Chapter 2. Philosophical Assumptions and Interpretive Frameworks
“Whether we are aware of it or not, we always bring certain beliefs and philosophical assumptions to our research” (pg. 15). Various philosophical assumptions and theoretical and interpretive frameworks are highlighted in this chapter. The process of qualitative research compiled by Denzin and Lincoln in 2011 is included five phases (pg. 17):
- The researcher as a multicultural subject;
- Theoretical paradigms and perspectives;
- Research strategies;
- Method of collection and analysis;
- The art, practice and politics of interpretation and evaluation.
The author also mentions three reasons why philosophy is important (pg. 18):
a. It shapes how we formulate our problem and research questions to study and how we seek information to answer the question.
b. These assumptions are deeply rooted in our training and reinforced by the scholarly community in which we work.
c. Reviewers make philosophical assumptions about a study when they evaluate it.
Writing philosophical assumptions into qualitative research, it says that in some qualitative studies they remain hidden, but actually they could be shown in various sections of qualitative studies where the audiences may ask about the underlying philosophy of study.
Qualitative research implies four profoundly important philosophical assumptions (page 21): Qualitative researchers assume multiple realities, formed or dependent on the subjective experiences of the people studied (ontological and epistemological assumptions respectively). Qualitative researchers proceed from the ground up collecting and analyzing data inductively, revealing their values and biases on their way up to a greater theory which would encompass all the findings (methodological and axiological assumptions respectively).
The assumptions mentioned are embedded within the following interpretative frameworks (pages [23,30]):
Pstpositivism: Its inquire implies a series of locally related steps and multiple levels of data analysis that resemble a scientific report or quantitative research. This framework tends to be reductionistic, logical, empirical, and deterministic.
Social Constructivism: It is more open to complexity. It relies on the participants’ perceptions through social and historical frames; there is a social construction of meaning.
Transformative Frameworks: It understands knowledge as basically non neutral and uses it to change society. The purpose of knowledge construction is to aid people to improve society through participatory and emancipator actions.
Postmodernist Perspectives: Devoted to power relations in the social sphere the individual or even the language, postmodernisms uses “deconstruction” as a tool to analyze communication.
Pragmatism: Nothing is more important than solving the problem, finding what works. Methods are secondary.
Feminist Theories: Center on making problematic the diverse situation of women and the institutions that frame those situations. It’s goals are to find collaborative and nonexploitative relationships to conduct transformative research.
Critical Theory: Critical theory perspectives are concerned with empowering human beings to transcend the constraints placed on them by race, class, and gender (p30). If one wants to dive deeper into this theory he gives suggestions about some central themes to explore, which could certainly help in guiding research. Critical race theory (CRT) is then discussed and this theory focuses theoretical attention on race and how racism is deeply embedded within the framework of American society (p31). This theory encompasses three main goals. The first goal is to present stories about discrimination from the perspective of people of color, as a second goal CRT argues for the eradication of racial subjugation while simultaneously recognizing that race is a social construct, and finally the third goal of CRT addresses other areas of difference, such as gender, class, and any inequities experienced by individuals (p31-32).
Queer theory: It is characterized by a variety of methods and strategies relating to individual identity. On pages 32 and 33, a good overview of the queer theory stance is given in bullet points. I found this overview very helpful in understanding the theory and how it relates to the topic of identity.
Disability theories: In this section Creswell states that disability inquiry addresses the meaning of inclusion in schools and encompasses administrators, teachers, and parents who have children with disabilities (p33).
Towards the very end of the chapter a table is given which links the philosophical assumptions of ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology with the interpretive frameworks. The table is helpful in understanding how these philosophical assumptions take different forms given the interpretive framework used by the inquirer. The table can be found on pages 36 and 37.
Really interesting post — will definitely take a deeper look into this chapter. It seems that the majority of my research interests are fuelled by feminist theories (true story: The Feminine Mystique is on my bedside table right now). I’m really interested in how the unconscious bias against women is communicated in the workplace, particularly in banking and financial institutions where there is a serious lack of women in the upper echelons of management. If we can uncover how the bias is communicated, then we tackle the mindsets behind the communication, and hopefully start to create positive change.
Moving forward, I think that I would like to read and learn more about social constructivism and transformative frameworks. It appears as though my research interests might benefit from a broader framework 😉
As someone who is personally so in love with the theater world, and as someone who has worked for a Broadway public relations company, I think the idea that as a researcher, I will be bringing certain beliefs and assumptions to my research is very important. I would like to think that I can be completely objective and unbiased in my research, but this chapter explains that that’s not the case. I will need to look at my beliefs and assumptions and analyze how they affect me as a researcher and these findings will need to be worked into my final write-up.
I have always had some trouble understanding theories, so for me, this is a chapter that I’m going to have to go back and read for myself to fully understand the complexities of these different theories and which ones could possibly apply to my area of research.
This chapter has given me a lot to think about when I begin to embark on understanding anti-corporatism. As a corp comm student, I am approaching this phenomena with a certain set of assumptions. At times I am uncertain if I could every truly understand what drives one to protest corporation or our capitalist structure, since I don’t have that same impulse in myself. I can see myself operating within any one of these frameworks – corporations and their political effects certainly have wide ranging implications that work within social justice, transformative theories and postmodernism. My first thought is to consider things from a social constructivist framework, but I will need to examine further.
A question for the blog authors – would you be able to further explain the distinction between social justice interpretative frameworks and other frameworks? Does social justice only apply to those last few frameworks – feminist, CRT, queer and disability theory?
This — along with our 2 recent handouts — is helping me narrow down my list of potential topics to areas of exploration rather than a search for answers. The notion of advocating on behalf of the participants is helping. I’m sad that there isn’t more time to explore all these philosophical links. LOVE that you guys included the photo
Kathryn: As the professor said, we cannot get an perfect answer for our goal but hopefully the research itself can tell us Something meaningful even the result maybe opposite to our expectation. I think this chapter is somehow telling how to get an direction and dont get lost during the research.
This chapter has been helpful to me as it gave me an overview/analysis of the studies that I have extensively studied in my undergraduate career i.e. feminist theory, queer theory, postmodernism and has introduced me to new ones such as postpositivism and pragmatism. I particularly enjoyed reading the queer theory breakdown on page 33 and it is a theory I will use in my research.
This chapter helped me revise my thinking and approach into my thesis where I have many theories at hand, and made me realize that I should either scale it down a little bit, or synthesize the theories in order to make my thesis more cohesive. But again we can start from a large sample and narrow it down into a coherent discussion method.
What I would like to learn more about however is the intersectionality of these theories as they are not exclusive or separate from one another, and maybe that is something I will be able to do in my road to my thesis.
One more thing to add, for those interested in the Queer Theory — the author has not included Judith Butler and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick in his discussion of theory, which is leaving out the “mothers” of the theory. If you are interested in queer theory, I highly recommend you check out their work.
Thank you for the extra useful information.
Selcuk — I could not agree more! Was shocked that Judith Butler was left out of the discussion — Courtney
I am not sure yet how the different philosophical approaches will play a part in my research, which I am not even sure what I’m going to research yet, but I definitely like the fact that Creswell warns us that our own assumptions will find their way into our research and shape how it turns out. In the budding ideas I have for my own research I definitely have assumptions for how it will go and can see myself moving the research in the direction I think it will turn out. I will have to watch out for that when doing it!
Great overview of the chapter.
Let me attempt an answer Ellissa. These philosophical frameworks have two sides (page 35 last paragraph), in nature and use, and in its philosophical assumptions. We could call them existence and essence, or practice and theory in a wider sense. The social justice frameworks are highlighting their “in use” side by focusing on the object and aim of the studies rather than more basic philosophical questions. I guess that the fact that you can find many works on social justice from Postmodernist Philosophy and Critic Theory (Derrida, Foucault, Adorno, Horkheimer) supports this consideration.
Lauren I agree with you in the advantages of a study that includes and understands the unavoidable biases of the researcher, and I think that the axiological assumption (page 20) tries to convey the necessity for the researchers to declare their biases up front, so the study can be interpreted and understood in that regard. I think it’s an ethical effort for making research transparent.