Aplicación de las disposiciones laborales de las IFD en el marco de las inversiones indirectas

Since its discovery in 1967, grounded theory has increased in authority among researchers, in particular, among qualitative researchers, although they often appear to adopt an ad hoc, inadequate scholarship approach to it. However, an offshoot of this surge in interest has been an increase in explicatory opinions, resulting in some researchers moving away from the core tenets.

Today, grounded theory has three main strands- the original, classic grounded theory of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and its extensions by Glaser (1978, 1992, 1998, 1999, 2011), grounded theory by Strauss and Corbin (1998) and constructivist grounded theory by Charmaz (2006). The

20

following two sub-sections compare classic grounded theory with the other two strands and justify the selection of Glaserian grounded theory as being the most suitable methodology for this research. Prior to a detailed comparison, a summary of the differences between three strands of grounded theory is presented in Table 1.

Parameters Glaser Strauss and Corbin Charmaz

Philosophical underpinning

General methodology Inductive methodology Constructivist Objective Theory development Theory development or

detailed description of a

A priori knowledge No prior knowledge when researching the

Conceptual Descriptive Descriptive and Conceptual

Methodological

Evaluation criteria Fit Credibility Credibility

Workability Transferability Originality

Table 1: Comparison of Three Strands of Grounded Theory (Source: This Research)

21 2.3.1 Comparison with Strauss and Corbin

Strauss and Glaser came from different backgrounds - Strauss from a qualitative and Glaser from a quantitative, hence the methodology which they discovered bridged both disciplines. As grounded theory began to be adopted and gained more adherents, a schism began to develop between them. Strauss began to introduce procedures influenced by his qualitative background.

These procedures were inimical to the emergent nature of grounded theory. Accordingly, two schools sprang up, one led by Glaser, also called classic grounded theory and other developed by Strauss and Corbin. The dispute came to a head in the early 1990’s, with the book by Strauss and Corbin ‘Basic Qualitative Research’, which Glaser considered distortion of conceptions in grounded theory to “an extreme degree, even destructive degree” (Glaser, 1992, p.1).

Rejecting the positivist paradigm, Strauss and Corbin (1994) posit that truth is not already in existence but needs to be enacted, which according to Mills et al. (2007) is a relativist ontological stance. However other researchers have failed to find mention of the underlying paradigm, if any, which supports Strauss & Corbin’s method (Charmaz, 2000). Judging by their published work, Strauss and Corbin seem to be relativist pragmatists, considering that historical situations need to be considered when developing or changing theories (Mills et al., 2007). This approach is opposed to the stance adopted by Glaser (1978, 1998) that truth emerges from the data.

Glaser’s repudiation is contained primarily in Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis (Glaser, 1992), in which he analyses Strauss and Corbin's contributions, highlighting the fundamental differences between his grounded theory and the work they had produced. This was intended to be a

“corrected version of Strauss’ book” (Glaser, 1992, p.3). In his book, Glaser (1992) raises serious points of difference, beginning with the contention that the approach by Strauss and Corbin

“cannot produce a grounded theory” because it employs preconception, it, further, is inimical to grounded theory, because it produces forced description (Glaser, 1992, p.14), whereas grounded theory avoids description, and is abstract of person, place and time (Glaser, 1998). Description permits the entry of bias, while grounded theory “has methods which reduce and forestall this bias through constant comparison, saturation and core relevance” (Glaser, 1992, p.14).

Strauss (1987) and Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1994, 1998) contend that the researcher builds theory from the interpretation of respondents’ narratives, which supports their relativist posture (Mills et al., 2006, 2008), while Glaser (1978, p. 3) argues that Grounded theory requires researchers to be as unencumbered with preconceptions as possible so that they are able to

“remain sensitive to the data by being able to record events and detect happenings without first having them filtered through and squared with pre-existing hypotheses and biases”. Coding

22

directly from the data is the basic analytical instrument of classic grounded theorists, since this allows the theory to emerge from data. Only two forms of code are employed - substantive open codes and theoretical codes (Glaser, 1978). In contrast, Strauss and Corbin (1998) employ complex coding methods to examine the data.

2.3.2 Comparison with Charmaz

Charmaz’s version of grounded theory leads to it being relativist from an ontological viewpoint, while remaining epistemologically subjectivist. Charmaz does not employ the Glaserian concept of explication de texte as she considers that retaining in full what her respondents said enables her to remain close to the data. Thus, she changed the interaction between subject interviewees and the researcher, creating a construct which perceives the researcher as author (Mills et al., 2007).

This strand of grounded theory suggests that there is no objective reality, and instead that reality is simply a subjective mental construct, thus implying that there are as many realities as there are people (Lincoln & Guba, 2011). Charmaz (2000) in describing grounded theory as specifically constructivist is the first researcher to do so, arguing that reality is constructed from interactions of cultural contexts, and that the contact between the interviewees and the researcher “produces the data, and therefore the meanings that the researcher observes and defines” (Charmaz, 1995, p. 35). Deviating further from the tenets of classic grounded theory, Charmaz invites the researcher to add a “description of the situation, the interaction, the person’s affect and perception of how the interview went” (Charmaz, 1995, p. 33). This is antithetical to classic grounded theory which is abstract of person, place and time (Glaser, 1992).

Although this version of grounded theory appears to give value to the inductive creativity of classic grounded theory, a closer inspection shows that Charmaz is simply doing what Strauss and Corbin did, and her strand of theory has, in the same way, re-modelled Glaser’s original methodology, and may no longer be considered as classic grounded theory (Glaser, 2001).

Charmaz (2006, 2007), complying with a central tenet of qualitative research, to give a voice to the people so that they can tell their stories, encourages grounded theorists to take into consideration the views of the people. Grounded theory findings are not about people, but are concerned with the patterns of behaviour in which people engage (Glaser, 1978). These patterns may not be vocalised by the participants. Instead, they are conceptually abstracted from the data (Glaser, 1998). When Charmaz (2003, p. 269) criticised classic grounded theory for its concentration on “analysis rather than the portrayal of subjects’ experience in its fullness,” she criticised it for failing to do something that it was never designed to do. Classic grounded theory is concerned with people’s perspectives, and is a perspective methodology (Glaser, 2001). These

23

perspectives are explored so they can be raised to a conceptual level as they influence the ways in which people behave.

From the foregoing debate, although, it may be considered reasonable to attempt to evolve or improve a successful methodology, it is eminently possible that these improvements may actually be opposing the core values of the methodology, thus changing it into something very different and destroying the foundations of the original methodology. Therefore, the considerations taken into account while contemplating a research methodology for this thesis, suggested that if classic grounded theory worked, had fit and relevance for the work, then that methodology was the one to be adopted, rather than one that had been tinkered with, modified or ‘improved’. This is not a judgement on either approach, and does not contend that either one is better than the other, just that they are different. The integrity of the Classic grounded theory relies, in part, on bringing no preconceptions, no preformatted structures to the process of data collection and analysis (Glaser, 1998). The final theory is mutable as a function of the arrival of new data, and the conceptual level permits grounded theories to be applicable to different substantive studies, given that the concepts always remain modifiable (Glaser, 2005). Charmaz (2013) revisits the evaluation criteria for grounded theory developed by Glaser and Strauss and offers the following criteria - credibility, originality, resonance and usefulness. The next section turns to the debates surrounding the philosophical position of grounded theory.