Grounded theory is an inductive approach developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). It is a method of organising, structuring, and analysing qualitative data from a range of sources (Strauss 1987). The aim is to generate theory that is grounded in data, that is, to “have an empirical basis” (Blasi 2002: 269) in the social sciences’ study of ‘humanness’, by utilizing empirical methods, and aligning research and theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967: vii). Such grounding avoids speculation and ineffectiveness (Strauss 1987). The foundations of grounded theory derive from pragmatism and symbolic interaction, from which, “two important principles” arise and are incorporated into the method:
The first principle pertains to change. Since phenomena are not conceived of as static but as continually changing in response to evolving conditions, an important component of the method is to build change, through process, into the method. The second principle pertains to a clear stand on the issue of ‘determinism’. Strict determinism is rejected, as in nondeterminism. Actors are seen as having, though not always utilizing, the means of
controlling their destinies by their responses to conditions. They are able to make choices according to their perceptions, which are often accurate, about the options they encounter (Corbin and Strauss 1990: 5).
Grounded theory is a non-linear approach to data analysis that allows points of interest from early data collection to be explored in later data collection and enabling unexpected connections to be made. It “allows for the emergence of concepts out of the data” (Orana 1990: 1249). The importance is that theory must emerge from the data and not be forcibly applied to the data (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Charmaz 2002; Starks and Brown Trinidad 2007). The cyclical nature of the approach facilitates data and theory to inform each other. Analysis of data includes coding methods (Charmaz 2002), as guided by the grounded theory approach, which uses empirical observations to inductively generate theory that is closely linked to the gathered materials (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Kathy Charmaz offers usefully instructive information about the constructivist direction within grounded theory and makes three specific assumptions: that “Multiple realities exist”; that “data reflect the researcher’s and the research participants’ mutual constructions”; and that “the researcher, however incompletely, enters and is affected by participants’ worlds” (2002: 678).
Although the grounded theory approach appears to focus on sociological aims that are described with words such as ‘prediction’, ‘explanation’, ‘control’ and other positivist-sounding terminology, it is also applicable for research that involves interpretation and meaning:
“An interpretive analysis of a social setting, like the interpretation of a literary work , has internal coherence and is rooted in the text, which here refers to the meaningful everyday experiences of the people being studied. An inductive approach means that more general statements are built up slowly after immersion in specific observations of social life. Generalizations emerge out of the specific details of what a research observes. This is called grounded theory, because the theory is grounded or rooted in the specifics of social life” (Neuman 1991: 52).
Anselm Strauss (1987) discusses and explains grounded theory in great depth and detail, offering examples of texts and the associated analyses. Upon perusing some examples, it quickly becomes clear that grounded theory analysis caters for meanings, feelings, interactions, and interpretations. Strauss discusses the different types of coding used in grounded theory, including ‘open’, ‘axial’ and ‘selective’ forms of coding. ‘Open coding’ begins the process by discovering and naming various categories of a phenomenon during a deconstructive process. Axial coding integrates codes, sub-codes, and categories. ‘Selective coding’ focuses on core codes and compares them with pre-existing theory. Coding, as a paradigm, Strauss explains, must tell the researcher something about the categories that are discovered and named, and within which all related information is gathered, for example, from “within the same or different interview”, fieldwork journals and/or other documents (1987: 27), thus eventually creating a coherent theory. Strauss also discusses the concept of ‘saturation’ when “nothing new is happening” in the data with a specific code, so one continues scanning “until something new catches the eye” (1987: 31). Additionally, memo writing facilitates deeper understanding of codes, by defining category properties, identifying the context conditions of categories, and considering relationships between categories (Charmaz 2002).
However, differences of opinion and cautions exist. Louis Cohen, Lawrence Manion, and Keith R. B. Morrison refer to Silverman’s critique:
“... that [grounded theory] fails to acknowledge the implicit theories that guide research in its early stages (i.e. data are not theory neutral but theory saturated) and that it might be strong on providing categorizations without necessarily explanatory potential (2007: 495).
These concerns suggest the need for reflexivity during the research process (Cohen et al 2007). Blasi also comments regarding reliable acquisition of any ‘new’ knowledge:
With an observational foundation in the formulation of theory, however, one encounters the hermeneutic circle problem: How can we recognise a
social process, e.g. shared doubt, unless we already know a good deal about it? (2002: 269).
Again, researchers choose what to see — choose the position from where or how to see; choose what is reported; and choose how findings are presented. Even if one decides not to analyse data, but only to present it, any choice regarding which data to present is “analysis by default” (Lofland 1971: 6 emphasis original). As Lofland explains, to “select some things from a larger body of materials is to make analytic judgements” (1971: 6). Therefore, it is advisable, and useful, to be deliberately analytical, to choose consciously and present one’s choices in an orderly way and with clear reasons for those selections.
Writing
Writing becomes an act of representation of ‘Others’ and so needs an ethically responsible approach. The multi-form character inherent in qualitative research includes the researcher’s and respondents’ voices (Creswell 1998). Barbara Czarniawska discusses the “multivocal story” — the using of many narratives or voices all telling the story where “the researcher does not have to take a stand on which is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’” (2002: 743). The idea is “not to say which story is correct, but to make the reader understand why the stories differ as they do” (Czarniawska 2002: 743). The other side of this, where relevant, would be to assist the reader to understand why respondent’s stories and understandings are the same. Researchers cannot be value neutral. We each have a stance based on a background, as detailed above.
One area that can be difficult to negotiate as an outsider researcher is when comparing groups within the same field of interest, as in this project when comparing religious groups. People generally rate their own group affiliations as superior to other groups (Mead 1934/1955; Merton 1972). Such ethnocentrism “becomes intensified under specifiable conditions of acute social conflict” (Merton 1972: 18). As an example, people from religious groups I had not included in the research sent information to me of their understandings, which they hoped I would
include in the thesis; for them, their affiliation is important — more important than any other group. When studying potentially or actually conflicting groups, each group is certain of their own rightness of ideologies and practices, and “want to make their interpretation the prevailing one of how we were and are and will be” (Merton 1972: 19; cf. Dempsey 1990). In such cases, researchers need to implement enormous sensitivity during interpretation and expression of findings.
The postmodern perspective provides several considerations. Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein (2003) advise researchers to be aware of personal reflexivity, power, sensitivities, and representation. Concepts, such as ‘grand narratives’ and ‘absolutes’, become problematic when one realises, as Foucault explained, that ideas and concepts are historically situated and “there is no such thing as absolute or transcendental knowledge” (in Travers 2001: 152-154). He also explains that discourses, such as those developed in educational, political and mass media institutions, become an exercise in power — a discourse of scrutinising, discussing, defining, categorising, and reporting (Foucault 1999: 270- 271). However, the irony is that whilst denouncing any theorizing, one engages in the act of theorizing (Hutcheon 1997: 279). So, how relevant is postmodernism to everyday life? It is certainly important regarding research claims — especially when findings and interpretations find their way into the ‘greater arena’ of policy- making, media representation and political announcements, whether those disseminations are about religion, or not. Many social changes resulted through the ideologies of feminism and the deconstructing of patriarchal hegemony.
Findings are still important, as are empirical data. Interpretation is equally important – one must be responsible for one’s research presentation. One is, potentially, a creator when one’s research ‘goes public’, and on which decisions are based.
Conclusion
Because the aim of this thesis is to explore perceptions of the religious ‘Other’, the underlying methodological assumptions must relate to that aim. The choices, of adopting an interpretive approach of inquiry, symbolic interaction as a framework, qualitative methods of data collection and grounded theory as an analytic strategy, result in a cohesive and coherent approach to the research questions. All of these relate to using language to facilitate access to individuals’ thoughts, feelings, opinions, and perceptions. Additionally, with this approach, I am able to locate myself in the research, reflectively, as the ‘driving force’ from the inception, but as ‘taking a back seat’ by prioritising participants’ responses and understandings.
As Neuman advises that:
Important questions for the interpretive researcher are: What do people believe to be true? What do they hold to be relevant? How do they define what they are doing? Interpretive researchers want to discover what actions mean to the people who engage in them” (1991: 52).
The way to find answers to such questions is to go to the heart of the matter — and ask the people.