Something I wrote ages ago:
The importance of a reflexive approach is, perhaps, defined by what might happen if researchers are not reflexive. If the subjectivity of the researcher is denied or ignored, then the analysis takes no account of the reactions of the subjects to the interviewer and thus a large section of the social interaction that has taken place is not considered when constructing frameworks or theories in action.
During the course of my study on both the Open University Masters’ and Doctor of Education programmes, one particular facet of my own development which has been of interest is the development of a more reflective approach to my reading, to my research, and to my practice as a teacher. [Assignments] ... formed part of my audit trail – documenting the changes in my outlook to research in general, to Grounded Theory, and to the research questions that I... [was] investigating.
Reflexivity is closely bound up with, though separate from, reflective practice. The question of reflexivity on the part of the researcher is bound up with the historical development of qualitative action research. The issue of insider research has caused many researchers (including me) to have concerns that the very act of being part of the context being explored will change that context and affect the respondents to the detriment of enabling a theory to emerge. Hellawell (2006: 1) writes about reflexivity, referring to Shacklock and Smyth (1998), who give us the notion of “the conscious revelation of the role of the beliefs and values held by researchers in the selection of research methodology for the generation of knowledge”. As Hellawell points out this indicates a “deliberate self-scrutiny in relation to the research process”.
In other words, to be reflexive, the writer/researcher needs to reflect on her/his own potential impact on the phenomena being investigated. In fact, we should use this reflexivity to monitor the research process, and then, as Finlay (2002: 210) writes, the process is made clear and obvious and “personal experience is transformed into public, accountable knowledge”.
It is important, as Finlay points out, to maintain transparency by clear documentation of all interactions (in my case, interviews), and how these led to the next interaction (for me, how the analysis of each interview, along with my literature search, affected the schedule for the next set of interviews).
There remains a concern that the researcher has put her/his own inference on the analysis of the context. In fact, the constant process of re-analysis could even be regarded as muddying the waters rather than clearing them. Perhaps these concerns could be said actually to be the defining nature of late twentieth and early twenty-first century sociological writing. As Finlay writes, we have become very concerned with being self-analytical.
Finlay proposes certain ‘maps’ to negotiate what she terms the ‘swamp’ of reflexive research. The following gives a very brief account of each of these maps.
• Introspection – thinking about how I feel as the researcher and documenting this for the benefit of the reader, so that s/he may determine a fit with other contexts.
• Intersubjectivity – considering how the respondents might feel and discussing this as a means of further analysis of the way that the research has developed.
• Mutual collaboration – actively discussing with the respondents the relationships that have formed as part of the research
• Social critique – here, we might be seeking to describe a particular social phenomenon (for example, how the leadership style of the Head teacher and her/his professional relationships affect the process of change management within a school) –if using this map, it will be important to consider any power imbalance between the researcher and the respondents.
• Discursive deconstruction – here, Finlay warns of the need to be careful not to over analyse. In deconstructing, we may be in danger of not putting back together again. Like Pole’s flower, do the individual parts of the flower come back together to give us the idea of the beauty of a flower?
Finlay, L. (2002) ‘Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice’. Qualitative Research. 2, 2: 209-230 Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Hellawell, D. (2006) ‘Inside-out: analysis of the insider-outsider concept as a heuristic device to develop reflexivity in students doing qualitative research’. Teaching in Higher Education. 11, 4: 483 - 494
Monday, July 25, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Just my view on Grounded Theory - please feel free to disagree
What is Grounded Theory?
The principle of generating theory through textual or contextual data is usually associated with the methodological approach first used by Glaser and Strauss (1965) in their work with the terminally ill. They coined the phrase ‘grounded theory’, and this approach is widely used in all disciplines of psychology, as well as other human sciences. ‘Grounding’ is not simply a research technique but is based upon the developments about learning and understanding as well as being related to the debates about the social generation of scientific knowledge.
The development of grounded theory, or GT, came at a time when qualitative research rested mainly on the use of quantitative methods such as questionnaires. There was a preoccupation with testing abstract theories rather than developing theories that related directly and empirically to the context being studied. Glaser and Strauss chose the term ‘grounded theory’ to describe an iterative process of sampling and analysis of qualitative data collected from concrete settings such as interviews, participant observation, and archival research.
Wilhelm Dilthey (1977) argued that it would be a mistake to pursue causal explanation at the expense of establishing understanding (Verstehen or ‘meaning’). The work of Schutz (1962) also uses the idea of Verstehen in terms of interpreting everyday understandings. Blumer (1969) employed an essentially symbolic interactionist perspective, which sees human interaction as a complex system of gesture, symbols, and language that is embedded in the social context. From this perspective, the only way to unravel or make sense of this complexity is to engage in interpretive work within the everyday context in order to construct a theory that attempts to explain the social reality at that time and in that place.
The method of grounded theory research is associated with developing a coding system that is constantly analysed and refined throughout the process with the generation of theory as its goal. This coding system is a key feature but it is important to recognise that the grounded theory approach is not just content analysis or thematic analysis, although both of these are certainly means of enhancing reliability and validity. Grounded theory goes further than being a form of content analysis because it has the goal of generating theory, and to this end it has two other key features: constant comparison and theoretical sampling. Constant comparison relies on continually sifting the data as new categories emerge and theoretical propositions suggest themselves. Theoretical sampling involves the active sampling of new cases as the analysis proceeds. This is very important in terms of defending arguments based on the analysis of a body of data, because it means that new cases and categories can be actively sought to test theories in action. There is thus a dynamic relationship between the collection and the analysis of data, which other methodological stances do not necessarily have. Analysis begins as soon as data is available, rather than waiting for a predefined amount of data to be collected. Essentially, the literature review which precedes and runs in tandem with gathering contextual data can be seen as part of this grounded theory approach since the reader will always be redefining her/his working hypotheses as a result of the work of others and will also be using these emerging categories to shape the new research.
Human nature is such that it is highly likely that the researcher will bring some personal theories to the start of a grounded theory study, even if these are weakly defined at this stage. Thomas and James (2006: 7) criticise the concept of GT, partly because of this issue of personal experience. Mjøset (2005: 5) is also challenging GT as a methodology. However, he pinpoints an important issue: “Grounded Theory [….] does not aim to generalize to a broader population.” The importance of the GT approach is that the situations being explored are too complex to explain using only a priori theories or hypotheses that might have been formulated before the research was undertaken and based upon generalisations from other situations. The only way that a satisfactory fit can be made between theory and actuality is by generating articulated hypotheses in context as they emerge.
Wright Mills (1959: 6) propounds the idea of a ‘sociological imagination’ to describe the link between the socio-economic background of the phenomenon being investigated and the life history of the participants in the research (the respondents and the researcher). The underlying aim of Wright Mills’ concept of the sociological imagination was to contribute to the discussion about the validity of social sciences at a time when the natural sciences were still much more highly thought of.
Anfara and Mertz (2006: xiv) cite Silver (1983) as defining theory as “a unique way of perceiving reality” leading not only to a deeper insight but also to a “fresh and different perception of an aspect of the world”.
The tacit understanding that I have as an insider researcher, coupled with the richness of the data, and alongside my approach to GT/situational analysis gives me just this kind of profound insight and leads to emergent grounded theory. Although Anfara and Mertz present a linear relationship from concepts/events to constructs (“clusters of thoughts”) to propositions (or “expressions of relationships among several constructs”) to theory ( “a ‘set’ of propositions”), the process is probably nested or looped, since the researcher may move backwards and forwards between concepts, constructs and propositions before any kind of substantive theory emerges. Even then, the emerging theory may drive the analysis back to the very beginning and start off a new loop. For Anfara and Mertz (ibid: xvii) a theory is useful if it “tells an enlightening story […] that gives new insights and broadens your understanding”.
Anfara and Mertz (ibid: xxii-xxiii) cite Cresswell (1994: 86), stating that, for him, ethnography or phenomenology involves starting with a framework whereas in grounded theory the data collection and analysis takes place before “using theory”. This is something of an oversimplification of the situation and indicates a clear cut dichotomy on theoretical stances.
Figure 3.1 lists Cresswell’s five ‘research traditions’ of qualitative research, along with his paradigmatic assumptions and ideological perspectives, as referred to by Anfara and Mertz (2006: xxii – xxiii).
![]()
click to enlarge
For example, I could take 1, 2, 3, and 4 from figure 3.1, map them on to a, b, and c, and ‘underpin’ them with all of the ideological perspectives listed. This would lead to my use of narrative transcripts with my own ontology/epistemology/methodology clearly determining the constructs and propositions that I develop. My ideological perspective is such a mixture of those stated above that it would be difficult to divorce them from my whole conceptual framework.
Anfara and Mertz do go on (ibid: xxiii, xxiv) to consider the work of Merriam (1998), who indicates the ways in which our framework as researchers is linked to a particular literature base and disciplinary orientation – making the whole process ‘theory laden’. They also (ibid: xxv) refer to the work of Mills (1993: 103, 144) who defined theory as an ‘analytical and interpretive framework’ which is for helping the researcher to make sense of a situation. Mills, as reported by Anfara and Mertz, perceives that there are both implicit and explicit theories “underlying” any investigation – even when a theory is “purported to be emergent”, the study will have been framed by beliefs and initial propositions.
As Anfara and Mertz write (ibid: xvii), it is the “diversity and richness” of these initial analytical frameworks that encourage researchers to “see in new and different ways what seems to be ordinary and familiar”.
Flyvbjerg (2001) takes a different view of the role of the social sciences in being able to generate theory. He asserts that there is little point in trying to generate empirical theories, such as in the natural sciences, since the very matter being subjected to investigation cannot be suitable for that approach. He bases his work on the Aristotelian division of knowledge into episteme (scientific, know why, irrefutable), techne (craft, know how) and phronesis (ethics, values, variable, context dependent). If we are investigating what is basically a value-laden human phenomenon, Flyvbjerg suggests that we should take a phronetic approach to our methodology. In such methodology, he suggests we ask the following questions (2001: 60):
1. Where are we going?
2. Is this desirable?
3. What should be done?
4. Who gains and who loses; by which mechanisms of power?
As he states, this means that there is an implicit investigation of values but he denies that this lays the approach open to criticisms of relativism since (ibid: 132) a “focus on relations of values and power” leads to interest from others than the researcher. These others will evaluate the research themselves so the phronetic researcher must deliberately assimilate the context and learn from it – without ‘going native’.
Henstrand (2006: 16) actually embraces the idea of ‘going native’, stating that “proponents of ethnomethodology” actively encourage the researcher to become involved with the group being studied in order to “understand the contextual meanings and avoid distorting the vision of the world” – here she cites Adler and Adler (1987: 32); “going native is the solution rather than the problem”.
On the topic of the richness of data and how this can lead, if not to a simple theory, then certainly to a clearer understanding of the situation, Flyvbjerg (ibid: 133) says that phronetic researchers must begin by asking “little questions” and, with patience and attention to detail, focus on Geertz’s (1973) “thick description”. Flyvbjerg would probably agree with Wright Mills: the problem with Grand Theories is that they are too general to ever be empirically observable.
Grounded theory in contemporary studies makes use of a rich array of data, building in an assimilation of contextual partiality. This potent combination allows the researcher to use the joint processes of data collection, literature search and content analysis to probe deeply into relationships and power interactions. The emerging themes and substantive hypotheses which are formed can then be used to continually develop the investigative area.
References (sorry cardinal sin, a couple missing Mills, and Adler and Adler)
Anfara, V. A., Jr., and Mertz, N. T. (2006) (eds.) Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. California, USA: Sage
Blumer, H. (1969) ‘The methodological position of Symbolic Interactionism’. In H. Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
Creswell, J. W. (1994) Research design, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Dilthey, W. (1977) Descriptive Psychology and Historical Understanding (R. M. Zaner and K. L. Heiges, Trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff (Original work published 1894)
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basicflooks
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1965) Awareness of Dying. Chicago, Illinois: Aldine
Henstrand, J. L. (2006) ‘Seeking an Understanding of School Culture: Using Theory as a Framework for Observation and Analysis’. In Anfara, V. A., Jr., and Mertz, N. T. (2006) (eds.) Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. California, USA: Sage
Mjøset, L. (2005) ‘Challenges to Grounded Theory’. Paper for the 37th World congress of the International Institute of Sociology, Stockholm, July 2005
Thomas, G. and James, D. (2006) ‘Reinventing grounded theory: some questions about theory, ground and discovery.’ British Educational Research Journal, 32, 6: 767 – 795, Routledge
Wright Mills, C (1959) The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press
The principle of generating theory through textual or contextual data is usually associated with the methodological approach first used by Glaser and Strauss (1965) in their work with the terminally ill. They coined the phrase ‘grounded theory’, and this approach is widely used in all disciplines of psychology, as well as other human sciences. ‘Grounding’ is not simply a research technique but is based upon the developments about learning and understanding as well as being related to the debates about the social generation of scientific knowledge.
The development of grounded theory, or GT, came at a time when qualitative research rested mainly on the use of quantitative methods such as questionnaires. There was a preoccupation with testing abstract theories rather than developing theories that related directly and empirically to the context being studied. Glaser and Strauss chose the term ‘grounded theory’ to describe an iterative process of sampling and analysis of qualitative data collected from concrete settings such as interviews, participant observation, and archival research.
Wilhelm Dilthey (1977) argued that it would be a mistake to pursue causal explanation at the expense of establishing understanding (Verstehen or ‘meaning’). The work of Schutz (1962) also uses the idea of Verstehen in terms of interpreting everyday understandings. Blumer (1969) employed an essentially symbolic interactionist perspective, which sees human interaction as a complex system of gesture, symbols, and language that is embedded in the social context. From this perspective, the only way to unravel or make sense of this complexity is to engage in interpretive work within the everyday context in order to construct a theory that attempts to explain the social reality at that time and in that place.
The method of grounded theory research is associated with developing a coding system that is constantly analysed and refined throughout the process with the generation of theory as its goal. This coding system is a key feature but it is important to recognise that the grounded theory approach is not just content analysis or thematic analysis, although both of these are certainly means of enhancing reliability and validity. Grounded theory goes further than being a form of content analysis because it has the goal of generating theory, and to this end it has two other key features: constant comparison and theoretical sampling. Constant comparison relies on continually sifting the data as new categories emerge and theoretical propositions suggest themselves. Theoretical sampling involves the active sampling of new cases as the analysis proceeds. This is very important in terms of defending arguments based on the analysis of a body of data, because it means that new cases and categories can be actively sought to test theories in action. There is thus a dynamic relationship between the collection and the analysis of data, which other methodological stances do not necessarily have. Analysis begins as soon as data is available, rather than waiting for a predefined amount of data to be collected. Essentially, the literature review which precedes and runs in tandem with gathering contextual data can be seen as part of this grounded theory approach since the reader will always be redefining her/his working hypotheses as a result of the work of others and will also be using these emerging categories to shape the new research.
Human nature is such that it is highly likely that the researcher will bring some personal theories to the start of a grounded theory study, even if these are weakly defined at this stage. Thomas and James (2006: 7) criticise the concept of GT, partly because of this issue of personal experience. Mjøset (2005: 5) is also challenging GT as a methodology. However, he pinpoints an important issue: “Grounded Theory [….] does not aim to generalize to a broader population.” The importance of the GT approach is that the situations being explored are too complex to explain using only a priori theories or hypotheses that might have been formulated before the research was undertaken and based upon generalisations from other situations. The only way that a satisfactory fit can be made between theory and actuality is by generating articulated hypotheses in context as they emerge.
Wright Mills (1959: 6) propounds the idea of a ‘sociological imagination’ to describe the link between the socio-economic background of the phenomenon being investigated and the life history of the participants in the research (the respondents and the researcher). The underlying aim of Wright Mills’ concept of the sociological imagination was to contribute to the discussion about the validity of social sciences at a time when the natural sciences were still much more highly thought of.
Anfara and Mertz (2006: xiv) cite Silver (1983) as defining theory as “a unique way of perceiving reality” leading not only to a deeper insight but also to a “fresh and different perception of an aspect of the world”.
The tacit understanding that I have as an insider researcher, coupled with the richness of the data, and alongside my approach to GT/situational analysis gives me just this kind of profound insight and leads to emergent grounded theory. Although Anfara and Mertz present a linear relationship from concepts/events to constructs (“clusters of thoughts”) to propositions (or “expressions of relationships among several constructs”) to theory ( “a ‘set’ of propositions”), the process is probably nested or looped, since the researcher may move backwards and forwards between concepts, constructs and propositions before any kind of substantive theory emerges. Even then, the emerging theory may drive the analysis back to the very beginning and start off a new loop. For Anfara and Mertz (ibid: xvii) a theory is useful if it “tells an enlightening story […] that gives new insights and broadens your understanding”.
Anfara and Mertz (ibid: xxii-xxiii) cite Cresswell (1994: 86), stating that, for him, ethnography or phenomenology involves starting with a framework whereas in grounded theory the data collection and analysis takes place before “using theory”. This is something of an oversimplification of the situation and indicates a clear cut dichotomy on theoretical stances.
Figure 3.1 lists Cresswell’s five ‘research traditions’ of qualitative research, along with his paradigmatic assumptions and ideological perspectives, as referred to by Anfara and Mertz (2006: xxii – xxiii).
click to enlarge
For example, I could take 1, 2, 3, and 4 from figure 3.1, map them on to a, b, and c, and ‘underpin’ them with all of the ideological perspectives listed. This would lead to my use of narrative transcripts with my own ontology/epistemology/methodology clearly determining the constructs and propositions that I develop. My ideological perspective is such a mixture of those stated above that it would be difficult to divorce them from my whole conceptual framework.
Anfara and Mertz do go on (ibid: xxiii, xxiv) to consider the work of Merriam (1998), who indicates the ways in which our framework as researchers is linked to a particular literature base and disciplinary orientation – making the whole process ‘theory laden’. They also (ibid: xxv) refer to the work of Mills (1993: 103, 144) who defined theory as an ‘analytical and interpretive framework’ which is for helping the researcher to make sense of a situation. Mills, as reported by Anfara and Mertz, perceives that there are both implicit and explicit theories “underlying” any investigation – even when a theory is “purported to be emergent”, the study will have been framed by beliefs and initial propositions.
As Anfara and Mertz write (ibid: xvii), it is the “diversity and richness” of these initial analytical frameworks that encourage researchers to “see in new and different ways what seems to be ordinary and familiar”.
Flyvbjerg (2001) takes a different view of the role of the social sciences in being able to generate theory. He asserts that there is little point in trying to generate empirical theories, such as in the natural sciences, since the very matter being subjected to investigation cannot be suitable for that approach. He bases his work on the Aristotelian division of knowledge into episteme (scientific, know why, irrefutable), techne (craft, know how) and phronesis (ethics, values, variable, context dependent). If we are investigating what is basically a value-laden human phenomenon, Flyvbjerg suggests that we should take a phronetic approach to our methodology. In such methodology, he suggests we ask the following questions (2001: 60):
1. Where are we going?
2. Is this desirable?
3. What should be done?
4. Who gains and who loses; by which mechanisms of power?
As he states, this means that there is an implicit investigation of values but he denies that this lays the approach open to criticisms of relativism since (ibid: 132) a “focus on relations of values and power” leads to interest from others than the researcher. These others will evaluate the research themselves so the phronetic researcher must deliberately assimilate the context and learn from it – without ‘going native’.
Henstrand (2006: 16) actually embraces the idea of ‘going native’, stating that “proponents of ethnomethodology” actively encourage the researcher to become involved with the group being studied in order to “understand the contextual meanings and avoid distorting the vision of the world” – here she cites Adler and Adler (1987: 32); “going native is the solution rather than the problem”.
On the topic of the richness of data and how this can lead, if not to a simple theory, then certainly to a clearer understanding of the situation, Flyvbjerg (ibid: 133) says that phronetic researchers must begin by asking “little questions” and, with patience and attention to detail, focus on Geertz’s (1973) “thick description”. Flyvbjerg would probably agree with Wright Mills: the problem with Grand Theories is that they are too general to ever be empirically observable.
Grounded theory in contemporary studies makes use of a rich array of data, building in an assimilation of contextual partiality. This potent combination allows the researcher to use the joint processes of data collection, literature search and content analysis to probe deeply into relationships and power interactions. The emerging themes and substantive hypotheses which are formed can then be used to continually develop the investigative area.
References (sorry cardinal sin, a couple missing Mills, and Adler and Adler)
Anfara, V. A., Jr., and Mertz, N. T. (2006) (eds.) Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. California, USA: Sage
Blumer, H. (1969) ‘The methodological position of Symbolic Interactionism’. In H. Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
Creswell, J. W. (1994) Research design, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Dilthey, W. (1977) Descriptive Psychology and Historical Understanding (R. M. Zaner and K. L. Heiges, Trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff (Original work published 1894)
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basicflooks
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1965) Awareness of Dying. Chicago, Illinois: Aldine
Henstrand, J. L. (2006) ‘Seeking an Understanding of School Culture: Using Theory as a Framework for Observation and Analysis’. In Anfara, V. A., Jr., and Mertz, N. T. (2006) (eds.) Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. California, USA: Sage
Mjøset, L. (2005) ‘Challenges to Grounded Theory’. Paper for the 37th World congress of the International Institute of Sociology, Stockholm, July 2005
Thomas, G. and James, D. (2006) ‘Reinventing grounded theory: some questions about theory, ground and discovery.’ British Educational Research Journal, 32, 6: 767 – 795, Routledge
Wright Mills, C (1959) The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
