Qualitative Research approach

Qualitative research is a form of social inquiry that focuses on the way people interpret and make sense of their experiences and the world in which they live (Atkinson, 2001). Qualitative research approaches, as such, have in common the primary aim of understanding the social reality of

individuals, groups and cultures and to provide an in-depth description and understanding of people’s actions and events. The basis of qualitative research, as has been argued by Cresswell (2007) and Terre Blanche, Durrheim, and Painter (2006), lies in the interpretive approach to social reality and in the description of people’s lived experiences. Interpretivist research focuses on the way in which human beings sense of their subjective reality and attach meaning to it. People are approached not as individuals who exist in a vacuum, but as having the capacity to explore their world within the whole of their life context.

Gay and Airasian (2003) argue that qualitative research is most useful for exploring complex research areas about which little is known. The main concern is to understand social actions and events in terms of their specific context rather than to make generalizations to some aspect of the population. Sensitivity to the context of the research is a necessary requirement in qualitative research. This sensitivity to context implies that researchers have to immerse themselves in the setting and the situation that is investigated. As a former SANDF member and someone with military experience, I enter into this research and conversational space with the awareness that the context of the participants’ lives and work affect their behaviour. Therefore, to fully understand how former Homeland Army Force members experienced integration into the SANDF, it was important to realise that these experiences are grounded in the participants’ history and temporality. As a result, the conditions in which data was gathered, the locality (i.e. where this data was gathered), the point in time at which the data was collected and the history before and after integration were crucial aspects to take into consideration in this study.

Babbie and Mouton (2001) point out that the researcher in qualitative research observes and then describes what was observed. The researcher begins with putting himself in the natural setting of the research participants, describing events as accurately as possible as they have been experienced by the research participants. This process of observation is not one where the researcher is completely detached from that which is being observed. Even though this study sought to describe rather than to introduce or influence predetermined variables, it is important to acknowledge that researcher own subjective bias in the form of the position that one takes and the perspectives that inform who data is interpreted does play a role in influencing the kinds of answers one eventually arrives at. Smith (1983) has argued that complete objectivity and neutrality are impossible to achieve as the values of the researcher and the participants can become an integral part of the research. Researchers are therefore not divorced from the phenomenon of study. It is, however, important to acknowledge and account for the position that

one takes in the setting and situation as the researcher is the main research instrument. Therefore, to minimize the influence of my own values and beliefs in the research process, I have used direct quotations from the research participants’ interviews which have been included in the results and discussion chapter to justify the conclusions that I have arrived at regarding the findings. Where appropriate, akin to Watts (2006), I have drawn on my experience conducting this research project to illustrate how assumptions made about the researcher and the ways in which I have positioned myself as a researcher and have been positioned by others can have implications for how the research is conducted.

Qualitative research is also useful in the exploration of change and conflict (Atkinson, Coffey, & Delamont, 2001). Integration of different army forces is a major transition that affects the social and physical context of a person. Many of the demands for integration of Army forces in South Africa were driven by steady changes in a context dominated by inequalities which required vociferous systemic and structural transformation. Members whose resident Army Forces have been dissolved increasingly have to confront new social worlds, working contexts and perspectives due to systemic change and the resulting diversification of life worlds. An exploration of the effects of systemic and structural transformation on members who have had to be integrated into a new structure necessitate the use of inductive strategies, instead of starting from theories and testing them as Flick (2002) emphasises. Underpinning the insight on how transformation in working environment brought about by integration of former Homeland Forces into the SANDF and how these members perceive and manage these changes is an epistemological position in which the relevance of complexity and context for understanding the social world is highlighted (Cox, Geisen & Green, 2008). To study transformation issues invariably implies that one has to consider complex issues related to patterns and how things are organised (Keeny, 1983). The outcome of change processes, as Van Maanen (1988) emphasises is that there is an ever-growing range of lived experiences to understand and to make visible within the world, particularly where these lived experiences are less stable and fulfilling than others.