Interpretivist research

Understanding the researcher’s worldview ensures a comprehensive research process (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2010; Creswell, 2013). As with research approaches, there are also several schools of thought on worldviews, such as positivism, interpretivism, critical theory, feminism, and pragmatism (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994; Crotty, 1998; Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006; Creswell, 2009). An interpretivist worldview is utilised in this study because it enables a richness in the data collection which is deemed the most appropriate for the research aims and questions.

Alternative paradigms that look for objective, universal truths, such as those paradigms that evolved from the natural sciences (e.g., positivism, which could also be described as a normative paradigm), were thought to be less suitable for this study because a deep understanding of teachers’ perceptions was required. Horkhiemer (1972), Kierkgeaard (1974), and Ion (1977) all question the efficacy of a positivist research paradigm in uncovering an appropriate depth of human experience. Positivists hold the belief that knowledge is objective and lives outside of the human mind. They believe that objective observation, verification, and measurement are how research should be executed (Anderson, 1998; Clark, 1998; Midraj et al., 2007). A limitation that has been raised regarding positivism is that its epistemology and ontology assume that human behaviour is governed by general, universal laws and characterised by underlying truths that can be uncovered. Within this framework, these laws and truths are seen to be obtainable and understandable (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2011). Additionally,

positivism aligns with behaviourist thinking, which sees human behaviour as being determined and governed by laws regarding how it is modified by external and internal stimuli; however, this implication of determinism does not encompass an individual’s freedom of choice and moral responsibility (Nesfield and Cookson, 1987).

Interpretivism contrasts with these views. Interpretivism evolved from a reaction to and rejection of the perceived inflexibility of positivism and the idea that man has levels of autonomy and free will (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2011). An interpretivist approach to research intends to comprehend the subjective world of human experience (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2011), proposing that “reality is socially constructed” (Mertens, 2005, p. 16). Humans interpret their environment and themselves in ways that are shaped by the particular cultures and sub-cultures in which they live. These interpretations form their fluid realities, of which there are multiple truths (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2011). The interpretivist view argues that to attempt to understand why and how organisations of people work the way they do, we need to investigate their perceptions, intentions, and beliefs, as well as how they interpret and make sense of their world (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2011). This is unlike the normative positivist paradigm, which looks at both external and internal stimuli and how they have affected past behaviour.

Interpretivist research is an inductive approach to finding out humans’ perceptions by “looking for culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social life- world” (Crotty, 2015, p. 68), which, in this case, are the teachers’ perceptions that can influence them to be or not be engaged in PD. In the interpretivist paradigm, the ontological assumption, i.e., “what is out there to know” (Crotty, 1998; Grix, 2010; Ritchie et al., 2013), is what we can know about how teachers are engaged in PD. Interpretivists believe that the nature of knowledge is subjective. There can be multiple constructions of knowledge, and these can exist within any given context. Moreover, these constructions of reality may clash with each other and be affected by experiences and social interactions (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Grix, 2010; Mertens, 2015). Both groups and individuals construct meaning and their own reality through interactions within a social environment, of which there can be multiple evolving and valid versions. For the researcher, there can be a limited objective reality to ascertain; therefore, the

from multiple social constructions (Mertens, 2015). The current study explores teachers’ perceptions of what engages them in PD and their understanding of the reality in their context.

The epistemological assumption is the process of knowing or “what and how we can know about it (knowledge)” (Crotty, 1998; Grix, 2010, Ritchie et al., 2013). In the interpretivist paradigm, there is the belief that knowledge is constructed by the human mind and emerges out of the interaction between the researchers and their world (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2011). The epistemological assumption can also be explained as the aim of the inquiry, which, in the chosen paradigm, is to appreciate and understand the participants’ subjective interpretations of their perceptions of what engages them in PD. That is, knowledge or meaningful reality occurs because of human practices, which are constructed through interactions with other humans in a social context (Crotty, 1998). Appropriate methodology and methods were chosen to meet this aim. As Bryman (2001) states, “… a strategy is required that respects the differences between people and the objects of the natural sciences” (pp. 12–13), which therefore requires the social scientist to grasp the subjective meaning of a social action.

The axiology (that is, the nature of ethics) in this study addresses how we capture an understanding of the intentions of these social actions. Geerts (1983, cited in Schaffer, 2016, pp. 2–3) talks of “experience-distant” and “experience-near” concepts in research, which occur in any paradigm. Experience-distant concepts are ones that specialists use for their scientific, philosophical, and practical aims. On the other hand, when people define how they see, feel, or imagine in everyday situations, they use experience-near concepts. Working in the interpretivist paradigm, there is an acknowledgement that these two concepts are not opposites, and their definitions are not linear; there can be a range of meanings that may or may not overlap (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2011). People, through language, express these concepts or definitions (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2011); however, any lexical item, where superficially there may be an assumption of understanding, can actually have both technical and everyday meanings that are different (Schaffer, 2016). Many argue that for researchers, who are the interpreters of the data, any real separation or objectivity is impossible to achieve (Lichtman, 2014). The aim of the interpretivist researcher is to elucidate these meanings and provide insight into our shared social reality.

This common understanding of meaning is especially relevant to this study as many of the participants will be expressing themselves in their second language. An example of how meanings can differ that is relevant to this study concerns the word “professional”. This word is a false cognate with the Turkish word profesonyel (derived from French), which is pronounced in a similar way and looks relatively similar but in fact has different nuances. In Turkish, the term has associations with the period of time in which one has worked in a position. For instance, a person with three years’ teaching experience is not a profesonyel, whereas a person with 10 years’ experience would be considered a profesonyel (Çelebi, Macfarlane, and Gürdere, 2009). However, understanding the intended meanings of participants with different first languages using a common language is, in itself, not enough. It is also necessary to be able to understand the languages, which have evolved around the culture(s) under investigation (Schaffer, 2016). The researcher of this study, who was embedded in the multi-cultural/multi- national English language teaching (ELT) culture for many years, has an understanding of this context. “From an interpretive perspective, the hope of a universal theory which characterises the normative outlook, gives way to multifaceted images of human behaviour as varied as the situations and contexts supporting them” (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2011, p. 17); theory, then, comes after (rather than before) research. With the research questions and the described limitations of the chosen interpretivist paradigm in mind, the sources of data will be explained along with the instruments and collection methods. This study aims to understand and bring to light the complex nature of teachers’ perceptions of engagement in PD. To examine these perceptions, teachers’ engagement (or perceptions of their engagement) in PD could not be addressed through a quantitative questionnaire looking for detached, simplistic, and generalised truths or laws because the teachers in the study are from a variety of national, cultural, and educational backgrounds. The research was carried out to understand and demystify the social reality through the eyes of the teachers themselves and how they define their reality in the context of PD in the context of a multi-national PYP.

In short, an interpretivist worldview has been taken because of the subjective nature of the main research question, which aims to understand what factors influence

of engagement in PD that the teachers have experienced and will continue to experience by interacting in groups and through their interactions with students, management, and others in the field with whom they may interact with in the past, present or future. By giving individual teachers opportunities to share their impressions in a manner that is fitting with the research questions, we may learn from these teachers’ perceptions and interpretations about their engagement in PD.