As I grapple with the question of which version of GT to use, it seems (from readings of the literature and from advice from the Methodspace forums) that my choice of GT method should stem from my philosophical perspectives.
Mills, et al (2006) say this: "To ensure a strong research design, researchers must choose a research paradigm that is congruent with their beliefs about the nature of reality. Consciously subjecting such beliefs to an ontological interrogation in the first instance will illuminate the epistemological and methodological possibilities that are available."
So it is pretty clear I need to get this sorted out for myself. These are not easy questions to answer, because, as Mills et al (2006) continue: "We do not quickly or easily reach any sort of conclusion or resolution about our own view of the nature of truth and reality. We are all influenced by our history and cultural context, which, in turn, shape our view of the world, the forces of creation, and the meaning of truth. Often these underlying assumptions about the world are unconscious and taken for granted."
Here are some critical issues to lay out and examine.
Epistemology
Epistemology refers to the nature of knowledge. What is or can be known, and what cannot be known. How can something be known. It addresses the following:
- What is knowledge?
- How is knowledge acquired?
- What do people know?
- How do we know what we know?
- What is truth?
- How is knowledge produced?
Epistemology and Methodolgy
Both deal with how we come to know- while Epistemology is the philosophy of how we come to know, Methodology is concerned with the methods and how we study phenomenon.
Thus, methodology should arise from an epistemological orientation. This mean the methods and design of the research project should follow how I see the world and how I understand (and want) to arrive at knowledge.
Theories of Knowledge
These addresses the question of how knowledge is acquired. There are 3 schools, and it seems that constructivism has become quite popular lately.
1. Empiricism
Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception that enables observation of evidences, in the formation of ideas.
Scientific research method dictates that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world to ascertain the validity of what should be hailed as knowledge. Quantitative research analysis fits in here very well.
2. Rationalism
Knowledge is innate and not derived from experience, that is, knowledge is derived from brain-power, or 'intuitive'
3. Constructivism
Constructivism is a research paradigm that denies the existence of an objective reality, “asserting instead that realities are social constructions of the mind, and that there exist as many such constructions as there are individuals (although clearly many constructions will be shared)” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 43).
Constructivism is relativistic- knowledge is "constructed" in as much as it is contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience.
Relativists claim that concepts such as rationality, truth, reality, right, good, or norms must be understood “as relative to a specific conceptual scheme, theoretical framework, paradigm, form of life, society, or culture . . . there is a non-reducible plurality of such conceptual schemes” (Bernstein, 1983, p. 8).
Basically, these ideas argue on whether reality is objective- does it exist independent of the people who perceive it (including objective truth that is separated from personal beliefs) or whether reality is heavily conditioned on the people who perceived it (if I close my eyes, does the world go away?).
In constructivist research, the subjective interrelationship between the researcher and participant is important in the co-construction of meaning (Hayes & Oppenheim, 1997; Pidgeon & Henwood, 1997).
Researchers, in their “humanness,” are part of the research endeavor rather than objective observers, and their values must be acknowledged by themselves and by their readers as an inevitable part of the outcome (Appleton, 1997; de Laine, 1997; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Stratton, 1997).
Paradigms for Qualitative Research
Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) suggest three categories, based on the underlying research epistemology- positivist, interpretive and critical.
1. Positivist research
The basic affirmations of Positivism are (1) that all knowledge regarding matters of fact is based on the "positive" data of experience, and (2) that beyond the realm of fact is that of pure logic and pure mathematics.
Positivism assumes that reality is objective. It is empirically-based and can be described by measurable properties which are independent of the observer (researcher) and his instruments. Positivist studies generally attempt to test theory, in an attempt to increase the predictive understanding of phenomena.
Grounded theory as originally conceived by Glaser and Strauss (1967) is rooted in the notion that comparing observations among cases enables theory to emerge- this means it has a strong positivist-objectivist anchor in that it presumes reality external to the researcher can be objectively discovered, characterized, and reported.
Post-positivism
The Research Methods Knowledge Base has a very good explanation of post-positivism, which is copied below:
Postpositivists believe that human knowledge is based not on unchallengeable, rock-solid foundations, but rather upon human conjectures. As human knowledge is thus unavoidably conjectural, the assertion of these conjectures is warranted, or more specifically, justified by a set of warrants, which can be modified or withdrawn in the light of further investigation.
Post-positivist critical realist recognizes that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable. In other words, the critical realist is critical of our ability to know reality with certainty.
Where the positivist believed that the goal of science was to uncover the truth, the post-positivist critical realist believes that the goal of science is to hold steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality, even though we can never achieve that goal!
Because all measurement is fallible, the post-positivist emphasizes the importance of multiple measures and observations, each of which may possess different types of error, and the need to use triangulation across these multiple errorful sources to try to get a better bead on what's happening in reality.
(For a GT research, triangulation would mean imposing a quantitative type exercise to validate the results of the GT process).
The post-positivist also believes that all observations are theory-laden and that scientists (and everyone else, for that matter) are inherently biased by their cultural experiences, world views, and so on.
Post-positivists reject the idea that any individual can see the world perfectly as it really is. We are all biased and all of our observations are affected (theory-laden). Our best hope for achieving objectivity is to triangulate across multiple fallible perspectives!
Thus, objectivity is not the characteristic of an individual, it is inherently a social phenomenon. It is what multiple individuals are trying to achieve when they criticize each other's work. We never achieve objectivity perfectly, but we can approach it.
(This reminds me of DIALECTICAL THINKING which my supervisor Peter Yu mentioned to me just a couple of days ago, and whose ONE-DOT THEORY is based on. A little on DIALECTICS at the bottom).
Constructivists
Most post-positivists are constructivists who believe that we each construct our view of the world based on our perceptions of it. Because perception and observation is fallible, our constructions must be imperfect.
So what is meant by objectivity in a post-positivist world? Positivists believed that objectivity was a characteristic that resided in the individual scientist. Scientists are responsible for putting aside their biases and beliefs and seeing the world as it 'really' is.
"Data do not provide a window on reality. Rather, the ‘discovered’ reality arises from the interactive process and its temporal, cultural, and structural contexts” (Charmaz, 2000).
There is an underlying assumption that the interaction between the researcher and participants “produces the data, and therefore the meanings that the researcher observes and defines.” Following Charmaz, researchers need to go beyond the surface in seeking meaning in the data, searching for and questioning tacit meanings
about values, beliefs, and ideologies (Mills et al, 2006).
2. Interpretivist research
Interpretivism sounds a lot like constructivism, in my opinion. The assumption for interpretive research is that knowledge is gained, or filtered, through social constructions such as language, consciousness, and shared meanings (Klein & Myers, 1999). This means that things like language and symbols go a long way to decide how we come to understand things.
In addition to the emphasis on the socially constructed nature of reality, interpretive research acknowledges the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is being explored, and the situational constraints shaping this process.
3. Critical research
Critical research focuses on opposing, critiquing and confronting the status quo.
nStrauss and Corbin argue for unbiased data collection, a set of technical procedures and the need for verification, implying their belief in an objective external reality.
n However, Strauss and Corbin have since moved away from traditional positivism to a more relativist-pragmatic perspective through their acknowledgment that respondents views of reality may conflict with their own (See Strauss and Corbin 1998).
Much of the debate surrounding the various GT methods revolve around their respective epistemological leanings.
nStrauss and Corbin argue for unbiased data collection, a set of technical procedures and the need for verification, implying their belief in an objective external reality.
nHowever, Strauss and Corbin have since moved away from traditional positivism to a more relativist-pragmatic perspective through their acknowledgment that respondents views of reality may conflict with their own (See Strauss and Corbin 1998).Charmaz attains a constructivist position, and there are still others whose GT versions follow developments away from the traditional positivist stance.
Glaser appears to insist that the term Grounded Theory applies to his original conception (1967) with Strauss and elaborated in his later publications.
He argues that the Strauss and Corbin, Charmaz and the other versions are not GT per se, but forms of Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA).
Orders of Thinking
All these can get complicated and for me thus far, they raise a whole lot more questions than answers in many instances.
Recently, my supervisor Peter Yu brough to my attention DIALECTICAL THINKING, so I looked it up.
It has to do with ORDERS of THINKING.
We can be DOGMATIC, PLURALISTIC OR DIALECTIC in our thought.
Being dogmatic essentially means to an extreme rigidity of thought, or to buy into an idea so much that we have determined not to agree with anything else.
Pluralistic thinking is one step away from dogmatism in that although a person is sold on the belief system he has subscribed to, he is open to the idea that other belief systems can be okay for other people, as culture and other conditions provide different contexts.
Being dialectical, on the other hand, refers to the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives. It considers that change is a given, meaning everything is in a flux and that situations are often complicated. It is a form of analytical reasoning that tries to reconcile difficult and contradictory information and situations in the most efficient and logical manner.
I see it as a sort of "Half the distance to the goal-line" idea in American football.
The pursuit of absolute truth and knowledge is never ending because there will always be questions, conflicts and controversies.
Hence, being dialectical means we should never claim that we have all the right answers, because there might be other ways of doing things that are better and more 'correct' than what we presently know.
Thus, it is necessary to keep checking and learning to try to get closer to the goal-line (although we admit we will never really reach it in absolute objective terms).
My Thoughts
As I ponder all these, I realize that one does not have to commit himself to a specific paradigm, and to declare that all our thoughts, beliefs, behavior and the way we relate to the world around us are invariably determined by any one such type of philosophy.
I think that we can be objectivist with some things, pragmatic and constructivist in others.
We can be dogmatic about certain things which we are convinced to have transcendent and objective truth (religious faith, perhaps) and are non-negotiable.
But in other things, our behavior may indicate our pluralistic thinking and our pragmatism toward those areas, like in our dealings with others and in our work.
Thinking about these things can be really exhausting (it can consume your waking hours and invade your dreams).
The advise to first know WHO YOU ARE and what values you are aligned to before undertaking this project is a good and necessary one, but I think it is impossible to pursue it to its conclusion as it will take too long.
It has certainly started a spark in me and ignited an interest in self-discovery in this area, but this is heavy-duty stuff and I know I will come to complete grips with or resolve it in the near future.
So, instead of trying to find out WHO I really I am in terms of these paradigms for the sake of coming up with the research design, I think a more feasible approach is to decide to EMBRACE the epistemological paradigm that is matched to the research orientation.
So this is what I shall do.
I shall decide on the choice of a GT method based on its merits and I shall fit my epistemological to it.
I choose the Glaserian/Orthodox GT to obtain an abstract conceptualization (not description) of the substantive area to be studied.
Glaserian GT recognizes an objective reality. As a researcher, I will not co-construct people's reality, but I will collect data about their lives and concerns in an objective manner. I will not impose my knowledge and beliefs in any way, but I will stay neutral and independent.
In such a manner, the data shall dictate the research. Conceptual understandings shall emerge according to the data.
Now, on to Research Design.
References:
Appleton, J. (1997). Constructivism: A naturalistic methodology for nursing inquiry. Advances in Nursing Science, 20(2), 13-22.
Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
de Laine, M. (1997). Ethnography: Theory and applications in health research. Sydney, Australia: Maclennan and Petty.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hayes, R.,&Oppenheim, R. (1997). Constructivism: Reality is what you make it. In T. Sexton&B. Griffin (Eds.), Constructivist thinking in counseling practice, research and training (pp. 19-41). New York: Teachers College Press.
Klein, H., & Myers, M., (1999), “A Set of Principals for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol 23, No 1, pp 67-94.
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), Article 3. Retrieved [date] from
http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/pdf/mills.pdf
Orlikowski, W.J. & Baroudi, J.J. "Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions", Information Systems Research (2) 1991, pp. 1-28.
Pidgeon, N., & Henwood, K. (1997). Using grounded theory in psychological research. In N. Hayes (Ed.), Doing qualitative analysis in psychology (pp. 245-273). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment