draft of first part of methodology chapter

I've posted this to demonstrate where I am in my thinking; it also shows that the chapter is rather undeveloped . . . .

Research Paradigm

This section will describe the research paradigm that frames this study and the various methodological choices I have made, in regard to relevant literature. I use the term research paradigm, after Kuhn (1970), to refer to what guides a researcher’s design and conduct of a research study; it includes the broader context of a researcher’s worldview. Guba (1990) defined a paradigm as a “basic set of beliefs that guides action” (p. 17).

Denzin and Lincoln (2000) defined paradigm as an “interpretive framework” (p. 19). Dillard (2006) defined paradigm as “the articulation of the ways that scholars make sense of the research world they live in” (p. 62).

Patton (2002) stated, “Paradigms tell us what is important, legitimate, and reasonable” (p. 69) and that paradigms are really about epistemology, ontology, and philosophy of science. As such, paradigms are important theoretical constructs for illuminating fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality (p. 72).

Dillard (2006) claimed that the ‘Big Four’ paradigms were cultural constructions that were developed from a broader research community, approved by those in power, who “by design or by default” (p. 63) have been given that power. Furthermore, Dillard (2006) stated that paradigms were inherently attached to our notions of, use of, and abuse of power.

Recent discussion (Donmoyer, 2006; Lather, 2006; Dillard, 2006) raises questions regarding the validity of various ‘offshoots’ of paradigms from the Big Four (positivist, interpretivist, critical theory, and deconstructivist), while also questioning whether the notion of ‘paradigm’ is relevant in this day and age. A paradigm is one’s worldview, and from what a person knows and is used to, and from what discourses surround him/her, their paradigm is created, developed, and established. Donmoyer (2006) argues that we should move beyond the Kuhnian-idea of paradigm, and explore new conceptions and new discourses regarding research and inquiry (though he does not suggest with any clear guidelines an alternative model).

Lather (2006) and Dillard (2006) argued that paradigms rely on the hegemonic discourses of the Big Four (positivism, postpositivism, critical theory et al., and constructivism) (Dillard, 2006), and that we should be welcoming diversity, i.e. the proliferation of other paradigms. Lather (2006) argued that there should be encouragement for a thousand paradigms to usurp the four hegemonic paradigms. The influence of the hegemonic ‘Big Four’ should not be the be-all and end-all influence. Why should I box myself into one of those four? The nature of, the understanding of, and the explanation of qualitative research differs from place to place and from researcher to researcher. That will not go away (see Demerath 2006). The lines are blurred; the distinctions are blurred; and the descriptions are arguable. Therefore, I present my own definitions drawing on others’ previous explanations.

My epistemological viewpoint stems from a post positivist position. While positivists focus on the empirical world and what can be measured, post positivists emphasize that ways of knowing are culturally-bound (Lather, 1995). Positivists believe that verified hypotheses can be established as facts or laws, in contrast to post positivists who believe “nonfalsified” hypotheses are probable facts or laws (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Post positivism has asserted that views of knowledge and reality are influenced by one’s pre-conceived beliefs, ideas, and experiences, which allows for alternative constructions of meaning (Patton, 2002). Understanding always rests upon interpretative presuppositions that are historical and subjective in nature (Wicks, 2003), for example, one’s experience is filtered through one’s particular way of understanding, which is a result of one’s upbringing, and the social conventions and language that one has been exposed to (Ingram, 2003). Part of what constitutes my position on the nature of knowledge and its accumulation is the belief that I recognize that values have an influence on the conduct of a study and the findings of a study. I believe that reality is shaped historically by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gendered values – which is part of critical theory (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). My view of the nature of knowledge is influenced by both post positivism and critical theory in that I believe reality is probabilistically apprehendable and is shaped by structural or historical insights (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Denzin and Lincoln (2000) stated, “There are no objective observations, only observations socially situated in the worlds of – and between – the observer and the observed” (p. 19). The positivist epistemological belief that objectivist findings are true, is modified from a post positivist perspective as post positivists believe findings are probably true, and critical theorists believe that findings are value-mediated (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).

I like the idea of critical theory, but my main research method does not include action research. I fully believe that emancipation should result from research, therefore my focus on feminism within critical theory fulfills that area. I am a feminist, but sometimes I am a liberal feminist, sometimes a Marxist feminist, sometimes a socialist feminist, sometimes a Materialist feminist, but never a radical feminist. Where I am on the continuum of feminism depends on the topic at hand.

I am comfortable with deconstruction, but I am not entirely comfortable with post-structuralism. My focus on Bourdieu with his structured structures that are structuring structures led me away from my initial thoughts of agreement about feminist post-structuralism. Though I agree with what Kenway and Willis (1995;1998) describe as being post-structuralism (see page ##), I like the feminism within that, not actually the notion that it is what makes up post-structuralism. Issues of power in, through, and around structures resonate with me in my own construction of feminism. I definitely favour combining elements of critical theory and deconstruction, not favouring one over the other. I esteem emancipation and activism; but also admire the possibilities deconstruction presents as one carves out one’s position, thoughts, and truth in relation to one’s perspective and focus in research. The combination of these two perspectives allows a positive tension, rather than an incommensurable one, such as if one tried to combine positivism with constructivism. With that in mind, I can define myself (moving beyond the limitations of paradigm) as a post positivist, feminist, white-centric, social science researcher. Why am I white-centric? Because I am white. I cannot be other than that; being white is who I am. I acknowledge that if I was African-American or Asian (for example), that this study may have been conducted differently, and that I would probably have read the literature from a different lens, and I cannot sufficiently say that this research covers perspectives from other races or ethnicities, because I am white, and I have no other researchers working with me, and if they were, they would probably be white too. Additionally, as I am a woman, I cannot conduct this research from a man’s perspective or position. Furthermore, I grew up in New Zealand where I believe I have a close affinity with Maori – the indigenous people of New Zealand. Their term for white people is ‘Pakeha’, and I am comfortable with that term to define myself. My paradigm, which I now term my perspective is that of a post positivist, feminist, white-centric (Pakeha), social science researcher.
3.1.1 Feminism

I believe that to do feminist research is to put the social construction of gender at the centre of one’s inquiry. Why be a feminist? Nagy Hesse-Biber (2004) stated,
Whether it be by seeking knowledge from and about women in order to record their valuable life experiences, or to change women’s lives through social policy, a feminist methodology aims at creating knowledge that is beneficial to women and other minorities. In this vein many feminists are social activists seeking to use their research to better the social position of women. While feminist scholarship varies in epistemological position and research a feminist approach to research helps give voice to the experiences, concerns, attitudes, and needs of women (p. 22).

In addition to this view of knowledge and reality, I also hold to the position that social relations and constructions are the result of historically constructed power relations and dominance over the ‘Other’, such as women, non-white races, and subordinate variants of the ideal – this being a feminist post-structuralist position (Abbott & Wallace, 1997; Kenway & Willis, 1995; 1998; Reinharz, 1992). I perceive gendered discourses and masculine attributes of power to be something that social action can confront and change. I think it is important for females to have a critical knowledge about gender issues and inequalities, and I believe it is important to empower females to participate in and commit themselves to contesting, subverting and destabilizing hegemonic gendered discourses (Kenway & Willis, 1995) which seek to subordinate women and non-dominant forms of masculinity. In my opinion, equality between and within the sexes is essential in a just society. I also hold to the belief that action is a goal of feminist research.

##Post-structuralism seeks to identify power in roles, rules and structures, power of males over females, and empower females through gaining forms of knowledge to enable females to understand, deal with, and change their world (Kenway & Willis, 1998). Abbott and Wallace (1997) described four theoretical positions on the nature of social reality. The theoretical position of post-structuralism is defined here:
There are only interpretations – ‘readings’ – of texts, that there is an indeterminacy and heterogeneity of actual meanings and meaning-productions. Like the idealist approach it rejects the ideals of objectivity and neutral judgement and argues that the ideas are the creation of social beings rather than the (more or less adequate) representations of material reality (p. 29).
To me, this definition is closely aligned with constructivism, as I agree with the idea the truth is subjective as it depends on one’s habitus as to how one perceives truth and how one understands reality.

Abbott & Wallace 1997 – focuses on feminism. (feminist standpoint theory) - If biology fully explains gender divisions, there is no need to theorise or explain the subordination and domination of women.
“post-structuralist and postmodernist perspectives within feminism questioned the sex/gender distinction. They are argued instead that, just as ‘gender’ is a social construct, so is ‘sex’ – in other words, that sex is used as a justification for the subordination of a group, rather than providing any basis for social differentiation” p. 11.
Three broad responses that seek to fill the gaps in existing theory and research in sociology: integration (remove the bias), separatism (sociology for women by women, e.g. Harding), reconceptualism (rethink sociological theories).
USE THIS AS KEY TEXT TO DEVELOP FURTHER UNDERSTANDINGS OF WHERE YOU ARE ON CONTINUUM OF FEMINISM. Waiting for this book to arrive from Australia 13/2/2006.