VALIDITY OF STUDY

In order to ensure that the data collected in this research study was of the highest quality and was interpreted correctly, the seven principles of hermeneutics (Myers,

135 2008) that were mentioned in chapter 2, section 2.5.5 are now discussed principle by principle to show how each was interpreted:

Principle 1: The fundamental principle of the hermeneutic cycle

This is the most fundamental of the seven principles of hermeneutics and is fundamental to all interpretive work as it is the one principle that the other six are built upon. The circle refers to the constant interaction between the whole and the part which one does in order to gain more understanding. This process of understanding and interpreting moves from an understanding of the parts to the whole, back to an improved understanding of each of the parts.

In this research, the process of understanding and interpreting according to the hermeneutic cycle starts by understanding the “parts” which are the researcher‟s understanding of the HCBC environment – mainly gained through literature review, interviews and observations; and also each CHCW‟s understanding which was gained through their experience of being in the environment. The whole is the shared meaning and understanding of both the researcher and the CHCWs which results in the socio-technical factors.

Principle 2: The principle of contextualization

This principle of contextualization aims to show that due to the historical distance between the interpreter (reader) and the author (researcher) there is a difference in their views or understanding. It requires that the subject matter be set in its social and historical context so that the intended audience can see how the current situation under investigation emerged.

This principle was applied in the beginning of chapter 5 with a discussion that described the Emmanuel Haven case study before the research results were divulged to give a perspective on the type of environment in which the information was collected. The brief background of the case study was discussed in chapter 5, section 5.2.

136

Principle 3: The principle of interaction between the researcher(s) and the subjects

This principle requires that the researchers place themselves and the subjects into a historical perspective. The social interaction between the researchers and the participants produces the “data” or facts that are regarded as the research data.

This principle was applied by firstly discussing the research methodology in chapter 2, including the research methods that were used for data collection and analysis. The case study results in chapter 5 further describe the details about the interaction between the researcher and the participants and it shows the data that was collected from the participants. During the field visit the researcher had the role of observer so that they could observe the activities that the participants carried out. The researcher and participants each have their different roles but these roles have interacted to produce results which have been used to compile the list of socio-technical factors.

Principle 4: The principle of abstraction and generalization

Abstraction and generalization need to be carefully related to the field study details as they were experienced or collected by researchers so that readers can follow and understand how the researchers arrived at their insights. This principle attempts to relate data that was described in the principle of contextualization to abstract categories while unique instances can be related to concepts that apply to multiple situations.

From the data that was gathered from the case study, social, environmental and technical factors have been abstracted. Due to the fact that the factors were gathered from literature review and only one case study environment, in order for the factors to be generalizable further studies would need to be conducted.

Principle 5: The principle of dialogical reasoning

This principle of dialogical reasoning requires the researchers to confront their preconceptions with data that has emerged through the research process. Hermeneutics suggests that prior knowledge plays an important part in our understanding (Myers, 2008). This principle requires that there be cycles of revision

137 between our prior knowledge and actual findings to minimize any possible contradictions.

In this research, the researcher‟s preconception is regarded as the literature review in chapter 2 to 4 and this is confronted with the data that has emerged from the research which is presented in chapter 5.

Principle 6: The principle of multiple interpretations

The researcher is required to examine the influences that are experienced by the participants so that they have the ability to document their multiple viewpoints and reasons. Unlike in the principle of dialogical reasoning where the researcher‟s conceptions and data were confronted, in this principle the conflicting interpretations of the participants are confronted.

Sensitivity was required when interpreting the multiple meanings of the CHCW interview and observation results to ensure that all the gathered data collaborated to providing something meaningful to contribute to the final outcomes of the socio- technical factors.

Principle 7: The principle of suspicion

The principle of suspicion is concerned with the discovery of false preconceptions and requires the researcher to adopt a critical perspective and not take the participants‟ views at face value as these could be false preconceptions. The researcher is required to not show any biases to the information collected from the participants.

Bias in this research was avoided through the interviewing and observing of more than one participant and in the use of multiple research data collection analysis methods. This ensured that the data collected would not be distorted in anyway.

138