3.2.1. Constructivist
The research is founded on a constructivist epistemology. This philosophical concept considers the world as something that is subjective in which there are many truths that can be interpreted in different ways depending upon who is studying it (McNeil 1985:49).
Constructivism rejects positivist objective view of the world and the idea that knowledge is always objective and factual, and once it is gained, it can be used to explain events in the natural world, to make predictions about what will happen in the natural world, and thus to control the world and make it behave in ways that are to the advantage of the controller (ibid: 49). Constructivism takes reality into account (Zehfuss 2002:250) and puts more emphasis on the ontological reality of intersubjective knowledge and on the epistemological and methodological implications of this reality (Alder 1997:322).
By demonstrating that the environment in which agents/states take action is social as well as material (Chekel 1998:325), constructivism opens up the objective facts of the world politics, which are facts only by human agreement. It is considered as one of the standard ways of analysing international politics (Walt 1998:38) because its analysis of international relations takes into account the fact that both the social and material worlds are construed, not given.
My preference of constructive approach over other models of inquiry is based on the fact that constructive approach makes it possible for
research questions to be answered while taking into consideration different understandings and perspectives on intelligence when addressing the issues of democratic governance of intelligence in the DRC. While other approaches may lead to their own unique insights (Oliver 2008), I find constructive approach to be more useful for inquiry into the world of intelligence where realities are multiples and are both socially and societally embedded (Grbich 2007:8). Furthermore, constructivist approach challenges positivist notion of unchanging reality of international politics and the idea that social phenomenon may be explained in the same ways as the natural world. Also, it does not take a relativist stance that all knowledge about social and natural worlds are merely construed, rather it recognises that knowledge can be at one and the same time socially construed and real (Parker 1998:23).
The main concern of this research is therefore to frame ideas around intelligence services and any findings as situated knowledge (Haraway 1988). Indeed, my experience of living, working and studying both in Africa and in Europe (mentioned in the foreword) has made me more aware of the fact that multiple realities about intelligence may be expressed differently by people in the North and the South as they tend to live such realities differently based on the political and social arrangements in their respective countries. In conducting research on intelligence agencies, I had to bear in mind that as government institutions, intelligence agencies are impacted by the political constructs and values they bring into any particular political context as well as the external constructs and values of the political context in which they operate.
3.2.2. Qualitative
In line with the constructive nature of this research, I have favoured a qualitative approach as this study focuses on things that cannot be quantified such as organisational change, culture, concepts, attitude and
activities, and the meaning that are attributed to them. It is because of this that the study had to be of a qualitative nature, looking at the understanding that intelligence agencies and those who benefit from their work have of the political context in which they find themselves, and how they understand this political context to be impacted by the reforms that have been undertaken.
The qualitative method enabled me to study and understand realities surrounding intelligence services and to question how people in the North and the South feel about how their intelligence services are governed. This facilitated the move from assumptions to research design, data gathering, analysis and interpretation.
3.2.3. Comparative Methodology
There is a strong normative element within the field of intelligence reform that information gathered by those undertaking research must have an influence on policy and practices of democratic governance of the security sector. The result of this expectation is that generalisations from any research undertaken have to be extrapolated to other similar cases or units of comparison.
It is in relation to this that I have decided to use comparative methodology for this research, paying special attention on the issue of control to ensure that comparison is carefully controlled so that it is possible to make generalisations about similar cases extrapolating from information gathered.
Bechhofer and Patterson (2002:2) contend that a good research design is one which manages well the two issues of comparison and control. But in order to make a good comparison, it is essential to know what it is that is being compared, what are the ‘concepts’ that are being compared, and how will this be done (Mair, 2008:179). I defined the research terms in an unequivocal manner to make comparison possible and easy, and although the research is about the DRC, I selected case
study of South Africa for reasons stated in the introduction chapter and more so because their respective intelligence services played an important role in the democratisation process and have been reformed.
One cannot immediately compare a rich, powerful, industrialised, apartheid state of South Africa with a chaotic and weak state of the DRC, but light can be shed by comparing Congolese intelligence agencies and contrasting with agencies in South Africa. These countries are hereby compared to provide context, make classifications, test hypotheses, and make predictions (Landman, 2008:29).
The other reason why I selected the case study method is because case studies are designed to achieve experimental isolation of selected social factors or processes within a real-life context so as to provide a strong test of prevailing explanations and ideas (Hakim 1987:4).
According to Yin (2003:10-14) the case study method is suitable when a
“how” and “why” question is being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which the investigator has little or no control. In addition, a case study method is useful in dealing with a range of evidence including artefacts, documents, interviews and observations and it allows a better understanding of “complex social phenomena”.
Social Sciences scholars agree that case studies are typically based on two or more methods of data collection and their fieldwork may incorporate the analysis of interviews, administrative records, reports, and other documents, observation and the collection of any type of evidence that is relevant and available (Hollway and Jefferson 2000;
Hakim 1987; Landman 2008; Pennings et al 2006). The research employs a case study of the intelligence reform in new democracies supported by inductive, qualitative methods, using interviews, parliamentary reports, other documentations, and observations.