Session Information
Paper Session
Contribution
There exist a lot of approaches of analysis in ethnographic research. Grounded theory is one of them (see for example Charmaz & Mitchell, 2001; Timmermans & Tavory, 2007), which helps the ethnographer to avoid lengthy unfocused forays into field setting and superficial, random data collection (Charmaz, 2006). According the original work of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser’s (1978, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005) further development of grounded theory, the researcher should delay the literature review in the substantive area where the research is to be done until the analysis is nearly completed. The main reasons behind this dictum are: (a) keeping the researcher as free and open as possible to discovery, and (b) avoiding contamination, e.g. forcing data into pre-existing concepts which distort or do not fit with data or have no relevance to the substantive area. Nevertheless, as Charmaz (2006) noted, Glaser’s (1998) position on pre-existing theories and research findings is ambiguous. It is neither entirely inductive nor free from influence from extant theories and concepts. Glaser strongly advocates researchers to avoid being contaminated by preconceived concepts and ideas. However, at the same time Glaser (1978, 1998, 2005) argues that researchers should possess prior knowledge and read literature in other substantive areas, unrelated to the actual research project, for the purpose of enhancing their theoretical sensitivity by knowing many theoretical codes. Nevertheless, in this paper I (a) problematize the dictum of delaying a literature review in classic grounded theory, (b) present good arguments for using extant literature in the substantive field within a constructivist grounded theory, and (c) suggest data sensitizing principles in using literature
In contrast to Glaser’s position, Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) argue that literature can be used more actively in grounded theory research as long as the researcher does not allow it to block creativity and get in the way of discovery. I claim that if the researcher rejects a naïve empiricism as well as theoretical forcing, then he or she does not dismiss extant theoretical and research literature nor apply it mechanically on empirical cases, but use it as a possible source of inspiration, ideas, aha experiences, creative associations, critical reflections, and multiple lenses. Kelle (1995) recognize that pre-existing theories and research findings can be used as heuristic tools, i.e. using extant concepts, theories and ideas as “lenses” and tools that helps the researcher to focus the attention on certain phenomena, aspects or nuances as well as imaginarily see beyond data.
Constructivist grounded theory (e.g., Charmaz, 2006, 2008, 2009; Mills, Bonner, Cook & Francis, 2006; Thornberg & Charmaz, in press), rooted in pragmatism and relativist epistemology, assumes that neither data nor theories are discovered, but are constructed by the researcher as a result of his or her interactions with the field and its participants. Data are co-constructed by researcher and participants, and colored by the researcher’s perspectives, values, privileges, positions, interactions, and geographical locations (Charmaz, 2008, 2009; Mills, Bonner & Francis, 2006).
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: SAGE Publications. Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 397-412). New York: The Guilford Press. Charmaz, K. (2009). Shifting the grounds: Constructivist grounded theory methods. In J. M. Morse, P. N. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz & A. E. Clarke (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second generation (pp. 127-154). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Charmaz, K., & Mitchell, R. G. (2001). Grounded theory in ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 160-174). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective I: Conceptualization contrasted with description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (2005). The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded the¬ory. New York: Aldine. Kelle, U. (1995). Theories as heuristic tools in qualitative research. In I. Maso, P. A. Atkinson, S. Delamont & J. C. Verhoeven (Eds.), Openness in research: The tension between self and other (pp. 33-50). Assen: van Gorcum. Mills, M., Bonner, A., Cook, J., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, 25-35. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (in press). Grounded theory. In S. D. Lapan (Ed.), Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs. Jossey-Bass. Timmermans, S. & Tavory, I. (2007). Advancing ethnographic research through grounded theory practice. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 493-512). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.