Research Paradigm

Paradigms are ―models or frameworks for observation and understanding which shape both what we see and how we understand it‖. They are ―the perspectives or ways of looking at reality‖ as they represent the ―frames of references we use to organize our observation and reasoning‖ (Babbie, 2007, p. 11 cited by Hennink et al., 2011, p.11). They present world views that define the nature of the world (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Within particular paradigms, one can find different assumptions about the nature of reality, about the relationship between researchers and that being researched, about the role of values, about the language of research, and about the process of research (Creswell, 2007). The choice of a paradigm and the stance on each of these assumptions has practical implications for designing and conducting the research because the paradigm underpins the approach adopted and the methodology involved. The choice of the approach is determined by the nature of the research questions, and the preference of the researcher for that approach to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the phenomenon under research.

Choosing a qualitative approach to research is due to the fact ―that the approach allows you (as a researcher) to identify issues from the perspective of your study participants, and understand the meanings and interpretations that they give to behaviour, events or objects,‖ (Hennink et al., 2011, p. 9). The aim here is to listen to the NGTs of English within their CoP, understand their experiences, the way they understand such experiences and how they have built these views about their communities according to their interpretations and meanings in post-conflict Libya. At the same time, qualitative research involves studying things in their natural settings, which offers opportunities to make sense or ―interpret the phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them‖ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p. 4).

107

Literature on research differentiates between two major paradigms: positivist and interpretive (Hennink et al., 2011). The positivist paradigm is seen as the scientific approach to research that moulds the bases for natural sciences, experimental research and quantitative studies in social sciences. The positivist paradigm assumes that reality consists of facts and ―researchers can observe and measure reality in an objective way with no influence of the researcher on the process of data collection‖ (ibid, p. 14). Thus, research assumes the separation of facts from any values. Within this paradigm, researchers frame their hypotheses from theoretical or statistical models, test them by collecting empirical data and then evaluate whether the evidence assist the hypotheses (ibid). However, the criticism raised against the positivist paradigm is its assumption about objective measurement of reality that separates the researcher from those researched. Moreover, it ignores the ― interactive and co-constructive nature of data collection with human beings ‖ and does not acknowledge ―the contextual influences on people‘s life, focussing only on capturing facts‖ (Hennink et al., 2011, p. 14). Reality is seen and measured (Sparkes, 1992) from only one dimension by the physical sciences bare of social dimensions which are not always based on logic. Human perceptions cannot be measured as physical facts and other associated values cannot be treated in isolation from their holders and context. Such values contribute to constructing people‘s views and perceptions of reality.

To the contrary, the interpretive paradigm attempts to understand people‘s lived experiences from the subjective perspectives of those people within their context rather than focusing on facts. Furthermore, the interpretive paradigm acknowledges ―that reality is socially constructed as people‘s experiences occur within social, cultural, historical or personal context‖ (Hennink et al., 2011, p. 15). In addition, Denscombe, asserts that reality is a ―social creation, constructed in the minds of people and reinforced through their interaction with each other‖ (2002, p. 18). Therefore, perceptions of reality are subjective and multiple perspectives of reality can derive from this logic (Sparkes, 1992). Meanwhile, the background and values of the researcher has an influence on data

108

generation and interpretation. All these concerns are acknowledged by the interpretive approach. The interpretive approach acknowledges the subjectivity of the perspectives of the participants concerning their views of their world and the researcher‘s subjectivity concerning data generation and interpretation. The researcher‘s background, and emotions are considered as an integral part of data production within the interpretive approach (Hennink et al., 2011). The interpretive research paradigm is also known under different terms, including, naturalistic, constructivist, and qualitative (Robson, 2002). Therefore, the terms qualitative and interpretive will be used interchangeably in this study.

For this study, the positivist paradigm does not appear appropriate; there are no hypotheses to be tested or pure facts to be reconfirmed. Listening to people‘s experiences from their own meaningful perspectives and eliminating my values, background as a teacher and the social context at the outset would contradict the principles of this paradigm. Since the aim of the current study is to attain a thorough understanding of the overall experiences of NGTs of EFL in their first years of teaching in post-conflict Libya, the interpretive qualitative research appears to be an appropriate strategy for studying those experiences in detail and over time from the participants‘ own perspectives. Qualitative research involves ―an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world...Qualitative researchers study things in their natural setting, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meaning people bring to them‖ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003, p. 5). Likewise, I argue here that a number of principles of the qualitative paradigm are of relevance to the present study. First, the nature of the study involves exploring the participants' personal experiences as NGTs in order to interpret their subjective meanings of the topic and see the world through their lenses. Second the study took place in a natural setting in schools where those teachers have built their experiences. Adopting qualitative research methods helped me gain ―deeper understanding of the social phenomena that would not be obtained from purely quantitative data‖ (Silverman, 2005, p. 10). It also the interpretive paradigm

109

acknowledges ―that reality is socially constructed as people‘s experiences occur within social, cultural, historical or personal context‖ (Hennink et al., 2011, p. 15). Therefore, by adopting this approach, the NGTs participating in this study were able to communicate and discuss their thoughts, perceptions and experiences freely. Their narratives provided clear pictures of their experiences of their world (communities) from their viewpoints. Moreover, this narrative enriched the understanding and interpretation of individual cases in that specific context and contributed to answering to the research questions. Consequently comparisons of what these teachers said and perceived of themselves as teachers of English can be compared with findings from previous studies. Such comparison might demonstrate similarities or differences or reveal new issues related to study of beginner teachers, in a new context-a post-conflict context. According to this approach, language played a vital role as it was the medium through which individual NGTs explained their own views of their own world. The study also focuses on the unique role played by the social context situation and its associated social and political conditions in formulating each teacher‘s experience given that they had graduated from different institutions and taught in schools of different levels. In addition, the study concentrates on the effect of the on-going conflict on the formation of teachers‘ identities, and their learning to develop themselves as qualified teachers in their CoP.