Grounded Theory and Theory?

 

I visited a great group of researchers today, members of the Qualitative Health Research Collaboration  at Sydney University and much of our discussion centered around issues related to the role of theory when using grounded theory methods and how this method differs from discourse analysis.

Some of the main issues we discussed were:

1. Theory is still important in Grounded Theory, but it comes after coding, rather than before. We try and situate the emergent theory back into those present in the literature and can pursue cricial or sociological forms of analysis at this point

2. That we must differentiate between classic and constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz). For Charmaz the results of research of this kind are not objective but co-constructed

3. That while grounded theory is fundamentally inductive it can help to try theories on for size deductively, especially when we are getting stuck trying to find higher order concepts

4. That grounded theory might be less useful when you are exploring sociological phenomenon or those where your participants are marginalised

It might also be useful to understand the roots of grounded theory in the philosophy of symblic interactionism

A foundational principle within symbolic interactionism has been that human beings are distinguished from other animals by their use of symbols (Blumer, 1962; Mead, 1934/67). In fact, symbols have been understood as the very basis of social interaction, mediating between stimulus and response. Symbols are abstract representations of social objects that enable people to communicate both verbally and nonverbally and understand each other’s intentions and actions. Because social action and interaction are symbolic in nature, people interpret the objects in their environment and the behaviors of others around them and, rather than reacting directly, respond on the basis of their interpreted meaning of those objects and actions (Blumer, 1962; Charon, 1992; Meltzer, 1972).

............................Milliken and Schrieber 2012

This reading lends itself well to constructivism, given the theory developed serves as a symbol of the interaction and meaning making between researcher and participants.

Pretty Fly for a White Guy? Researching Across Cultures

One of my excellent students has been having a pretty interesting time lately working on a study of parenting in Kenya.... this week we had a look through the interviews she conducted and were pretty disturbed....she was exploring positive parenting practices and the obstacles to them.....I cant tell you too much at this point but lets just say that our view of the challenges to parenting are pretty different in Kenya where poverty, struggle, violence, threats to your child's life are part of normal life...

I have been reading lots of papers and articles..on Critical Reflexivity, Post-Colonial research, 'Whiteness Studies' and more..

It seems we have done a few things right..we have included local Kenyan professionals and academics to help mediate against our own bias.......on the down side, however, we have really not been able to engage in real particpatory research on the ground, engaging local interviewers, asking parents to help us with our 'analysis' or fostering change and self-determination by local parents or parent groups...we have also shied away from journaling, from writing in the first person, from engaging in Situational Analysis or other forms of critical reflection and positioning...

..this book seems essential...

Po-Po-Mo? WTF? Philosophy for Qual Researchers1

 

While psychology has historically been linked to philosophy (or is actually simply applied-philosophy) many contemporary psychologists have only a limited awareness of contemporary philosophical debates.

If you are a qualitative researcher, however, a lack of understanding of philosophy and the philosophical underpinnings of your methods will have serious implications for your research. You can be accused of studying blind, not seeing the paradigm in which you work and unable to be transparent about the match between your own values and those implied in your research. Qual researchers need to locate themselves philosophically before they start...

I thought Id write a few posts on philosophy for this reason, starting with contemporary debates and then perhaps moving backwards to explore some historical issues. I warn you...I only know enough to get myself in trouble...

One of the difficulties we have in psychology is that many of us haven't moved beyond research methods that are closely rooted in the empirical tradition. Grounded theory, for example, at least the original version, is built on the idea that the theory that emerges during the cycle of data collection and analysis is somehow REAL....that it truly represents what the participants experience. This is fundamentally flawed, given that the researcher is the tool by which data is analyzed....the results are CO-CONSTRUCTED and therefore grounded theory has been reconceptualised (see here for Adele Clarke).....

This reconfiguration of grounded theory was a post-modern development...based on the recognition that truth is socially constructed, local and based on a rejection of massive meta-narratives that dominate academic and cultural space.

What about now though? Is Post-modernism dead yet? what comes after it? what are the implications for qual researchers? po-po-mo?

If you read this long article from The Current there are so many options for what comes next...

Pseudo-modernism
Digimodernism
Automodernism
Complexism
Hypermodernism

...enough 'isms to make you go mental..

Im going to stick to METAMODERNISM because it makes the most sense to me and perhaps has some direct application to psychological research...Im going to try in my own words...go HERE for more, a great blog NOTES on METAMODERNISM

Postmodernism was essentially deconstructive, criticizing the quantitative/empirical tradition and hoping to dismantle it by revealing its agenda as one of social and cultural control.....it's not going to make us many friends and goes against the Ethic of Hospitality (Derrida)... Meta-modernism, however, leaves room for reconstruction and hope...it is based on the assumption that post-modernism was right, but makes room for new and exciting things to be built from the ruins...we can even go back and pick up a few modernist fragments

Paradoxically these new things can include both the products of modernism and post-modernism....we can design studies that rely on both qualitative and quantitative methods, but to develop quirky, innovative, nimble, locally relevant solutions to community problems...FREAK FOLK is metamodern...NEW SINCERITY is metamodern...small communities making things happen without pretending they are part of big movements are metamodern..

Meta- does not refer to one particular system of thought or specific structure of feeling. It infers a plurality of them, and repositions itself with and between them. It is many, but also one. Encompassing, yet fragmented. Now, yet then. Here, but also there.