Bernardo!  Halloo!

Here's my wee contribution...

Having paid close attention to this 'thread', it appears to me that there
are many different understandings of GT, and indeed qualitative research.
Issues like research questions, top-down/bottom-up, emic etic or something
in between, have all been covered from a variety of viewpoints.  My
understanding of GT would be pretty similar to Bernardo's.  However, many
people who may have come to qual through other methodologies or paradigms
have very different approaches.

My approach is normally to look at the whole picture;
What I'm trying to find out
How much time I have
Resources
What my funders want (this is the most frustrating) in order to continue
support
Who the audience is

For example, I have to submit a report to a government department soon, and
I know if I used GT the way I would like to it would be very difficult to
get the department to accept it as they are steeped in statistics.

Pragmatic concerns, maybe, but they have a huge impact on
theoretical/methodological issues.

Anyway that's my wee piece


Sarah D

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernardo Turnbull <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 17 July 2000 23:18
Subject: RE: GT


>     Perhaps I can contribute with an example:
>
>     My first experience with Nudist 4 was in the analysis of my data about
>street children and their helpers, which was my DPhil Thesis. I ran into
>many passages that seemed important but I could not say why. I collected
>them into a node I labeled 'I sure there is something here' which later
>changed to 'Surprise box' because what emerged from it was that they were
>things that surprised us about the kids (such as their income or contact
>with their families). Later it evolved into a peek hole into the children's
>worldview but also into the rigidity of ours, because these instances were
>only 'surprising' to someone who takes for granted his/her worldview. To
cut
>a long story short (very unusuall among qualitative researchers) it became
a
>chapter in my thesis and maybe the backbone of my main argument.
>
>     So, I agree there is not such a thing as tabula rasa, but 'a
>substantial contribution to knowledge' could come from virtually nowhere
and
>therefore 'loose ideas' can not be neglected untill they have been analysed
>with care. This is the power and probably the fun and joy of qualitative
>analysis.
>
>b.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Birrell Walsh <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 10:04 PM
>Subject: Re: GT
>
>
>> David Smilde wrote:
>> >
>> > > I thought the whole point of GT was that the research is exploring
>issues
>> > and
>> > > the 'questions' will emerge from the data. To start with research
>> > questions
>> > > will invalidate the inductive nature of the methodology.
>> >
>> > Andrew:
>> >
>> > *All research starts with pre-existing concepts and questions are
simply
>a
>> > form of restricted, open-ended concept. Otherwise data collection would
>be
>> > impossible since the potential data that exist about the social world
>are
>> > infinite. What generally happens when you actually collect and analyze
>data
>> > is that the question(s) is/are found to be too vague, general,
>> > ill-specified, etc.and question-answer sequences, i.e. concepts, are
>> > specified in different and much greater detail. So the way you started,
>i.e.
>> > with a broad list of issues (although I bet it wasn't as broad as you
>> > suggest) is right on target. Whether or not you put them in question
>format
>> > is beside the point. I think you can safely refer to this approach as
>> > grounded theory in today's climate. Glaser and Strauss have been
>critiqued
>> > ad
>> > nauseum for their supposed tabula rasa empiricism. Some defend them
>saying
>> > that they were trying to make an impact in the strongly theoretical,
>> > deductive type of sociology done in the 50s and 60s, others say Glaser
>was
>> > the villian and Strauss had a much more sophisticated pragmatist view
>> > (probably likely). But I think almost noone who has actually thought
>about
>> > the issue thinks such Empiricism is a real possibility and you can just
>sort
>> > of acknowledge the criticism, debate, etc.in a footnote and call your
>study
>> > "grounded theory"--a label  which I think is a very informative.
>> >
>>
>> I think David Smilde is one of the smartest people in the business, but
>> I would like to say a word in favor of saving room for emergent
>> information.
>>
>> People do start with questions, and most of the answers they find are
>> responsive to those questions.  But they may also find intriguing,
>> uncategorized ideas that do not seem to be the answers to any questions
>> they brought.  Those ideas *do* belong in a qualitative study, though in
>> a more pre-structured study they might seem to be tangents.
>>
>> When I work with people using Atlas, I suggest that they create a code
>> called "interesting."  The code's purpose is to mark any text that
>> strikes them as somehow important in a way they cannot yet justify.
>> Then they can go on coding with the apriori codes that they have brought
>> into the study with their research questions.
>>
>> Later, or in moments when the reflective mood is on them, I would
>> suggest that they create a view - in Atlas this is done with a "code
>> family" that contains only the code "interesting."  Then they can look
>> at what they marked as important for unknown reasons, and let more
>> detail emerge about just why it is interesting.  That "more detail"
>> usually comes up as the marking of further, in-vivo, codes, followed by
>> tentative generalizations.  Just what it is about the the data that was
>> interesting begins to clarify.  This process is not so much empirical as
>> hermeneutic, a conversation with the text in which listening to it
>> rather than imposing codes on it.
>>
>> The codes and themes that emerge in this way may or may not end up in
>> the final write-up.  But going through this "i-coding" costs the
>> researcher almost no extra effort -- and it may reveal very important,
>> totally unexpected results.
>>
>> Birrell Walsh
>> San Francisco
>>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%