SECTION ONE: PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK

4.6 Interpretivism

Within the qualitative epistemology sits the interpretive paradigm. The central endeavour of interpretivism is to understand the subjective world of human experience from the perceptions of participants. Therefore, in order to glean meaning into their social realm, “one must interpret it” (Schwandt, 1994, p. 118). Denzin suggests that in “the social sciences there is only interpretation [because] nothing speaks for itself” (1994, p. 500). As an argument against positivism, we cannot even establish a fact simply because “a fact is already an interpretation” (Griffiths, 1998, p. 49). Meaning is not just an abstract notion that is haphazardly discovered, but rather “it is constructed” (Crotty, 1998, p. 42). Human beings actively make sense of their world from their stance. Scott and Usher believe that research “involves interpreting the actions of those who are themselves interpreters” (1999. p. 27). Research becomes a filtered way of ‘knowing’ taking the form of a fluid construct, forever changing according to context and viewpoint. As such, epistemology is presented in a discursive position because “knowledge always involves interpretation within historical and cultural contexts”

(Scott & Usher, 1999, p. 28). Signified is the all-important idea of perspective, which basically frames our way of seeing when we do research (Scott & Usher, 1999). In the memorable words of Clough and Nutbrown: “Research which did not express a more or less distinct perspective on the world would not be research at all: it would have the status of a telephone directory where data are listed without analysis” (2008, p. 10). Interpretation is not only the antithesis to blandness and passiveness, but is a key part of human engagement within a social realm.

From the perspective of New Zealand giftedness, the interpretive concept relates to a world view constructed within a cultural framework, reflective of ethnicity, time, and place (Bevan-Brown, 2004; McAlpine, 2004; Moltzen, 2004). Similarly, the significance of the cluster management is dependent on the position of the viewer, whether this is from inside the group, or from the outside looking in. Denzin presents a valid argument: “Interpretation is a productive process that sets forth the multiple meanings of an event, object, experience, or text. Interpretation is transformative. It illuminates, throws light on experience” (1994, p. 504). Therefore, the choice of the focus group method looks to complement interpretivism, especially in regards to unveiling the values of the leadership culture. The tandem relationship between the interpretivism methodology and the focus group method promises to create and yield “thick interpretations” (Denzin, 1994, p. 506). Out of this process, a text will be produced to tell a ‘truth’ of the phenomenon (Denzin, 1994). This will be a vignette, a slice of management experience to represent the cluster.

4.7 Phenomenology

Phenomenology is not an easy concept to understand. Contradictions and oppositional views abound within this research orientation. Nonetheless, for all its idiosyncrasies, phenomenology is my choice of philosophical paradigm. Ultimately, the main reason for this decision is my conflicting position as a researcher figuring in her own study. Phenomenology offers a strategy to distance myself from the site and subject of my inquiry. As a philosophy and an approach, phenomenology presents the opportunity for me to disclose my everyday

assumptions and intrinsic bias (Denscombe, 2008, Crotty, 1998). This concept allows me quiet contemplation on the all-familiar cluster world.

Importance of perspective for phenomenology

Phenomenology is a perspective “to study experience from the ‘point of view’ of the subject” (Crotty, 1998, p. 83), while also seeking to convey authenticity in the flare of a captured life moment. Moreover, phenomenology in this context is related to the human condition from a particular social stance. As an approach, it focuses on the meaning, structure, and essence of the lived importance of ‘something’ for someone, or some group (Denscombe, 2008). The concept is not primarily concerned with explaining the causes of a situation, but rather explores ‘what’ it is like to be involved first-hand, in person (Crotty, 1998). Specifically for this study, phenomenology is used to decipher the data relating to the third research question on the philosophical ‘being’ of working together. In this way, phenomenology will delve into the essence of the cluster as mediated through the lived experience of the principals. Thus, in a dual sense, phenomenology will be asked to do two things for this study: Firstly, to centre on what it was like as a principal ‘to be’ part of managing a gifted education provision. In the second case, phenomenology will place the researcher on the outside, observing from afar.

Philosophy of the lived experience

From a philosophical stance, it is important to look at the ‘being’ of experience. The literature signifies that phenomenology is concerned with primal and unmediated existence. In its rudimentary state, phenomenology is centred on the rawness of human emotion. A phenomenon is known through the senses in a pure, unadulterated form (Denscombe, 2008). This is to give a clear picture of the “things themselves” (Crotty, 1998, p. 78), and how it feels in the moments of an immediate situation. Thus, the core of phenomenology is humanistic and concerned with an actual life segment. Van Manen is razor-sharp in his denotation that “lived experience is the starting point and end point of phenomenological research” (1990, p. 36). Therefore, phenomenology seeks to gain a “deeper understanding of the nature or meaning of our everyday experiences” (van Manen, p. 9). This approach is conducive to narrating the thoughts, feelings, and actions of the principals belonging to the Management Group. Phenomenology will be

used to unearth the undiluted meaning of the cluster for the principals as they remembered in retrospection.

Approach of ‘bracketing things off’

In order to tone down my subjectivity, I will approach the data from the position of the naïve inquirer. This ploy will follow the phenomenological tradition of ‘bracketing things off’ (Crotty, 1998; Denscombe, 2008). The technique of separating out prior knowledge should encourage me to become conscious of the world before I ‘learned’ to see it (Crotty, 1998). This approach should allow me to probe below and beyond my everyday assumptions of the value of the cluster. Phenomenology urges us to engage with experience and to dissect our taken-for- granted understandings so the events speak straight to us. To get to this purity of meaning, Husserl (1931) exalts researchers to set aside personal beliefs framed by their cultural world view. This is Husserl’s method of ‘epoché’ to bracket off and free us from all preconceptions about the world (Cohen et al., 2007). Researchers should employ a “critical methodology” (Crotty, 1998, p. 82) to circumvent their prejudices and see the world anew.

Ontology

As part of the process to bracket off assumptions, the first step will be for me to ‘own’ my research. This personalising of my study suggests I must identify my perspective in relation to the cluster and its management leaders. This is my ontology. It defines how I come to know; how I come to be (Crotty, 1998). Heidegger (1962) maintains that philosophy is ontology and by the same token, ontology equates to phenomenology (Crotty, 1998). While this is a deep and profound concept, for this study it simply means the place where I made my introduction as the researcher (see pages 4 to 5). This is my “horizon of significance” (Taylor, 1989, cited in Pring, 2000, p. 20). It is a viewpoint to reflect what is important to me. My horizon illuminates me in a series of roles as the researcher, the director and co-ordinator of the cluster, and the mother of a gifted child involved in the early days of the TDI programme. I was a decision-making part of the whole enterprise with my own distinct identity and specialised way of doing.

Reflexivity

Yet within this world of the cluster, my multiple roles competed and collided at times. Primarily, this was because I was the mediator to supervise the programme and to also liaise with the two sides of the cluster partnership. I was the front person for the cluster, but still a staff member of REINC.This was my position of reflexivity where I stood to “reflect on the self, the researcher, the person who did it, the me, or the I” (Wellington, 2000, p. 42). The phenomenological approach suggests a self-reflexive practice and provides the entry point to voice my personal philosophy. Thus, my belief is centred on the power of education to revolutionise lives. In my opinion, education is the most effective tool we have as humans beings to fulfil our hopes and dreams in the pursuit of accomplishment. For gifted children, this ethos is heightened, but with the associated need for stronger support and encouragement. This is my common link to the principals and the basis for a shared vision of gifted and talented education.

Paradoxically, however, it is also the place where my bias as a researcher comes into play. My long term experience with the cluster is both an asset and a disadvantage. While I have informed knowledge on the overall everyday operations, I also have my own preconceived opinions on the worth of the cluster. It is these assumptions that can veer me towards slanting the evaluation in a personal light. There is no impartiality in my perceptions and hence the trustworthiness of my interpretation as the thesis writer must be challenged. In the words of Kamberelis and Dimitriadis: “The notion of an objective and neutral qualitative inquiry has been decentred” (1994, p. 905). The only answer is to acknowledge my prejudice of perspective and to use my reflexivity as a guiding principle. I must consciously unpack my natural preconceptions and then reflect on the impact this may have on the reporting of the research. My horizon of significance then becomes my position of reflexivity.

SECTION TWO: METHODS