A researcher's tale: dealing with epistemological divergence

Abstract

Purpose -The paper's purpose is to explore a theoretical and methodological dilemma. Design/methodology/approach -Commencing doctoral research, and committed to an orthodox grounded theory approach, a unique story was uncovered which, to do it and the research justice, required an alternative form of representation. Intuition decreed that this should be narrative. However, grounded theory and narrative entail epistemologically and ontologically incommensurate paradigms. The paper seeks to consider whether inclusion of the unique story would compromise, or subvert, the already emergent grounded theory. An exploration of the relationship between different epistemological and ontological traditions is also to be made, based on the assumption that method "slurring," and a more eclectic approach to using incommensurate paradigms, may be valuable. Findings -In transcribing and coding data using strictly orthodox grounded theory methods, the researcher runs the risk of "stripping" the research story of some critical dimension(s). However, combining a narrative approach with that of grounded theory, the paper allows for the representation of an atypical "Maverick" case, along-side other more typical cases. Originality/value -The paper points out, to the early career qualitative researcher in particular, that it is legitimate to combine seemingly incommensurate methodologies, notably where not to do so would result in the loss of enriching and powerful insights into basic social processes.

Generic Qualitative Approaches: Pitfalls and Benefits of Methodological Mixology

“…Grounded theory assumptions-involving a process of "breaking down" data into units of meaning in order to find commonalities and differences within the research population (Charmaz, 2006)-are altered mid-stream, creating contradictions between grounded theory's overarching attempt to build theory generated from a broad theoretical sample and the narrative inquiry effort to represent each participant's "voice" on an individual level. Despite Bryant and Lasky's (2007) attempts to reconcile epistemological differences and differences in research purpose, questions about whether, in the end, both purposes can be achieved in a single study remain.…”

“…Here, the researcher argued that she was compelled by the data to change and mix her methodological approaches (Bryant & Lasky, 2007); during a grounded theory study, "a 'story' presented by one participant was so compelling and original that just to 'code' the interview transcript would have seemed a travesty" (p. 182). The researcher then chose to mix narrative inquiry with her original grounded theory approach in order to represent the "individual voice" within the story.…”

Who Am I?

“…Riessman (1993) indicates that narrative analysis allows for a systematic study of personal experience and argues that, while challenging, qualitative analysis can be combined with narrative methods. The work of Bryant and Lasky (2007) articulate how the grounded theory and narrative analysis are beneficial:…”

“…Grounded theory, as presented by Glaser and Strauss (1967), allows for the constant comparison of narrative to assist in the unambiguous presentation of theory which aided in conveying credibility. As noted in the Literature Review, many other authors have pointed out the advantages of using grounded theory as well (Babbie, 2009;Bryant & Lasky, 2007;Charmaz, 2005;Decrop & Snelders, 2004;Glaser, 1998;Strauss & Corbin, 1990;Trochim, 2009). The linking of grounded theory with narrative analysis provided a unique, yet powerful design in generating theory from the data.…”

“…As Bryant and Lasky (2007, p. 191) point out, while grounded theory and narrative analysis involve epistemologically disproportionate paradigms, the mixture allows for an atypical "Maverick" case resulting in the enrichment and insight of the process. Bryant and Lasky (2007) further justified, while grounded theory runs the risk of "stripping" critical proportions of the research, combining it with narrative analysis allows for a "continuous collaborative act" of ideographic representations of the biographies. Therefore, a more robust research outcome is provided through the combination of grounded theory and narrative analysis, which this research employs.…”