What is a Theory?

Quote from Dr. Jensen's doctoral student:

What is theory?

For the purposes of this study, I am electing to employ a definition of theory derived from a source outside the domain of grounded theory as well as definitions from the original authors of grounded theory. First, a definition of theory from outside the domain of grounded theory: Timasheff, (1967) described theory in the following manner:

A theory is a set of propositions complying, ideally, with the following conditions: one, the propositions must be couched in terms of exactly defined concepts; two, they must be consistent with one another; three, they must be such that from them the existing generalizations could be deductively verified; four, they must be fruitful-show the way to further observations and generalizations increasing the scope of knowledge (p. 10).

In considering Timasheff’s definition, the integrated theory presented in this chapter consists of categories and their properties that are often described in the language used by the participants. Using participants’ language assists the definitions to be consistent with one another. Deductive verification is possible and I seek to offer verification through an examination of existing literature. Additionally, the integrated theory offers a new way to examine the development of the sense of self as leader – especially amongst Vice Presidents Academic in colleges and technical institutes.

Timasheff (1967) also indicated that theory requires creative thinking when he stated:

theory cannot be derived from observations and generalizations merely by means of rigorous induction. The construction of a theory is a creative achievement, and therefore it is not surprising that few among those laboring in the field of a science are able to carry it out. There is always a jump beyond the evidence, a hunch, corresponding to the creative effort. But every theory thus obtained then must be subjected to verification. It is considered verified, in a preliminary way, if no known fact or generalization seems to contradict it. If there is a contradiction, the tentative theory must be rejected or at least modified. (p. 10)

The next definition of theory presented here and offered by Glaser and Strauss (1967) is as follows:

Theory in sociology is a strategy for handling data in research, providing modes of conceptualization for describing and explaining. The theory should provide clear enough categories and hypotheses so that crucial ones can be verified in present and future research; they must be clear enough to be readily operationalized in quantitative studies when these are appropriate. The theory must be readily understandable to sociologists of any viewpoint, to students and to significant laymen. (p. 3)

While the integrated theory is based on inductive analysis of the data arising from interviews, the integration of the categories into the theory required considerable thought and reflection. The categories presented are clear and potentially verifiable. Additionally, the theory is understandable to laymen and professionals alike.

Conducting research using grounded theory as a method requires different procedures than what are normally employed in other traditional qualitative research studies. Chapter 5 in a doctoral dissertation normally does not introduce new literature into the discussion. However, a grounded theory requires that the researcher establish a close connection between the data which gives rise to the theory and to existing literature. Glaser (1978) stated:

but when he starts working his draft he should make a concerted effort to cover as much literature as possible in the same area in which he is writing his theory. Now the job is to compare his work to others and weave it into its place in the pertinent theoretical and substantial literature. It also sensitizes the analyst to rework his theory to the best advantage, as he studies how others are theorizing in the field (p. 139).

For this reason, the presentation of Chapter 5 breaks with traditional doctoral dissertations. In Chapter 4, I presented the emergence of the concepts of the categories and, in Chapter 5, I present a complete integration of the concepts into the theory and weave in the relevant literature. This integration includes an introduction of new literature that could not have been predicted as being relevant to the emerging theory. This literature assists to further integrate the ideas arising in the theory.

Module 6 - Feb. 14-Feb. 27 - Continuation of last module

Qualitative Methods
Reflective worksheet 4 due - discussion forum instead

This is what I have been grappling with:

Phenomenology and the intentionality of consciousness.  I posted a question on the discussion forum - perhaps it will help to clarify. Below is the question that I posted:

I’ve been trying to develop an understanding of the “intentionality of consciousness” (IC) as it relates to phenomenology. Creswell’s (2007) definition states, “being conscious of objects always is intentional. Thus, when perceiving a tree, ‘my intentional experience is a combination of the outward appearance of the tree and the tree as contained in my consciousness based on memory, image, and meaning’ (citing Moustakas)” (p. 236).  In addition, Creswell describes IC as an idea “that consciousness is always directed toward an object. Reality of an object, then, is inextricably related to one’s consciousness of it” (p. 59) and, I’m wondering, by extension one’s unique perception of it?  

Does this relate to the distinction between real things (noumena) and our perceptions of them (phenomena), with the focus in phenomenology being the perceived thing (Willis, 2007)? Would the postpositivist stance on this be that reality exists outside of our perceptions? Willis explains, “the key focus of phenomenological research in its pure form is consciousness” (p. 172). I’m also wondering how this relates to other qualitative methodologies – would consciousness not also be a factor, given the subjective nature of reality in qualitative research?


Good discussion here.  One of the main ideas behind the interpretive process is that reality is internally located, as such, reality is found in the perceptions of the participants.  When we get to this point, we begin to understand that participants are active participants in their world and have intentionality about how they both understand and come to know their world.  We are not just acted upon by external realities but we can act upon those realities as well.  This is why Descartes said, I think therefore I am.  This is an expression of conscious intentionality.

Dr. J

Another thing I am trying to work out is the differentiation between all of the paradigms, methods, ideologies, world views, approaches ... in particular, the relationship between phenomenology and interpretivism.

Creswell (2007) notes that in his discussion of the 5 approaches, "we will see the constructivist [interpretivist] worldview manifest in phenomenological studies" (p. 21).  Okay, sounds good - implying that phenomenology embraces a constructivist/interpretivist world view and would therefore be considered a methodology utilizing a particular worldview.  Creswell also presents Phenomenology as one of the 5 approaches in his book.

However, Willis states, "In the case of hermeneutics, it shares a great deal with phenomenology and interpretivism" (p. 302) - a statement which seems to place phenomenology and interpretivism on a parallel level.

Willis also states, "Another supporting theory for interpretive qualitative research is phenomenology and a related movement, existentialism" (p. 107).  So in this case, phenomenology is thought of as a theory?

Still trying to work this one out.

Also, I found the following from the book referenced below:

“There are two main research philosophies: positivism and phenomenology.  Positivism promotes a more objective interpretation of reality, using hard data from surveys and experiements, while phenomenology (or interpretivism) is concerned with methods “  (pp. 69-70).

Altinay, L., & Paraskevas, A. (2008).  Planning Research in Hospitality and Tourism, 2008, Hungary: Elsevier. 

And Dr. Jensen's words:

So we must remember that qualitative research operates under a unique set of epistemological and ontological assumptions.  As such, it requires a different set of procedures of how we come to know.  The result is that if we use quantitative understandings and apply it to qualitative research, we would say that flexibility or emergent design lacks rigor because we need a controlled environment and an objective context.  What we need to understand is that because of the epistemologies and ontologies of qualitative research, we actually need flexibility and emergent design to remain consistent with a subjective reality.  This means that flexibility and emergent design are necessary structures for qualitative research.  This is why we have to be careful to not apply quantitative logic to qualitative research.


Notes from Dr. Jensen's postings:

Yes, you kind of right Ana.  The other consideration that we must make is that the creative process is based upon a sound understanding of the practices linked to the qualitative epistemologies we work under. A solid understanding of these qualitative realities, then allows the researcher to make conscious and informed decisions about the research design and how and it ways creativity will be implemented.  It is not just creativity for creativity sake.  It is creativity based upon specific practices that give meaning and purpose to the work.  It is creativity that is driven by a theoretical lens that gives the researcher direction.

Dr. J

Kevin,

I remember a student equating the difference in structure as being the difference between paint by numbers painting - quant research and creative painting - qualitative research.  But we can push this metaphor even deeper when looking at the issue of structure or what appears to be lack of structure in qualitative research.  In that must also remember that there is structure to just painting as well.  There is technique and art theory behind just painting.  The painting becomes more skilled and articulate as we learn about and apply those various painting strategies - however flexible and emergent they may be - to the art project.  This is exactly what is happening with qualitative research. Although it is fluid and emergent, there is theory and technique behind the whole process.

Dr. J

Dr. J I really love that analogy.  If I am correct in understanding, it clarifies a lot me.  So, what I am reading is that advanced creative painting (qualitative research) requires basic strategies, processes and technique that can be applied as we create a work of art, but our art develops as we paint, and we have an idea of what we want, but we don't know exactly the form it will take, how the painting will look, etc.

Nei

Yes, that is partially correct.  For example in grounded theory research, we really don't know what will be revealed at the end.  The theory emerges from the study process.  In research using case study for example, the lit review, our knowledge of the theory on the topic, and other experiential factors give the researcher a pretty good expectation of what will emerge, but we are always ready to see and discover new things that we might not have expected.  So in some research, we really don't know what will emerge, in other research projects, it is still creative, but we have a pretty good idea what will emerge.

Dr. J

 In doing so, this gives qualitative rigor because we can talk to people about not just "how" we did the research, but also about "why" we made the decisions we did through the research process.

You are partially right but you need to be careful how you speak of structure.  Structure is about proceeding with the research in a way that is consistent with the epistemological and ontological assumptions of that research. The structure in qualitative research gives concepts to the researcher on how to be flexible and how to be emergent.  It is not just a free for all.  This is structure because the epistemologies and ontologies of each methodology will tell the researcher the degree to which a study should be emergent or flexible and how it should be incorporated into the study consistent with the necessary data collection methods and data analysis processes.

Dr. J

Module 5 - Feb 7- Feb. 13 - Qualitative Methods

Chapter 7 - Willis; Chapter 4 - Creswell
Reflective worksheet 3 due
Reflective activity:

What I would like you to do for this week is to look through some research journals and begin to look at studies that have been published and look for what methods they used.  See if you can find at least one example of the various methods that were covered in our readings this week.  See which ones are more common than others.  Which types of methods are more prevalent?   This is just a scanning exercise and it could be just reading the abstract for example.  If you find a few articles that use a method you are interested in, pay a little more attention to that article and look for how the authors described things in the study.  You can pick any journal and it would be good if those journals are in your area of professional expertise.

My Thoughts on the Readings

The idea of family resemblances in QR makes sense to me - there do seem to be so many varied methodologies that each have their own distinct features that fitting them under one umbrella was challenging - family resemblances accounts for the variations.  The key features of QR remain constant, however, that is, the underlying assumptions/worldviews - reality is internally located and multiple, knowledge is socially constructed.  I used to think that researchers were people who had special interests in particular topics, however I am reconsidering this and am beginning to think that researchers are skilled 'problem solvers' (for lack of a better descriptor, but I'll think about it ... artists? practitioners?) who have varied interests.  The key to the 'artistry' is in applying the philosophical lens and particular method to a context or problem situation.  

I've been trying to reconcile the 5 methods outlined by Creswell with the many methods outlined by Willis and am still trying to figure out why they don't cover the same methods - Creswell's 5 include: 

1. Narrative Research
2. Phenomenology
3. Grounded Theory
4. Ethnography
5. Case Study

On the other hand, in his chapter on methods, Willis describes:

1. Ethnography
2. Case Study
3. Interview Research (does this encompass Narrative research and Phenomenology?) - which I thought was a data gathering technique as opposed to a specific research method
4. Historiography (is this a form of Case Study?)
5. Participatory Qualitative Research (does this include Narrative Research and perhaps Phenomenology?
6. Emancipatory Research 

How do these methods relate?  How do they, or do they overlap?  This is something that I am still trying to work out. 

I found Creswell's chapter to be more understandable - the organization was straight forward and the methods were clearly described.  I found the charts on pages 78-80 to be particularly useful in comparing the 5 methods and it served to draw clear distinctions between them. 

And what about structure?  Yes, I admit, I did equate 'structure' with the more rigid design of QnR and tried to apply that to QR.  I understand now that QR has its own structure, which influences the design of studies - sometimes fluid and flexible, or emergent, or even at times more structured.  The fact that the design process differs from QnR does not make the process any less structured.  The structure of QR comes from its foundational ontological and epistomological beliefs - reality is internally located and multiple, knowledge is socially constructed, and the subjective nature of research.