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

Most, if not all, paradigms, are research methods while what we call research methods are often just tools that we use to collect data. Some paradigms developed into full-fledged research methods because of their rise in popularity. Transformative research is an example of this.

There are a multitude of paradigms. Some of them are modifications of classical paradigms that have been articulated by academics to enhance the research process. Then there are those paradigms that are not research paradigms. They may be educational, philosophical, or theoretical, but not of such a nature that they can logically serve as the foundation for academic research. The paradigms discussed in this series of articles are those that are generally accepted as being of relevance to academic research. However, the list can never be exhaustive or final because research is a dynamic process and new paradigms are developed all the time.

Research paradigms, also called philosophical perspectives, philosophical epochs, epistemological approaches, discipline matrices, or theoretical frameworks, represent certain assumptions and perceptions with respect to the nature of the world and how we come to know about it. There are many different definitions for a paradigm. Here are examples of such definitions:

“A research paradigm can be defined as an integrated cluster of substantive concepts, variables and problems attached with corresponding methodological approaches and tools.”[1]

“A loose collection of logically related assumptions, concepts, or propositions that orient thinking and research.”[2]

“An example or pattern: small, self-contained, simplified examples that we use to illustrate procedures, processes, and theoretical points.”[3]

“… the philosophical intent or motivation for undertaking a study.”[4]

“The set of common beliefs and agreements shared between scientists about how problems should be understood and addressed.”[5]

“A paradigm is essentially a way of thinking about or viewing the world. Paradigms are also frameworks that researchers use as a basis for everything else that they do.”[6]

A paradigm, therefore, implies a philosophy that includes certain patterns, structures and frameworks or systems of scientific and academic ideas, values and assumptions that a group of researchers have in common regarding the nature and conduct of research. This differs between different groups of researchers; hence we have a relatively large number of different paradigms to choose from. The philosophical point of view informs the research methodology and also the way in which the contents of the research will be interpreted. It, furthermore, links the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes. Paradigms are systems of interrelated ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions.[7]

The fact that we need to adopt one or the other research paradigm shows that qualitative research is rather subjective, because what we are actually doing is to adopt a point of view while ignoring, rejecting or neglecting a number of other possible points of view. Especially researchers making use of quantitative research methods might feel that just one paradigmatic approach, usually technicist in nature, should be the only philosophical approach.

We can discuss the argument that only quantitative research produces accurate and objective results, at length. In reality numbers can also be manipulated to support a particular point of view. However, what is needed is that we accept that we are dealing with people and that the truth can have many different flavours. In qualitative research the truth is time-bound, meaning that what is true today might not be true tomorrow (which is not what technicist paradigms suggest).

Research paradigms should be chosen essentially with the research problem and research question or questions in mind (quantitative research often uses a hypothesis rather than a research question or problem). Research paradigms allow for a variety of research methods to be used in order to answer research questions. The choice is not so much about research methods, but rather about ontological and epistemological assumptions. The challenge is to select a paradigm or combination of paradigms that are most suited to solving a problem and answering one or more research questions. The choice of a research paradigm or paradigms should be made in the context of many and often competing influences on how research problems are defined and investigated, and against the background of personal preferences and many external variables.[8]

Paradigms determine the spirit in which research is conducted and, as such, impact on the nature of the research question, i.e. what is to be studied, and on the manner in which the question is to be studied. They add a philosophical perception to the clinical academic meaning of arguments and content and are a reflection of the value system of the particular researcher. Even so, the chosen paradigm or paradigms have an influence on the data collection methods and research methods that you will use. 

As a researcher you will inevitably follow at least one of the paradigmatic approaches even if not intentionally. More likely, though, you will position your research at a point where elements of different paradigms are found in your approach with an emphasis towards one, two or even more of them. This is especially true when complex research problems are investigated.

Utilising more than one research paradigm facilitates the possibility of increasing the comprehensiveness of the knowledge developed through your research. Your research findings should often be as generic as possible, meaning that they should apply to a variety of contexts. Some paradigms apply to only one or a limited number of contexts. For this reason the adoption of a number of supporting paradigms might be called for.

You need to choose the paradigm or paradigms early, i.e. when you structure your research approach and methods. You may even specify it in your research proposal already, because it shows your intent, motivation and expectations of the research. You will have no basis for choosing the methods or research design that you will follow if you don’t choose your research paradigm or paradigms as an early step, perhaps even the first step after your research problem or hypothesis.[9] Research is a circular and recursive process; therefore you may change your paradigmatic approach at a later stage if it becomes necessary, even though this might cost you time and effort.

You will need to make a number of philosophical assumptions in order to choose a paradigmatic approach to follow in your research. Once you have chosen a research paradigm, you need to make all elements of the research design clear, and articulate all elements of your research with the paradigm that you have chosen. If you choose more than one paradigm, one of them will probably represent your primary focus with two or three others playing a lesser role.

You should, however, guard against combining paradigms that are in opposition to one another. The reason for this is that the concepts, theories and practices of supporters of opposing paradigms are based on different ontological and epistemological assumptions. They, furthermore, do not share a common vocabulary with shared meanings, and there is no neutral ground from which to adjudicate the merit of the paradigms or their products.[10] Technicist paradigms, for example, are often in opposition to interpretive paradigms while critical paradigms fit in somewhere between the two groups. Being in “opposition”, “challenged by”, “rejecting”, “associated with”, “disagree with”, etc. do not mean that different paradigms completely differ or agree, but rather that they agree or disagree in terms of certain characteristics.

You need to be fully aware of the paradigmatic assumptions that you make and you need to consistently move from description to explanation in terms of your findings and conclusions without deviating from your paradigmatic assumptions. Progressing from description to explanation requires substantial creativity if your research is to make a positive contribution to the available scientific knowledge.

Coherence in the design of your research process can be ensured by articulating the research question and methods to the paradigm or paradigms of your choice. You can probably achieve better coherence by grouping target group members together based on certain criteria, for example gender, age brackets, geographical location, etc. You can also achieve more coherent results by making use of a more suitable data collection method, for example interviews. In closing, it would be almost impossible, and irrelevant, to list and discuss all paradigms that you can find. The reasons for this are, firstly, that researchers do not agree on which paradigms are, in fact, paradigms, at least not as philosophical points of view that can be used for research purposes. Secondly, many paradigms overlap and echo the nature and elements of other paradigms, which leads to a substantial measure of duplication. Thirdly, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find all paradigms that exist and that are still being developed. We will discuss 28 different paradigms that can be utilised in academic research in the articles following on this one.

[1] http://www.uir.unisa.ac.za/bistream/handle/10500/4245… Accessed on 16/02/2017.

[2] N. Mackenzie and S. Knipe, 2006: pages not numbered.

[3] Webster Dictionary.

[4] N. Mackenzie and S. Knipe, 2006: pages not numbered.

[5] T. Anderson, date unknown: slide show.

[6] L. Killam, 2013: 65.

[7] M. Terre Blanche & K. Durrheim, 1999: 36.

[8] N. Blaikie and J. Priest, 2017: 22.

[9] N. Mackenzie and S. Knipe, 2006: pages not numbered.

[10] N. Blaikie and J. Priest, 2017: 8.

Written by Dr J.P. Nel, D. Com; D. Phil, CEO of Mentornet (Pty) Ltd

Sponsors of research be they taxpayers, government, businesses or the community, will expect some value for their money. Somebody will need to decide if research should take place and it is often the sponsor who asks a researcher to do research on a problems that they need solved. You, as the prospective researcher, can also decide on the topic for research based on a problem or need that you identified. Lecturers also sometimes suggest research topics.

Time and energy spent on research is never wasted. The purposes of research can be added economic value, improved quality of life or improved professionalism. These three possible purposes overlap. Added economic value can be improved production processes, higher productivity, etc. Improved quality of life can be higher income, well-being, health, safety, social justice, the arts, leisure time utilization, freedom to interact in an enlightened, informed, responsible and constructive manner, etc. Improved professionalism can be the availability of good quality learning institutions, improved skills, more research, etc.

Generally speaking research should improve the learning offered by learning institutions. Knowledge and human well-being should be improved. It is debatable if, as some academics claim, the ‘pure sciences’ really add more value than social sciences. Do not underestimate the importance and value of improving intellectual skills. It is the improvement of analytical clarity, cognitive reasoning, conceptual imagination, perseverance and meticulousness of thought that provide students with the motivation and confidence to embark on further studies at a higher level.

It makes sense to argue that a county with a high unemployment rate should focus more on occupational learning, i.e. learning that will add value to the industry than on academic, philosophical research that only adds indirect and delayed value to the industry. However, strategically speaking a society should position itself to be ready to capitalize on growth opportunities by also conducting some research of an advanced scientific and philosophical nature.

It is difficult to ‘predict’ what the long-term value of such research will be. However, the likelihood of research providing some kind of benefit, even if only indirect, is almost certain, the only two preconditions being that the research should be shared with others who can do something with it and that the research should not have been done with ulterior, damaging motives in mind. 

Intellectual research for its own sake probably does not exist. For example, people can learn from historical research even if only by learning from mistakes made by our predecessors. The principles of science and the tenets of mathematics can be improved through research, with ‘old’ knowledge serving as a healthy foundation to build on. Besides, how will we know that concepts, principles, laws and tenets are wrong or outdated if we did not have them to begin with?

What may be regarded as worthless knowledge now might well turn out to be valuable in the future. I was once interviewed by an American post-graduate student who studied the patterns that sand form on the bends in river banks. His research was claimed to be worthless. Later researchers in astronomy discovered that the sand patterns that he did research on provided valuable evidence to determine if there was or is water, perhaps even life, on other planets.

In closing, the following are prerequisites for research in education to be of value:

1. Universities and the industry should co-operate.
2. We need to be patient. It is only when university students are employed that they learn to apply the theory taught at university in practice and to understand the (often simulated) practical work that they did at university.
3. Research reports need to be made available for others to read.
4. Knowledge and skills need to be transferred to the workplace and/or learning institutions.

Written by Hannes Nel

Introduction. This article deals with:

• Blaming others when things go wrong.
• Being truthful.

Stop blaming others for things that go wrong. Assigning blame is a destructive action that causes defensiveness and shapes an environment in which learners and staff members become afraid to try innovation, creativity and risk taking. The instinctive reaction when someone in the learning institution makes a mistake that costs the organization money or perhaps even customers is to put the blame on the person who is regarded as being responsible for the damage. Often this person is just a scapegoat, and often it is the “real culprit” who points the finger first.

You need to keep in mind that all human beings make mistakes from time to time and you might well lose a staff member who could have done great work if you dealt with the incident in a more objective and mature manner. Mistakes need to be investigated and honest mistakes need to be treated differently from mistakes made with intent to do damage to the organisation or an individual. You need to show that you trust the unlucky staff member, unless intent can be proven.

Others can always learn from the mistakes made by an individual or even a group. Lessons learned should therefore be shared, keeping in mind that the person or persons who made the mistake are entitled to fair and respectful treatment. You can speak to the individual or group who made the mistake privately if necessary. Show empathy to help diffuse the tension and let the person know that you understand when the mistake was just an honest one. Also keep in mind that you should give credit for work well done. 

Be truthful. Lying is often the gut-level defensive reaction to a perceived threat. When you feel the desire to hide the truth, take time to jot down what you will get out of a trusting relationship versus the short-term gain you might get by evading the truth. Lying begins a risky cycle that breaks down trust and encourages more lying. The long-term impact on you and the learning institution is never worth the perceived short-term escape.

The internal ability to distinguish between right and wrong develops from an early age. Your conscience recognizes certain principles that lead to feelings of guilt if you violate them.

Close. In closing, you can easily act objectively and ethically by just focusing more on serving others than just satisfying your own needs. Life is often “wired” in such a way that the opposite of what you expect happens. By serving others you stand to benefit the most and by being selfish you actually do yourself serious damage on many different levels.

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

Introduction. It is rather difficult to faithfully post articles this time of the year. I’ve been on holiday for three weeks and will probably also not post anything between Christmas and the new year. Therefore, this is the last one for 2018. I will cover the following issues in this article:

• Do your work and learning in the open.
• Eliminate offensive words and comments from your vocabulary.
• Say no to negativity.

Do your work and learning in the open. Many people use transparency in their dealings with other people just for show, thereby compounding the problem of corruption and dishonesty. In its simplest sense, transparency means delivering clear and honest work. It also means not having a hidden agenda and an honest desire to satisfy the needs of your employer or educator.

Eliminate offensive words and comments from your vocabulary. Derogatory terms and off-colour jokes have no place at work or the classroom. They are degrading and unethical, and they can have legal repercussions. The words you use, and the jokes you tell, say a lot more about you than the people you are talking about.

In the workplace it will be your responsibility to ensure that you and your employees don’t use, or are exposed to, offensive language. This means that you will need to take active steps to ensure that the workplace is appropriate. People are especially sensitive to racist and humiliating words and phrases. People who are extremely racist or rude are mostly called to order by the other employees or learners. Subtle words and remarks are more difficult to control because the guilty persons might not even realise that what they are saying can be regarded as offensive.

Say no to negativity. The negative thinkers are the people who say things like “It’ll never work” before they even consider how to make it work. They are the ones who openly criticize the organization, spread rumours about other learners and the facilitator, complain and try to pull others into their circle of negative thinkers. Negativity is counterproductive; it erodes integrity and sometimes fosters illegal acts. Negativity is wrong. The worst situation that you can have is when you are a negative thinker. We should not accept that the negative thinkers will always be with us, because once we adopt this attitude, we will not get rid of them. As long as we resist negative thinking and avoid negative thinkers, we will at least be able to curtail the tendency.

Rules, regulations, command, control, policies and procedures are necessary in especially larger learning institutions, but they seldom eliminate unethical behaviour. The reason for this is that they are often based on negative motivation.

Even though legislation can sometimes be written in a negative manner or with negative purposes in mind, you should still abide by the laws of the country. Laws are created to help society function. In general, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. The same applies to organizational rules and procedures. Rules and procedures are normally developed to help the organization function successfully and to avoid problems.

Ethical behaviour arises from deep within people – more from positive motivation than negative regulations. Regulations, procedures and the culture of your learning institution should be positive and instil values in the hearts and minds of your staff members.

In closing, may 2019 surprise us all by turning out to be the best and most fruitful year ever. I admit that I am rather apprehensive about this one (how’s that for negative thinking) but good things can happen. Happy new year.

Mentornet fully agree with the draft National Policy and Criteria for the Implementation of RPL (referred to as “the National RPL Policy” in this feedback document). However, the RPL Policies of QA Bodies differ in some rather critical elements from the National RPL Policy. The following should be considered and, perhaps, discussed with them:

1. Paragraph 7 of the National RPL Policy provides for RPL as a way in which to obtain credits, qualifications and part-qualifications. Quality assurance bodies that set artificial limits and preconditions for RPL can easily destroy the socio-economic and redress value of the process. Allowing RPL only for gaining access to further learning but not for certification is unfair and discriminatory.
2. Paragraph 11 and 12.c of the National RPL Policy determines that the RPL policies of the three NQF Sub-Frameworks must be aligned with it. Hopefully all three QA Bodies will show the necessary respect for the professional work that SAQA put into reviewing the current National RPL Policy.
3. Paragraph 15.d of the National RPL Policy accepts that the RPL Policies can differ in terms of context. This can easily be misinterpreted as meaning that different QA Bodies can accept only the terms of the National RPL Policy with which they agree, rendering the National RPL Policy ineffective.
4. Paragraph 15.f of the National RPL Policy provides for the use of RPL for diagnostic, formative or summative assessments, to create opportunities for, or towards credit/exemption, access, advanced standing, professional designations or recognition in the workplace. Although not wrong, this extends the purpose for which RPL can be used substantially. Holistic RPL should be flexible, but diagnostics and formative assessment are only steps in the RPL process and not end-results.
5. Paragraph 15.i and 18.c.vi: Maintaining data on how credits were achieved “under strict conditions of confidentiality” creates the impression that there is something wrong with credits achieved through RPL. A certificate is just the written confirmation that an individual has certain knowledge and skills. How the knowledge and skills were obtained is not relevant. Credits achieved through RPL and credits achieved through formal learning are of equal value and status – this should be accepted and supported unconditionally. Transparency is important.
6. Paragraph 19. The role of education and training institutions should be protected and guaranteed, the only precondition being that the learning institutions, be they public or private, need to have the knowledge, experienced and capacity to offer learning in RPL and conduct the process if that is what they wish to do. Currently this is not reflected in the accreditation of private learning institutions, the representation of such institutions in National Coordinating Bodies or the allocation of contracts to offer such services based on merit.

In closing, quality assurance bodies currently have in their RPL Policies certain clauses that should specifically be addressed and precluded in the National RPL Policy, for example:

• Refusing to grant learners credits towards a national qualification if the credits were achieved through RPL. Giving a learner who achieved a degree through formal learning 360 credits, but the learner who achieved 50 of the 360 credits through RPL only 310 credits for the same degree does not make sense.
• Limiting the number of students who can be admitted to further studies through RPL. Not only is this an unnecessary and unfair obstacle in the way of redress of injustices of the past, it is also labeling RPL as inferior to formal learning. Countries with advanced RPL systems in place provide for the RPL of entire groups, which would mean that all students in a particular cohort can be accepted on account of them being assesses through RPL for full qualifications.

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

Introduction. I will discuss corruption and the consequences of unethical behaviour in this (second) article on ethics in ETD.

Corruption challenges for learning institutions. Learning institutions often do not have the financial resources to deal with legal and ethical challenges. They, therefore, cannot absorb costs related to corruption. To make things worse, government does not always set a good example, legislation is inconsistent and almost impossible to enforce, the people who are supposed to stamp out corruption are often also corrupt, and methods suggested by government to combat corruption do not work. Learning institutions can do the following to deal with corruption and sustain the organization.

• Ensure that the manager or managers in the institution are people with integrity. You can also appoint an ombudsman, i.e. somebody who monitors that all practices in the organization are above board.
• Corrupt practices should always be rejected no matter how big the unethical financial gain may be.
• Report corruption. The problem with reporting corruption is that those who are guilty of corruption are also mostly well-skilled in leaving no evidence. Whistle-blowers are often victimised by those who are supposed to ensure law and order.
• Don’t deal with corrupt people.

The consequences of unethical behaviour. Unethical behaviour always creates a chain reaction of further unethical behaviour. It causes everybody to lose money, jobs and their freedom. It often ruins the economies of countries that could otherwise have been wealthy. And ultimately, when the entire economy is ruined, the negative effects of unethical behaviour return to those who started it.

Acting ethically is simply a matter of having vision. Vision means being able to foresee the consequences of your actions. A person with vision will understand that being dishonest will not only damage others but him or her as well. If you manage a learning institution or participate in learning in an unethical manner, you will fail and you run a serious risk of losing everything that you value in life, including your freedom.

There are many (too many) examples of dishonest people who became rather wealthy. In fact, the trend is so familiar that one invariably wonders if someone who is wealthy is not corrupt as well. It is as if honesty and wealth are two opposite poles. Some may say that you can’t possibly become rich if you are a goody boy.

Ultimately your approach to learning is a matter of choice. You may choose to be corrupt and dishonest or you may choose to walk the narrow road with integrity. Corruption might well help you to make a lot of money quickly, but you may also end up with nothing, perhaps even in jail. You need not be dishonest to be rich.

Dishonest people can make it really difficult for you to refuse a bribe. Sometimes they can colour the transaction in such a way that you might not even realise that it is a bribe. On the other hand, some people might pretend not to recognize the transgression. It becomes really difficult not to succumb to temptation when you see that your competitors are doing well while you are struggling to make ends meet. However, there will always be potential clients who respect integrity and quality. They are the most valuable clients because they often support you much longer than the corrupt ones.

The problem with dishonesty is that it robs you of your freedom, regardless of whether you are rich or poor. Dishonesty is not what makes people successful. It may help you land a few good contracts or get good exam marks that you did not deserve, but in the end it often backfires.

Dishonest people are always scared that others will find out the truth. They are always paranoid and they always live their lives waiting for the right time to start over, to be free. Being dishonest means building your own prison. The learner who is dishonest creates expectations with his or her employer that he or she will be able to do certain work after having been trained. You will be terribly embarrassed and might even lose your job if you cannot do the work because you cheated to obtain a certificate.

If you are a risk taker who enjoys the excitement of operating outside the law, then go ahead and enjoy the roller-coaster ride. Accept that your chances of losing your job and perhaps even ending up in jail are much higher than if you work in an honest way.

The important thing to remember about ethics is that in spite of all the codes of ethics and ethics programmes, it is not organizations that make ethical decisions. Individuals make ethical or unethical choices. It is people who put ethics into practice.

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

The problem with unethical behaviour is not just that it damages the image of the learning institution or quality assurance body, but rather that it can easily become a national trend, almost a culture and that it can reduce the country to yet another anarchy run by war lords and criminals. Unethical behaviour affects not only the guilty people but a multitude of people around them.

Leaders on all levels in learning do not seem to understand the dire consequences of their greed. People are often really good at rationalising their unethical behaviour. They do not understand that it is not the excuse for the unethical behaviour that is doing the damage but rather the criminal act.

I will discuss the following issues related to ethical behavior in the provision of learning, broken down into 9 weekly articles, starting with this one.

1. If you are corrupt you are already in trouble.
2. The consequences of unethical behaviour are never good.
3. When is unethical behaviour acceptable?
4. Honour your promises and commitments.
5. Do your work and learning in the open.
6. Eliminate offensive words and comments from your vocabulary.
7. Say no to negativity.
8. Stop blaming others for things that go wrong.
9. Be truthful.
10. Embrace racial, cultural and creative diversity.
11. Don’t confuse “cutting corners” with efficiency.
12. Know your job – inside and out.
13. Recognize others’ efforts, contributions, and ethical behaviour.
14. Go the extra mile.
15. Practice patience, understanding and empathy.
16. Talk with people, not at them.
17. Make it safe to do work and learn with you.
18. Accept that people sometimes make mistakes.
19. Make it safe to be ethical.

In closing, we are all tired of people writing and talking while almost nothing is done to change things for the better. The problem is, when we no longer at least talk we might give up entirely and then we will be in really serious trouble. People get used to bad circumstances and once they have adapted they either learn how to gain from the bad situation or they just stop caring. Let’s not give up. You are most welcome to respond to the articles.

It stands to reason that any qualification needs to have sufficient depth to ensure real learning on the level of the qualification. It, however, is not always clear what is meant by “depth”. This is how I see it and I would really appreciate it if you could add on to my flights of imagination.

A qualification shows depth when the contents of the learning programme are on an acceptable academic level and encourages the students to think cognitively. All learning consists of three main elements, namely theoretical knowledge; philosophy; and skills, or practical work. In the case of occupational and vocational learning the emphasis is more on acquiring skills than on theory and philosophy, although some theory and a little philosophy is mostly necessary in order to achieve at least foundational competence. In the case of academic learning the emphasis falls on theory and philosophy, although most academic learning also includes acquiring certain skills, in some cases rather specialised skills.

The title of the qualifications does not indicate the depth of the learning content. Take flower arranging as an example. You can have an occupational certificate in flower arranging, but also a bachelor’s degree or even a doctoral thesis on the same topic.

The qualification should be coherent. This means that the different modules or subjects included in a qualification should support and complement one another. In this manner students are given a good measure of depth in the purpose of the qualification. It also simplifies the learning process because what students learn in one module or subject provides theory that will help the student understand the contents and rationale behind other subjects.

The qualification should be well-structured. Subjects should progressively become more “difficult” as the student progresses from one academic year to the next. This means that first year subjects should prepare the students for second year subjects and so on until the final year.

The assessment should test the students’ knowledge and, perhaps, skills, at the right level. Some claim that multiple-choice questions only test low level cognitive skills. This is most certainly not the case. Multiple-choice questions, like most other types of exam questions, can be asked in such a way that they test comprehension and not just content. In fact, one can tests many elements of practical work by means of written or e-learning exams.

In closing, there might well be a multitude of other factors determining the depth of a qualification. Therefore it is important to specify what you mean when you claim that a qualification lacks depth.

Written by Dr Hannes Nel, MBL, D.Com (HRM); D. Phil (LPC)

Some quality assurance bodies will probably immediately reply “no, definitely not” to the question if they should provide learning institutions applying for accreditation with guidance and support. Reasons why they feel this way might well include arguments such as “it would be an impossible task of we were expected to help everybody who applies for accreditation”; “a learning institution who needs help with the application for accreditation obviously does not have the capacity to offer professional learning and they should not even apply”; “it is not our job” and many more.

Then there are those who feel differently. The Indian National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), for example, firmly believe that guidance and support offered by the quality assurance body to the learning institutions is critically important for the improvement of quality learning. In this respect Prasad and Stella[1] wrote the following:

“Moving beyond accreditation, NAAC has expanded its scope by strengthening its advisory role…. In addition to promoting the cause of quality education in the country, NAAC is a leading QAA in the international arena with valuable lessons of experience for the emerging QAAs of other countries.”

Quality assurance is a tool by means of which the government can ensure that learners on all levels receive good quality education and training. Monitoring and control are not the only ways in which the quality of learning can be improved – guidance and support is equally important.

South African quality assurance bodies, like quality assurance bodies in any country with a professional educational system, do have guidance and support responsibilities. A member of a quality assurance body said the following when interviewed by the author:[2]

“They [the quality assurance bodies] never understood that they were there to nurture the providers, to capacitate them, to build their quality in order that those providers can maximally train and educate people. They never understood that – so if they don’t understand their most important brief, why they are there, then of course the whole thing can’t work.”

In their official profile documentation, a South African quality assurance body admits that they have guidance and support responsibilities as follows:

1. In their Criteria for Programme Accreditation: “As part of the task of building an effective national quality assurance system, the (quality assurance body) has also included capacity development and training as a critical component of its programme of activities.”

2. In their lists of functions: “To develop and implement a system of quality assurance …, including programme accreditation, institutional audits, quality promotion and capacity development, standards development ….”

The quality assurance body claims that they are moving away from a focus on institutional audits toward quality enhancement in their evaluations. Quality enhancement without guidance cannot work. You cannot enhance quality by adding more bureaucracy to the quality assurance process and sticking to a persecutory approach.

The use of online platforms to apply for accreditation, which all three South African quality assurance bodies do, makes it critically important for such bodies to guide applicants for the following reasons:

1. Online platforms cannot answer the wide array of questions that providers might need to ask, no matter how many frequently asked questions there are on the system.
2. It is impossible for providers to guess how much information they should provide if the text box to be filled in contains only a statement/heading.
3. It is still impossible to guess what the quality assurance body wants even if a question is asked. Quality criteria can be covered in a paragraph or a thousand pages.
4. If the response to a question is limited to a number of words or pages, the applicant still does not know what specific content the quality assurance body wants. Learning is vast and sometimes technical and guessing what you should write is impossible.

Giving feedback on an application for accreditation is a critical point at which the applicant should be given guidance and support. Vague and unqualified feedback means nothing. Most learning institutions will probably only be able to submit a proper application after applying unsuccessful at least once and then only if proper feedback is given. The following are typical feedback remarks from which learning institutions can learn absolutely nothing:

1. “The title of the qualification is wrong.” How and why is it wrong?
2. “The qualification does not have sufficient depth.” What is meant by “sufficient depth”?
3. “The applicant does not have sufficient capacity to offer the qualification.” What is meant by this? In wat respect does the applicant not have capacity? Capacity can refer to finances, personnel, capital goods, infrastructure, time, etc.

In closing, it is internationally agreed that quality assurance is a service rendered to the community at large. Quality assurance is not a policing action and does not give the quality assurance body the unqualified right to manipulate who is accredited and who not. The focus should be on the protection and promotion of the interests of the community by paving the way towards good quality education and training which would facilitate job creation and reduce unemployment.

Note: I omitted references to sources that might create discomfort for quality assurance bodies or individuals.

[1] 2004: 9 – 10.

[2] Nel, 2007: 317.

Written by Hannes Nel, B. Mil; BA Hons; MBL; D. Com (HRM); D. Phil (LPC)

 Introduction. I am hoping to share my research on 28 different paradigms that I regard as of importance to academic research. The purpose of sharing the articles with you is to also learn. After having done research and written for seven years, my book on qualitative research methodology is more or less ready for publication. However, the field of study is immensely vast and I need to do my utmost not to spread inaccurate information. So far I received no comments, feedback or suggestions on my articles. Please let me know if you find any mistakes or room for improvement.

This is the eleventh article that I am sharing.

Liberalism. In our current day and age neoliberalism largely rendered liberalism obsolete. Even so, liberalism is still a relevant paradigm.

Liberalism advocates tolerance, progress, humanitarianism, objectivity, reason, democracy, and human rights. To this can be added a host of other positive attributes dealing with human rights, social interaction and freedom. This implies that all individuals in a country possess an equal status as legal subjects, regardless of other inequalities and differences that might divide them.^[1]

Liberalism is a philosophical approach to human interaction and also a social force.^[2]

All the elements of liberalism offer valuable fields for research. In a constructivist spirit, research should utilise observation and experiences to reflect on and evaluate previous perceptions in the hope of understanding the situations and phenomena being investigated. Understanding should lead to change and reform.

Constructivism is a variant of liberal theory if issues like human rights, freedom of social interaction, etc. are investigated.

Neoliberalism also supports or extends some elements of liberalism, for example private property rights, a classically minimal liberal state, and the efficiency of the free market system. In other respects neoliberalism is in opposition with liberalism, although neoliberalism is gradually adopting more and more liberalist values. The four central areas in which liberalism and neoliberalism overlap are human rights, non-discrimination (ethnicity and gender), education and the media.

The basic premise of liberalism is the equality of individuals before the law.^[3] In this respect liberalism links up with critical race theory, critical theory and feminism.

Liberalism is associated with relativism through its relativist conception of rights – it accuses other paradigms of being relativist in order to proclaim its own relativism as universalism.^[4] For example, liberal relativism is sometimes rather a neo-colonial tactic designed to maintain the exploitation of developing countries by developed former colonial powers, or new powers taking over the role of colonial power under the guise that they are helping the needy country to grow.

Liberalism is associated with radicalism because they both support the struggle for democracy, specifically campaigning for the right to vote, welfare reform, and public services, with radicalism adopting a more aggressive stance than liberalism.

Liberalism is in opposition with some values of critical race theory and colonialism because of its favouritism toward the elite, the rich and the noble.

Some academics still associate ‘liberal’ with unrestrained and undisciplined attitudes and behaviour.^[5] The strength of liberalism is said to be its most serious weakness. This is its commitment to emancipation. Throughout history liberalists claimed their love for liberty while demonstrating contempt for people of the colonies and for women. Liberalists are of the opinion that they are entitled to enforce ‘democracy’ upon the ‘less enlightened’.^[6] Because of its authoritarian stance, liberalism cannot be equated with democracy, and liberty is not the same as equality.

A second weakness of liberalism is that there is hardly any consensus of exactly what it means. People’s thoughts about and understanding of liberal concepts such as human rights largely depend on who is in charge, whose side you are on, what you stand to gain or lose because of your point of view, if your point of view is legal and politically correct, and your position in a social group or community. Most citizens of the USA probably felt that they were protecting human rights when they invaded Iraq in 2003, whereas most Iraqi citizens probably felt that they were robbed of their human rights.

A negative consequence of the liberalism paradigm claiming to favour the needy while discriminating between the informed, rich and educated on the one side and the uninformed, poor and uneducated on the other side, is that research on the former often follows an emic approach while research on the latter follows an etic approach. The informed, rich and educated are regarded and treated as participants in the research while the uninformed, poor and uneducated are regarded as subjects upon whom research is done.

[1] W. Davies in A. Abraham-Hamanoiel, D. Freeman, G. Khiabany, K. Nash, and J. Petley (Editors), 2017: 15.

[2] A. Abraham-Hamanoiel, D. Freeman, G. Khiabany, K. Nash, and J. Petley (Editors), 2017: 11.

[3] Ibid: 2.

[4] A. An-Na’im in A. Abraham-Hamanoiel, D. Freeman, G. Khiabany, K. Nash, and J. Petley (Editors), 2017: 55.

[5] A. Abraham-Hamanoiel, D. Freeman, G. Khiabany, K. Nash, and J. Petley (Editors), 2017: 1.

[6] Ibid: 4.