New procedures for constructing phenomena

When authors enact discursive strategies to argue that the new study has provided a new approach – either a theoretical perspective or methodological approach/tool – for studying phenomena, discursive relations are foregrounded. This strategy is typically adopted in dissertations that base the rationale of the study on the lack of, or issue with, approaches used in existing studies. Methodological contributions are typically justified in the text by explicitly relating how the new method builds on, challenges and supersedes existing approaches. Authors do this by situating the new study within a discussion of existing studies. For example, in a psychology dissertation investigating the role of motivational factors and primary appraisal in stressful transactions, the candidate builds an argument about how the new method she has developed is useful. She does this by demonstrating what it was able to achieve:

This study offered an interesting methodological approach in that it based many of the measures utilised on the individual-specific personal strivings generated by subjects, and compared trends across subjects. As such, the study incorporated both nomothetic and idiographic influences in the research design.

(Dissertation 24, p. 308) The candidate then demonstrates how the new method is able to supersede existing methods – namely, by including a qualitative element which was lacking in existing approaches – and in doing so, is able to engage with aspects of the topic that were otherwise neglected in existing research:

It did not rely on a purely quantitative methodology characteristic of much stress research which Lazarus views as “incomplete as an approach to gaining knowledge” (Lazarus, 1999, p.195), nor did it fully embrace Lazarus’s (1999) suggestion of a methodological overhaul as epitomised in his championing of a narrative approach to research.

(Dissertation 24, p. 308) The candidate therefore justifies her contribution on the basis of the new study being able to generate findings that are otherwise unavailable in the field, due to the use of a new method.

Theoretical contributions are typically justified by foregrounding the value that a particular theory has for understanding phenomena. The justification can relate to the use of an existing theory that has not yet been used to study the phenomenon, or it could relate to the use of a new theoretical concept, or, less frequently, the use of a brand-new theory that the author has created. When using discursive strategies, the author will typically contextualise the new findings in relation to existing research, emphasising the role of the theoretical approach that enabled these findings to be generated. For example, in an anthropology dissertation that investigates xenophobic exclusion and masculinities among Zimbabwean male migrants in South Africa, the candidate emphasises why a specific theoretical approach was necessary to understand the topic. Here, he argues that in order to fully engage with and understand the complexities of the topic – such as the displacement, culture and history of his participants and how that related to constructions of masculinity – the theoretical framework of critical masculinities studies was necessary:

Important to the analysis in this study is the connection made between a given society’s history and culture, and the production of masculinities (Connell, 1995). We have seen how, according to Connell (ibid), masculinities cannot be removed from the society’s history and culture.

(Dissertation 5, pp. 241–242) He then unpacks why showing these connections was important for understanding the topic. In doing so, he legitimates the use of the theory as a critical component for generating these understandings:

This makes the systematic examination of migrant masculinities even more interesting given that transmigrant men often straddle multiple national and cultural contexts. Their ways of enacting manhood therefore draw from two historical and cultural influences: places of origin and host societies (Howson, 2014, 2014).

(Dissertation 5, p. 242) The candidate thus justifies why the particular topic needed a more nuanced understanding of society’s culture and history – and in doing so, argues that without this perspective, the findings would not have been able to be generated. Therefore, while critical masculinities studies is not ‘new’ in itself, it is new in terms of the way it has been used to understand this particular topic.

6.1.3. Combining epistemic strategies

When demonstrating the contribution of a study, candidates can enact both ontic and discursive strategies to make the argument that the study contributes an object of study that is otherwise absent from the field (i.e. foregrounding ontic relations) and because it offers a novel approach to do so (i.e. foregrounding discursive relations). For example, in a sociology dissertation looking at fibromyalgia in South Africa the candidate claims that by focusing on the narratives of patients she was able to generate findings that have otherwise not been available in the field:

This study adds a body of knowledge that is currently unavailable in the context of SA, and in prioritising the perspective of the patient, the gap between what is recommended and what is enacted has been bridged by this research. This research makes an important contribution towards understanding how people living with chronic illness, pain, and fibromyalgia relate to their condition

In doing so, the candidate foregrounds ontic relations to other knowledge by showing that the study has contributed original findings. The candidate goes on to explain that she was only able to produce such findings because of the innovative approach – narrative inquiry –adopted in the study, which enabled her to pursue a different focus to most other research:

The design of this study served the purpose of gaining perspectives from sources that are traditionally obscured from research agendas. In privileging the experiences of people with fibromyalgia over other narratives, this study illuminated the complexity and challenge of living with contestation and uncertainty.

(Dissertation 25, p. 307) Here, the candidate foregrounds both ontic relations and discursive relations when demonstrating the contribution as she is arguing that not only has she contributed an original object of study to the field, but she has also only been able to do so by adopting a novel approach to generate the findings. She goes on to further emphasise the novel approach by arguing that it is able to provide a tool for understanding important health issues in the field:

In capturing complexity and multiplicity through the perspectives of those living with the chronic, contested condition of fibromyalgia, the research undertaken here showed the utility of narratives as an assistive and instrumental tool for gaining greater awareness and nuanced understandings of these experiences. Narrative inquiry is therefore recommended for studies that are interested in gaining insight into health and illness experiences…

(Dissertation 25, p. 307) The candidate therefore makes the argument that in order to better understand and engage with a disease like fibromyalgia, specific findings need to be generated from research that otherwise do not exist – i.e. the argument foregrounds ontic relations to new objects of study. Furthermore, the candidate argues that in order to do so, new approaches are needed – i.e. the argument also foregrounds discursive relations to procedures for generating findings. The candidate then shows that her study has been able to contribute both aspects to the field. The contribution there enacts ‘purist insight’.

6.2. Social strategies

Social strategies that emphasise social relations can also be further divided into types. When candidates enact subjective strategies they typically demonstrate that they have contributed a new legitimate knower of a particular topic based on who he/she is as a researcher by emphasising subjective relations between different kinds of knowers. When candidates enact interactional strategies they typically demonstrate that they have contributed a new gaze for understanding phenomena by emphasising interactional relations between ways of knowing. At times, both strategies can be enacted when the contribution is based on who the candidate is and how they have come to know.