So, I learn that you don’t have to pin your study on any one qualitative approach or strategy; that some studies are unique in themselves and can stand on their own. My supervisor tells me she also never used any such approach during her studies.
With that out of the way, I go back to develop my proposal. I must mention that before proceeding for defense proposal, a student must first present their ideas at a colloquium organized by the respective school. I also intend to defend my proposal in six months from the date of admission. And so, I approach my school coordinator about a colloquium. She appraises me of an upcoming one, and we, the students, will organize it. We get into a committee and start the preparations in earnest.
Meanwhile, my proposal is gaining ground. One thing I have learned is that my view as a researcher has led me to embrace the qualitative approach. I must expound on the philosophical worldview (a basic set of beliefs that guide action) considered in my study. The philosophical worldview is a general orientation about the world and the nature of research that I hold, shaped by my discipline area of study.
I closely investigate these philosophical worldviews and realize I am a trillion miles away from postpositivism. This worldview holds that absolute truth is a mirage so that evidence established in research is always fallible and imperfect. It is the reason researchers indicate failure to prove a hypothesis, rather than claim to prove a hypothesis. It didn’t take me long to realize that a postpositvism worldview accommodates quantitative research, not qualitative. Postpositivism acknowledges that in the research process, claims are made, where some are refined or abandoned. Most quantitative research begins with the test of a theory in this worldview where knowledge is shaped by data, evidence, and rational considerations. The data is collected by the researcher using instruments based on measures completed by the respondents or through the researcher’s own observations. Under the postpositivsm paradigm, the researcher develops relevant true statements to describe the causal relationship of interest or explain a situation of concern. The researcher advances the relationship among variables, which s/he poses in terms of hypotheses or questions. Objectivity is the hallmark of competent inquiry so that the researcher is keen on validity and reliability.
Having dismissed the postpositivism paradigm, I turn my attention to the advocacy/participatory approach. Proponents of this worldview arose in the 80s and 90s to include social justice issues or issues affecting marginalized people that require addressing. Scholars see this worldview as mainly falling in the realm of qualitative research, although others see it as a foundation for quantitative research. The advocates of this paradigm feel that the constructivism worldview is not deep enough to address the action agenda for marginalized individuals. This agenda is expected to alter the lives of all concerned people. There must be a political agenda woven in a participatory worldview, which speaks into pertinent issues of the day such as oppression, suppression, inequality, alienation, domination, and empowerment. I spend a lot of time examining this worldview because there are lots of similarities with my study. However, the game-changer is the theoretical lens recommended for this type of study-queer theory, feminist perspectives, critical theory, disability theory, and discourses around race. I realize that this isn’t quite where I want to be situated.
And so I step into the third paradigm, pragmatism, and begin reading extensively on the subject. I learn that pragmatism originates from actions, situations, and ramifications instead of antecedent conditions like those in postpositivism. The main concern of this paradigm is the application, research that offers practical solutions to problems. The researcher does not focus on the methods, but the research problem, where s/he uses all available approaches to understand the problem. Pragmatism is a philosophical underpinning for mixed methods studies and is not committed to any one system of philosophy and reality. The researcher draws liberally from both qualitative and quantitative assumptions. There is the freedom to select the techniques, methods, and procedures that best meet the researcher’s needs and purposes. After all, the world is not an absolute unity and truth is what works at the time to provide the best understanding of a research problem. Moreover, research always occurs in social, historical, political, and other contexts so that it is possible to include postmodern turn, a theoretical lens that is reflective of social justice and political aims. The external world comprises what is independent of the mind as well as what is lodged in the mind. Researchers do not ask questions about reality and the laws of nature. Well, I don’t need rocket science to determine that this is not my philosophical underpinning.
Now I wonder if I am not on another wild goose chase like the time I was looking for the qualitative strategy to use. It is now time to interrogate the social constructivism paradigm, often combined with interpretivism, and typically seen as an approach to qualitative research. In social constructivism, people seek to understand the world in which they live and work. Individuals develop varied and multiple subjective meanings of their experiences, causing the researcher to look for the complexity of views instead of narrowing meanings into a few categories or ideas. The researcher, as much as possible, heavily relies on the participants’ views of the situation being studied. The research questions are deliberately general and broad to give the participants room to construct the meaning of a situation, usually derived from interactions or discussions with other people. The researcher has to pay careful attention to what people are saying or doing in their life settings, with subjective meanings negotiated socially and historically. In social constructivism, individuals construct their own reality through interaction with others and through cultural and historical norms operating in their lives. Hence, the process of interaction and the environment people live and work are very important to the researcher. The researcher’s own background shapes his/her interpretation, with the recognition that their interpretation flows from personal, cultural, and historical experiences. Under social constructivism, the researcher tries to make sense of the meanings others have about the world. The researcher inductively develops a theory or pattern of meaning instead of starting with a theory.
Now that I have spent days on these worldviews, it is crystal clear that I will be absorbed into the social constructivism worldview for the next three years and possibly beyond.
Comments