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.

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.

I introduced the series of articles on Research Paradigms by listing all the different paradigms, also called philosophical perspectives, philosophical epochs or, sometimes also called the “isms”. This article deals with Modernism.

Modernism was the dominant philosophy, at least in the Western world, between approximately 1650 and the 1950s. It manifested in a movement from the mythical to the logical. Two new approaches to knowing (the epistemology) became dominant in the modern period. The first was empiricism (knowing through the senses) which gradually evolved into scientific empiricism or modern science with the development of modernist methodology. The second epistemological approach was reason or logic. Often, science and reason were collaboratively or in conjunction with each other.

In a modernist approach reason and science is said to provide an accurate, objective, reliable foundation of knowledge. Science is regarded as the paradigm of all true knowledge. Modernism, thus, celebrates the world of science and the scientific method; the authority of the expert; the singularity of meaning; truth and objectivity. The practice of structuring learning into units of learning (subjects, modules, learning programmes, qualifications on different levels, etc.) is typical of a modernistic approach.

Modernism favours hierarchy, order and centralised control. Even so, attempts are made and supported to predict trends and future events based on reason and information that is independent of the environment. The modernist view of time is linear, with one event happening after the other, with no other purpose than to keep going in a particular direction. Deep rather than superficial information in terms of meaning, value, content are collected and used. Therefore, the description given by modernism of how the world is to be understood supports certainty, order, organisation, prediction, rationality, linearity and progress.

The discovery of empirical facts is sought. With this in mind, reason transcends and exists independently of our existential, historical and cultural contexts. Even so, prior theory plays an important role for the purpose of coming to valid conclusions based on the available information.

Acquired knowledge is regarded as universal and true. It is believed that, because knowledge is universal, reason can help us overcome all conflicts. Furthermore, it is postulated that all cultures will embrace the truth because it is universal. Mass culture, mass consumption and mass marketing forms part of the modernistic system. Even so, modernism is associated with modern societies, developed states and Western nations (as opposed to pre-modern societies). The family is seen as the central unit of social order – it serves as a model of the middle-class.

Language is transparent, meaning that a one-to-one relationship exists between what is written or said and the concept that is investigated.

Reason and human independence and freedom are inherently linked – just laws conform to the dictates of reason, leading to trust in the accuracy of the research findings. Trust, therefore, exists independent of human consciousness and can be known through the application of reason. Reason leads to a progressive movement towards civilisation, democracy, freedom and scientific advancement. All conclusions leading to better understanding develops from trust and is regarded as a means of building a better society.

Article by Dr J.P. Nel, MD Mentornet

I actually stopped my discussion of research paradigms halfway through because nobody seemed interested. My articles did not attract any discussion or even criticism. I need to share my notes on scientism with you, though, because my interpretation might be completely wrong. I am hoping that some research wizard will point my cognitive dissonance out to me.

Scientism is discussed here as representing the technicity group of paradigms. It is unlikely that researchers using qualitative methodology will adopt this paradigm because it is usually used when quantitative research is conducted. Supporters of the scientism paradigm claim that it is based on the “rule of law of science”.[1] Even so, some scientists do regard scientism as a paradigm that can be used as the favoured assumption when doing qualitative research.

The “rule of science” refers to the prescription of a domain, a set of practices and an attitude to the world. This actually applies to any paradigm because all paradigms are assumptions upon which research is developed. Scientism, it is said, manages the match between the rule of science and the knowledge emerging from the rule, ensuring that the rule adjusts so that it is never too out of sync with what is known. If this is the case, then I cannot see how one can use scientism as your paradigmatic assumption if you follow a grounded theory research design. In grounded theory you are supposed to have an open mind, allowing your data to lead you to conclusions and recommendations. In grounded theory you need to accept your research findings even if it does not agree with what you had in mind. Actually, this should apply to any scientific research.

Scientism, it is said, creates a closed system of knowing that certifies itself by scientific discoveries or evidence that fits its own closed system of paradigm understanding. If the new knowledge does not fit the paradigm, it is usually assumed that there was something wrong with the methodology that produces it, rarely with the paradigm understanding itself. In terms of the nature of research this is a rather risky and questionable point of view, because research should always provide for the possibility that a hypothesis can be disproven, which does not mean that there is anything wrong with the research process, gathered information or conclusions made. It might be possible that not sufficient information was gathered or that the information was not sufficiently corroborated. However, questioning the methodology because you do not agree with the research findings may well be extremely subjective and unscientific.

What do you think? Where am I missing the point?

[1] www.nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.egi?article=1981&context=tgr. Accessed on 05/04/2017.

I introduced the series of articles on Research Paradigms by listing all the different paradigms, also called philosophical perspectives, philosophical epochs or, sometimes also called the “isms”. This articles deals with Premodernism.

Premodernism, modernism and postmodernism can be seen as periods of time and as philosophical systems. We will largely discuss and use them as paradigms or philosophies. Premodernism, which was the dominant philosophy approximately until 1650, was based upon revealed knowledge from authoritative sources. It was believed that ultimate truth could be known and the way to this knowledge is through direct revelation. This direct revelation was believed to come from a god with a church as the primary authority source.

Premodernists see the world as a totality with a unified purpose. The human being is seen as part of the whole, which is greater than its parts. Premodernists strive to progress away from historical developments. As part of the whole human beings also share the blame for the mistakes that the collective made through history. The rationale for this is that each individual is personally and collectively responsible to act morally correct. However, there is no distinction between individual and collective responsibility.

Premodernism, postmodernism and modernism as such are philosophical approaches to life and the manner in which people and the world in which they live interact with one another. The researcher will inevitably follow 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 or two of them.

Even though some still deny that the truth cannot be the same for everybody, academic researchers know that the notions of phenomena and events in life are never just black or white, true or false, correct or wrong. Life is much more complicated that that and what is true for one person at a particular point in time, place, and context is seldom still true under different circumstances.

To show how differently we interpret issues and phenomena, I used a one-sentence statement, expressed by means of different paradigms, of how people can interpret and experience the South African tax system.

Behaviourism: The tax burden is heavy on everybody because people do not openly show that they are willing to declare their taxable income and to pay their taxes.

Constructivism: People are unwilling to declare their income and pay their taxes because government does not spend the revenue that they receive responsibly and efficiently.

Critical race theory: People resist paying taxes because the burden is much higher on the minority group than on the majority group.

Critical theory: People resist paying taxes because government, who should manage the process, are often the perpetrators of malpractices.

Empiricism: Only those who pay taxes can judge and improve the tax system.

Ethnomethodology: The economy, education, security, health and legislation of the country is affected by the quality of the tax system.

Feminism: Women should not be subject to the same tax burden as men if they are not given equal social, political, cultural and economic rights.

Functionalism: South Africa will not survive if the tax system is corrupt and poorly managed.

Hermeneutics: A survey of 1,000 randomly selected adults show that the majority of South Africans feel that they pay too much taxes.

Interpretivism: It is assumed that taxes are collected and utilized efficiently because the majority voted for the current government.

Liberalism: Tax collection will be efficient and fair if people are more tolerant towards government.

Modernism: The tax system will be efficient and fair if it is founded on an African culture that will facilitate growth, development and strong leadership.

Neoliberalism: The tax system will be efficient and fair if the state and private sector cooperate and promotes economic liberalization.

Phenomenology: How people feel about paying taxes is largely determined by how they see their tax money being spent and how they feel about their observations.

Positivism: The Receiver of Revenue needs to earn the trust and support of the taxpayers.

Post-colonialism: The poor tax system is the result of colonial rule that denied people an opportunity to develop their own value system and culture.

Post-modernism: People who claim that the tax system if flawed consider only their preconceived ideas of what an efficient and fair tax system is.

Post-positivism: We cannot judge if the current tax system is efficient and fair because there are too many factors impacting on the country and government.

Post-structuralism: What do people mean and from whose perspective are they judging if the tax system if efficient and fair?

Pragmatism: Everybody is dissatisfied with the tax system, but nobody does anything to solve the problem.

Pre-modernism: All we can do to solve the flaws in our tax system is to pray.

Radicalism: Our tax system will be efficient and fair once we stop listening to colonists and old people.

Rationalism: Poor leadership leads to corruption; corruption leads to people not paying taxes; people not paying taxes leads to government levying more taxes; more taxes leads to more corruption.

Relativism: Everybody is entitled to their own opinions about the tax system.

Romanticism: Perhaps the tax system is not perfect, but who are we to judge?

Scientism: I will believe that the tax systems is flawed if it can be statistically proven with a more than 90% probability that it is the case.

Structuralism: The tax system cannot function properly if the economic, social, legislative and political structures do not support it.

Symbolic interactionism: The what and the how of the tax systems need to be communicated as widely as possible before people can judge if the system is efficient and fair.

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.