Rationale for theoretical approach

In the conceptualisation stages of this study, a preliminary analysis of the literature

identified the relationship between news media and social work to be a poorly researched topic (Aldridge 1994, 1999; Galilee 2005; Franklin & Parton 1991, 2001). The limited amount of research utilised a broad positivist and quantitative approach and focused primarily on analysing media content or identifying social worker attitudes towards the news media.

These studies were characterised by the use of large sample sizes that came at the expense of detail, leading to broad findings that classify the effects as either ‘positive’ or ‘negative’

(Lombard 2009; Zugazaga et al. 2006). Researchers who analysed the news media had tended to focus predominantly on child protection and not the profession as a whole (Franklin & Parton 1991, 2001; Galilee 2005). It was clear from the initial analysis that there was a significant lack of research from a paradigm that explored both subjective and

discursive factors of the relationship.

In determining the most suitable approach, a social constructionist research paradigm (Berger & Luckmann 1966; Burr 2004; Holstein & Gubrium 2008; Jorgensen & Phillips 2002;

Witkin 2011) was chosen as it would address a significant gap in the literature by

researching both how the profession is discursively constructed in the news media and how this affects workers’ identity and action within the same timeframe. While other authors and approaches may have been appropriate to address the research gap (for example, Bourdieu, Giddens, Grounded Theory), constructionist research was identified as the most

39

suitable due to emphasis on the duality of macro discursive structures and subjective agency, the processes of reality construction and identity formation and the challenging of the taken-for-granted assumptions (Berger & Luckmann 1966; Burr 2004; Jorgensen &

Phillips 2002).

As a researcher with a background in critical social work, and educated at a university that prioritises critical and constructionist thought, I have had ideological and philosophical leanings towards research approaches that appreciate the diversity, interconnectedness and complexity of the social world. Due in part to my education, my social work practice has been shaped predominantly by constructionist, critical and postmodernist thought (Fook 2002, 2012; Healy 2005; Pease & Fook 1999; Witkin 2011), therefore the research problem and initial literature review were explored using these perspectives. While I am not

committed to any singular methodology, I approached this research by looking at how the relationship has been understood largely from a constructionist, and to some extent, critical perspective.

Further articulating my position as a researcher will be discussed in the final section of Part One.

2.7 Criticisms

Social construction has been argued by critics as being unusable, both politically and scientifically, as it is claimed to not be able to determine what is true or what is ‘good’ and

‘bad’ as all knowledge is relative and contingent (Jorgensen & Phillips 2002). Social construction theory has been critiqued for not focusing on the shared struggles of oppression and instead concentrating on the existence of multiple truths leading to a relativism of all statements as ‘equally good’ (Ife 1997; Jorgensen & Phillips 2002; Pease &

Fook 1999). As Pease & Fook (1999) argue, only ‘strong’ or ‘extreme’ forms of

postmodernism reject ‘the usefulness of commonalities that underlie diversity’ (Zufferey 2007, p. 18). Pease & Fook (1999, p. 12) argue that ‘weak’ forms of postmodernism, which inform this thesis, combined with critical theory, can contribute to the creation of

emancipatory politics, including the critical aims previously identified. As argued by Zufferey (2007), given the collective aims and ethics of social work, such as a commitment to human

40

rights and social justice (contested as those ideas may be), extreme forms of

postmodernism and total relativism are not useful to social work or to this research.

Several authors have challenged the main critiques levelled at constructionist research in its inability to produce valid, reliable and objective knowledge (Hacking 1999). Although the idea of ‘objective knowledge’ may be seen as incompatible with constructionist theory, Harding (1991) proposes that objectivity in constructionist research is achieved through strong reflexivity. Harding (1991) argues that as all knowledge is contingent, science presents a distorted understanding of the social world in its claim to produce findings that are free of context and therefore a naturalised reflection of the world. Harding

reappropriates the term and introduces the concepts of ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ objectivity (Harding 1991; Jorgensen & Phillips 2002). Science is argued to represent ‘weak objectivity’

because it does not take into account its own social and historical context and therefore

‘strong objectivity’ is achieved primarily through ‘strong reflexivity’. This requires an examination and explicit acknowledgement of the cultural and historical positioning of the research and the researcher (Harding 1991).

As Jorgensen & Phillips (2002, p. 198) write:

Reflexivity has been proposed as an attempt to take into account the researcher’s own role in knowledge production in the light of the relativist premise, inherent in social constructionism, that one’s own knowledge is socially and culturally constructed. The aim is to redefine the classical relations of authority between the researcher and the people under study and to avoid positioning oneself as a sovereign authority with privileged access to truth.

In attempting to balance the idea that all knowledge is contingent and also producing accurate descriptions of the world, Haraway (1996) introduced the concept of situated knowledge. In line with constructionist theory, Haraway (1996) argues that all knowledge is partial and the product of specific theoretical frameworks. Deconstructing the contextual nature of research knowledge is made possible through ‘visualising technologies’, that in relation to social research are the theoretical frameworks that can show how the

researcher’s representation of the social world comes from a specific location and that it is

41

also a construct. This study utilises reflexive processes informed by positioning theory (Harré & Davies 1990; Willig 1999) which will be detailed in later sections to provide a clear account of my cultural and historical positioning as a researcher and my role in the

knowledge creation process.

Furthermore, this thesis supports the view that while the interpretation of reality that constructionist research presents is not better than any other at the level of ‘principle’, at a more ‘concrete’ level some interpretations can be advocated as being more rigorous, explicit and therefore ‘better’ than others (Jorgensen & Phillips 2002, p. 206). Research should take responsibility for providing a particular ‘description of reality on the basis of a particular epistemic interest; that is, critical research should explicitly position itself and distance itself from alternative representations of reality on the grounds that it strives to do something specific for specific reasons’ (Jorgensen & Phillips 2002, p. 205). Therefore, as stated previously, the aim is not to provide a grand theory regarding the relationship, but instead present an interpretation of this topic with a rigour, depth and transparency absent from most work on this topic to inform and foster discussion.