Theoretical Paradigm and Perspective

To gain insights into the vacation for families with adolescents, the research paradigm and associated ontology and epistemology that frame this study are examined. The research paradigm (or worldview) that frames any research is shaped by the nature of the research (Creswell, 2009; Hollinshead, 2006). There are four major research paradigms – positivist, post-positivist, critical and interpretive (Goodson & Phillmore, 2004). Positivist and post-positivist research, while common in tourism research, are not appropriate for this study due to their scientific approaches. The critical and interpretive paradigms are more appropriate as they recognise the role the researcher and everyday life plays in the research process (Goodson & Phillmore, 2004). However, the critical paradigm focuses on the effect of the outside world (social, political and historical forces) on an individual’s view of themselves (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2003). Although the outside world is partially relevant to understanding the vacation for families with adolescents, it is not central to this understanding. The final paradigm, the interpretive paradigm, recognises that the social world can only be understood by those who live within it (Goodson & Phillmore, 2004; Szmigin & Foxall, 2000). Consequently, the interpretive paradigm is the most appropriate paradigm for this study with its

89

objective of exploring how families with adolescents make and evaluate vacation decisions.

The interpretive paradigm has grown in strength in social sciences (Hollinshead, 2006) and marketing, particularly in relation to consumer behaviour (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003b; Goulding, 1999). Moreover, an interpretive paradigm addresses the conventions of CCT research. Interpretive models take into account personal, social and cultural considerations when making a decision and look at understanding and interpretation (Daymon & Holloway, 2010; Decrop, 2006). An interpretive approach acknowledges that people contribute to the building of knowledge (Jamal & Hollinshead, 2001), as the researched and the researcher are seen as producing this knowledge together (Goodson & Phillmore, 2004). It is through an interpretive paradigm that the complexities of family dynamics and the culture considerations of family consumption can be explored.

Constructivism is often combined with an interpretive paradigm (Creswell, 2009). Some researchers, including Guba and Lincoln (1994), Denzil and Lincoln (2003), and Creswell (2009), recognise constructivism as a paradigm in its own right. While most studies and researchers combine constructivism and interpretivism, the approaches do differ slightly. Constructivists argue that we ‘build/make’ the world we live in through social construction, whereas interpretivists focus on interpreting meaning from existing action (Hollinshead, 2006).

Constructivism has evolved from researchers’ dissatisfaction with the objectivist view of objective truth and meaning inherent in objects (Crotty, 1998; Fosnot & Perry, 1996; Yilmaz, 2008). The constructivist paradigm focuses on individuals seeking understanding and meaning of the world, while recognising that meanings are varied and multiple and that truth is not absolute (Fosnot & Perry, 1996; Yilmaz, 2008). That is, constructivism is based on the premise that each individual is born into a world with meaning based on that individual’s culture (Crotty, 1998). Individuals then assign meaning and understanding to this world. They do this by building on existing knowledge and through new knowledge and

90

experiences (Kukla, 2013; Yilmaz, 2008). As a result and central to constructivism is that all reality is constructed reality (Daly, 2007).

Constructivism requires researchers to interpret meaning rather than start with a theory, thus encouraging complexity of views rather than narrowing meanings into categories (Creswell, 2009; Hollinshead, 2006). That is, explanations or descriptions about experiences are more important than the number of times an experience has occurred (Daly, 2007). Constructivism suits qualitative research (see discussion in Section 4.3) (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006), as the goal is to explore in depth the participants view of the world (Gergen, 1985). To achieve this, the setting and the context through which the individual sees the world is important, information needs to be gathered personally (Crotty, 1998) and questions need to be broad and general to encourage participants to construct their view of the world (Creswell, 2009).

A subset of constructivism is social constructivism. Where constructivism focuses on meaning making to the individual, social constructivism focuses on the interactive process of meaning making. It is based on the premise that behaviour, interests and relationships are socially constructed (Newman, 2001). That is, we create meaning through our interaction with others, whether that be through informal conversation at the dinner table or the formal conversations through the research process (Daly, 2007; Schwandt, 2007). Through the social constructivism process of meaning making beliefs, attitudes, ideas and knowledge (really anything!) can be constructed (Schwandt, 2007). Social constructivism research is appropriate when researching multiple participants together (such as a family) as it allows participants to interact and share their views, as meaning is generated from interaction with others (Creswell, 2009; Crotty, 1998). Through a social constructivist paradigm reality is negotiated and negotiated understandings are of critical significance in life (Gergen, 1985).

Denzin and Lincoln (2003b) suggest research is difficult. They refer to the researcher as a ‘bricoleur’ – a maker of quilts, or someone who puts pieces together to create a solution (pp. 6-8). They also refer to interpretive research as a ‘montage’

91

– the editing of cinematic images, or putting the pieces together to create a representation. Denzin and Lincoln further outline the many ways to construct interpretations in interpretive research. Many interpretive paradigms can address a problem and each builds on the others until a complete picture is formed; each with its limitations and framed within the traditions of that paradigm. While there are many ways to construct interpretations, Denzin and Lincoln (2003), and Goodson and Phillmore (2004) argue that the aim of the researcher is to establish the best approach for the research problem at hand, an approach that will maximise understanding, while taking into account elements such as researcher subjectivity, ethics and values. This study employs a combined interpretivist/constructivist paradigm to gain insights about the vacation for families with adolescents.

In addition to the paradigm, the researcher also needs to consider their ontology (what is the form and nature of reality?), epistemology (how do we know something and what can be known?) and methodological framework (how do we gain the knowledge and how do we find out what we believe can be known?) (Daly, 2007; Goodson & Phillmore, 2004; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Small, 1999). It is through this process of determining the ontology, epistemology and methodological framework that we can create our bricolage and maximise our understanding of the research problem (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003b). Albeit it is also through choosing our paradigm that our ontology, epistemology and methodological framework are both framed and, to an extent, constrained by the worldview we have taken (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). As a result, it is through determining that an interpretivist/constructivist paradigm is the best approach for this study that we then employ a relativist ontology and a transactional and subjectivist epistemology (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003b; Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

A relativist ontology suggests that reality is specific to the individual or group to whom it applies. Reality is constructed based on social and experiential phenomenon, and although it is specific to the individual or group, elements are often shared across many individuals and/or cultures (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Transactional and subjectivist epistemology suggest that there is no separation between the creator of the knowledge and the known and, all findings are created

92

through the research process (Daly, 2007; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In this approach, bias has no meaning, as all findings by definition include the values, understandings and interpretation of the researcher (Daly, 2007). This does not mean that it is impossible to know, it just means that knowledge is affected by different viewpoints and explanations (Daly, 2007).