- Paradigm labels…“like all claims to knowledge according to poststructalists, a way to give momentary stability and coherence to what is dynamic, contradictory, and historical (319). “We tend to forget that paradigm labels are freeze-frames of stories that are already interpretations; the label become abstract and reified, disconnected form the everyday world of doing research” (320).
- [A]lthough paradigm labels…have been populated by the intentions of others, in using them I appropriate them to construct and serve my own intentions…[We use] the discourses that paradigm labels signify as instruments in negotiating my relations with other people…It is not paradigms that are the driving force in research, but our intentions as social actors” (320).
Solsken also explains how she defines poststructuralism. It “is not a paradigm in the conventional sense. It is perhaps better viewed as a set of perspectives broadly outlining stances toward knowledge, power, and society that call into question the foundations of knowledge claims in all paradigms” (319). She lists five perspectives of poststructuralists:
- Knowledge and meaning are always socially constructed interpretation and practice…Language (spoken or written), whatever its biological base, is constructed and used in social practices that are culturally defined within various 'dis-courses' or ideological frameworks.
- Knowledge and meaning are always historical. By historical, we mean that knowledge and meaning are crucially located and embedded in the complex and particular dynamics of the moment as those emerge from the moments that have preceded it.
- Knowledge and meaning are always partial…The incompleteness of knowledge results, in part, from the fact that it is historically situated.
- Knowledge and meaning are always multiple, in that they differ not only across groups, individuals, and situations, but within them as well. Thus knowledge and meaning are not internally consistent but inherently unstable.
- Knowledge and meaning are always political
As a means of acting out the poststructuralist paradigm, Solsken suggest we share our stories. “In our research dialogue we create spaces where we can listen to and learn from our multivocality…As we…ask questions about each other’s stories, the stories change in response to other voices and incorporate those voice. The juxtaposition of one story to another makes us reinterpret both stories…[W]e reflect on the issues raised by our stories and how to respond to them” (324).