Conclusion
Each of the issues discussed above resulted in a specific recommendation for the way in which Grounded Theory is performed, but notions of quality and rigor in interpretive Grounded Theory research are probably best explained using the metaphor of total quality management. Each of the quality mechanisms suggested will not guarantee quality or rigor. They must be considered as part of a holistic research approach and must be employed reflectively rather than mechanistically. In this spirit, I present the following guidelines for conducting qualitative Grounded Theory research:
Make the process of research data collection and analysis explicit, both to yourself and to others, through your writing. Provide enough information to permit others to see how your findings followed from your analysis of the data.
Provide an "audit trail" through the maintenance of research journals and by saving all analysis documents (including early and intermediate analyses).
Explicitly acknowledge and integrate influences provided by literature sources, your own prior understanding, and theoretical insights generated through serendipity.
Write formal memos, question theoretical constructs, employ category network diagrams, and employ explicit (written) theory justification as ways of making the implicit explicit.
Continually define and redefine detailed objectives for the theory that you seek. As a staring point, this can be phrased in terms of "I am trying to generate a theory that explains how/what/why a, b, and c because I believe that d, e, and f are important in this situation."
Understand the requirements for constant comparison and theoretical saturation to ensure sufficient and rigorous iteration between data collection, data analysis, and data selection and to avoid superficial inductive conclusions.
Regularly justify emerging constructions to friends and to critical colleagues.
Constantly use a research journal and explicit self-questioning to encourage and make explicit the role of self-reflexivity.
Understand the limits of validity and generalizability that you can claim when using a qualitative Grounded Theory approach to research.
Recognize that no research process is ever as planned as the literature would lead one to believe. Freed from the need to defend your research according to its ability to proceed as planned, you can apply the tenets of Grounded Theory freely and reflectively.
Klein, Hirschheim, and Nissen (1991) suggest that knowledge is achieved in the struggle between positivism and antipositivism, through the competing claims of those who advocate their chosen approach. A synthesis of the two approaches arises from this struggle, which creates a new dominant approach, to which emerges a new opposition, … and so on. This chapter has attempted to represent the current state of this struggle and to present qualitative Grounded Theory as a way of differentiating and making explicit the different aims of antipositivist research. But a Grounded Theory approach is not recommended unless you are really enthusiastic about your topic. It demands a great deal more energy, time, and commitment than any other method I know. One must be constantly critical and realistic about the theoretical application of one's research; sometimes it is better to settle for Walsham's (1995, p.79) "contribution of rich insight" than to make ill-founded claims that are pitifully easy for a knowledgeable reader to deconstruct.
An interpretive Grounded Theory approach is only relevant to research questions that are not well-explained by existing theoretical constructs. Grounded Theory is a way of deriving theory from data; it does not provide the deductive validation required to "prove" or to rigorously extend existing theory in positivist terms. It is best suited to the investigation of what theory might apply in a specific type of situation.
I have found it useful to observe the limitation that "any claim to truth is always at risk and subject to revision as one learns from the arguments of one's opponents" (Klein et al., 1991, p. 7). Through my research and reflection for this chapter, I have gained a deep insight into the fundamental differences between interpretive and positivist approaches to research. I have understood that it is not possible to justify either approach using the discourse of the other. Finally, I have appreciated that self-reflexivity is an essential part of understanding whether one has accomplished what one set out to do because one's own prejudices and biases creep in unawares! I have tried to remove those biases where I could and to declare them where I felt that they were an essential part of the explanation. This reflects the hermeneutic circle of inquiry, analysis, reporting, and reflection that is central to rigorous research.
No comments:
Post a Comment