In answering the research question, the major task is deciding a research strategy that would form a theoretical framework of the research. This section follows three key stages of research strategies, and the procedure and logic for generating new knowledge. The first and second sections set out the research strategy, through discussions of a particular way of looking at the world (ontological assumptions), as well as the ideas on how it can be understood (epistemological assumptions) (Blaikie 2007). Third, the research strategy would then lead the researcher to decide the research paradigm, a way of connecting ideas, social experience, and social reality.
Abductive research strategy
This research is based on abductive logic of research strategy as a method of theory construction. The abductive research strategy has a distinctive nature from deductive and inductive strategies. According to Blaikie (2007), the deductive reasoning begins with a pre-established pattern, or regularity, and the task of a researcher is either to demonstrate or falsify it. The inductive reasoning constructs theoretical ideas based on empirical data, which begins with the collection of data first and is followed by data analysis, and deriving generalizations. Timmermans and Tavory (2012) argue that the inductive strategy has a commitment to let theories emerge from data inductively, and therefore does not allow for adopting an analytical framework prior to data collection. Ong (2012) argues that sampling in the inductive strategy targets theory construction rather than population representativeness, and the literature review should be situated after an independent analysis. It is also the principle of the two versions of grounded theory12 developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Charmaz (2000), which have their basis in the inductive logic (both versions are cited in Ong 2012: 417).
According to Ong (2012), the abductive reasoning is built upon Charmaz’s Constructivist Grounded Theory Method (CGTM). The abductive reasoning and CGTM share a great deal of their assumptions in interpretivism, meaning that social phenomena can be acknowledged by understanding what people have constructed and then reproduced based on their own experiences and perspectives, rather than believing in an external reality out there (Blaikie 2007).
12 According to Ong (2012), there are two versions of grounded theory depending on their assumptions. First, the Objectivist Grounded Theory Method (OGTM) developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) is based on the positivistic assumption, meaning an external reality is out there and researchers can discover and record it. Charmaz (2000) provides a critique on such an assumption, and develops her own version, believing in respondent’s subjective experiences and feelings. It is called as Constructionist Grounded Theory Method (CGTM). Both grounded theory methods, however, share the conceptual level of coding, writing memos, and developing categories.
84
This shared assumption inspired this thesis to use the qualitative in-depth interview, and thematic data analysis influenced by grounded theory. This will be discussed further below.
While CGTM is based on the inductive reasoning and emphasises the theory construction driven by the data, the abductive reasoning focuses on the data which contradict or do not fit with the existing theory. This ‘surprising evidence’ derived by comparing data to existing research and theories then become the starting point of theory construction (Timmermans and Tavory 2012, p.168). The aim of abductive reasoning is to “discover why people do what they do by uncovering the largely tactic, mutual knowledge, the symbolic meanings, intentions and rules, which provide the orientations for their actions” (Blaikie 2007, p.90). The concepts and meanings of social actors are delivered through their language and form their understanding or explanation of the research problem. However, the subjective meanings of the actors embedded in their language are not private but are intersubjective, which the actors more or less share together (Blaikie 2010, cited in Ong 2012, p.423). The abductive research strategy allows a cyclic process of the meanings and interpretations between: everyday concepts and meanings of social actors’ activities, lay accounts that can be generalised, and social science explanation (Mason 2002). In order to achieve this cyclic process, Blaikie (2010, cited in Ong 2012, p.424- 423) suggests six principles of abductive research strategy.
1. The entry to any social world takes account of what people can give of their own actions and the actions of others.
2. The accounts are delivered by the language of the participants, which contain the concepts and theories the participants used to construct their world.
3. However, many of the accounts are taken-for-granted and are unreflective.
4. Social actors are forced to consciously search for meanings and interpretations of their behaviours, which contain the concepts and theories to construct their world, only when enquiries are made by others (such as social scientists) or when social life is disrupted, and/or ceases to be predictable.
5. Social scientists may therefore encourage the reflection to discover meanings and theories.
6. Social scientists then put together the fragmented meanings.
The abductive logic of the research strategy is based on two fundamental positions of the researcher - the ontological and epistemological positions, which is also shared by CGTM. An ontological perspective of research refers to the nature of the social reality that is investigated (Mason 2002). The abductive reasoning is based on the perspective of ‘idealists’ and believes that the social reality of the external world consists of representation created in individual minds (Blaikie 2007). The external reality only exists because we think it is real, as we make or construct, rather than acknowledge a certain degree of reality independent of individual subjectivity. An
85
epistemological position indicates the way in which knowledge of the reality can be obtained, the way to generate data or ‘theory of knowledge’ in Mason’s words (2002). It determines whether and how social phenomena can be known, how knowledge can be demonstrated, and what can be counted as evidence or knowledge of a social thing (Mason 2002). The abductive reasoning has its epistemological position of ‘constructionism.’ Social constructionism argues that it is impossible to discover an external world, if it exists at all, independently from concepts, theories, background knowledge, and past experiences (Blaikie 2007). The knowledge can only be constructed through historical, cultural and gendered ways of being. Only after the social actors construct their reality by conceptualising and interpreting their own actions and experiences, can social scientists socially construct their knowledge of social actors’ realities.
The combination between the idealist ontological position and the constructionist epistemological view forms the research paradigm known as Interpretivism (Blaikie 2007). It has its origins in Hermeneutics and Phenomenology, which explore, describe, and analyse the meaning of individual lived experience (Marshall and Rossman 2010). The interpretivists argue that social phenomena can be acknowledged by understanding what people have constructed and then reproduced based on their own experiences and perspectives. In the process of construction, the social actors interpret and reinterpret their own worlds and impose their own meanings for the activities. Since the process occurs before social scientists arrive, social theories of researchers which explain and anticipate the activities of social actors and their concepts and meanings should be addressed from that of the social actors (Blaikie 2007). Here, language is the medium of social interaction, between the social actors and social scientists. The perspectives of interpretivists therefore consider the interview as an important research tool, since the perceptions of social actors are a primary data sources, which need to be addressed from an ‘insider view’ rather than an ‘outsider view’ being imposed (Mason 2002).
This type of reasoning is particularly useful in this thesis, in two ways. First, the abductive strategy would allow the researcher to enter the social world of lone mothers, with some sensitising concepts learned from the literature review, as suggested by Blaikie and Stacy (1984, cited in Ong 2012, p.425). The concepts would become a guide, although it should be as nondirective as possible. The concepts can be used as the ‘topic’ in the interviews, which would be explored by the social actors themselves. The literature review can be conducted in parallel with the field work, as the relevance can be vague before entering the social world of the participants (Ong 2012). The understanding of the existing social theories or perspectives would help to construct the new social theory by comparing them to the data obtained. It is a major benefit of abductive reasoning that can be differentiated from inductive reasoning, which requires the researcher to obtain data first and then proceed to derive a generalisation. Second, abductive reasoning is
86
useful because it focuses on the intersubjective meanings of social actors embedded in their everyday language. This thesis aims to explore the experiences of lone parents, and whether their transitions into paid work have changed their everyday lives, and in what ways, and whether it is understood as an improvement as argued by the governmental rationale (see chapter one). The data will be directly obtained from what the social actors – lone mothers - have constructed and reproduced with their own language. During the transition period of lone mothers moving to work, they would have already constructed their own concepts and meanings about their experiences, which can only be delivered by their own voice. The social world they constructed and reproduced will be the best resource to see their overall subjective well-being and quality of life, which make them the judges of their own life (Ravallion and Lokshin 1999).
The abductive reasoning and the interpretivist assumptions have led us to make two choices in the field work: qualitative in-depth interviews as the data collection tool and use of thematic analysis, influenced by grounded theory. This will be discussed further below.
87