchers begin with individuals and set out to understand their interpretations of the world around them (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). The researcher-participant relationship is one of the central tenets of this paradigm. Interpretivists also believe that it is only through this relationship that a deeper meaning can be uncovered which enables researchers to co-construct meaning to explain the emic and idiographic nature of the paradigm (Mustafa, 2011). It is when researchers engage in such processes that they “generate or inductively develop a theory of meanings” (Creswell, 2009:9). Basing on all the arguments put forth, it can be concluded that the interprevist paradigm emphasizes description of how people feel

100

inside, how they interpret their everyday experiences, and whatever idiosyncratic reasons they have for their behaviours (Rubin & Babbie, 2015).

Unlike the positivists’ ‘naïve’ pursuit of objectivity in their quest to observe and understand reality, interpretivism adheres to the ontology where reality is a product of subjective experience (Rubin & Babbie, 2015). Researchers in this paradigm discover reality through participants’ views, their own background, and experiences (Mustafa, 2011; Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2011). Interpretivism considers that “the social world can only be understood from the point of view of the individuals who are part of the ongoing action being investigated” (Cohen et al., 2007:19). The paradigm also holds an ontological stance that reality is multiple and relative (Wright & Losekoot, 2012). According to the interpretivists, reality is approached from subjects, typically from people who own their experiences and are of a particular group or culture (Thanh & Thanh, 2015). This acceptance of multiple perspectives in interpretivism often leads to a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study (Mustafa, 2011). Unlike positivist research which has rigid structural frameworks, interpretivist researchers adopt more personal and flexible researcher structures which are receptive to capturing meanings in human interaction, and make sense of what is perceived as reality (Yanow& Schwartz-Shea, 2011).

The interpretivist epistemological position is described as constructivism, which extends a new definition of knowledge based on inter-subjectivity instead of classical objectivity and truth (Mustafa, 2011). Interpretivism discerns that knowledge is created and sustained by social processes and that knowledge and social actions intertwine (Brown, 2014; Thanh & Thanh, 2015). It is also believed that through the process of these interactions, environmental stimuli are processed by individuals to create their own meanings (Mustafa, 2011). Researchers who subscribe to this paradigm are expected to remain open to new knowledge throughout the study and let it develop with the help of informants. This is in line with the belief that humans have the ability to adapt, and that no one can gain prior knowledge of time and context bound social realities (Thanh & Thanh, 2015; Wright & Losekoot, 2012). The researcher and informants are expected

101

to be interdependent and mutually interactive since the interpretivist paradigm employs methodologies such as interviews, focus group discussions and observations.

The interpretivist paradigm holds an axiological stance that all research is value-laden and value bound (Thanh & Thanh, 2015). This position seems to suggest that values are inherent and inescapable. It is upon these values that researchers choose a paradigm to follow, data collection and analysis methods to use, methods of interpreting and reporting findings (Brown, 2014; Creswell, 2009). Interpretivists also argue that researchers’ values and social characteristics affect the study from inception to conclusion. It is therefore, always essential for researchers to be flexible in their interactions with participants (Wright & Losekoot, 2012). Researchers in this paradigm have a fundamental duty of care to their participants, themselves and other researchers. This also includes the issues to do with how they (researchers) are going to report and represent research data (Yanow& Schwartz-Shea, 2011).

On their methodological point of view, interpretivists employ the qualitative approach in order to adequately understand participants’ life-worlds from their own perspective and to avoid misrepresentation of participants’ meanings and interpretations of their worldview (Thanh & Thanh, 2015). It is also believed that such an approach results in the emergence of a research design as the study progresses. Interpretivism calls for the employment of a variety of methodologies which include participant observation, interviews, focus group discussions, and document analysis, among others.

In recognition of the ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological positions of the interpretivist paradigm, it should be acknowledged that the purpose and aim of this paradigm is to understand the life-worlds and the meanings and understandings of the research participants in context (Brown, 2014; Mustafa, 2012).