Advertisement

Contested Concepts: Negotiating Debates About Qualitative Research Methods Such as Grounded Theory and Autoethnography

  • Steven Pace
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods book series (PSERM)

Abstract

Learning how to use a qualitative research method is a challenging task that is often made more difficult by contested definitions and descriptions of the method in question. How should novice researchers deal with methodological debates and disagreements within the research community when attempting to employ a contested research method for their own study? Pace explores this question using two qualitative methods as examples: grounded theory and autoethnography. This chapter considers why grounded theory and autoethnography qualify as contested concepts while unpacking their procedures and the controversies that surround them. Suggestions for negotiating debates about contested research methods are drawn from the experiences of research students and supervisors.

Keywords

Research Method Open Code Qualitative Research Method External Reality Ground Theory Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, P. (2006). Rescuing autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 400–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartleet, B. L. (2009). Behind the baton: Exploring autoethnographic writing in a musical context. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38(6), 713–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brady, T. (2000). A question of genre: De-mystifying the exegesis. TEXT, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.textjournal.com.au/april00/brady.htm
  5. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). Introduction. Grounded theory research: Methods and practices. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  7. Charmaz, K. (1990). ‘Discovering’ chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science and Medicine, 30(11), 1161–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Charmaz, K. (2006). The power of names. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 396–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Denzin, N. (2006). Analytic autoethnography, or déjà vu all over again. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 419–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: a methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research, 36(4), 273–290.Google Scholar
  16. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: researcher as subject. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733–768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2006). Analyzing analytic autoethnography: An autopsy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 167–198.Google Scholar
  19. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  20. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  21. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyer.Google Scholar
  22. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (1st ed., pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Hayano, D. (1979). Auto-ethnography: Paradigms, problems, and prospects. Human Organization, 38(1), 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, A. (2010). Grunge blotto. TEXT, 14(2). Retrieved from http://www.textjournal.com.au/oct10/miller.htm
  29. Saldana, J. (2008). Second chair: An autoethnodrama. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(2), 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scott-Hoy, J. (2002). The visitor: juggling life in the grip of the text. In A. P. Bochner & C. Ellis (Eds.), Ethnographically speaking: Autoethnography, literature and aesthetics (pp. 274–294). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  31. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Thomas, G., & James, D. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: Some questions about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32(6), 767–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Trauth, E. (2001). The choice of qualitative methods in IS research. In E. M. Trauth (Ed.), Qualitative research in IS: Issues and trends (pp. 1–19). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Urquhart, C. (2013). Grounded theory for qualitative research: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Vryan, K. D. (2006). Expanding autoethnography and enhancing its potential. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 405–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Webb, J., & Brien, D. L. (2011). Addressing the ‘ancient quarrel’: Creative writing as research. In M. Biggs & H. Karlsson (Eds.), The Routledge companion to research in the arts (pp. 186–203). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Pace
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Education and the ArtsCQUniversity AustraliaMackayAustralia

Personalised recommendations