Welcome back to the NOC course titled qualitative
research methods My name is Aradhna Malik
and I teach at the Indian Institute of Technology
in Kharagpur West Bengal India and Im helping
you with the course and in the previous lectures
as we have dealt with different aspects of
qualitative research we discussed what it
means to conduct qualitative research we are
now in the process of discussing the Paradigms
that we can use in order to conduct qualitative
enquiry So in the previous lecture we started
on constructivism as a paradigm of qualitative
enquiry and in this lecture we will take that
discussion forward
Now this is again from the book by from the
book title handbook of qualitative research
and constructivist enquiry is the active in
constructivist inquiry The act of enquiry
begins with issues and or concerns of participants
and unfold through a dialectic of iteration
analysis critique reiteration reanalysis and
so on that leads eventually to joint (among
inquirer and respondents) construction of
a case (ie findings or outcomes ) and this
very long very complicated sentence means
that when we talk about constructive enquiry
or enquiry from a constructivist paradigm
we are not talking about the one single piece
of truth
We are talking about inquiry we are talking
about the outcomes of inquiry been jointly
constructed by the inquirer and the inquired
and context in which the inquiry is situated
and the history that it brings along with
it and you know and this whole discussion
is what really helps us to come up with answers
Its not just a onestop you know cause and
effect relationship or one test and one response
kind of relationship
In and through discussion in and through conversation
in and through negotiation of ideas and to
and fro motion of ideas we come up with an
understanding of what the outcome of the enquiry
should be So the outcome is jointly constructed
the enquiry itself is jointly constructed
what are you trying to find out that is constructed
or that is understood by this constant exchange
of Ideas
What is it that we should try to find out
What is known What needs to be known as discovered
in and through a discussion between the enquiry
and the enquired and the context in which
the enquiry takes place and that is why we
call it constructivism every little bit of
negotiations adds to this final meaning that
we come up with Okay
SoThe joint constructions that issue from
the activities of the enquiry can be evaluated
for their fit with the data and information
they encompass So its not only an understanding
but it is also the situatedness of that understanding
within the context that has been understood
Once we say okay this is would have understood
out of this context does my understanding
of that context really fit into that context
Is it really related Or is it been seen from
the perspective of an outsider So its the
fit within the context not the fit onto a
context That you know I dont care what the
context is this is what I understood and my
understanding holds good That is not the way
we do it It is connected with the context
Then so The joint constructions that issue
from the activity of enquiry can be evaluated
for their fit with the data and information
they encompass the extent to which they work
that is provide incredible level of understanding
Im sorry for the spelling mistake And the
extent to which they have relevance and are
modifiable So you know how well do these things
fitting when if and when we can modify them
depending on the needs of the context So it
is flexible the understanding is flexible
its plastic like we discussed last time and
it is this fitting into the context that is
an important element of constructivism
Properties of constructions: Some properties
that we look for when we are talking about
or when we are enquiring from a constructivist
perspective the first one is Constructions
are attempts to make sense of to interpret
experience and most are selfsustaining and
selfrenewing So its a reflexive activity when
we talk about constructions we are talking
about a dialogue between the enquired and
the inquirer
And it is in and through dialogue it is in
and through reflection it is in an through
and assessment of the fit of the ideas within
the situation that the concept or that is
the sense making takes place So you send out
an idea and you say this is what I have understood
about what is happening in this situation
and the inquired says no that is not correct
50% of what you said is correct
The other 50% is incorrect and this is how
I would like to see it from the perspective
of a person who is experiencing this phenomenon
and you say but from an objective perspective
I see these things happening across the board
across so many different contexts So this
is what I am interpreting and the other person
gets your understanding and so its in and
through dialogue in and through this is negotiations
meaning that we come to a joint understanding
of what an experience is like Okay
And its a reflexive activity we reflect on
every response we get from the context of
the inquired and these meanings are self sustaining
that it is this the end result is not what
is sustained it is the process that is put
in place to understand the end result that
is sustained So the end sense the ultimate
sense may not really be the ultimate it is
not the ultimate meaning but it is the process
that is put in place to understand that meaning
that eventually become self renewing and self
sustaining and that process becomes automatic
It feeds into itself Then the nature or quality
of a construction that can be held depends
on the range or scope of information available
to a Constructor and the constructors sophistication
in dealing with that information How comfortable
or How well versed is the constructor with
understanding what is be understood How comfortable
how sensitive the constructor of the meaning
how sensitive is the inquirer of the situation
to the situation itself
To the signals coming from the situation how
a depth is this person at dealing with the
different amounts of data or that the quantity
and the quality of the data that one is receiving
from the environment that one is studying
and that in turn leads to what is filtered
out what does and does not make sense And
that is true even for quantitative research
but in quantitative research its not a continuous
you know if its a discrete series
If I draw an analogy to mathematics its like
this is different data points And here in
qualitative research we take a continuous
flow of data and we try and make sense of
the way the data is flowing in relation to
whatever we do not take as well In quantitative
research with we completely disregarded whatever
we have not included in most cases
Of course there are you know different ways
in which we can do that but we are looking
at it discrete collection of data points as
compared to that in qualitative research we
are looking at a continuous flow of data points
and sub points and sub points and its like
this bridge of Information and the quality
of interpretation depends on the ability of
the enquirer to understand this flow of information
Okay
Then constructions are extensively shared
and some of those shared are disciplined constructions
that is collective and systematic attempts
to come to common agreements about a state
of affairs for example science(p71) So Science
is also you know Science can also adopt a
constructivist paradigm where meanings are
constructed interpretations are constructed
with the consensus of those involved with
the consensus of those who are okay
With the participation of those who are able
to understand the data that is generated and
the information that is extracted out of that
data So a systematic construction is applied
even in science but constructions need to
be extensively shared in order for constructions
to become constructions It is a joint construction
of meaning its not my soul interpretation
unless somebody other than the enquirer is
involved
We cant call it as construction of meaning
Okay that would just be a creation of meaning
when youre talking about construction we are
talking about the team work here We are talking
about people contributing to whatever is being
built and some of those shared and disciplined
construction systematic constructions common
agreements that are arrived at by means of
well established well tested processes methods
that are replicable that are verifiable are
then adopted in science
So construction happens with the help of all
of the stakeholders that are involved in the
process
Although all Constructions must be considered
meaningful some are rightly labeled malconstruction
because they are incomplete simplistic uninformed
internally inconsistent or derived by an inadequate
methodology (p143) So construction may not
always be acceptable if thorough groundwork
has not been done If the interpretation is
loose if the people concerned people who can
who have the expertise to comment on the way
the construction has happened or the people
who are affected are able to see this gap
then the Constructions are called malconstructions
They are rightly labeled as malconstruction
because oversimplification is not a construction
Having a large number of stakeholders agree
to an oversimplification is not a construction
unless thorough enquiry takes place unless
there is consistency in the manner in which
these Constructions or are in which these
meanings are constructed and the constructions
are interpreted in light of the context they
are a part of and in light of the context
they fit into they cannot be labeled as constructions
they are labeled as malconstructions
The judgment of whether a given construction
is malformed can be made only with reference
to the paradigm out of which the constructor
operates So the constructor has to first define
with paradigm that the constructor is using
to arrive at this Constructions Whether it
is positivism post positivism interpretivism
constructivism critical theory feminist theory
what is the constructor where is the constructor
coming from
What is the goal of enquiry needs to be defined
and within the definition of the goal of the
enquiry then the Constructions can be you
know brought to life In other words criteria
or standards are frameworks specific so for
instance a religious construction can only
be judged adequate or inadequate utilizing
the particular theological paradigm from which
it is derived Constructions are framework
specific they are criteria specific on what
grounds are reconstructing this meaning needs
to be put out in black and white
As an observer of a situation that I do not
understand I cannot completely take that interpretation
out of context and constructor meaning That
is exactly what I have been repeating again
and again that interpretations are fit into
the context of the inquired They are not fit
onto they are not superimposed they are juxtaposed
and they are blended into the context of the
inquired And they become the extensions of
the enquired
So they become meanings that also add to the
existence of what has been enquired and that
is an assumption that is something that one
learns to accept when one is conducting qualitative
enquiry Ones constructions are challenged
when one becomes aware the new information
conflicts with the held construction or when
one senses the lack of intellectual sophistication
needed to make sense of new information
So we realize that we may not be arriving
at the absolute truth and when we talk about
the properties of constructions we should
be ready for our constructions to be challenged
to be question for our assumptions to be question
for our criteria for the criteria that we
have used to arrive at these constructions
to be questioned and when new information
is brought to light the flavor of the context
that one has constructed a meaning in changes
So a new information comes up the construction
that has been shared or that has been brought
to light that has come to life is again is
liable to be challenged it may or may not
be challenged but there is a possibility that
this construction meaning may be challenged
in light of the new information that comes
up and that is alright Okay
So when one tries ones best but at the same
time is not able to come up with the most
appropriate most appropriate construction
meaning at that time the construction is likely
to be challenged and its okay that cannot
be termed as a malconstructions That is where
we draw the line when one lacks intellectual
sophistication to arrive at an appropriate
construction It cant be labeled as a malconstruction
it may just not be the right fit and it can
be challenged Now these are you know some
of the properties that constructions have
Now lets go to the types of constructivism
the two broad categories of constructivism
a radical constructivism and social constructionism
Radical constructivism was referred to the
Schwandt has referred to the work of one blizzard
and he says that we cannot no such a thing
as an independent objective world that stands
apart from our experience of it Hence we cannot
speak of knowledge and somehow corresponding
to mirroring or representing the world
Knowledge and again at the expense of repeating
myself when we talk about radical constructivism
we are talking about knowledge acquiring it
status only by virtue of fitting in the world
it is created in a meaning that is taken out
of context loses its strength It loses its
grounding it loses its robustness Knowledge
is knowledge only when it can be fit into
when it can be connected to the context from
which it was derived and when it can be connected
to when it can form an extension of the context
that it was derived
The second aspect of radical constructivism
is that Knowledge is good if and when it works
if and when it allows us to achieve our goals
Otherwise knowledge really has no meaning
So according to the tenets of radical constructivism
knowledge is knowledge only when it can be
used Knowledge for the sake of newer versions
newer definitions newer ways of understanding
has no meaning unless the those newer ways
of understanding can result in action that
can fit in with the context that this new
knowledge is derived them
The relationship between knowledge and reality
is instrumental not verificative: there is
no need to you know to a relationship is not
to verify the relationship or the purpose
of this relationship is not to verify something
that already exists The purpose of this relationship
between knowledge and reality is to do something
about the reality from which the knowledge
was derived its instrumental something needs
to be done
Its action oriented To know is to possess
ways and means of acting and thinking that
allow one to attend the goes one happens to
have chosen we know something so that we can
go and achieve some goals otherwise knowing
something for the sake of knowing may lose
its value and in todays day and age where
we browse the Internet for information that
we dont really need you know that is defined
these tenets of radical constructivism of
knowledge creation
Why do we create knowledge We create knowledge
so to benefit some people Now again the theorist
would say or the people who come up with different
interpretations Idea generation for example
may not really fit into radical constructivism
and that is all right radical constructivism
may not be able to explain the whole idea
of brainstorming but then brainstorming for
what purpose If there is no purpose if we
are just coming up with newer ideas that may
or may not be implemented at some point go
less ideas then really has It loses the value
it could have had if it has resulted in some
action at some point in time that is what
radical constructivism says
Piaget also spoke about radical constructivism
and Piaget is best known for the work on Children
and knowledge creation in children and so
intellectual cognitive development of children
theories of cognitive development of children
and so from that perspective Piaget has been
referred by Schwandt and according to this
knowledge of the world is mediated by cognitive
structures and these structures are products
of a process of construction resulting from
interaction of mind and environment
So Piaget also talks about constructivism
what are we interpreting we are situateting
ourselves in the reality we live in we are
not randomly trying to understand things that
may or may not exist Sitting here I could
philosophize about a pink elephant that flies
over IIT Kharagpur that doesnt make sense
So I am trying to understand What would happen
if an elephant walk through IIT Kharagpur
and there is a reality that needs to be understood
Here we are deriving our understanding of
various structures through the context free
and understanding our environment through
what we receive and how our brain processes
what we receive and how our brain processes
what we take out of what the environment gives
us What we understand and that knowledge creation
is then you know it is a process of construction
in here it may not be a process of construction
with many stakeholders
But we are constructing meaning out of the
reality we live in and that is how it is connected
to reality and its not really out there not
really connected to whatever we know it is
connected to the world that we live in it
is connected to the world we understand So
this is the knowledge of the world is mediated
by cognitive structures the processes that
take place in our mind through which we make
sense of the world around us
Social constructionism : Social constructionism
refers to Dialogue between the researcher
and the participants that facilitates a process
of continuous reflexivity thereby enabling
new forms of linguistic reality to emerge
So this is what I was talking about before
we went on to radical constructivism social
constructionism refers to the import from
the people who can be affected by the knowledge
that is going to be created
And together with reason with the people who
are giving us inputs together you know with
this collection of inputs that help us arrive
at a meaning which will be accepted by a larger
number of people and that is called social
constructionism Process of continuous reflexivity
so going back and forth with ideas improving
on modifying whatever we know by enabling
new forms of linguistic reality
Social constructionism is primarily it is
i facilitated by language what we say how
we set how the words we use are interpreted
by people around the overall aim of this approach
is to expand and enriched vocabulary of understanding
I gave you an example of snow in one of the
previous classes how a person who has experienced
snow is able to explain the concept of Snow
to a person who has never experienced snowfall
Vocabulary is enriched by this number of Ideas
back and forth between the people who are
in that social reality and we construct a
common meaning The goal of constructivist
enquiry is to achieve a consensus or feeling
that an agenda for negotiation on issues and
concerns that define the nature of the enquiry
So the goal of such enquiry is to help everybody
involved accept the meaning that is going
to be created jointly or at least start a
discussion
So constructivism essentially deals with what
we are doing in and through communication
to create a meaning Radical constructivism
is instrumental it is connected it is very
well connected with reality Social constructionism
deals with the inputs from all concerned inputs
from the people who are going to be affected
by that meaning so this is what this is another
paradigm of inquiry Well talk a little bit
more about constructivism in the upcoming
lectures Thank you very much for listening
