Publisher: HSRC Publishers, Pretoria, 1997
Series: HSRC Series in Methodology 39
Description: 510 p.
Language: English
ISBN number: 0-7969-1823-6

In October 1994 a conference (with the same title as the book) was held (location unspecified) as a follow-up to an earlier conference on Knowledge and Method in the Human Sciences, and this book includes a selection (the criteria for selection are not stated) of the papers in this conference. The conference seemed to be concerned with "the debate between modernists and postmodernists' (p 12) and the implications of this debate for (methodological) work in the social sciences in South Africa: although no precise statements of the goals of the enterprise are given. The addition of the Habermasian term of 'public good' to the title of both conference and book, it is argued by the editors, is a signal of the emergence of a similar range of concerns across several meta-theoretical positions.

The book is well-produced although the absence of any information whatsoever about the contributors and lack of an index detract.

The book is broadly organised and conceived by the editors as involving two levels: one more philosophical and involving social theory and another more methodological. Unfortunately, again, the editors provide almost no guidance about the contents beyond a very swift listing of the chapter titles with some reference to each other. In this review I will pass quickly over the more philosophical portions of the book to concentrate on the ostensibly methodological contributions.

The following chapters concern more methodological issues.

* Critique of action research in education (V Wedekind)

* An account of ethnographic research on Bushmen at Schmidtsdrift (J Sharp)

* Research as story-telling (D Ruth)

* The hermeneutic function of distanciation (K Kelly)

* Applied Psychology (C Tredoux)

* Measurement of Cognitive Style in Psychology (K Durrheim)

* Research and the Empowerment of Teachers (M Letseka)

* Learning and Language (K Ratele and P Mokotedi)

* Library and Information Science (A Dick)

In addition to this set of chapters, an earlier one on feminist methodology seems pertinent to my present interests, and also some passing comments by the editors.

The editors see the link between the more general concerns of the book and this more methodological part as (at least in part) linking through the rise of more qualitative research. They suggest that modernist 'experimental' approaches were hegemonic in South African social science up to the mid-1980s, and that "No-one, for example, was doing naturalist evaluation research ten years ago [i.e. c1985), and very few were considering it five years ago [i.e., c1990]" (p 15). However, explanation for its emergence include the conditions of the late apartheid era and the transition: "It received a powerful boost in this country from the proliferation of NGOs and from the funders that find they need reasons to grant or withhold funds from applicants" (16). The editors sense a possible (delicious!) paradox that by adopting the more qualitative approaches, researchers will become unwitting conduits to global practises and values, and that theoretical resistance to emancipation will continue. However, such slighting raising of these issues fails to allow them to be adequately treated.

Wedekind provides a short case study of an action research project involving in-service teacher training, with slight reference to other similar studies, and focuses on the implications of the adoption of this methodology. He suggests that such participative action research projects were very popular in South Africa in the 1980s because they appeared to fulfil requirements for "ownership by the participants, democratic process, and radical change" (p 337). But, he argues that in practise such action research projects are often framed solely by one group (in the case teachers) and fail to encompass others who are also stake-holders in the situation and that in general the lack of adequate analysis has the effect of masking those power relations which limit change in such situations.

John Sharp provides an interesting account of his commissioned applied research work with the Bushmen (commissioned in effect by the SADF, in accordance with a long tradition of such work: although he notes that his experience was unusual as it was not from someone associated with an Afrikaans university, and also was mediated by a Trust). He argues that there is much need to be sensitive to the politics involved with such studies and the political and identity strategies being pursued by various groups within a community being studied.

Damian Ruth suggests that research can be seen as a form of story-telling, and that we must listen to, and indeed actively retrieve, to the stories which underpin the meanings of a variety of people. Stories have to be read with a view to silences and with an ear to multiple voices. (But not too wide a range of audiences it seems! Damian Ruth amazingly claims that "..I now think that in asking a black student to think critically, I am not asking him or her to simply add another skill to the array he or she already possesses; I may in fact be asking the student to do something immoral and antithetical to their being and culture" 394. I think such a blatant comment needs rather more work than being merely tossed up as part of a story!)

Kelly provides a theoretical argument that in hermeneutic research, distanciation is as important as empathy. Interpreters often are concerned to retrieve the meaning of an event or object in its immediate context in order to try to understand its creation or why it happened: Kelly suggests that in addition (or alternatively) study of an event or object might be used to understand "our own discourses about the world" (p 420).

Tredoux uses the case of research into eye-witnesses to point out that research which appears relevant to a real-life issue may fail to adequately engage with its subject-matter: in such cases the apparent relevance of the research functions merely as a justificatory screen. Applied psychology is not necessarily applicable!

Durrheim provides a difficult-to-read account in which he argues that limited, more objectivist accounts of cognitive style are produced through the application of methodological approaches which are insufficiently reflexive to understand their own limitations. More attention is required to the multi-dimensional (and often contradictory) nature of how people evaluate other things and people within social contexts.

Letsaka argues that teachers, especially black teachers, might be more empowered were they to see themselves (and to obtain relevant skills to support this) as researchers.

Ratele and Mokotedi deploy a narrative account (this seems to be no more than the deployment of case study material) of how English has succeeded Afrikaans as an instrument for oppressing black populations by denying the authenticity of their own experiences and lives through denying the use of their own home languages. While their point is undoubtedly well made, the oppressive effect of language is cleanly more complex than the case material they provide, and they fail to research into let alone suggest any solutions to overcome the disadvantages of a retreat into each home language.

Dick deals with the failure of library and information scientists (i.e. 'librarians') to adopt 'alternative' approaches to their profession which might have been more appropriate in the emergent anti-apartheid context because they would have been more sensitive to their social role in a capitalist society. However, he fails to pinpoint who is to blame for these areas of discussion not being opened up during the university training of librarians, and nor does he provide a workable account of how such a 'semi-profession' might overcome its very considerable power disadvantages.

What, then do these chapters add up to, from the perspective of the aspirant methodology teacher or student in the South African context five years or more after this conference was held? Each makes a reasonable point, although this is often marred by rather long-winded and convoluted argument in which too much play is made of sourcing ideas to leading French (occasionally German) thinkers. Several essays do in fact bear out the editors' suspicions that naive use of participative and/or qualitative approaches can indeed wind up in very limited positions, which in effect undermine the emancipatory potential of the research being provided. But certainly these authors (and perhaps the editors too) remain in ignorance over this as it is not pointed up. The collection of essays in fact must be read in a very problematic way. The apparent good of qualitative approaches are being displayed by most of these authors (some in a quite naive fashion while others are more sophisticated). The reader is left on their own to engage with these and to themselves penetrate into the weaknesses and silences portrayed in them. An editorial gloss showing how these essays relate to some of the wider issues more broadly under examination in the conference would have been valuable. However, these essays are not really tied together with this theme I am suggesting (picking up on the clue indicated by the editors). I really don't think there is any theme holding them together, apart from some apparent interest of the authors in the broader issues being discussed in the conference.

The other half of the book is its main contribution, and this is far stronger. These more philosophical treatment are usefully introduced by the editors who provide a careful introduction, and for the most part the papers are competent and well-written. They cover the range of theoretical concerns raised by the engagement with post-modernist thinking, and are serious contributions which recognise various of the complexities and ironies involved. However, since they are beyond the immediate interest of methodologists. I will not cover them here.