Paradigm justification

The word ‘paradigm’ is frequently used as the overarching term for a researcher’s philosophical stance – embracing their ontology, epistemology and theoretical perspective (Mayan, 2009). Since the researcher plays an integral part in the overall research process, it is important to consider their view of the world as it underpins and informs methodology and methods (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). Mason (1998, p. 12) implies that a “reluctance to address these issues often stems from vagueness, imprecision, or a failure to understand that there is more than one ontological perspective”. Studies based upon weak and poorly

defined ontological and epistemological positions often provide inaccurate and invalid sets of data (De Vaus, 2001). It is therefore considered imperative that the ontological and epistemological positions of research are well defined and critically considered prior to data collection (Mayan, 2009). A researcher’s selection of a paradigm(s), however, is not entirely a matter of choice. Often, we have subconsciously already made assumptions about the world, our topic and how we can understand these, but choosing a paradigm involves assessing which paradigm best fits with our methodological preferences (Maxwell, 2005); ultimately driven by our research aim.

Within academia there are radically different assumptions as to what exists that can be investigated (Gomm, 2008). These are driven by two main questions: what is out there to know? (ontology) and what and how can we know about it? (epistemology) (Geco and Sosa, 1999; Maxwell, 2005). Together, they form the foundations for research (Grix, 2010). Rodwell (1998) implies that a study which aims to analyse social perceptions should adopt a research approach based upon a constructivist ontological ideology. Constructivist approaches to research consider social phenomena and meaning to be socially constructed (Robson, 2002); whereby knowledge is based on social interaction, social experience, human perception and social conventions and is therefore in a constant state of revision by social actors (Bryman, 2016). They understand that people are “intelligent, reflective and wilful, and that these characteristics matter for how we understand the world” (Moses and Knutsen, 2012, p. 10). Since the overarching aim of this research is to explore LACYP’s experiences of the social world, a constructivist ontology and interpretive epistemology are established as necessary.

Epistemologically, the nature of this research is to understand multiple meanings rather than extract generalised explanations and therefore we could not articulate the best possible conclusions through objective measures; ruling out a positivist or post-positivist epistemological position. Positivism is an epistemological position that implies social reality can be ‘captured’ through cause and effect (Gomm, 2008) assuming that, through objective and scientific measurements, human behaviours and social reality can be measured - much like in the natural sciences (McNeill and Chapman, 2005; Bryman, 2016). Cohen et al. (2007) explain that those who take this position base results on what may be already known - striving for objectivity, measurability, predictability, controllability,

patterning and the construction of laws and rules of behaviour. Interpretivists on the other hand think of social reality as a complex configuration of interpretations and meanings (Gomm, 2008) and something that cannot be understood by mere observation (Grix, 2010). Rather than adopting a logical stance like positivism, interpretivism requires the researcher to understand the social world through subjective meaning, interpreting society in terms of its actors (Pole and Lampard, 2002; Cohen et al., 2007), linking it to a constructivist view of the world. The interpretative model has its roots in philosophy and human science; suggesting that researchers should approach participants not as individual entities who exist in a vacuum but rather that they should view their practice as connected with others in the broader context of their lives (Holloway, 1997). This is fundamental for a valid understanding of social reality (Pole and Lampard, 2002). Gomm (2008) explains that an interpretive approach to research would suit those who are primarily interested in investigating how people experience the world and/or how they make sense of it. Given the particular challenges of accessing LACYP (identified later in this chapter) and the desire to privilege youth voice, an interpretivist stance was adopted for this research.

Despite foregrounding the longstanding belief that paradigms (and associated research methodologies) are incapable of integration with one another, it is also important to acknowledge that debates exist that oppose the dogmatic either-or choice of paradigm. For example, Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) established connections between the two traditional paradigms, whilst John et al. (2007) notes that contrasting philosophical positions do not necessarily exclude the use of data collection and analysis techniques associated with qualitative or quantitative research. It has therefore been suggested that constructivists have much to gain from engaging with alternative approaches (Moses and Knutsen, 2012). Hence, although this study inherently takes the form of an interpretative and constructivist approach to social enquiry, it also recognises that there are “multiple ways of seeing and hearing, multiple ways of making sense of the social world, and multiple standpoints on what is important and to be valued” (Greene, 2007, p.20). In other words, whilst recognising that individuals shape and are shaped by social experiences, there is also an appreciation that social structures can significantly influence this process.

Grix (2010, p.83) suggests that “the reason why so many of us choose to outline positivism and interpretivism – and thereby leave out a whole host of social research between these

binary poles – is because they can be seen as opposites”. It is not to discount perspectives that sit in between, rather it is noting that positivism and interpretivism are overarching terms that cover many variations of approach to social science enquiry. A researcher’s epistemological perspective, therefore, will determine the way in which they construct their research methods and methodology. Crotty (1998) explains that methodology is the strategy or plan of action that shapes the choice and use of certain methods to achieve desired outcomes. It answers the question ‘how can we go about acquiring that knowledge?’ (Grix, 2010) and thus means that the research questions (or problems) will always drive the methods we use and subsequently the methodology we employ. Given the questions driving this research (see section 1.3), the research outlined here thus took the form of a (predominantly) qualitative methodological approach. Such an approach means employing methods that aim to gain detailed description of characteristics, qualities or views, as opposed to those that produce large amounts of quantifiable data to uncover general patterns and relationships (quantitative methodologies) (Flick, 2009). Within social care research, in particular, Davies and Wright (2008) suggest that qualitative approaches are more able to ensure that participants’ views are represented, whilst Goddard (2000) implies that the complex nature of LACYP’s experiences cannot be fully accessed through larger scale, quantitative research alone.