Research in constructivist frameworks using ethnographic techniques.

ABSTRACT

This article discusses the undertaking of research using a constructivist philosophical framework and ethnographic techniques, which can include individual interviews, focus groups, observation, and questionnaires. It begins with a broad overview of social sciences research philosophy, discussing both positivism and interpretivism, before moving on to focus on the constructivist paradigm, which comes under the interpretivist umbrella. The section on ethnography follows and includes sampling, data collection techniques, and data analysis. Examples from the author's work are used to illustrate both philosophy and method. They are from the author's studies of the information-seeking behavior of, firstly, women with breast cancer and, secondly, online investors.

INTRODUCTION

This article discusses not only a research method, ethnography, and the techniques that are commonly associated with it but also the philosophical framework in which the method can be situated. It begins with a broad overview of social sciences research philosophy and moves on to discuss the constructivist paradigm specifically before detailing ethnographic method and techniques and providing examples from the author's work.

PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITIONS OF RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

In the broader context of research theory in the social sciences, there are two major philosophical traditions--positivist and interpretivist (sometimes written as "interpretive"). (1) In a nutshell, these two traditions are based on different assumptions about the nature of reality. Positivists consider that, as in the field of science, knowledge can only be based on what can be observed and experienced. Key positivist tenets are therefore "measurement" and "objectivity," resulting in a focus on quantitative data. The associated style of reasoning is "deductive," where the argument moves from general principles to particular instances. Positivist research usually begins with theories and models, defines variables for study, and predicts their relationships through framing hypotheses that are then tested. Generalizations are eventually made. Common research methods are "experimental design," with its emphasis on cause and effect, and "survey," which must be carried out according to scientific principles. "Validity" and "reliability" are key constructs for positivist researchers. (Powell, 1997, pp. 37-42 discusses these concepts).

On the other hand the interpretivist philosophy, where the constructivist paradigm fits, takes a different view of reality. Interpretivism is a broad term that encompasses a number of different paradigms, all concerned with the meanings and experiences of human beings. Since the central tenet of interpretivism is that people are constantly involved in interpreting their ever-changing world, researchers who are interpretivists believe that the social world is constructed by people and is therefore different from the world of nature (Williamson, 2002a). They favor "naturalistic inquiry" (where field work usually takes place in a natural setting), embrace an inductive style of reasoning, and emphasize qualitative data. It is the use of constructivist frameworks that is discussed in this article.

There are good reasons for using the terms "positivist" and "interpretivist" for describing researchers who subscribe to the two distinctly different ways of viewing the nature of reality. One arises because of the ways in which some key research theorists, such as Denzin and Lincoln (2003), discuss the field of "qualitative research." While they emphasize its interpretive nature and would include the interpretivist paradigms and methods, theirs is a broad, historical conceptualization and is not synonymous with interpretivist research. They say that "qualitative research is a field of inquiry in its own right," crosscutting "disciplines, fields, and subject matters" (p. 3). Another comment is that, historically, it is surrounded by "a complex, interconnected family of terms, concepts, and assumptions ... [that] include the traditions associated with foundationalism, positivism, postfoundationalism, postpostivism, poststructuralism, and the many qualitative research perspectives, and/or methods, connected to cultural and interpretive studies" (p. 3).

This means that the term "qualitative research," on its own, does not provide an indication of the ontological view of the researcher. This is not to disregard the existence of those who postulate that there are some aspects of life, although not all, that are measurable, at least at a particular point in time, and who favor the use of mixed methods. In this case, too, the philosophical underpinnings of research should not be ignored. As Greene and Caracelli say, "there is merit in different paradigmatic traditions in that each has something valuable to offer to our understanding of our complex social world. If such differences are not attended to in practice, then the full potential of mixed methods inquiry will remain unfulfilled" (2003, p. 107).

CONSTRUCTIVIST FRAMEWORKS

"Constructivism," one of several interpretivist paradigms, is concerned with the ways in which people construct their worlds. Constructivist researchers investigate constructions or meanings about broad concepts such as cultural values, or more specific issues or ideas, such as the possible ingredients of the dynamic, creative public library of the future and how to create it. There are two major constructivist approaches--one focusing on individual, personal constructions and the other on shared meanings that could be said to reflect social constructions.

In the case of personal construct theory, a key proponent was Kelly (1955), who believed people make sense of their world on an individual basis, that is, personally construct reality. Some later cognitive researchers in the information-seeking field are theoretically closest to this form of constructivism. They moved beyond study of external, observable behavior to try to understand individuals from their own points of view. For example, Dervin and Nilan emphasized the importance of individuality, arguing that "the seeming complexity of individuality can be addressed ... in a completely satisfactory manner which fulfils every reasonable demand of scientific investigation" (1986, p. 16). Dervin herself noted that the individually focused construction of her well-known Sense-Making methodology has been the most common one among information researchers who have adopted it (Olsson, 2003).

The other major constructivist approach comes from social constructionists who place emphasis on people developing meanings for their activities together (that is, socially constructing reality), as analyzed in the famous book The Social Construction of Reality (Berger & Luckman, 1967). In the information-seeking field, the social constructionist approach came to the fore in the late 1990s as discussions of the limitations of the cognitive and "information transfer" approaches to research, dominant for so long, began to appear in the literature. Tuominen and Savolainen (1997) and Talja (1997) pointed out the advantages of social constructionism. They all favored discourse analysis because the "processual negotiation of meanings" (Tuominen & Savolainen, 1997, p. 82) through which social reality is built occurs through discourse. Although not claiming the label, one of the early social constructionist researchers in the field was Elfreda Chatman, whose work focused on the information-seeking behavior of different communities and groups in specific social environments, such as older women living alone in a retirement village (Chatman, 1991, 1992) and prisoners (Chatman, 1999). According to Olsson (2003), Chatman's approach was heavily influenced by Berger and Luckman. Olsson himself used a social constructionist framework to explore how information behavior researchers construct the meaning and significance of the work of the author Brenda Dervin. He said that, in her more recent writings, "Dervin has sought to challenge the construction of Sense-Making as a theory solely concerned with individual problem-solving," placing emphasis on the "social/collective aspects of Sense-Making" (p. 32).

There is no reason why researchers cannot draw on more than one body of research theory to underpin their own research. Indeed, Bates (2002) suggested that the three major metatheories as discussed by Tuominen, Talja, and Savolainen (as cited by Bates)--"the information transfer" model (which, according to Bates, they equate with a classically scientific approach), the constructivist model, and the constructionist model--should not struggle for dominance, with each being…