3.3 Methodology
87
2013). I utilised photographs that I had taken on previous field visits to Durban, as
well as photographs from some of the stakeholders that depict certain incidents, such
as the municipal waste pollution on the beaches after the 2019 rainstorm.
3.3.2 Data Coding
After conducting the interviews, I transcribed them and saved them in a Portable
Document Format (PDF). I emphasised the sections that I wished to analyse by
using the PDF highlighter function. Using the PULSE
3 digital version that was
developed by Dr. Marc Pienaar, I uploaded each interview into the programme. The
digital version recognises the tinted text, which enables the analyst to evaluate it
by using the PULSE
3 analysis selection capability, which consists of a drop-down
menu of its components, as outlined in Chap. 2. These options include paradigms
(Table 2.1), perspectives (theories) (Table 2.2), causal mechanisms (p. 58) and critical
and problem-solving theories (p. 63). With these available options, one can analyse
the highlighted text in terms of the dominant paradigms, theories, causal mechanisms, as well as the critical and problem-solving theories, that are contained in the
transcribed interviews.
3.4 Analysis
In this section, I will present the graphs and diagrams that were produced during the
analysis. I will first discuss the dominant paradigm (research worldview) contained
in the interviews, followed by the prevailing theories (perspectives) that are present
in the analysed information, before considering the causal mechanisms. Following
this discussion, I will report on the critical and problem-solving theory types of the
analysed data.
3.4.1 Paradigm Profile
Figure 3.3 indicates the paradigm assessment score. With respect to the way in
which the respondents generated the knowledge contained in their answers, the
positivist research paradigm received the highest score, with 3632. The interpretivism/constructivism paradigm followed, with a score of 814, followed by postpositivism, with 444. Neither the critical theory or participatory paradigms received
any points.
Most of the recommendations that the interviewees expressed showed positivist
characteristics, with the positivist paradigm scoring 153, followed by the interpretivism/constructivism paradigm, with 32, and the postpositivism paradigm, with a
87
2013). I utilised photographs that I had taken on previous field visits to Durban, as
well as photographs from some of the stakeholders that depict certain incidents, such
as the municipal waste pollution on the beaches after the 2019 rainstorm.
3.3.2 Data Coding
After conducting the interviews, I transcribed them and saved them in a Portable
Document Format (PDF). I emphasised the sections that I wished to analyse by
using the PDF highlighter function. Using the PULSE
3 digital version that was
developed by Dr. Marc Pienaar, I uploaded each interview into the programme. The
digital version recognises the tinted text, which enables the analyst to evaluate it
by using the PULSE
3 analysis selection capability, which consists of a drop-down
menu of its components, as outlined in Chap. 2. These options include paradigms
(Table 2.1), perspectives (theories) (Table 2.2), causal mechanisms (p. 58) and critical
and problem-solving theories (p. 63). With these available options, one can analyse
the highlighted text in terms of the dominant paradigms, theories, causal mechanisms, as well as the critical and problem-solving theories, that are contained in the
transcribed interviews.
3.4 Analysis
In this section, I will present the graphs and diagrams that were produced during the
analysis. I will first discuss the dominant paradigm (research worldview) contained
in the interviews, followed by the prevailing theories (perspectives) that are present
in the analysed information, before considering the causal mechanisms. Following
this discussion, I will report on the critical and problem-solving theory types of the
analysed data.
3.4.1 Paradigm Profile
Figure 3.3 indicates the paradigm assessment score. With respect to the way in
which the respondents generated the knowledge contained in their answers, the
positivist research paradigm received the highest score, with 3632. The interpretivism/constructivism paradigm followed, with a score of 814, followed by postpositivism, with 444. Neither the critical theory or participatory paradigms received
any points.
Most of the recommendations that the interviewees expressed showed positivist
characteristics, with the positivist paradigm scoring 153, followed by the interpretivism/constructivism paradigm, with 32, and the postpositivism paradigm, with a