Please address the following in your blog:
1. If you were explaining grounded theory to a fellow
Ph.D. student, how would you define it in terms that would be familiar to her/him? This should be three sentences
max.
2. Compare grounded theory to critical narrative inquiry
and critical ethnography. How are they
similar/different in terms of purpose/underlying beliefs; processes and
procedures; definitions of critical stance/social justice; and how do they
connect methodology with theory?
3. What in this article resonates with you as a
researcher, or even as an observer of human behavior and action?
1. If you were explaining grounded theory to a fellow Ph.D. student, how would you define it in terms that would be familiar to her/him? This should be three sentences max.
ReplyDeleteGrounded theory is a method that addresses social justice through a comparative process in which you compare data to data.
2. Compare grounded theory to critical narrative inquiry and critical ethnography. How are they similar/different in terms of purpose/underlying beliefs; processes and procedures; definitions of critical stance/social justice; and how do they connect methodology with theory?
All three methods utilize discourse analysis as a way to mediate information and use it construct information related to lives of individuals and social theories. They are inductive processes as they use the stories and narratives others as data. Coding is used to analyze the data by finding categories and themes that are then used to construct meaning.
Grounded theory and critical ethnography have defined elements to the process of collecting, analyzing and interpreting data. The purpose of grounded theory is to explain an event/situation or create a theory in contrast to the purpose of critical ethnography, which is to describe a social cultural context in order to change the social theory by understanding the voice and agency of the participants. Grounded theory relies on short interviews for data whereas both narrative inquiry and critical ethnography utilize a variety of data including observations, interviews and researcher experiences within the context.
Narrative Inquiry begins with a question and is less structured in terms of how to analyze the data. Narrative inquiry also shares in the experience with the participants where grounded theory researchers do not.
3. What in this article resonates with you as a researcher, or even as an observer of human behavior and action?
The way that Charmaz organizes the two stories to build the evidence that demonstrates the social justice issue resonates with me. I like the comparative nature of using both stories because I think the trends and themes emerge more clearly and allows the questions to surface in a natural and organic way. Charmaz states that researchers “must find the range of meanings and learn how people form them” (p.522). I appreciate the respectful nature of this statement because it allows for the individuals voice to be heard and the processes through which they come to their own conclusions. Lastly, the notion of “silence” resonated with me, particularly after my first assignment when I went looking for information and neglected to acknowledge the silence. Charmaz describes the importance of silence both on the individual level and social organizational cultures. The silence speaks to power relationships that can contribute to and sustain oppressive cultural norms. Charmaz provides the path of mapping data from narratives as a way to make the silence visible by sharing the experiences of those who have been silenced. This provides a strength to qualitative research that I had not considered fully until participating in the class.
I agree "silence" can be informative and powerful and should be acknowledged in analysis. I liked the comparative nature of grounded theory too. This type of investigative research makes sense of social structures and human agency.
ReplyDeleteGrounded theory is a qualitative research method that generates a theory based on interview data that is co-constructed by the participant the researcher. The theory is generated by comparing data with data, then data with categories, and category with category. It considers three main social justice issues: first, present, partial, or absent resources; second, social hierarchies; third, consequences of social policies and practices.
ReplyDeleteCharmaz wrote “Grounded theory studies can show how inequalities are played out at interactional and organizational levels” (p.512). This is similar to critical narrative inquiry and critical ethnography as there is the critical paradigm that questions social systems, structural systems and historical backgrounds. The research methods are similar in that they seek to disrupt, to change unfair practices. As we have discussed in class, this didn’t just happen, there are issues that caused these things to happen.
Charmaz explained, “Adopting my alternative tack involves juxtaposing participants’ definitions against academic or sociological notions. In turn, researchers themselves must be reflexive about how they represent participants’ constructions and enactments” (p. 513). We have discussed the importance of locating your ontological and epistemological positions before you can understand how your perspectives influence the co-construction of the analysis. We all bring our own perspectives to the situation which cannot be ignored. Moreover, the researcher must take an active role in keeping the participant’s voice. Finally, the co-construction should be a balance between our own analysis and the participant’s perspective.
Kristen, I am wonder about the balance between our own analysis and the participants. A balance suggests an equal amount of our analysis/interpretation and the participants perspective. I agree that as you name yourself, both ontologically and epistemologically, you can understand how your perspectives influence your analysis. I think this allows you to ensure your analysis allows the participants voice to be primary.
DeleteThinking about this further, I appreciated how Lutrell (2000) described "Good Enough" research and referred to something lost and something gained as as result of the co-constructed analysis. She wrote "At this point I made a decision to focus on patterns, not individuals, and as a result something was lost and something else was gained. I lost the capacity to see each woman primarily as an individual with her own story to tell, but I gained clarity on what I came to understand as the links between the social and psychological in the women's narratives (p.508). I think this makes sense as we position ourselves as qualitative researchers to be able to explain our approach.
Delete1. If you were explaining grounded theory to a fellow Ph.D. student, how would you define it in terms that would be familiar to her/him? This should be three sentences max.
ReplyDeleteGrounded theory gives you the tools for allowing you to analyze relations between human agency and social structures. Data refines the emerging analyses and goes beyond description and interpretation. There is simultaneous data collection and analysis which inform each other thereby increasing knowledge of larger structures and how they work.
2. Compare grounded theory to critical narrative inquiry and critical ethnography. How are they similar/different in terms of purpose/underlying beliefs; processes and procedures; definitions of critical stance/social justice; and how do they connect methodology with theory?
All the methods are an inductive process using discourse analysis that involves coding of participants data (interviews, and narratives). Grounded theory uses short interviews and narrative inquiry and critical ethnography use a variety of data sources. A critical stance can be used in all three methods. Grounded theory and critical ethnography focus on emerging analyses. Grounded theory and critical ethnography provides tools and principles which provide robustness of outcomes. Grounded theory tells a story much like narrative inquiry; yet, critical ethnography examines truth in terms of consensus and claims. Grounded theory and narrative inquiry offer statements about conditions under which injustice or justice develops. Grounded theory can yield new theoretical positions and requires the researcher to engage in a reflexive practice. Narrative inquiry is less about larger structures as compared to grounded theory that looks at the micro meso and macro spheres of influences. Narrative inquiry draws upon Freiere, Dewey, and Bordieu. Grounded theory uses Dewey and revised Chicago school principles. All methods of inquiry draw upon Vygotskian beliefs of mediated learning.
3. What in this article resonates with you as a researcher, or even as an observer of human behavior and action?
I think grounded theory addresses questions about the dynamic nature of human behavior and culture and seems to be an appropriate method for understanding structure and relations to human agency. My natural investigative inquiry prefers a comparative model, because of this I like how grounded theory makes use of two stories that take on new meaning under different structures.
Patty, maybe it's because your a third year, but I like the way you connected narrative inquiry and grounded theory to the theorists. I appreciate the insight and wonder how you so easily made this connections. While I am struggling to wrap my mind around qualitative research, I see you are making all these connections. Nice.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about the going beyond description and interpretation. Where does that place us with Wolcott? In a separate realm? To me, it seems we are still analyzing and interpreting data just in a different methodology by comparing groups to groups, groups to categories, and categories to categories.
ReplyDeleteI remember in the beginning when we were constructing you had a connection to the comparative model and I could not reference it! I had no framework to understand - it's nice to have the frame of reference now!
I don't know the Chicago school principles - could you explain this more?
Actually, I am unsure of the principles and am curious too. I think it is a particular methods/principles of research. I believe going beyond description and interpretation involves the reflexive component which I agree seems like more analysis and interpretation. Our second reading ,"What is Good Enough", explained what I believe "going beyond" means.
ReplyDelete