Una Teoría de Justicia: Desde Kant y Más Allá de Él

Grounded theory was first developed in the 1960s and since then it has become a major qualitative research methodology especially in applied social research. It was ‘discovered’ and developed in the 1960s by Barney Glaser, a quantitative researcher and Anslem Strauss, a qualitative researcher during a major

58

sociological investigation of death and dying in health care settings. Grounded theory was first described in detail in the seminal work: “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” (Glaser and Strauss 1967), and the approach was further

developed by Glaser in “Theoretical Sensitivity” (1978). A set of guidelines are provided by these two books for undertaking sociological research with the goal of generating, as opposed to testing, theory, using inductive logic. That is, grounded theory does not begin with an existing theory, and then seek to prove it; rather it begins with an area of study and allows the relevant theory to emerge from the data gathered during the study (Strauss and Corbin 1990). The objectives and essence of grounded theory as originally stated by Glaser and Strauss (1967) were as follows:

In this book we address ourselves to the equally important enterprise of how the discovery of theory from data – systematically obtained and analyzed in social research – can be furthered. We believe that the discovery of theory from data – which we call grounded theory – is a major task confronting sociology today, for as we shall try to show such a theory fits empirical situations, and is understandable to sociologists and layman alike. Most important, it works – provides us with relevant predictions, explanations, interpretations and applications. (p.1)

Grounded theory emphasizes the importance of meaning, perceptions, interactions and context in the comprehension of a particular phenomenon. Importantly, as noted above, it should also ‘work’ in the real world and have practical application. In this study, my goal was to develop a theory that would help to explain how community-dwelling older people in Hong Kong and their health and social care professionals perceive and respond to elder abuse. The idea, as noted above, that it should be ‘understandable to… laymen’ and that it

59

should ‘work’, for me cemented the appeal of grounded theory.

Grounded theory and its philosophical underpinnings

It is well documented that grounded theory has its origins in symbolic interactionism (Benoliel 1996), a philosophical perspective which reasons that humans act toward their surroundings (persons and/or situations) based on the meanings they perceive that these things have for them. These meanings are derived from social interactions with others and are modified over time through an interpretative process (Baker et al. 1992, Blumer 1969); consequently, the method focuses on the dynamic relationship between meaning and actions (Charmaz 2006).

Symbolic interactionism, as a social psychological and sociological theory, originated from American Pragmatism (Schwandt 1997). As stated in Blumer’s seminal text (1969), symbolic interactionism is grounded in three basic principles:

… [Firstly] humans act towards things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them; … [secondly] the meaning of such things is drawn from the social interaction that one has with one’s peers; … [thirdly] these meanings are then modified through an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things encountered. (p. 2)

To a certain extent, the pragmatic influence of symbolic interactionism takes the view that an empirical science – ‘truth’ – presumes the existence of an empirical world, which ‘exists’ as something available for observation or discovery (Chamberlain-Salaun et al. 2013). This perspective on social life that is implanted in symbolic interactionism has been challenged by later writers on

60

grounded theory such as Charmaz (2000), who propose a more dynamic approach to understanding human behavior whilst also acknowledging that a ‘real world’ exists. In proposing a constructivist approach, Charmaz sums her position up in the following way:

“… the constructivist approach does not seek truth – single, universal, and lasting. Still, it remains realist because it addresses human realities and assumes the existence of real worlds.” (p.523).

Such an approach recognizes knowledge as a mutual creation between the viewer and the viewed, and this was entirely consistent with my aim of engaging with people and seeking their perceptions on the phenomenon of elder abuse. Therefore, whilst I adopted grounded theory as the broad methodological underpinning for my study it was the constructivist approach that most appealed. This, as will be described below, is one of the more recent variants in the evolution of grounded theory.

The evolution of grounded theory

As with other research methodologies, grounded theory has evolved throughout the decades since its initial development by Glaser and Strauss in the mid-1960s. During the 1970s these two scholars have taken grounded theory in somewhat different directions (Charmaz 2000) – Glaser by himself and Strauss with his colleague Juliet Corbin. This resulted initially in the formation of two distinct variants of grounded theory: The Glaserian version on the one hand and on the other, the Strauss and Corbin’s version (Charmaz 2006, McCallin 2003). In Strauss’s later works with Corbin, the link with symbolic interactionism became more distant (Clarke 2005). Gradually, there emerged a third ‘school’ of

61

grounded theory, moving further away from the positivism which some saw as being associated with the previous two schools of grounded theory (Bryant 2003, Charmaz 2000, 2006; Clarke 2005).

These methodological variants of grounded theory have evolved and changed with the socio-political-economic and intellectual contexts in which they developed (Dey 2003) and have resulted in different interpretations of grounded theory. In deciding upon an appropriate approach in a given study, it is essential to consider such variations in methods (McCallin 2003). I therefore read extensively in the area of grounded theory, which provided an opportunity to become acquainted with some of the differences between the various schools that existed.

The Glaserian version, for instance, is known for its ontological roots in critical realism, which assumes that reality is out there in an objective world and that the researcher is deemed to be independent of the research per se, standing outside of the social world and therefore able to interpret that reality ‘objectively’ (Annells 1996). Within classic or traditional grounded theory, it seems that ‘all’ reality is to be discovered by the researcher who acts as an objective bystander keeping a distance from said ‘reality’.

On the other hand, Strauss and Corbin (1998) suggest that the researcher is more involved and is not an entirely detached observer. They clearly stated that they do not believe in the existence of a “pre-existing reality ‘out there.’ To think otherwise is to take a positivistic position that … we reject… Our position is that truth is enacted” (Strauss and Corbin 1994, p.279). Fundamentally, these

62

epochs, eras and moments are to be taken into account in the creation, judgment,

revision and reformulation of theories” (p.280).

Similar to this version, constructivist grounded theory has its ontological roots in relativism but takes this considerably further. Therefore, constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz 2000 & 2006, Charmaz and Mitchell 2001) takes a reflexive and interactive approach to creating ‘knowledge’ and is located, as the name suggests, in the constructivist-interpretative paradigm (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). Constructivist research approaches assume a relativist ontology and a subjectivist epistemology. As such, advocates of these approaches promote the co-construction of understandings of the subject under discussion involving both participants and the researcher (Denzin and Lincoln 2005).

In relation to grounded theory, Charmaz (2000, 2006) sees a constructivist approach as being a profoundly interactive research method in which participants and the researcher interact at all stages. Therefore, constructivist grounded theorists view the researcher as part of the process of inquiry, and the researcher’s observations, worldviews and interpretations therefore become part of the data. Consequently, constructivist grounded theories are informed by the researcher’s “past and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives, and research practices” (Charmaz 2006, p.10) and “what the

researcher brings to the data influences what they see within it” (Charmaz 2006,

p15). This was the approach that I chose to adopt because throughout the process of data collections and analysis, my personal background, values and understanding of the context must have exerted some impact on how I saw things, to a greater or lesser extent. Consequently, as a researcher, I needed to be cautious of but not ignore such influences.

63