Theoretical perspectives

Deciding on a theoretical framework for my research proved to be especially challenging. Coming from a background in social work practice, where theory is taught throughout training, yet historically, treated with scepticism in practice (Rubin, 2015), this was a new area of knowledge for me to comprehend and I found myself lost and confused amid a vast amount of information. This was compounded

by the fact that not only there a “bewildering array of theoretical perspectives and methodologies, but the fact that the terminology applied to them is often inconsistent (or even contradictory)” (Gray, 2013, p.19 citing Crotty, 1998). Even so, my priority was always to move beyond simplistic interpretations of these theories and engage with the concepts in a way that gave me the depth and richness my data would demand and deserve.

I had to recognise and accept that there was no single, accepted way of undertaking research. How I chose to carry out my research was dependent on a number of factors such as my ontological stance, my epistemological position, the rationale and goals of my research, the characteristics of the young people involved in my project, and the audience who would receive my study. It was also important I was aware of the philosophical debates and developments arising from each theoretical perspective in order to ensure the quality of the research I produced and subsequently, the degree to which its findings would be accepted (Snape and Spencer, 2003). Gray notes that, “Of the different theoretical perspectives available, positivism and various strands of interpretivism are, or have been (arguably) among the most influential” (p.21). I will therefore give a brief overview of these perspectives, before stating my own position.

4.3 Positivism

From the 1930s through to the 60s, positivism was the dominant epistemological position in social science (Gray, 2013), with researchers seeking an objective truth through rigorous scientific inquiry (Gray, 2013; Cohen et al., 2011). Associated with the work of Auguste Comte (1798-1857), a positivist approach adopts an

“objectivist” standpoint, whereby applying the laws of the natural sciences to the study of the social world, reality becomes as an

observable, concrete entity, external to the researcher (Gray, 2013). A major criticism of the positivist paradigm is its failure to take account of an individual's ability to interpret and represent their experience to themselves (Cohen et al., 2011).

4.4 Interpretivism

A major alternative stance to positivism is that of interpretivism. In epistemological terms, interpretivism is informed by constructivism, which unlike positivism, rejects the methods of the natural sciences, and claims that the social world can only be understood from an individual's perspective (Cohen et al., 2011). Interpretivism proposes that “natural reality (and the laws of science) and social reality are different and therefore require different kinds of methods. While the natural sciences are looking for consistencies in the data in order to deduce ‘laws’ (nomothetic), the social sciences often deal with the actions of the individual (ideographic). Our interest in the social world tends to focus on exactly those aspects that are unique, individual and qualitative, whereas our interest in the natural world focuses on more abstract phenomena, that is, those exhibiting quantifiable, empirical regularities” (Crotty, 1998, p. 68 in Gray, 2013. p.23). From this point of view, social phenomena, such as the onscreen depictions of looked-after characters, and the meanings they have for looked-looked-after young people, can only ever be viewed from an individual's perspective, and therefore, never viewed as definitive (Bryman, 2016). A constructionist approach highlights the discovery of patterns and meanings, which are co-constructed by an individual's interactions with the world, and influenced by their personal and socio-cultural context (Snape and Spencer, 2003; Bailey, 2011).

In terms of my own work, I felt that an interpretive approach would be the most appropriate, as I was very much interested in ascertaining

what these young people thought and felt about these onscreen depictions, and the subsequent impact these images have on them, rather than establishing any facts around these depictions. I therefore aimed to obtain as much detailed information as possible about the lives of my research participants, from their own perspectives and my observations of them, and their engagement with the research (Snape and Spencer, 2003). While I decided on utilising an interpretivist approach, further theoretical perspectives are encompassed within this approach, such as phenomenology and hermeneutics, which I will discuss further.

4.5 Hermeneutics

The hermeneutic tradition proposes that social reality is socially constructed, and not rooted in objective fact. Therefore, explanation and description should be given less standing than interpretation (Gray, 2013). Hermeneutics argues that, “Social reality is too complex to be understood through the process of observation. The scientist must interpret in order to achieve deeper levels of knowledge and also self-understanding” (Gray, 2013, p.26).

4.6 Phenomenology

Phenomenology proposes that any attempt to understand social reality must be grounded in an individual's experiences of that reality (Gray, 2013). Therefore, phenomenological research has an emphasis on logic, an individual's subjective account and interpretation, and qualitative analysis of the data (Gray, 2013; Nyawira Githaiga, 2014).

Phenomenology uses relatively unstructured methods, and research produces “thick descriptions” of an individual's lived experiences (Gray, 2013). Often based on small case studies, there are concerns about the generalisability of its results and research may be difficult to

replicate, because the approach is generally unstructured. However, it should be noted that phenomenological approaches are, “not so much concerned with generalizations to larger populations, but with contextual description and analysis” (Gray, 2013, p.30).