Last Wednesday, 19 May, I gave a seminar on 'Introduction to Grounded Theory Research Methodology' at our School of Business and Design's weekly research seminar series.
About 20 people attended, including the Head of School, Professor Dr DP Dash, and my second supervisor Dr Peter Yu.
Although the session was supposed to be 30 minutes of presentation followed by 30 minutes of Q&A/Discussion, I went over time as there was quite a fair bit that I had planned to present.
I gave an outline presentation on the origins of GT, its main tenets, the various versions, a run through on how it works, as well as some of the problems and difficulties of doing GT research.
The audience found some parts of GT methodology somewhat difficult to understand or accept, among them the idea of entering the field without a prior research framework or hypothesis, the lack of a predetermined research question and the lack of a literature review in the immediate area. Related to this is the idea of induction as opposed to deduction which became a point of discussion during the session.
Although time constraints did not permit much discussions, there were a couple of very interesting questions and issues raised by DP.
He suggested that a research method cannot be described as fully inductive nor deductive as they are likely to incorporate both aspects in some way, and provided a helpful illustration. I agree with this as the coding process in GT involves first induction of concepts, and then deduction via the theoretical sampling technique.
DP also raised an interesting question about the nature and reliability of GT products.
He illustrated by giving a hypothetical scenario of a devastating earthquake in a backward area of a poor country. When a GT research is conducted to ask the people there of the event, they attribute it to a supernatural cause, that is, of mother goddess turning over her back and causing the quake.
The question was, whether this GT finding can be acceptable.
Obviously, such a substantive theory will not integrate with broader and established theories (especially the natural sciences).
I thought about this for a couple days and I do believe that in such as case, the GT results would still constitute a legitimate understanding of the concerns of the people in the area, despite it being 'unscientific.'
DP later commented that this is a good example of this being a 'theory for' rather than a 'theory of' something (social science as opposed to natural science). In other words, it is a 'workable' and 'usable' theory in that it still provides understanding of the concerns of people in a substantive area from which actions can be taken in the context of the beliefs, values and behavior of the people in that area.
Another question that was raised is whether TESTING is required for my project. A Glaserian GT product is a hypothesis that is ready for further testing by other more conventional means (ie quantitative research). DP wonders if a PhD project like this should incorporate a testing of the theory. I have to consult with my supervisors on this.
I should also mention that Peter Yu had in the previous week given a criticism of the GT methodology in the seminar session. I was not in attendance but we did have some lively discussions later. Thus, I guess it was fitting that I was able to make a presentation of the GT methodology, although I think it should have been done before it was criticized!
At any rate, I am grateful for the intellectual discourse that emerged as a result of these sessions, especially to Pete and to DP. They raised many interesting points and they have kept me on my toes.
Below are the Powerpoint slides that I used for the presentation.
Introduction to Grounded Theory Research Seminar
No comments:
Post a Comment