Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

I came across this interesting question in an article written by Samuel BA Isaacs, previous CEO of SAQA, and published in the SAQA Bulletin Volume 12, Number 2 of February 2012. The Bulletin is rather outdated, but the question is not. Here is my attempt at answering the question.

The NQF does show some characteristics of modernism in the sense that its objectives are logical and aimed at supporting quality in education and training, lifelong learning. It is contemporary while keeping pace with changes in technological and social environments. The objectives of the NQF supports the modernist notion that science and reason can be used to achieve accuracy, objectivity and reliability in the process of knowledge creation.

Through the years, since the inception of the NQF, learning institutions and quality assurance bodies experienced it as a system that is bureaucratic, prescriptive, procedural and structured, which are elements of a modernist paradigm. Although some of them might deny this, all quality assurance bodies follow evaluation procedures based on specific criteria, procedures and timeframes from which they do not deviate. 

The elements of modernism that can be linked to a constructivist philosophy are that the NQF is formulated in a structured, hierarchical (three sub-frameworks) manner while being implemented and managed in an orderly manner through centralised control.

Constructivism can be regarded as the conscience of the NQF. All stakeholders are given an opportunity to participate in the development and review of the NQF, so that learning institutions and quality assurance bodies can contribute through their own understanding and experience, i.e. prior knowledge. In a constructivist approach, all stakeholders should be allowed to ask questions and to participate in the exploration, research and development processes. Sadly, such flexibility was neglected in the development of the NQF. The intelligence and prior knowledge of experts were utilized selectively and subjectively in the formulation of the NQF. I need to add, though, that Dr. James Keevy, who is probably the best-informed South African authority on NQF systems worldwide, played a valuable and pivotal role in the initial development process, but that is not typical of a constructivist approach.

Post-modernism supports a pluralistic epistemology which utilizes multiple ways of knowing. This means that the NQF, to meet the requirements of post-modernist philosophy, should have been much more flexible in its approach to quality assurance of learning institutions and learning content. Post-modernism values the multiple opinions of individuals and communities. In his article, Isaacs mentions that many stakeholders were consulted in the development process. This would be typical of a post-modernist approach.

Modernism and post-modernism have certain elements that fit together, for example, modernism articulates traditional beliefs and practices with modern ideas and needs while post-modernism links opinions, value-systems, and knowledge to specific cultures. This is largely achieved through the use of language.

Both modernism and post-modernism are technicist, meaning that they adopt a critical and interpretive approach to the achievement of quality education and training. The NQF meets these characteristics. However, this is not necessarily a good thing.

In closing, the NQF needs not be exclusively modernist, constructivist or post-modernist. It can, and probably do, show characteristics of all three and some other paradigms.  For example, there are elements of critical theory in the NQF. The NQF questions knowledge and learning methods, it acknowledges the role of power and social position on education and training and it goes beyond prevailing assumptions of understanding. It also shows characteristics of feminism by promoting the role of women in the education and training system. It also shows characteristics of positivism – quality assurance of education and training as well as the learning process as such follows a cycle of control which includes observation, experimenting, and measurement. Judging from the manner in which the NQF is implemented I would think that it is largely based on a modernist philosophy.  

Written by Dr Hannes Nel, MBL; D. Com; D. Phil  

Hermeneutics deals with interpretation. Originally, hermeneutics referred to the study of the interpretation of written biblical text, but now it includes the interpretation of any form of communication, including verbal, artistic, geo-political, physiological, sociological, etc. In terms of communication, hermeneutics views inquiry as conversation and conversation as a source of data that can and should be used for research. Hermeneutics is now applied in all the human sciences to clarify or interpret, conditions in which understanding takes place.[1]

With the above in mind, hermeneutics can be defined as the aspect of a study that involves interpreting the event or events being studied, to deepen the understanding of the political, historical, sociocultural, and other real-world contexts within which they occur. Language and history play an important role in the interpretation of events and phenomena.

Hermeneutics represents a specific perspective on data analysis. In hermeneutics theories are developed or borrowed and continually tested, looking for discrepant data and alternative ways of making sense of the data.[2] It is not the purpose of hermeneutics to offer explanations or to provide authoritative rules or conceptual analysis, but rather to seek and deepen understanding. As a mode of analysis, it suggests a way of understanding or making meaning of, textual data. Objectivity is sought by analysing our prejudices and perceptions. Even so, ambiguity is not regarded as an obstacle to qualitative research and it is accepted that interpretation will sometimes be typical and perhaps even unique to a particular situation and context.

A hermeneutic approach, thus, is open to the ambiguous nature of textual analysis and resists the urge to offer authoritative readings and neat reconciliations. Rather, it recognises the uniquely situated nature, historically and linguistically influenced, and the ambiguous nature of interpretation, and offers such for readers to engage with, or not, as they wish.[3]

In the process of interpretation you, as the researcher, will inevitably add your own interpretation to text and, perhaps, review historical text if you regard it as necessary for whatever reason. In the process, you will also learn while contributing to the available knowledge in a particular field of study. Understanding occurs when you recognise the significance of the data that you are interpreting and when you recognise the interrelatedness of the different elements of the phenomenon.

A rather impressive number of human, religious and philosophical scientists elaborated on and added to the nature of hermeneutics. Two useful elaborations are, firstly, that experience, expression and comprehension are elements of hermeneutics and, secondly that hermeneutical analysis is a circular process, popularly called the hermeneutic circle.

The hermeneutic circle signifies a methodological process or condition of understanding, namely that coming to understand the meaning of the whole of a text and coming to understand its parts are independent activities. In this regard, “understanding the meaning of the whole” means making sense of the parts, and grasping the meaning of the parts depends on having some sense of the whole. The parts, once integrated, define the whole. Each part is what it is by virtue of its location and function with respect to the whole. In a process of contextualisation, each of the parts is illuminated, which clarifies the whole.[4] The hermeneutic circle takes place when this meaning-making quest involves continual shifts from the parts to the whole and back again.[5]

Hermeneutics focuses on interaction and language. It seeks to understand situations through the eyes of the participants. It involves recapturing the meanings of interacting with others, recovering and reconstructing the intentions of the other role players in a situation. Such research involves the analysis of meaning in a social context.

The hermeneutic data analysis process is aimed at deciphering the hidden meaning in the apparent meaning and therefore, in analysing the data you are searching for and unfolding the levels of meaning implied in the literal meaning of the text. As a consequence, in designing your research you will deliberately plan to collect data that is textually rich and analyse it to make sense of the bigger picture or whole.[6]

Hermeneutics provides the philosophical grounding for the interpretive paradigms, including interpretivism, relativism, ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, constructivism and phenomenology. It is also possible to associate and integrate hermeneutics with the critical research paradigms.

Hermeneutics opposes rationalism, positivism, scientism and modernism and, consequently, is more suited to a qualitative rather than a quantitative research approach.

The second criticism of hermeneutics is that viewing inquiry as conversation might damage the validity of your research conclusions and findings.

In summary, hermeneutics seeks understanding rather than to explain; acknowledges the situated location of interpretation; recognises the role of language and history in interpretation; views conversation as inquiry, and is comfortable with ambiguity.[7] Understanding requires the interpretation of words, signs, events, body language, artefacts and any other objects or behaviour from which a message can be deduced. It is, therefore, not a paradigm based on theoretical knowledge only, but also practical actions or omissions.

In closing, the circular nature of hermeneutic investigation is questioned by some researchers because setting understanding as a prerequisite for understanding the parts and understanding the parts as a prerequisite for understanding the whole, is a catch twenty-two situation.

[1] http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/145… Accessed on 20/11/2017.

[2] J.A. Maxwell, 2013: 53.

[3] http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/145… Accessed on 20/11/2017.

[4] http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/145… Accessed on 20/11/2017.

[5] R.K. Yin, 2016: 336.

[6] Loc. cit.

[7] Loc. cit.

Written by Dr Hannes Nel, MBL; D. Com; D. Phil

Biological organisms have systems that perform various specialist and survival functions; similarly, social institutions “function” in a systematic and coherent way through their constituent elements to ensure their survival and optimal functioning.

Role differentiation and social solidarity are key elements in the smooth functioning of any organisation. This means that functionalism interprets each part of society in terms of how it contributes to the stability of the whole society. Society is more than the sum of its parts because the contributions of all members of a community facilitate the performance of the community as a whole. Each individual plays an important part and the absence, or inability of an individual to contribute, detrimentally affects the performance of the community as a whole.

According to functionalism, an institution only exists because it serves an important role in the community. An individual or organisation that does not play a role in the community will not survive. This applies to individuals and groupings on all levels in society. The individual, families, clubs, schools, suburbs, cities, countries, etc. all will only survive if they add value to the community.

Organisations and societies evolve and adjust to changing conditions in order to ensure the continued, smooth, integrated functioning of all elements of the organisation or society. When new needs evolve or emerge, new organisations will be created to satisfy the new needs. When any part of the community is dysfunctional, it affects all other parts and creates problems for the community as a whole, which leads to social change.

The mental state rather than the internal constitution of the researcher is important. This implies that motivation plays an important role in what you would be willing to do to achieve success, i.e. the purpose of the research project.

Functionalism includes structuralism because both paradigms investigate the functioning of social phenomena. Like structuralism, functionalism also reacts against post-structuralism because of the disruptive nature of the latter.

In closing, functionalism is criticised for the following:

1. Some researchers feel that functionalism focuses too much on the positive functions of societies while neglecting the impact of negative events.
2. The current nature of functionalism is no longer in line with the original spirit and purpose of the paradigm. Researchers sometimes try to gain conclusions and findings from the ontology of a society when it might not even be relevant to the current phenomena any longer.
3. Findings gained from a functionalist philosophical stance are not always generalizable because organisations and societies often differ in terms of their structure and purpose.

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel, MBL; D. Com; D. Phil

Feminism is grounded in feminist values and beliefs. Philosophically speaking feminism is the movement for the political, social, and educational equality of women with men.

The ontology of feminism is that there is a ‘reality’ that has been created and shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic and gender-based forces that have evolved over time into social structures that are accepted as natural, cultural or in different other ways justified.

Feminist issues range from access to employment, education, child care, contraception, and abortion, to equality in the workplace, changing family roles, redress, sexual harassment in the workplace, and the need for equal political representation.[1]

The basic epistemological principles of feminism include the taking of women and gender as the focus of analysis; the importance of consciousness-raising; the rejection of subject and object (valuing the knowledge held by the participants as being expert knowledge and acknowledging how research valued as ‘objective’ always reflects a specific social and historical standpoint); a concern with ethics and an intention to empower women and change power relations and inequality.

With the above philosophy as a basis, research in support of the interests of women aims to emancipate women and improve their lives. The aim of research on women is to clarify bias and inequity in the way that women are treated in various social settings, such as the workplace, universities, sport, etc. and to fill the gaps in our knowledge about women. Even though feminism is mostly directed at achieving equality between women and men, it also argues that women think and express themselves differently from men.

Feminism is characterised by its double dimension and diversity. As opposed to traditional research, its objectives include both the construction of new knowledge and the production of social change. It assumes that woman are oppressed in society, therefore research is used to help reduce such discrimination.

In terms of diversity, feminism can be multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary; it uses different methodologies and it is constantly being redefined by the concerns of women coming from different perspectives. In terms of being multidisciplinary feminism can utilise knowledge borrowed from any other discipline that is relevant to the topic and purpose of the research. In terms of being interdisciplinary feminism can analyse, synthesise, harmonise and ultimately link the knowledge borrowed from other disciplines to integrate and systematise findings into a coherent whole. Transdisciplinary refers to feminist research contributing to and sharing knowledge with other disciplines.[2] Feminism, therefore, requires that issues such as antiracism, diversity, democratic decision making and the empowerment of women are addressed in any field of study where a gender-related issue calls for research.

In terms of research methodology feminism actively seeks to remove the power imbalance between research and subject; it is politically motivated in that it seeks to change social inequality and it begins with the standpoint and experiences of women. Feminism uses a wide variety of research methods, including methods belonging with the qualitative research approach, methods belonging with the quantitative approach and mixed methods. A qualitative approach is mostly favoured because it lends itself better to reflect the measure of human experience without focusing too strongly on males while neglecting the role of women in a particular social, economic, political or technological setting.

Feminism shares an academic as well as an affective link with neoliberalism, post-colonialism, critical theory, critical race theory, romanticism and post-structuralism, seeing that all of them deal with issues of inequality and discrimination. 

Although both feminism and structuralism deal with power relations between people, feminism seldom uses the rigorous approach to research that is typical of structuralism. Ironically the unemotional and clinical approach that is typical of structuralism might be what is needed to elevate feminism to a more generally accepted research paradigm.

The main objection to feminism as a research paradigm is not that it is invalid or irrelevant, as some might claim, but rather that the very supporters of the philosophy are causing damage by the emotional manner in which it is put forward. The way in which it is applied and the spirit in which people write about feminism is often overly emotional and devoid of academic substance. In feminist research, arguments are not always supported by corroborating evidence, and findings are superficial and subjective. Feminism is often used as the grounds for advocacy campaigns rather than academic research. The development of knowledge and theory is overshadowed by subjective philosophical points of view. These points of criticism, however, probably refer more to the attitude and motivation of some individual researchers and should not be seen as general characteristics of feminism.

Related to the above argument is the fact that by emphasising the equality of genders we might well be denying both men and women certain privileges and rights that go with such differences. Men and women are different in ways that, if not respected and taken into consideration, can also lead to unfairness. Pregnancy, for example, dictates that women should have certain rights that men might not be entitled to or need, although even this is a contentious argument for some.

In closing, feminism is research done by, for and about women. In research feminism seeks to include women in the research process, to focus on the meanings women give to their world while recognising that research must often be conducted within universities that are still patriarchal.

[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedcitionary.com/Feminist+paradigm. Accessed on 04/04/2017.

[2] Adapted from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17330451 and https://blogs.lt.vt.edu/grad5104/… Accessed on 07/02/2019.

Written by Dr Hannes Nel, MBL; D. Com; D. Phil

‘Ethnomethodology’ deals with the world of everyday life and issues related to social order by combining experiencing phenomena with sense experience. According to ethnomethodologists, theoretical concerns centre on the process by which common sense reality is constructed in everyday face-to-face interaction.

Ethnomethodology studies the process by which people (subconsciously) formulate and apply certain ‘taken-for-granted’ rules about behaviour which they interpret in an interactive situation to make it meaningful.

Ethnomethodology does not focus on individuals. Its field is the dynamics of social life. The individual is seen and researched as part of a social unit, for example, a community or a group of people who in some way form a coherent unit. Students who study together at a particular university at a certain point in time can be such a coherent unit. Internal processes, emotions, values, beliefs and other psychological phenomena typical of the thought processes of an individual do not form part of ethnomethodology.

Because ethnomethodologists are mainly interested in social settings, data collected through interviewing is less valid than data collected through observation in the workplace; and why old newspapers might provide less valid data than observation of a recent event. Data collected by means of interviewing is regarded as artificial, focusing on your research needs instead of the problem being investigated. Interviewing is data collection where you have control over those being interviewed, when what is needed is the observation of the actions of people under natural circumstances, for example, while doing routine work. Observation of everyday life is said to improve the validity of data that is collected.

Ethnomethodology does not formulate rules, laws or descriptions of practices of social groups that generally apply. Knowledge is seen as relevant to a specific context and time.

Ethnomethodology can be associated with constructivism and, indirectly also with hermeneutics, symbolic interactionism, interpretivism and phenomenology, the common denominator is that they all study social phenomena in one way or another.

Ethnomethodology does not fit in well with transformative research, which shows characteristics of and is regarded by some as yet another paradigm. The reason for this is that transformative research uses intangibles such as intuition, serendipity and unpredictable events whereas ethnomethodology deals with everyday life and real observations.

A deficiency of ethnomethodology, at least in the opinions of some academics, is that the investigation of everyday life is too narrow and limited to provide valid and generally applicable knowledge about social interaction, and hardly any theories about the wider interaction between human beings.

Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. As the name and philosophy imply, empiricism means that all evidence of facts and phenomena must be empirical, or empirically based. Evidence should be observable by the senses or extensions of the senses.

According to empiricism, a person is born with an empty brain, like a clean slate, which is then filled by what he or she learns by experiencing things. Two learning processes take place – the individual experiences a sensation, after which she or he reflects on it. Reflection, in turn, leads to new or improved knowledge.

The philosophy behind empiricism is that all knowledge of matters of fact derives from the experience and that the mind is not furnished with a set of concepts in advance of experience. Experience can be something that people learn from events in which they participated, things that happened to them and observations that they made. Experience can also be simulated through deliberate and pre-planned experimental arrangements. Sense experience is, therefore, the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. The knowledge that we have, however, was obtained through previous experiences that we had. Secondly, we can “create” experiences by doing experiments and building models, which can be simulations of reality and in that manner gain knowledge through self-created experiences.

Empiricism favours quantitative research methods, although it can be used with quantitative or qualitative research or a mixture of the two approaches. Its leaning towards quantitative research is demonstrated by the fact that it can be associated with positivism. A clear distinction is made between facts (objective) and values (subjective). Sense data is the ultimate objectivity, uncontaminated by value or theory. This ties in closely with the positivist paradigm.

Empiricism, however, is sometimes used together with critical theory or any of the paradigms associated with critical theory.

Empiricists will at times opt for scepticism[1] as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don’t have them. David Hume,[2] for example, argued that our beliefs are a result of accumulated habits, developed in response to accumulated sense experiences.

Empiricism is in opposition to structuralism because empiricism believes that learning is derived from gaining experience while structuralism focuses on interrelationships between objects, concepts, and ideas. More importantly, however, is the fact that structuralism is used in research on events and phenomena that already exist, which means that knowledge also already exists. This implies that people can learn in an empiricist manner and, based on such knowledge continue further learning in a structuralist manner, i.e. not starting off with a “clean slate”.

Then again, empiricism does provide for accumulating further knowledge after having gained knowledge through earlier experiences. Not accepting that learning is a continuous process would have rendered empiricism invalid and illogical. Accumulating facts and knowledge is the second goal of empiricism. This is popularly called “naive empiricism”.[3]

In summary, empiricists attack the rationalists’ accounts of how reason is the source of concepts or knowledge. Empiricists are of the opinion that knowledge must be deduced or inferred from actual events that people can experience through their senses. The idea that people can learn through reasoning independently of the senses or through intuition is rejected. Stated differently, knowledge can only be derived a posteriori, i.e. through sensory experience. Innate ideas and superiority of knowledge do not exist.

[1] Scepticism, sometimes also spelled “skepticism”, questions the validity of some or all human knowledge. It does not refer to any one school of philosophy, which is why it is not discussed separately as a paradigm in this book.

[2] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Empiricism. Accessed on 11/07/2016.

[3] A. Bryman, E. Bell, P. Hirschsohn, A. dos Santos, J. du Toit, A. Masenge, I. van Aard, C. Wagner, 2017: 8.

The term ‘critical’ refers to the capacity to inquire ‘against the grain’: to question the conceptual and theoretical bases of knowledge and method, to ask questions that go beyond prevailing assumptions and understandings, and to acknowledge the role of power and social position in phenomena.

Critical theory is prescriptive, explanatory, practical and normative, all at the same time.[1] That is, it explains what is wrong with the current social reality, identifies the actors to change it, and provides both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation. Its intention is not merely to give an account of society and behaviour but to realise a society that is based on equality and democracy for all the people in the society.

Conflict and inequality are crucial to understanding the dynamics of human relations. Critical theory seeks to uncover the interests at work in particular situations and to interrogate the legitimacy of those interests, identifying the extent to which they are legitimate in the interests of equality and democracy. Its intention is transformative – to transform society and individuals to social democracy. Improving the quality of life, be it in the workplace or social setting therefore focuses on the elimination or reduction of inequality, preferential treatment, and discrimination.

Critical theory identifies the ‘false’ or ‘fragmented’ consciousness that has brought an individual or social group to relative powerlessness, or power, and it questions the legitimacy of this.[2] It investigates issues of repression, lack of freedom of expression, ideology, participation (or not), representation (or not), inclusion or exclusion and the protection of interests.

Increasingly, the multiple identities of individuals can justify investigation. Differences in race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, skin colour, disability, being a minority, can be grounds for discrimination and oppression, which should be investigated and solved.

Critical theory is any research that challenges those conventional knowledge bases and methodologies whether quantitative or qualitative, that make claim to scientific objectivity. In this respect the purpose of a critical theory paradigm in research is practical, namely, to bring about a more just, egalitarian society in which individual and collective freedom are secured. The contribution of critical theory is, therefore, often not just adding to or improving current knowledge or philosophy but also contributing to the physical living quality of people in a community, environment or in general.

The main task of critical research is seen as being one of social critique, whereby the restrictive and alienating conditions of the status quo are brought to light. Critical research focuses on the contest, conflict and contradictions in contemporary society, and seeks to be emancipatory, that is, it should help to eliminate the causes of alienation and domination.

Researchers using critical theory assert that what counts as valid social science knowledge arises from the critique of the social structure and systems as revealed through the analysis of the discourse in society. The critical researcher lays bare the current discourses in society and analyses them in terms of the system within which they operate. In this way the power relationships between the system and its structures are disclosed and the oppressive nature of the system are revealed.

Although people can consciously act to change their social and economic circumstances, critical researchers recognise that their ability to do so is constrained by various forms of social, cultural and political domination. Consciousness and identity are formed within the political field of knowledge. Critical theorists argue that values, historical circumstance and political considerations cannot be changed through research. Therefore, efforts to eliminate or reduce inequality and discrimination should focus on managing such values, historical circumstance and political considerations in such a way that people are not discriminated against because of them.

Our understanding of the educational, political, economic or social situation depends on the context within which we encounter them, and our own theoretical knowledge and assumptions influence our observation. These factors create our ideological frames of reference that act as the lenses through which we see the world. Research making use of a critical theory paradigm should therefore take the context and environment in which people live into consideration when seeking for theoretical and physical improvements. It is the task of the critical researcher to disclose the needs and struggles of the people regardless of whether or not they are conscious of them.

In terms of the need to improve knowledge about the damage that inequality and discrimination causes people, critical research attempts to reveal the socio-historical specificity of knowledge and to shed light on how particular knowledge reproduces structural relations of inequality and oppression. Researchers following critical theory methods assume that social reality is historically created and that it is produced and reproduced by people. Every historical period produces particular rules that dictate what counts as scientific fact. Society reproduces inequalities from one generation to the next, called “reproduction theory”.

Conflict and inequality are mostly part of research making use of a critical theory paradigm. It is necessary to study conflict and inequality and the resistance that they cause in order to understand the dynamics of human relations. Resistance becomes an important part of the response to injustices towards individuals or groups in a community or society. In this respect critical theory is also “resistance theory”.

Critical theory investigates and uses three types of knowledge, also called cognitive interests: technical interest, practical interest and emancipating interest.

Technical interest is concerned with the control of the physical environment, which generates empirical and analytical knowledge. It is concerned with “how” things are done.

A practical interest is concerned with understanding the meaning of situations, which generates hermeneutic and historical knowledge. Practical interests are concerned with the “what”, or the ontology of phenomena.

An emancipating interest is concerned with the provision of growth and advancement, which generates critical knowledge and is concerned with exposing conditions of constraints and domination. The emancipating interest, furthermore, deals with the human capacity to be self-reflective and self-determining, to act rationally.[3] Technical and emancipatory interests together deal with the epistemology of knowledge.

Critical theory serves as a foundation for and can be integrated with rationalism, neoliberalism, post-colonialism, feminism, radicalism, romanticism, and critical race theory. Although qualitative research methods are popular, quantitative research methods can also be used. Supporters of quantitative research methods and the accompanying technicist paradigms are of the opinion that the lenses that qualitative researchers use to critically analyse a system are subjective and the observations made through such research are not subject to empirical verification in the positivist sense.

Proponents of critical theory claim that it is a complex and intricate paradigm which requires years of intensive study to fully understand. They, furthermore, feel that research that deals with the values and emotions of people needs to take affective factors, which are difficult to quantify, into consideration. Then again, a second school of scientists feel that that those who regard critical theory as such a difficult to comprehend paradigm are of the opinion that this is nothing but smugness. Emotions, they believe, can be analysed through numbers, for example by asking multiple-choice questions in a questionnaire.

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory. Accessed on 09/02/2017.

[2] L. Cohen, L. Manion and K. Morisson, 2007: 26.

[3] https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/teachingwriting/article/download/1089/1047/0. Accessed on 01/05/2018.

Critical race theory focuses on the application of critical theory in terms of race. It objects to the perception of racial power, especially where it is overtly or covertly supported by legislation, which renders it institutionalised.

Institutionalised racism is the structures, legislation, policies, practices and norms resulting in differential access and opportunities between racial groups. It manifests itself in any situation where needs exist, be they material, psychological, political, technological, social, economic or power needs. Intentional discrimination is opposed on all terrains where people are involved, for example universities, schools, employment in the private and public sectors, sport, etc.

Critical race theory favours an aggressive, race-conscious, approach to social transformation. Although the starting point is often simple racial equality, political and legislative transformation can be even more important objectives. Hidden motives can also be present.

Not all critical race theory agendas are negative – it is also used to combat racial discrimination, facilitate the upliftment and growth of disadvantaged communities, redress of racial discrimination in the past, etc.

Although critical race theory originally applied to black people being discriminated against by whites, the opposite is also possible. Critical race theory also covers research where perceived discrimination by black people against white might call for investigation. In fact, it can be any group discriminating against the other who is often the minority in a country, region or community.

Critical race theory mostly investigates the achievement of racial emancipation and equality and can be addressed in any field of study, although social studies arguably embrace the paradigm the most. Historical and current incidents of racial discrimination are often used as evidence in support of a research problem or question or a research hypothesis. 

Critical race theory is supported by structuralism, for example by investigating how legislation and cultural influences impact on the demography of a community. In this respect micro-aggression is often an element of research making use of a critical race theory perception. Micro-aggression can be found in any community where a certain group might feel anger and frustration because of the way the perceived or real privileged elite treat them, or because of one or more privileges that the elite have at the expense of the discriminated, or that the discriminated are denied. This can erupt into riots, crime, or violence, which might call for research.

Critical race theory can also be linked to critical theory, neoliberalism, feminism, radicalism, romanticism and post-structuralism.

Critical race theory is not always structured. Although it investigates legislation and cultural influences, the process can be aggressive and unstructured, sometimes including riotous advocacy campaigns. Critical race theory is, unfortunately, sometimes used to achieve political agendas and to oppress minority or even majority groups that are vulnerable.

Constructivism claims that people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences. We reconcile new observations and experiences with our previous ideas and experiences. This might change our perceptions, or the new information and experiences might be discarded, depending on how we process it in our minds. This means that we create our own knowledge by asking questions and exploring things, which would inevitably be subjective.[1] Elkind[2] defined constructivism as follows:

“Constructivism is the recognition that reality is a product of human intelligence interacting with experience in the real world.”

Ethics is an important value in constructivism. Constructivists recognise the importance of the construction and the way in which data is collected as prerequisites for validity and accuracy of analysis. The quality of data and the way in which it is analysed determine the nature of reality and how it is interpreted.     

Constructivism is mostly used with grounded theory methodology.[3] Human interests are important for research purposes, with the result that the paradigm can also be used with several other research methods, for example action research, case study research, ethnography, etc. A multitude of data collecting methods can be used, for example interviews, participant observation, artefacts, and almost any documents that are relevant to the field of study.[4]

The aim of such research is to understand situations or phenomena. Rich data is gathered from which ideas can be formed. It involves a researcher collaborating with participants. The interaction of people is researched in their context or setting, mostly to solve social problems of the target group. The accuracy of research findings is validated and creates an agenda for change or reform. This is a rather well-known sequence of events that is followed in most qualitative research methodology.

Constructivism is also closely associated with pragmatism, relativism, liberalism, interpretivism, symbolic interactionism and positivism. For example, like positivism, constructivism also uses observation to gather information. Different from positivism, which argues that knowledge is generated in a scientific method, i.e. externally, you, as the researcher, are part of what is being observed, i.e. internally. This is called an ‘emic’ approach, which means observing the community, also called the target group, from the inside. An ‘etic’ approach would mean to observe the target group from the outside, as in the case of positivism.

Although some academics claim that constructivism can be positively associated with behaviourism, this is a rather weak and unconvincing link because of the absence of reflection in the case of behaviourism. This, however, is also questionable because “learned history” without reflection does not make sense. Constructivism also rejects scientism and empiricism for much the same reason, i.e. lack of reflection.

Constructivism is rather widely criticised in terms of its value, or lack of value in education as well as its lack of balance when used as a philosophy in research. In education it can lead to group thinking when the interpretation of one or a few prominent educators or scientists is regarded as “the only truth”.

Constructivists sometimes place too much emphasis on sensory experience at the expense of reflection. This means that constructivists sometimes focus strongly on the ontology, i.e. “what is” and neglect the epistemology, i.e. the “explanation” and “justification” of the phenomenon, with the result that knowledge is not sufficiently proven to be valid or accurate.

Different academics integrate constructivism with other paradigms, research methods and realities, thereby robbing it of its identity as a valid research paradigm.

[1] http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concpet2class/constructivism. Accessed on 22/11/2017.

[2] In https://research-methodology.net/research-philosophy/epistemology. Accessed on 22/11/2017.

[3] N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 2018: 416.

[4] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barbara_Kawulich/publication/… Accessed on 01/05/2018.

Written by Dr Hannes Nel, D. Com; D. Phil

Behaviourism is a set of doctrines that argues that human and animal behaviour can be explained in terms of external stimuli, responses, learned histories and reinforcement of knowledge and understanding. Reinforcement of knowledge and understanding can increase (positive reinforcement) or decrease (negative reinforcement) desired behaviour.

According to behaviourism all human behaviour can be understood in terms of cause and effect. Behaviourists, therefore, argue that research should focus on that which is determined by, and is the product of, the environment. This implies that research should focus on observable behaviour which can be objectively measured rather than on things like cognitive processes which can only be inferred.[1] Intentionality and purposiveness are excluded or regarded as less important. Behaviourists, furthermore, argue that the human mind cannot be known and, therefore, cannot be shown to influence the individual’s behaviour. All mental states, including beliefs, values, motives and reasons can only be described, defined and explained in terms of observable behaviour. Any data of a mental kind should be regarded as unscientific.

Behaviourism is related to positivism, because positivism believes that understanding of human behaviour can be gained through observation and reason. Behaviourism can also be associated with empiricism because both make use of experimentation, specifically experience and the simulation of experience.

As in the case of behaviourism, symbolic interactionism and hermeneutics also believe that learning takes place through interaction between human beings, i.e. external stimuli. All three paradigms strongly depend on language to convey and share research findings and, consequently, the accuracy and validity of findings through behaviourism and symbolic interactionism depend on the ability of the researcher to use language. 

Behaviourism disagrees with phenomenology because phenomenology considers experience through direct interaction while behaviourism takes external stimuli into consideration.

Behaviourism disagrees with constructivism because constructivism claims that understanding is gained through experience and reflection while behaviourism neglects the cognitive processes, i.e. reflection. The same applies to pragmatism because pragmatism postulates that knowledge is gained through observation and interpretation. There is, however, a link between positivism and constructivism with “reason” requiring “reflection”. This, however, can hardly be establishing a positive link between behaviourism and constructivism because of other elements which we will discuss under constructivism, which happens to be the next paradigm that we will discuss.

In closing, the problem with behaviourism as a research paradigm is that changes in behaviour without taking cognitive processes into consideration are often only temporary. Consequently, it does not deal with subjective human meaning-making. Some behaviourists, however, do recognise the fact that cognitive thinking and the accompanying emotions can influence behaviour, a philosophy that is popularly called ‘radical behaviourism’. A second criticism against behaviourism is that its explanation of the reason for, or what causes behaviour, is not always scientifically corroborated.

[1] https://www.aqr.org.uk/glossary/behaviourism. Accessed on 23/11/2017.