Erika Szabó

8/2/2019 Erika Szabó

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/erika-szabo 1/9

1

Qualitative methods Erika Szabó - 830417-7440

Abstract

The first task asks for us to compare two qualitative approaches. In my case thetwo most intriguing approaches are ethnography and grounded theory (GT),

therefore my question is; How to compare ethnography with grounded theory?

My theory is that by using, John Stuart Mill’s (1843) method of difference and

agreement in comparative qualitative methods, I could take advantage of the

similarities and differences in order to determine in which way ethnography is

similar or different from GT. However as MacIntyre (1972) states, it is often not

possible to entirely compare two phenomenon, therefore you will just have to read

and see the results of my finding.

The form of the papers layout:

1. Introduction of qualitative methods in general

1.1 Background of ethnography and grounded theory

2. The approaches from an ontological and epistemological point of view

3. Characteristics of the approaches in practice

4. Conclusion by advantages and limitations



2

1. Introduction

According to Ritchie and Lewis (2003) the usage of qualitative methods is to

address such research questions that require understanding and explanation of

the social phenomena. Qualitative methods are optimized to understand

processes that happen over time and explore complex issues.

In my opinion the true nature of qualitative methods lay in distinguishing two

research stances; the inquiry from the outside and the inquiry from the inside.

Inquiry from the outside Inquiry from the inside

- Implemented by quantitative studies.

Researchers aim:

- To isolate the phenomenon and reduce

complexity for the analysis. To test the

previously derived hypothesis.

According to Shank (2002) metaphors

are used in both cases:

- The researcher sees through a

“window”, and tries to avoid biases and

identify errors.

- Logical positivism, post positivism.

- Qualitative implementation of the

study.

__________________________

- To create a holistic picture from

historically unique situations.

Idiosyncrasies are important.

Inductive mode; the data is speaking.

__________________________

- The researcher tries to lighten updark corners with a “lantern”. It

intends to discover and understand

such meanings that have not been

understood previously.

- Interpretivism.

In our case both ethnography and GT is trying to shed a light on such issues that

have previously not been raised, however they differ in certain means.

1.2 Background of ethnography and grounded theory

The salient shared purpose of studies done with the help of qualitative methods

are “instrumentation, illustration, sensitization and conceptualization” Boyd

(p.68, 2001). Researchers collect in-depth descriptive data about a phenomenon,

by detailed interviews, observations and field notes. The collected data enables

the researcher to understand and experience the phenomenon and identify issues,

while by abundant description, conceptualization is illustrated using GT.

1.2.1 Ethnography

My understanding of ethnography is influenced by authors such as Charmaz &

Mitchell (2001), Kostera (2007), Sotirin (1998), Wolf (1992), Paul Atkinson and

Martyn Hammersley (1995) and others. According to Atkinson (1995)

ethnography is primarily concerned with culture and field research. People are

studied and investigated; observations of participants are emphasized by



3

fieldwork and exploratory orientation. The aim for ethnography is to understand

how the subjects view situations, how they see themselves and regard one

another. In ethnography the researchers’ final product depends of the

investigation purpose. To choose ethnography as an approach to conduct your

research in, I believe you got to pick a subject that is exciting and new, you got to be keen to understand people and their environment in a particular culture.

Ethnography is optimal, helps the researcher to document, understand and to

involve participants by describing their realities. However, the understanding can

be written down in form of a romantic novel, a dramatic adventure such as

Indiana Jones or a diary/descriptive story using metaphors to create

interpretations of observations. The ethnographers’ theory is grounded on

empirical data, which can be tested with quantitative methods according to

Germain (1986). Charmaz and Mitchell (2001) on the other hand state thatethnography is about describing how people live their lives in different cultures.

Where participants enlighten the researcher about their behavior, values, creating

certain pattern between cultural perspectives to ease the complexity of cultures

and better understand the participants’ habits.

Atkinson is highlighting different dimensions of ethnography by quoting authors

such as Jules Rosette (1978), choosing the way of totally immersing in the life of

the “native” for an ultimate understanding, yet the demand for reflexive

ethnography that questions all the time the judgment and keeps the researcher ontrack.

1.2.2 Grounded theory

Glaser and Strauss (1976) define GT as the way to develop theory from data,

instead of the traditional gathering of data in order to try a hypothesis or form a

theory. In my opinion, GT can be thought of as the revolutionizing approach,

which gives birth to a theory from the collected data about a phenomenon.

According to Glasser and Strauss (1967) GT is an abstract methodology thatconcentrates on processes and connects stages together by the core category. Sofie

Jakobsson, Gyögy Horváth and Karin Ahlberg (2004) have conducted a study

applying grounded theory, exploring the different reactions of cancer patients. In

their case the analysis of the data has initiated a process that led to the core

category, namely how patients find peace accepting cancer, and the impact on

their lives. Jakobsson, Horváth and Ahlberg (2004) form the theory of

acceptance, which is reached only in such case, when cancer patients are

individually informed after the consultation. Thereby they can actively participate

in the process of deciding. The striking phenomenon is the self-need to be

involved in matters concerning the person, to be handled with respect and be

given the opportunity to still have a small amount of control by being able to

participate in deciding between the options given for tackling cancer. As an

overall this methodology can handle research questions such as the ethnographic



4

once, handling the changes in a social group; however according to Morse (2009)

it can also help understand the core process which is essential for the change.

Similarities and difference of these approaches regarding their aim:

Similarities Differences

It seems like researchers using

ethnography and GT both conduct in-

depth studies about a real life

phenomenon. According to Atkinson

(2007) ethnographic researchers aim is

to better understand events, cultures,

human beings and their behavior indifferent circumstances, which is

similar for GT according to Charmaz

(2001). Morse (2001) even implies that

ethnographic method can be used in GT

study.

Ethnographers provide abundant

description about culture, which is

most often the phenomenon used in

such studies. While the theory that GT

generates describes basic psychosocial

phenomena where by social interaction

they define reality (Glaser & Strauss,1967).

2. The approaches from an epistemological and

ontological point of view The epistemological beliefs according to Milliken and Schreiber (2001)

incorporate different assumptions regarding the nature of knowing, of who can be

known, who the knower is and what can it be known.

2.1 Epistemological point of view on ethnography and GT

Ethnography GT

The key epistemological assumption in

ethnography according to Atkinson is, knowing

and understanding the human behaviors within

the different cultural context. Ethnographers’

journey is long lasting due to their engagement in

getting to know and understand different events

in a culture and the meaning of certain behaviorand action, therefore the focus is on interpreting

customs, symbols and rituals. One of the biggest

challenges for ethnographers is their struggle for

objectivity caused by epistemological divergence

between the insider (emic) and outsiders view

According to Glaser and Strauss

(1967) GT has a separate

existence and is independent

from the researcher. According

to Glaser (1978) GT researchers

take advantage of the objectivist

epistemology to determine whatcan be known and who the

knower is, also the nature of

their relationship. However

based on symbolic

interactionism, GT is applied to



5

(etic). Ethnographers that think etic, immerse

extremely deep in foreign environments to gain

knowledge, research, understand and interpret

the reality of a phenomenon, while those

ethnographers who are emic believe according tothe author that it is best to leave the participants

describe as they know it the best. According to

the author the best option is to combine these

two views for the best possible outcome.

understand humans’ subjective

reality, the inner behavior

aspect.

According to the author from theemic perspective GT analyzes the

reality of a phenomenon

subjectively from the

participants’ perspective.

2.2 Ontological point of view on ethnography and GT

Ethnography GT

According to Charmaz (2001) the roots of

ethnography derive from the Chicago School

of symbolic interactionism and pragmatism.

According to the author there is an

alternative reality and several truths in the

different cultures that got to be described

accordingly. Each is different, regarding

symbols, organizing and life experience anddeserves to be studied interpreted and

understood. Ethnographers’ research is best

done in a live, natural setting, where they can

spend longer time to gain in-depth

understanding of the cultural group they

study.

According to Charmaz (2001) the

roots of GT derive from the Chicago

School of symbolic interactionism

and pragmatism. With other words

there is a different reality for the

social and natural world. According

to Glaser (1978) if the researcher

looks for reality, the world can be asubject to be studied applying a

pragmatic view. With the help of

empirical truth, the world is a

research field where things can be

observed and analyzed according to

Glaser (1992).

From an ontological perspective both ethnography and GT got several realities

which are salient for creating meaning of the events. I believe that due to the

approaches deprival from symbolic interactionism, they got very similar beliefs

about the nature of reality and the difference lies mainly in the process of

gathering data and forming an understanding.

3. Characteristics of the approaches in practice

So far it is of my understanding that ethnographers engage in understandingpeople, their actions, events and meaning of their culture, whereas GT engages in

the subjective reality and inner behavior. While ethnographers immerse

themselves in a foreign culture for longer periods of time to gain knowledge by

observing and doing, GT researchers are enabled by processes. Grounded

theorists form their theories based on interviews and in detail descriptions about



6

phenomenon such as pattern of interaction between human beans and their

mutual understanding.

3.1 Similarities & differences between Ethnography & GT:

Similarities Differences

Some of the similarities in my opinion

are the setting of the study, the way

both approaches collect data and

analyze them, also the role of the

researcher and reporting the findings.

Ethnography and GT has a natural

setting to study phenomena withoutcreating discontinuance in the natural

setting. Values and beliefs are

emphasized by both approaches. In

order to gain a bigger picture and better

understanding, researchers cohabitate

within the environment that they study

to avoid distortion of reality. However

researchers’ aims differ. Ethnography focuses on the understanding within the

cultural, natural functional and social

contexts to depict the way individual

experiences are interpreted. While GT

focuses on the context of the social

world, while collecting data about

interaction and action between

individuals and their engagement in the

phenomena under the study.

Both approaches believe that to

experience the nature of the true

phenomena you got to live it; therefore

focus groups are formed, in-depth

observation interviews and field notes

taken. The data needs to be sufficient

enough to realize a description of thephenomenon researchers understand.

Field notes are mostly for researchers to

gain knowledge about how participants

live a phenomenon. By using more than

one approach to collect data

triangulating between observations,

The salient difference in my opinion

is that ethnography got a very broad

realistic description of a specific

culture, which according to Charmaz

& Mitchell (2001) contains only one

part of reality instead of the whole

context. Ethnographers “may focus

on an aspect of the scene, rather

than an entire setting, and may not

entail the extent or depth of

involvement” Charmaz & Mitchell

(2001, p.161).

GT on the other hand got a core

category within the context of

engaged participants involved by observations, interviews and such

for an in depth description of reality.

Ethnographers can consult

conceptual literature before

conducting the study, while GT

ought not to have any recollection of

literature prior the data collection

phase or followed according toGlaser (1978) in order to avoid

constrained coding.

Regarding the sampling technique

according to Glaser & Strauss (1967)

GT aims to build theory by collecting

data, formulating codes, analyzing

and deciding further data collection

to improve the theory creation from

the data. As a consequence the

participants and data collection are

chosen with purpose and helps the

researcher to achieve saturation.

Saturation according to Charmaz &



7

field notes and in-depth interviews is

essential for keeping it real. Multiple

interpretation gives better

understanding and a wide range

perspective of the phenomenon, while italso gains credibility and accuracy

reassuring the same outcome from

several sources.

According to Glaser and Strauss (1967)

data collection and analysis is flexible

and their mutually essential to build a

theory. Whereas according to Charmaz

and Mitchell (2001), “Ethnography

suffered in the past from a rigid and

artificial separation of data collection

and analysis” (p. 162). Therefore by

applying the same technique as GT,

according to the authors it would

encourages a new level of

understanding and verification. This

technique leads GT to theoreticalabstraction and ethnography to

enriched cultural description.

According to the authors’ researchers in

ethnography and GT are to be skilled in

communicating, observing and

interpreting insider experiences and

perspectives, for they are the

instruments that collect and analyze

data from the field. By transforming the

researcher in an instrument only that

the real inner world is discovered.

Findings are reported by the perspective

of those participants that have lived and

experienced the phenomenon.

According to the authors quotations and

participants’ stories need to be involved

to represent those experiences they

lived and create the context that they

occur.

Mitchell (2001) is the point when

the researcher is out of new idea for

the categories to add.

In ethnography according toCharmaz & Mitchell (2001)

researchers do not aim not to

generate theories. Focusing mainly

to understand the meaning of a

culture and interpret their

experiences using a multiple case

sampling. Looking at several similar

and different cases to understand

one case.

Another difference is the memo

writing; while it is essential for GT

for coding the data and coming up

with a theory according to Charmaz

& Mitchell (2001) it is only useful

for ethnographers to derive the

meaning of certain actions incultures so to enhance the

description.

According to Charmaz & Mitchell

(2001) GT got a constant

comparative strategy to analyze

data, while ethnography does not as

they strive for thick description.

Regarding the processing of data

into findings GT generates findings

out of data. Whereas ethnography

has predefined concepts.

According to Charmaz and Mitchell

(2001), “Ethnographers can use

description to tell stories, form

scenes, describe players anddemonstrate actions” (p. 170).

Whereas GT focuses mainly on the

conceptual analysis and the

generated theory from the data.



8

4. Conclusion by advantages and limitations

In my opinion this study ought to be further researched, as I am not totally aware

of all similarities and differences between the two approaches. However the main

idea that you are aimed to form by reading this paper is that ethnography is out to

gain knowledge and understanding, nevertheless the dimensions are at times

differing, likewise the procedures. While ethnographers take advantage of

narratives, grounded theorists focus on the emerging theoretical framework from

the data.

According to the previously written about ethnography and GT I think the

advantage with the approaches’ is mainly that they use the natural setting.

However the natural setting can cause limitations as well, considering how hard it

is to avoid the influence of a researcher on participants while researching aphenomenon. Therefore I believe that GT has got more advantage to collect data

and process a more reliable finding/theory. While for ethnographers, in one

perspective it can be an advantage to conduct a longer research at different time

intervals, it is limited from cost perspective and the constant struggle of not going

native.

Researchers that work with GT have got in my opinion the advantage to pamper

with the material and choose the participants and data collection so that they

reach data saturation speeding up the process of finding a theory, whereasethnographers have not got the luxury of such structure.

Ethnographers are limited by the participants and the culture they study and are

forced to have the same tempo and attitude. In this perspective GT gains ground

as the researcher does not have to have previous knowledge and has got

somewhat of a control over its research therefore can reduce costs, whereas

ethnographers are limited firstly to the material they gain by reading, the in-depth

interview and observations.

The disadvantage for both cases is handling the collected data. It takes very long

time for ethnographers and grounded theorists to transcribe interviews. However

by creating concepts instead of theories GT speeds up this process. In my opinion

the biggest disadvantage for GT in this case is the initial not knowing what to

research, the continuing, not knowing if the path taken is the scientific research

and the constant being in a fog zone of not knowing for sure, how much data is

needed, is it valid data and is the result sufficient? Regarding ethnographers I

believe that the biggest challenge is the exposure of the researcher to gain validdata and the processing of the data collection. Considering that time is limited it is

a huge limitation for ethnographers to have a timeframe that needs to be

respected.

Ethnography can give the feeling of abundant description of adventurous movies

and novels, flexibility and almost an endless time interval for the discovering of



9

the research phenomena within a culture most often. Whereas GT give the feeling

of more structure, starting from scratch and giving birth to a theory of

psychosocial phenomena. The focus morphs from observing and understanding

towards action. Things happen and the understanding is directed towards the

process of social interaction that defines reality. By merging these two approachesI think that a richer description can be achieved, however I believe that GT has got

more advantages for such field I research in, and is a better approach to be

applied within Information technology.

Reference:

Atkinson, Paul & Hammersley, Martyn (2007) Ethnography - Principles in Practice. London:

Routledge.

Boyd, C. (2001). Philosophical foundations of qualitative research. In P. Munhall (Ed.), Nursing

research: A qualitative perspective (pp. 65-90). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett,

National League of Nursing.

Charmaz, K. and Mitchell, R.G. (2001) ‘Grounded theory in ethnography’, in P. Atkinson, A.Coffey,S. Delamont, J. Lofland and L. Lofland (eds) Handbook of Ethnography,

London: Sage.

Germain, C. (1986). Ethnography: The method. In P. L. Munhall & C. J. Oiler (Eds.), Nursing

research: A qualitative perspective (pp. 69-84). Norwalk

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory, Chicago, IL: Aldine

Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill

Valley, CA

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA:

Sociology Press.

Jakobsson, S., Horvath, Gy. & Alhberg, K. (2005) “A Grounded Theory Exploration of the First

Visit to a Cancer Clinic – Strategies for achieving Acceptance”, European

Journal of Oncology Nursing. 9: 248-257

MacIntyre, Alasdair (1978) “Is a Science of Comparative Politics Possible?”, in MacIntyre, Against

the Self-Images of the Age: Essays on Ideology and Philosophy. Notre Dame,

Ind: University of Notre Dame Press. Pp 260-279.

Mill, J. Stuart (1843) A System of Logic, University Press of the Pacific, Honolulu, 2002

Ritchie, Jane & Lewis, Jane (eds.) (2003) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social

Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage Publications.

Shank, G. (2002) Qualitative Research, A Personal Skills Approach, New Jersey: Merril Prentice

Wolf, M. (1992) A Thrice-Told Tale: Feminism, Postmodernism and Ethnographic Responsibility,Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press

Erika Szabó

Documents

Transcript of Erika Szabó