Theory as Fantasy: Emotional Dimensions to Grounded Theory

Abstract

In this paper we discuss emotions and fantasies that inform and influence the project of theory building. Our argument is that theory building can be improved by engaging directly with emotions and with fantasies that are defensively and creatively generated by the researcher. Once acknowledged, these can be transformed into ideas and insights. We provide an example of the emotional dynamics surrounding a novice researcher's use of grounded theory within her doctoral research. We highlight three distinctive researcher fantasies of containment, coherence and purity associated with her experience of the method. We discuss how engagement with these fantasies deepened the researcher's analysis and thereby enhanced the process of building theory from the data. Therefore, our paper contributes to an understanding of how fantasies mobilized by such an open-ended research method can help to refine our thinking about emerging theory.

Experiencing Emotion in Conducting Qualitative Research as a PhD Student

“…I believe that it is important for business and management school academics to move beyond the idea that emotions in research are intrusive (Harlos et al, 2003) or that researchers need to learn to “cope with the degree of detachment” (Saunders et al, 2015, p. 209) to manage feelings of becoming overwhelmed by large amounts of data. Emotions are integral to our experience and practice as qualitative researchers, and our methodological training needs to help doctoral students (and other early career academics) to be attached to the insights that are available through emotional self-reflexivity within a researcher role (Clancy & Vince, 2019b). Through our methodology teaching, we can support doctoral students’ understanding that a researcher must not only notice the emotional impact of participation in a research encounter but also be able to reflect on the emotional experience evoked by it (Hollway, 2016; Vince, 1995).…”

“…It is quite natural and sensible that students defend themselves against the vulnerabilities that such feelings generate. However, these feelings are integral to the role of researcher and the depth of insight that can be generated from data (see Clancy & Vince, 2019b, for an example). Finally, engaging with emotional experience creates knowledge about emotional reflexivity within doctoral research, raising the possibility, for example, that students might write their doctoral thesis "differently" (Weatherall, 2019) or that methods might emerge that deliberately engage with researchers' unconscious projections onto respondents (Gilmore & Kenny, 2015).…”

“…Recent work on self-reflexivity in research has expanded these ideas to consider “research as a dialogic process of learning” (Corlett, 2013, p. 456) that encourages participant learning through the identification of “striking moments” (Cunliffe, 2002, p. 42). Such moments can be emotional realizations (located in respondents and/or researchers) that help individuals and groups to make sense of and to learn from their experience within a research process (Corlett, 2013) as well as supporting imaginative interpretation of qualitative data (Clancy & Vince, 2019b).…”

Institutional Illogics: The Unconscious and Institutional Analysis

“…Other researchers have outlined the role of fantasy in data generation, analysis and theory building (Clancy & Vince, 2018; Lapping, 2016). For example, Clancy and Vince (2018) discuss the idea of ‘theory as fantasy’ – that inductive approaches that look at how patterns emerge from the data, depend on ‘imaginative interpretations’ (Charmaz, 2008, p. 157).…”

“…Other researchers have outlined the role of fantasy in data generation, analysis and theory building (Clancy & Vince, 2018; Lapping, 2016). For example, Clancy and Vince (2018) discuss the idea of ‘theory as fantasy’ – that inductive approaches that look at how patterns emerge from the data, depend on ‘imaginative interpretations’ (Charmaz, 2008, p. 157). They suggest that there can be a parallel relationship between theory building and fantasy building in inductive methods; that processes of theory building can be improved by engaging directly with fantasies that are defensively and creatively generated by the researcher.…”