Conclusiones

This section firstly discusses the use of literature in qualitative research, followed by a discussion of how I dealt with the relationship between theory and research.

Finally, I discuss the challenge of research ethics.

2.4.1 Using the literature

Table 2.2 below provides a summary of prevailing opinions. These views range from the creation of the original grounded theory (GT) to more contemporary views on the place of literature in the study.

Table 2.2.

Contrasting Views in the Literature Review on GT

Arguments against prior literature review Arguments in favour of prior literature review

“…literature seems more likely to come after the presentation of new research than in

anticipation of it” (Wolcott, 2001, p. 73).

“… the researcher cannot provide a theoretical framework , as the intention of grounded theory is to generate theory” (Delport, Fouché, &

Schurink, 2012, p. 305).

“An effective strategy is, at first, literally to ignore the literature of theory and fact on the area under study” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.

37).

“You need to know what is already known in connection with your research area” (Bryman &

Bell, 2011, p. 103).

“… you need to read only enough research and theory to make sure that you are not doing research that has already been done” (Shank, 2006, p. 117).

“… grounded theory requires the researcher to enter the research field with no preconceived problem statement, interview protocols, or extensive review of literature” (Holton, 2007, p.

269).

“literature most relevant to the research may not actually be known at the outset, and so conducting a time-consuming, extensive review of publications in a specific substantive area may be wasteful and inefficient ” (Dunne, 2011, p. 115).

“The open-mindedness of the researcher should not be mistaken for the empty

mindedness of the researcher … the student or researcher who is ignorant of the relevant literature is always in danger of doing the equivalent” (Coffey, & Atkinson, 1996, p. 157).

“ the idea that any researcher undertakes a study without some level of prior knowledge or ideas is simply unrealistic” (Cutcliffe, 2000, p.

1480).

“it is impossible to achieve this idea of a clean theoretical slate” (Eisenhardt (2002, p. 12). Source: The researcher's adaptation of contrasting grounded theory approaches

It is clear from both the table above and the literature on qualitative research methodology that there are divergent views on the use of existing literature in qualitative studies. Shank (2006, p.116) summarises this situation as follows:

“What is the role of the literature review in qualitative research? Do we need to do a literature review to find a research question, much as we do in many forms of qualitative research? Once we find a research question or a target area, do we turn to the literature to help refine our questions or frame our approach? Or do we avoid the literature altogether, and let the world of experience lead us directly? These and similar questions are important to address. How do you take the information that you have gotten from other researchers and theorists and use this information to set up your own

research questions? That is, how do you use the literature to support your research? Whether we realize it or not, a literature review is an argument, and every argument is built by the use of reasoning. But we know that qualitative research emphasizes different reasoning skills and strategies.

How does this affect the nature of the literature review in qualitative research?”

Shank (2006) offers a useful discussion on two schools of thought on the desirability or not of the review of scholarship/literature in qualitative research, namely, the ignorance-is-bliss school and the literature-is-valued school. Advocates of the former school believe that data must be collected and treated uncontaminated and that researchers must ignore subjective preferences and thereby avoid imposing meanings on data. However, this is no easy matter. “One way to make this job harder is to go out and do a lot of reading on the topic beforehand. In this fashion, you are just adding more stuff that you will have to set aside” (Shank, 2006, p. 117).

On the other hand, proponents of the literature-is-valued school regard reading, reviewing and understanding the research topic prior to the collection of the requisite data as important.

As I point out elsewhere, I engaged intermittently with literature during the course of the study although the following two stages stood out.⁴ I firstly drew on literature as and when I needed it such as developing the research proposal, explaining the gap in knowledge, developing theoretical sampling and analytic methods (Wolcott, 2001;

Dunne, 2011). Secondly, a comprehensive literature review on GT was conducted last. I opted for this literature strategy for purposes of using the final themes that emerged from data analysis as guide to derive second order constructs.

2.4.2 Converting research findings to theory

“When we do qualitative research, the question of theory is not simple. In one sense, we respect the notion of theory as an overarching perspective that helps us coordinate a wide range of findings and understandings. But the scientific role of theory, where theory is used to settle questions of meaning, often impedes genuine qualitative inquiry. This is because the

4 The detailed account of my approach to literature in this study is provided in section 3.2 of this report.

primary focus of qualitative research is, front and centre, an examination and inquiry into meaning” (Shank, 2006, pp. 7–8).

Bryman and Bell (2011) point out that converting findings to theory is more ambiguous in qualitative research than in its counterpart, that is, quantitative research. While various issues are at stake regarding the nature of the research findings–theory relationship, Bryman and Bell (2007, p. 7) highlight the following two considerations:

“First, there is the question of what form of theory one is talking about. Secondly, there is the matter of whether data is collected to test or to build theories.”

Regarding the nature of the theory, it is important to distinguish between grand theories operating at the high abstract level, and theories of the middle range (Maschner, 1996), which offer an explanation of behaviour in a particular setting or context. According to Bryman and Bell (2007), these middle range theories typically guide research in management and business studies. In my view they would also be particularly useful in the field of industrial relations. Substantive theory, as found in grounded theory, and as opposed to formal theory, is particularly important in terms of theory type.

The second point, namely, (i) that theory occurs after data has been gathered and analysed, and (ii) whether theory is deducted from the relevant literature or generated from empirical findings, represents the two basic aspects of inquiry in research. Such aspects of inquiry are deduction and induction. There are several expositions of these models of social science research in the literature on methodology and I consider the following exposition by Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008, pp. 22–23) very useful:

On the basis of what is known about a phenomenon theoretically, the researcher is able to deduce one or more hypotheses. The hypotheses are then subjected to empirical study. The process of deduction is linear, following the logic of proceeding from theory to empirical research. The certainty in theory development is gained through the hypothesis testing in empirical scrutiny …

When you take the relationship between theory and empirical research as inductive, you follow the logic of proceeding from empirical research to theoretical results. In other words, the research process develops, starting from empirical materials, not from theoretical propositions.

It is clear from the literature that qualitative researchers are increasingly applying both induction and deduction. This is often referred to as abduction. As will become clear in subsequent chapters I moved iteratively between induction and deduction in this study.

2.4.3 Research ethics

It is obvious from the literature that people hold different views on what ethics entail.

Fujimoto (2012, pp. 257–258) attributes the divergence of views to the “kinds of values and morals an individual or society finds desirable or appropriate”.

Concurring, Myers (2011, p. 45) maintain that the “fundamental moral standards prescribed involve focussing on what is right and what is wrong.” Thus, ethics provide a basis for understanding how, as a human being, one should make morally decent choices in conduct or behaviour. Three objectives of ethical conduct in research is to protect human and animal subjects from harm, protecting the interests of individuals, groups, society and to examine the research activities against existing ethical codes.

Strydom (2012, p. 114) defines ethics as

“a set of moral principles which is suggested by an individual or group, is subsequently widely accepted, and which offers rules and behavioural expectations about the most correct conduct towards experimental subjects and respondents, employers, sponsors, other researchers, assistants and students”.

Notwithstanding the variety of definitions, the central feature appears to be that ethical codes provides a set of rules or principles guiding the researchers and subjects in making decisions. Such decisions reflect the choices made between right or wrong and good or bad when facing particular situations, such as in a research study.

With regard to research we are “morally bound to conduct our research in a manner that minimizes potential harm to those involved in the study” (Bloomberg and Volpe, 2008, p. 76). In practical terms, researchers should apply moral principles in planning, execution and reporting the results of research studies (Myers, 2011). In short, involving human beings as objects in social research gives rise to pervasive and complex problems. In dealing with such problems, researchers have to balance their commitment to expanding knowledge, on the one hand, with the cost to their research participants on the other.

Various codes emphasising the compliance criteria developed by social science institutions are available to researchers (Christensen, Johnson, & Turner, 2011;

McBurney & White, 2004; Walliman, 2011). It is therefore advisable for researchers to study the principles and prescribed procedures in order to ensure the credibility of their studies (McBurney & White, 2004; Strydom, 2012). However, while these codes offer important guidelines, ethically responsible research hinges on the integrity of the researcher and his or her values (Schurink, 2010). Yin (2011, p. 41) writes as follows about integrity in qualitative research “research integrity means that you and your word(s) can be trusted as representing truthful positions and statements.

Although research does not demand that you take an oath, as in other fields, people must know, through your actions, demeanour, and research methods, that you are striving to produce research that is truthful, including clarifying the point of view being represented”.

Research integrity, therefore, is considered very important in qualitative research.

Given the higher flexibility of designs and procedures inherent in execution of qualitative research, readers would be interested to see that qualitative researchers have done everything possible to adhere to research protocols accurately and fairly.

Accordingly qualitative researchers should be ready and willing to be challenged or even to have their earlier thinking on a matter being revised.

Given the fact that this study was undertaken under the auspices of University of Johannesburg (UJ) and in the Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management (IPPM), I did a careful study of their procedural ethics protocol. I noted the following guidelines in particular: (i) sensitivity to and respecting the right to privacy of participants; (ii) protection of research participants from harmful practices;

(iii) achieving objectivity and maintaining integrity of methods applied; (iv) recording and disclosing research findings fully; (v) following ethical publishing practices; and (vi) being accountable to society.

While I took heed of these principles, I also paid special attention to the protection of human subjects. I found the advice of Bloomberg and Volpe (2008, p. 76) useful, where he wrote that “As researchers, we are morally bound to conduct our research in a manner that minimizes potential harm to those involved in the study.”

Noting the importance of making sure that the rights of human subjects are protected and since informed consent plays a role in this in this regard, I drew up an informed consent form⁵ with the assistance of Prof Schurink.

During the research process and before interviewing the research participants, I (i) explained the aims and nature of the study; (ii) emphasised that taking part in the research was not compulsory (voluntary) and that they could withdraw at any time if they wished to do so, (iii) explained what I would require from them during the interviews, (iv) outlined my role as researcher and (v) assured them that their names would not be used and that any information that could reveal their identities would be removed from the thesis.⁶

I believe that by continuously keeping the call in mind made by Maylor and Blackmon (2005) and Myers (2011, p. 46), namely, to “treat others as you yourself want to be treated and provide benefit to the organisation and individuals involved in your work,”

I managed to navigate the ethical minefield successfully.

Having outlined philosophical and broad ethical questions, I now turn to the two genres or types of qualitative research I employed in the study.

2.5 CASE STUDY AND GROUNDED THEORY AS GENERAL STRATEGIES