1

Qualitative methods

Erika Szab - 830417-7440

Abstract
The first task asks for us to compare two qualitative approaches. In my case the two 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 Mills (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

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 - Implemented by quantitative studies. Researchers aim: - To isolate the phenomenon and reduce complexity for the analysis. To test the previously derived hypothesis. Inquiry from the inside - 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 up dark corners with a lantern. It intends to discover and understand such meanings that have not been understood previously. - Interpretivism.

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.

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

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 that ethnography 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 on track.

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 that concentrates on processes and connects stages together by the core category. Sofie Jakobsson, Gygy Horvth 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, Horvth 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

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 It seems like researchers using ethnography and GT both conduct indepth studies about a real life phenomenon. According to Atkinson (2007) ethnographic researchers aim is to better understand events, cultures, human beings and their behavior in different circumstances, which is similar for GT according to Charmaz (2001). Morse (2001) even implies that ethnographic method can be used in GT study. Differences 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 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 behavior and 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 GT 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 what can be known and who the knower is, also the nature of their relationship. However based on symbolic interactionism, GT is applied to

(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 to the 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 the emic perspective GT analyzes the reality of a phenomenon subjectively from the participants perspective.

2.2 Ontological point of view on ethnography and GT

Ethnography 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 and deserves 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. GT 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 a subject 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 understanding people, 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

phenomenon such as pattern of interaction between human beans and their mutual understanding.

3.1 Similarities & differences between Ethnography & GT:

Similarities 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 without creating 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 the phenomenon 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, Differences 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 to Glaser (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 &

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 it also 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 theoretical abstraction 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 to Charmaz & 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 in cultures 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 and demonstrate actions (p. 170). Whereas GT focuses mainly on the conceptual analysis and the generated theory from the data.

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 a phenomenon. 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, whereas ethnographers 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 valid data 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

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 approaches I 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