Configuración inicial dentro de la

The second fundamental issue which is raised once one goes beyond what Mills called the 'abstracted empiricism' of descriptive qualitative research is that of theory- building. It is an ongoing debate in the domain of educational research. Woods (1985), for example, argues that ethnographic research in education has been largely descriptive and has been weak in terms of the generation and formulation of theory. Hammersley, Scarth and Webb (1985) note the problematic status of theory in ethnographic research, partly in reaction to what are seen as over-deterministic sociological approaches, and partly a wish to privilege the validity of participants' own accounts, perhaps even above critical commentary on them. To engage fully

*

with that debate is beyond the scope of this thesis. But I do want to at least outline

how I would locate my own approach in this study, from a methodological point of view, to the relationship of theory to data.

I will begin by characterising its relationship to 'grounded theory' (Strauss 1987), because it has been a particularly influential perspective within qualitative research, as an approach to generating theory from data (though Bryman and Burgess suggest that 'it is probably given lip-service to a greater degree than is appreciated' (1994, p6)). Burgess (1984, p 181) refers to a number of criticisms that have been raised concerning the status of theory in 'grounded theory' and its relationship to data, and questions whether it consists of anything more than properties, categories, and hypotheses. This contrasts with Layder's concept of theories as more elaborated "networks’ or 'integrated clusterings' of concepts, propositions and ’world-views" with a more abstract dimension than is allowed by 'grounded theory (1983, pl5).

I argue that in any research project there should be room for more qualitative, open-ended forms of theory (rather than ones that narrowly specify the relations between precisely measurable variables). [...] I think dialogue can be achieved by actually trying to specify the nature of the links between the seemingly more remote and abstract forms of theorizing [...] and the actual practice of research and the formulation of research projects. (Layder 1993, p i5)

Layder criticises 'grounded theory' for suggesting (Strauss 1987) that macro or structural elements can be brought in simply as a matter of convenience or emphasis, because of its

extreme emphasis on grasping the emergent nature of meaning in the milieu that is being researched, and the insistence that grounded theory should 'fit' and be relevant to the people to whom it refers. Such an emphasis underlines the unsuitability of objective, scientific concepts as an important means of capturing everyday experience in sociological terms. (p54)

In particular, 'grounded theory' neglects and is unsympathetic to structural concepts. 'These prohibitions on the use of structural concepts need to be amended. In particular, it needs to be assumed that structural features are inextricably interlocked with social activities and we cannot understand the one without the other' (Layder 1993, p56). This is certainly the approach 1 have taken, in attempting to locate the social processes of children's cultures within wider social contexts, particularly that of 'race'. In that regard, I now want to refer briefly to the debate around the place of structural concepts in qualitative research.

It has been posed most sharply in terms of the relationship between ethnography and marxism. This is particularly relevant to my research perspective because concepts from a number of marxist writers - Hall, Miles, Therbom, and above all Gramsci - provide the overall theoretical framework within which my analysis is situated.

170

West (1984) has criticised some marxist ethnography, in particular Willis's Learning to Labour (1977), for a failure to integrate sufficiently the theoretical explanation with the ethnographic data. Andy Hargreaves (1985), rejecting the twin opposite errors of empiricism and theoreticism, insists that 'Empirical work of high quality consists of a continuing dialogue betweeen theory and evidence where each is continually interrogated against the other as well as being tested for its internal consistency and coherence' (p28). What is required is a theoretical perspective that is capable of engaging with different levels of analysis, from the fine-grain of the micro level to 'grand theory'.

A development and filling-out of Hargreaves' conception is provided by Layder's (1993) 'realist' approach. Layder employs a 'layered' model comprising four elements: context, setting, situated activity, self. Elsewhere, I have utilised a more complex model, based on the same principles, in analysing racist incidents, and although it is not replicated here (see Troyna and Hatcher 1991), it informs the analyses within this study. Layder speaks of the value of concepts which can serve as a two-sided 'conceptual tool which can straddle both sides of the macro-micro division and thus can potentially be a force working to secure their eventual synthesis', integrating the objective and the subjective, the interactional and the institutional (p i31). In my research, that crucial function is served in particular by the Gramscian concepts of'culture' and 'ideology', and the concepts associated with or derived from them: for instance, the concept of 'common sense'.

It is at this point that the two crucial methodological issues of generalisability and theory-building in qualitative research come together. Silverman (1993, p i60) expresses the relationship as follows:

It is important to recognise that generalising from cases to populations does not follow a purely statistical logic in field research. Quoting Mitchell (1983), Bryman thus argues that: 'the issue should be couched in terms of the generalisability of cases to to theoretical propositions rather than to populationms or universes' (1988, 90, my emphasis).

In terms of my own research, its claim to be more than a 'local accomplishment' rests not simply on its generalisability to other schools and peer cultures on the grounds of similarity, but on the findings sustaining a conceptual framework which can be fruitfully brought to bear on a varied range of research situations.

CHAPTER 7