Abstract
In this chapter I develop further my discussions of generative theorizing as introduced in earlier chapters and I explore in more depth what responsible generative theorizing might amount to. I link this to a discussion around the use of retroductive logic , which I argue (combined in some way with deduction and induction) offers a way of organizing inferences which include imaginative leaps and which can, in accordance with generative theorizing, be consciously forward looking. I suggest that a kind of retroductive logic is being invoked when inquirers/co-inquirers create inferences which admittedly do not relate in any direct logical way to “empirical evidence”, but which make sense of interpreted evidence/experience in ways which are in turn inspiring of constructive action. I indicate that such a mode of inference therefore can become a resource for generative theorizing, which is consciously geared to being future forming. I offer examples of this by drawing on the detailed discussions which I introduced in earlier chapters. I also highlight (and draw out) associations between retroduction and Indigenous arguments regarding the importance of grounding knowledge generation (as a social practice) in an appreciation of our connectedness with others and with all that exists.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Gergen notes that from a traditional scientific perspective (which would include traditional positivism and Popper’s later postpositivist work on hypothetico-deductivism), “a close relationship should ideally be maintained between theory and data” (1978, p. 1350) so that statements that are generated can be regarded as “ethically neutral” (1978, p. 1350). Gergen’s account of this position would be applicable also to qualitative theorizing which assumes that inductive theory-building is a way of securing researcher neutrality.
- 2.
See my discussion in Romm (2010, pp. 241–243) regarding attempted minimization of what is sometimes called the reactivity effect.
- 3.
Deetz clarifies that working with a view of generative theorizing (as developed by Gergen) means that people in communities are not urged to apply the theories—rather, as he puts it, the point is to engage in a potentially inventive conversation so that (professional) researchers can “develop a conversation with people in communities around their needs rather than our literatures and preferred topics of study” (2008, p. 290). He also concurs with Gergen (1978) that it is important to develop generative theorizing, which Deetz suggests can better be understood as co-generative theorizing (p. 289, my italics). Following Gergen, he considers that this involves as he calls it, “a compelling way to think and talk about the world” (p. 290).
- 4.
Gergen speaks of the “watching, looking and seeing” metaphor. I have focused on the watching part of the metaphor, as this to me implies a specifically passive approach in contrast to the active approach tied to recognizing how knowing contributes to world-shaping. I believe that seeing can be linked to “imagining new visions” (which can be forward looking) and that looking can be linked to re-looking and reviewing (as the term re-search might imply), including being forward looking. Of course these are just words, but as Denzin aptly puts it (2001, p. 24), words matter in the way in which they can point to possibilities.
- 5.
Layder makes this argument in the context of critically examining Hammersley’s reliance on Popper’s (1959, 1969) arguments on the logic of scientific discovery to justify certain ethnographic forms of theorizing—see Romm (2010, pp. 274–276). Layder compares Hammersley’s argument concerning theory-testing as the hallmark of science (including in ethnographic work) with that of Merton, noting that both follow a Popperian position regarding the empirical basis of science. Turner for his part (1998, p. 22) notes that Merton hoped that eventually the various middle range theories that had been established could be consolidated into a more general (grand?) theoretical scheme, but this scheme would still have to be rooted in “empirical findings” (to be deemed scientific in his terms).
- 6.
As I indicated in Chap. 1, Footnote 18, Kuntz advocates for a “new materialist” position, which draws on various (including Marxist-oriented) theoretical traditions to make the case that “matter” (of whatever kind) is in the process of being formed, and hence always has productive capacity toward a “yet to become” future state of being (2015, p. 83).
- 7.
In Romm (2010, pp. 219–241) I explore in depth Essed’s methodological approach. See also http://www.encyclopediaofafroeuropeanstudies.eu/encyclopedia/philomena-essed/.
- 8.
Grey (2003), also citing Sunseri (2000, p. 146), states that in many “traditional” societies it can be said that “Indigenous women were central to family, community, political, social and cultural expression; all of which operated on foundational principles of balance and consensus”. Grey argues that even if gender relations were “not ideal” there were, “more nuanced gender relations” traditionally in such societies than can be understood using terms such as “patriarchy” as employed in the language of many non-Indigenous/White feminists. This is also an argument offered by Hoppers (2015), which I further explore in Romm (2017).
- 9.
This is normally tied to an argument to the effect that the logic of retroduction properly guides the study of both natural and social reality (see Romm, 2001, p. 4).
- 10.
Clarke explains that “the very term ‘grounded theory’ means data-grounded theorizing …. The theorizing is “generated by tacking back and forth between the … specificities of empirical data and more abstract ways of thinking about them” (2009, p. 214). Like Charmaz (and others), she argues that this process is “called abductive reasoning” (2009, p. 214).
- 11.
Strauss and Corbin likewise suggest that analyses can operate “at every level of scale from the most “macro” to the most “micro” (1994, p. 275). What I am proposing (following authors such as Gergen, 2015; Kuntz, 2015; Meyer & Lunnay, 2013) is that moving between scales also involves some imaginative leaps in order to point to the potential of (theorized) structures to become radically reconstructed.
- 12.
Glaser (2002) in turn argues that it is “too simple” for her to suggest that she is adding another vision for future qualitative research, namely constructivist grounded theory [GT] (2002, para 7). Glaser believes that one can try within a grounded theory approach to minimize the constructed character of “data”. For example, he suggests that “with the passive, non-structured interviewing or listening of the GT interview-observation method, constructivism is held to a minimum” (para 10). This contention of his (and efforts to desist from admitting that data involves an interaction between researchers and participants) would not be accepted by constructivist-oriented researchers.
- 13.
Clarke (2005, 2009) points out that through situational analysis one can explore various conditions of the situation which are “in the situation” (in the sense that they are felt as consequential). Such conditions include: discursive constructions of actions; organizational/institutional elements; major contested issues; local to global elements; symbolic elements; popular and other discourses; various empirical elements; spatial and temporal elements; human elements (individual and collective); nonhuman elements; and political economic elements (2009, p. 209). She states that the fundamental assumption of situated analysis is that “everything in the situation both constituted and affects almost everything else in the situation in some way(s)” (2009, p. 209).
- 14.
Strauss and Corbin (1994, p. 280) suggest that in their consideration of the status of grounded theory, they “follow closely … the American pragmatist position” as expressed by Dewey (1937) and Mead (1917). They remark in this context that “a theory is not a formulation of some discovered aspect of a pre-existing aspect ‘out there’ …. Theories are embedded ‘in history’”. (1994, p. 280). Therefore, according to them “historical moments are to be taken into account in the creation, judgment, revision, and reformulation of theories” (1994, p. 280).
- 15.
Reichertz here states that in this vision of the value of social science explanations, they would not be able to “be derived from proven grand theories, first because these are, as a rule, not sufficiently local,’ and second because they have frequently already been overtaken by constant social change” (2007, p. 217). Hence Reichertz suggests that a more middle range theorizing is appropriate in that such theorizing is more locally attuned. But one can just as well suggest, as do certain Indigenous-oriented author, that theories which purport to explain (and criticize) large-scale processes of globalization (such as that provided in postcolonial theory) can also serve to inspire resistant action, as long as specificities in situ are not thereby outruled. Consider, for example, the suggestions offered by Hall and Fenelon (2009), Akena (2017), and McLaughlin (2001). McLaughlin states her argument thus: “Finally, postcolonial theory, while universally applicable, has to focus on specificities” (2001, p. 8).
- 16.
Charmaz herself notes that it is not clear whether a researcher must use all the strategies of grounded theory in order to claim to be using “grounded theory” (2012, p. 3).
- 17.
Ragin (1994) considers the main feature of abduction/retroduction as lying in the fact that the researcher generates a dialogue between ideas and evidence. He defines retroduction as involving a process of constructing representations from the interaction between analytic frames and images (which are constructed from the evidence) (see also Ragin & Amoroso, 2011, pp. 76–78).
- 18.
I have added in square brackets in Price’s above quotation that discussions around “realness” (and the good life) need not take the form of debate—which might imply adopting an adversarial stance, as noted for example by Collins (2000), Harris and Wasilewski (2004), and Wilson (2003). Rather the discussions should take the form of a dialogue in which together people enrich their perspectives and possibilities for action.
- 19.
Her argument in this regard bears some similarity with what Dressman would call using theoretical frames as a “dialectical scaffold”, where tension between theory(ies) used and “the data” is specifically drawn out. Efforts are not made to “align” the data in any obvious connection with a theory or theories, because the purpose is more to “re-read” and “re-think” theoretical frames (2007, pp. 347–349). I would suggest that what is important about “dialectic” logic is that it is forward looking, and is able to incorporate contradictions in practice. Serper (2015) gives an example of how dialectic logic goes beyond propositional logic:
Proposition A: Alon is stupid
Proposition B: Alon is smart
According to this (propositional) logic, “If Alon is smart then he cannot be stupid”. And “If Alon is stupid then he cannot smart”. As Serper notes “evidence is then brought to render one of the propositions truthful and valid which invalidates the other proposition and possible explanation”. But according to dialectic logic, Alon can, for instance, actively transform his intelligence (by becoming more self-reflective, also by considering others’ perspectives) and hence become smarter (in practice). In this process, as Serper puts it, “Different relevant propositional enquiries and responses and linguistic assertions that could be contradictory transform each other” (2015).
- 20.
Gergen likewise remarks that within the social sciences, discussions around the nature of scientific truth “have left a trail of misunderstandings, animosities, and an increasing divide between traditionalists and those variously termed ‘postfoundationalist,’ ‘post-empiricist,” and ‘post-modern’”. He indicates that it is not his intention to “review the vast body of literature surrounding these issues, nor to resolve the remaining tensions” (2015, p. 288). What he tries to accomplish in his article, is to offer an argument for viewing social science as future forming.
References
Akena, F. A. (2017). Customary land tenure and ecological sustainability in Acholi land, Northern Uganda. In J. J. McIntyre-Mills, Y. Cocoran-Nantes, & N. R. A. Romm (Eds.), Balancing individualism and collectivism: Social and environmental justice (pp. 221–237). New York: Springer.
Roman-Alcalá, A. (2015). Broadening the Land Question in Food Sovereignty to Northern Settings: A Case Study of Occupy the Farm. Globalizations, 12(4), 545–558.
Bati, T. B. (2015). Blended learning in large class introductory programming courses: An empirical study in the context of an Ethiopian university. Doctoral thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.
Bendassolli, P. F. (2013). Theory building in qualitative research: Reconsidering the problem of induction. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14(1) (Art. 25).
Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science (with a new introduction). London: Routledge.
Castellano, M. B. (2004). Ethics of Aboriginal research. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1(1), 98–114.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 397–412). New York: Guildford press.
Charmaz, K. (2009). Shifting the grounds: Constructivist grounded theory methods. In J. M. Morse, P. N. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz, & A. E. Clarke (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second generation (pp. 127–154). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Charmaz, K. (2012). The power and potential of grounded theory. Medical Sociology Online, 6(3), 2–15.
Chiasson, P. (2001). Abduction as an aspect of retroduction. Retrieved July 6, 2008, at: http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/abachi.htm.
Chilisa, B. (2007). Decolonizing ethics in social research: Toward a framework for research ethics in African contexts. In A. Rwomire & F. B. Nyamnjoh (Eds.), Challenges and responsibilities of social research in Africa: Ethical issues (pp. 199–208). Addis Ababa: Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA).
Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. London: Sage.
Cisneros, R. T., & Hisijara, B. A. (2013). A social systems approach to global problems. Cincinnati, OH: Institute for 21st Century Agoras.
Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clarke, A. E. (2009). From grounded theory to situational analysis: What’s new? Why? How? In J. M. Morse, P. N. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz, & A. E. Clarke (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second generation (pp. 194–233). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). London: Harper Collins.
Davidson, J. O. C., & Layder, D. (1994). Methods, sex and madness. London: Routledge.
De Souza, D. E. (2014). Culture, context and society: The underexplored potential of critical realism as a philosophical framework for theory and practice. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17(2), 141–151.
Deetz, S. (2008). Engagement as co-generative theorizing. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(3), 289–297.
Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative Research, 1(1), 23–46.
Denzin, N. K., & Giardina, M. D. (2009). Introduction: Toward a politics of hope. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and social justice (pp. 11–51). Walnut Creek CA: Left Coast Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 1–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dressman, M. (2007). Theoretically framed: Argument and desire in the production of general knowledge about literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), 332–363.
Essed, Ph. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. London: Sage.
Essed, Ph. (2001). Toward a methodology to identify continuing forms of everyday discrimination. Retrieved June 5, 2008, at: www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/essed45.htm.
Gergen, K. J. (1978). Toward generative theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(11), 1344.
Gergen, K. J. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context. American Psychologist, 56(10), 803–813.
Gergen, K. J. (2015). From mirroring to worldmaking: Research as future forming. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(3), 287–310.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3) (Art. 12).
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
Glass, K. C., & Kaufert, J. (2007). Research ethics review and aboriginal community values: Can the two be reconciled? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(2), 25–40.
Grey, S. (2003). Decolonizing feminism: Aboriginal women and the global “Sisterhood”. Enweyin: The Way We Speak, 8, 9–2.
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (vol. 1): Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Hall, T. D., & Fenelon, J. V. (2009). Indigenous peoples and globalization: Resistance and revitalization. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Harris, L. D., & Wasilewski, J. (2004). Indigeneity, an alternative worldview: Four R’s (relationship, responsibility, reciprocity, redistribution) vs. two P’s (power and profit). Sharing the journey toward conscious evolution. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21(5), 489–503.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. London: Sage.
Hoppers, C. A. O. (2015). Indigenous knowledge systems and the transformation of education in South Africa. Presentation at the University of South Africa, 29 September.
Joas, H. (1994). Pragmatism. In W. Outhwaite & T. Bottomore (Eds.), The Blackwell dictionary of twentieth-century social thought (pp. 505–507). Oxford: Alden Press.
Kahane, A. (2012). Transformative scenario planning: Working together to change the future. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kazi, M. A. F. (2003). Realist evaluation in practice: Health and social work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Knudson, S. K. (2015). Integrating the self and the spirit: Strategies for aligning qualitative research teaching with Indigenous methods, methodologies, and epistemology. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(3) (Art. 4).
Kuntz, A. M. (2015). The responsible methodologist: Inquiry, truth-telling, and social justice. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Lavia, J., & Mahlomaholo, S. (2012). Introduction: Imagining the postcolonial. In J. Lavia & S. Mahlomaholo (Eds.), Culture, education and community: Expressions of the postcolonial imagination (pp. 1–13). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Layder, D. (1993). New strategies in social research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (Bennington, & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press.
Maathai, W. (2006). Unbowed: A memoir. New York: Anchor Books.
Magnat, V. (2012). Performative approaches to interdisciplinary and cross cultural research. In L.-H. Smith & A. Narayan (Eds.), Research beyond borders (pp. 157–177). Plymouth, England: Lexington.
Marsden, R. (1998). The unknown masterpiece: Marx’s model of capital. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22, 297–324.
McIntyre-Mills, J. J. (2014a). Systemic ethics and non-anthropocentric stewardship. New York: Springer.
McIntyre-Mills, J. J. (2014b). Transformation from wall street to wellbeing. New York: Springer.
McLaughlin, J. M. (2001). Accommodating perceptions, searching for authenticity and decolonizing methodology: The case of the Australia/Papua New Guinea Secondary School Students’ Project. Paper presented at the 29th ANZCIES Conference, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, 6–8 December.
Mertens, D. M. (2011). Mixed Methods as Tools for Social Change. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(3), 195–197.
Mertens, D. M. (2016). Advancing social change in South Africa through transformative research. South African Review of Sociology, 47(1), 5–17.
Merton, R. K. (1964). Social theory and social structure. London: Free Press.
Meyer, S. B., & Lunnay, B. (2013). The application of abductive and retroductive inference for the design and analysis of theory-driven sociological research. Sociological Research Online, 18(1) (Art. 12).
Mingers, J. (2000). The contribution of critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for OR/MS and systems. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(11), 1256–1270.
Mugadza, G. (2015). Systems thinking and design thinking: Complementary approaches. Systems Thinking World Journal: Reflection in Action, 4, 1–7.
Newbury, J. (2011). A place for theoretical inconsistency. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(4), 335–347.
Oczak, M., & Niedźwieńska, A. (2007). Debriefing in deceptive research: A proposed new procedure. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(3), 49–59.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1986). Racial formation in the United States. New York: Routledge.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2002). Reflections on “racial formation”. In Ph Essed & D. T. Goldberg (Eds.), Race critical theories (pp. 455–459). Oxford: Blackwell.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Frels, R. K. (2015). A framework for conducting critical dialectical pluralist focus group discussions using mixed research techniques. Journal of Educational Issues, 1(2), 159–177.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). A call for qualitative power analyses. Quality & Quantity, 41(1), 105–121.
Paavola, S. (2004). Abduction through grammar, critic, and methodeutic. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, 40(2), 245–270.
Patel, R. (2015). The role of reflective practice in educating about race, identity and difference. Doctoral thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, England.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
Peirce, C. S. (1908). A neglected argument for the reality of God. Retrieved March 5, 2008, at: https://archives.library.illinois.edu/erec/University%20Archives/1515022/OriginalFiles/LITERATURE/PEIRCE/A%20Neglected%20Argument%20for%20the%20Reality%20of%20God%20-%20Wikisource.pdf.
Peirce, C. S. (1911). The Peirce manuscripts. Commens Peirce Dictionary (Retroduction). Retrieved March 5, 2008, at: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/retroduction.html.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Popper, K. R. (1969). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge.
Portelli, J. P. (2014). Forward. In N. N. Wane, F. A. Akena, & A. A. Ilmi (Eds.), Spiritual discourse in the academy: A globalized Indigenous perspective (pp. xi–xiii). New York: Peter Lang.
Pratto, F., Saguy, T., Stewart, A. L., Morselli, D., Foels, R., Aiello, A., & Eicher, V. (2014). Attitudes toward Arab ascendance: Israeli and global perspectives. Psychological Science, 25(1), 85–94.
Price, L. (2005). Playing musement games: Retroduction in social research, with particular reference to Indigenous knowledge in environmental and health education. Southern African Journal of Environmental Education, 22, 87–96.
Puddephatt, A. J., & Charmaz, K. C. (2006). An interview with Kathy Charmaz: On constructing grounded theory. Qualitative Sociology Review, 2(3).
Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing social research. Newbury Park, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Ragin, C. C., & Amoroso, L. M. (2011). Constructing social research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Redman-MacLaren, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Transformational grounded theory: Theory, voice, and action. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(3), 1–12.
Reichertz, J. (2007). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. In A. Bryant & C. Charmaz (Eds.), Handbook of grounded theory (pp. 214–228). London: Sage.
Rivombo, A. M. (2016). Using interviewing combined with lesson observation to enhance adult educators’ reflections around addressing diversity in Soshanguve, South Africa. South African Review of Sociology, 47(1), 37–57.
Romm, N. R. A. (2001a). Accountability in social research: Issues and debates. New York: Springer.
Romm, N. R. A. (2001b). Critical theoretical concerns in relation to development. In J. K. Coetzee, J. Graaff, F. Hendricks, & G. Wood (Eds.), Development theory, policy and practice (pp. 141–153). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Romm, N. R. A. (2010). New racism: Revisiting researcher accountabilities. New York: Springer.
Romm, N. R. A. (2013). Employing questionnaires in terms of a constructivist epistemological stance: Reconsidering researchers’ involvement in the unfolding of social life. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12, 652–669.
Romm, N. R. A. (2017). Researching Indigenous ways of knowing-and-being: Revitalizing relational quality of living. In P. Ngulube (Ed.), Handbook of research on theoretical perspectives on indigenous knowledge systems in developing countries (pp. 22–48). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Romm, N. R. A., & Tlale, L. D. N. (2016). Nurturing research relationships: Showing care and catalysing action in a South African school research-and-intervention project. South African Review of Sociology, 47(1), 18–36.
Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Nel, M., & Malinen, O. P. (2012). Understanding teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), 51–68.
Sayer, A. (1999). Realism and social science. New Delhi: Sage.
Serper, A. (2015). A future unfolding: The meaning of qualitative transformation in society. Paper presented at Limmud, 1 August, Idaba Hotel, Fourways, Johannesburg.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ssali, S. N., & Theobald, S. (2016). Using life histories to explore gendered experiences of conflict in Gulu District, Northern Uganda: Implications for post-conflict health reconstruction. South African Review of Sociology, 47(1), 81–98.
Stephens O. A. (2012). Investigating effects of Six Thinking Hats and emotional intelligence training on creativity thinking and emotional intelligence of recidivists in Lagos State, Nigeria. Doctoral dissertation, Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria.
Stephens, O. A. (2015). Recidivism, emotional intelligence and creativity thinking. Saarbrücken: Lambert.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tlale, L. D. N., & Romm, N. R. A. (2017). Systemic thinking and practice toward facilitating inclusive education: Reflections on a case of co-generated knowledge and action in South Africa. Systemic Practice and Action Research. doi:10.1007/s11213-017-9437-4.
Turner, J. H. (1991). The structure of sociological theory (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Turner, J. H. (1998). The structure of sociological theory (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Vannini, A., & Gladue, C. (2008). Decolonized methodologies in cross-cultural research. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Doing cross-cultural research: Ethical and methodological perspectives (pp. 137–159). New York: Springer.
Walker, P. (2001). Imperial and colonial impact on research. Paper presented at the Postcolonialism and Education conference, 17–19 August, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Wane, N. N., Manyimo, E. L., & Ritskes, E. J. (Eds.). (2011). Spirituality, education and society. New York: Springer.
Wertz, F. J. (2011). The qualitative revolution and psychology: Science, politics, and ethics. The Humanistic Psychologist 39(2), 77–104.
White, L. (2003). The role of systems research and operational research in community involvement: A case study of a health action zone. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 20(2), 133–145.
Wilson, S. (2003). Progressing toward an Indigenous research paradigm in Canada and Australia. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 27(2), 161–178.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
Woldegies, B. D. (2014). Economic empowerment through income generating activities and social mobilization: The case of married Amhara women of Wadla Woreda, North Wollo Zone, Ethiopia. Doctoral thesis, Antioch University, Yellow Springs, Ohio.
Woldegies, B. D. (2016). Research highlighting options for gender empowerment in Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. South African Review of Sociology, 47(1), 58–80.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Romm, N.R.A. (2018). Responsible Generative Theorizing. In: Responsible Research Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74386-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74386-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74384-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74386-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)