Rowland,
I think your question is quite appropriate. I would suggest you look at
Ian Dey's new book "Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative
Inquiry" Academic Press 1999. In the prologue he states
"A few years ago, at an international conference in Breckenridge, Colorado,
I presented some softare for analyzing qualitative data. To my surprise,
most of my audience assumed that the software I presented was based on a
grounded theory approach to analying data....While I was flattered by the
association with grounded theory, I found this rather a puzzle, for I had
designed the software without any reference to grounded theory."
I am just begining this book. My first impression is that it is a must
read. Regretably Ian has dropped out of the QDA software area. His
program is no longer available. But he was an important pioneer.
What I like about Ian is that, when he speaks before me, I can usually just
stand up and say, "What he said." I completely concur with the above
quote. I look forward to seeing how he ends up dealing with his "puzzle".
In regard to Grounded theory, I have always felt that there was Grounded
Theory, with a capital G, and grounded theory with a small g. Grounded
Theory emerged out of a set of practices that Glaser and Strauss devolped
that were clever and productive for them and their associates. Along the
way it took on a life of its own. It became reified and cannonized. I
personally am grateful for what Strauss et al. have shared with us. It has
been a tremendous gift. Yet, while it is an important influence, it is not
the only influence. In general I think your points are well taken.
I agree with one thing Charles said
>Personally, I am trying to use the principles of grounded theory (allowing
>the data to give birth to the theory, and being prepared to show the process
>of gestation), but not the detailed practice.
But I'm not sure I agree with Charles when he says
>That having been said, for those who wish to practise Grounded Theory in its
>most highly developed form, qualitative software seems to be a hugely
>helpful asset.
I think Dan Haug is correct when he says the following, primarily because I
am a big fan of Harry Wolcott.
>I have been doing a lot of reading about ethnography recently, and there
>seems be an insistent, if not explicit, critique of grounded theory as a
>kind of "cook-book" method. Harry Wolcott, in The Art of Fieldwork,
>encourages ethnographers not to let the methodology come between the
>ethnographer and their data, and not to allow the method to repress their
>intuition.
Finally I think Doug Ezzy is correct when he says
>Yes: Grounded theory incorporates thematic analysis and inductive theory
>building commonly fund in most qualitative methodologies.
>No: It could be argued that while many people claim to be using grounded
>theory, what they actually mean by this is that they have used a
>qualitative research methodology.....
Getting back to Ian Dey, in his conlcusion he discusses "the dangers of a
mechanistic approach" involving the relationship between Grounded Theory,
QDA software, and coding. (p.271-273)
"Pleas to recognize the heuristic or complicative functions of categories
are liable to fall on deaf ears, however, so long as the basic framework of
a grounded theory approach is taken for granted". (p.273)
John
At 03:16 PM 10/12/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>This may be slightly off-topic but it clearly relates to the use of
>computers in the analysis of qualitative data. The more I read about
>grounded theory the greater my impression that it represents a kind of
>academic delineation of a method that is now de rigueur in social science.
>If it was started as a reaction to the positivist seperation of theory and
>data collection/interpretation has this rationale all but disappeared now?
>The emphasis on the production and emergence of theory out of close data
>analysis, corroboration and checking is surely now commonsense? My feeling
>is that a large and rhetorical body of literature has sprung up around this
>method because it confuses, obfuscates and otherwise overly dresses up
>processes of research which are incontrovertible and open to all
>qualitative technicians whether they subscribe to a grounded theory
>approach. In short - who could argue with the main tenets of a grounded
>theory approach - it is a little like copywriting genetic technology,
>surely no one qualitative approach has the monopoly on attempted rigour and
>the production of theoretical explanation? I am also still uncomfortable
>with the apparent privileging of theories produced over theoretical
>frameworks and conceptual schema which inform data collection and
>interpretation. I would also be interested in any references to debates
>within and between grounded theory and others,
>
>best
>
>Rowland
[log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 3356
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Ph: 801-532-3090
Fax:
http://www.QualisResearch.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|