费小冬 (Foster Fei)分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/fosterfei2 主要研究领域:扎根理论研究方法论

博文

扎根理论是一种定性/质性研究方法?存在着所谓几个版本的扎根理论?

已有 2422 次阅读 2022-1-11 18:09 |系统分类:科研笔记

大家对中英文文献里把扎根理论当作一种定性/质性研究方法以及存在着所谓几个版本的扎根理论等说法一定不会感到陌生。我们当然强烈反对这些说法!

让我们回到最初的扎根理论,看看那些人是如何偏离甚至篡改了最初的扎根理论。这些人根本无视最初的扎根理论,人云亦云,以讹传讹,甚至张冠李戴、篡改,捏造,各种各样的“捞好处”(ref.)。

在最初的扎根理论里(Glaser & Strauss ,1967),是这么解释的:

“…how the discovery of theory from data—systematically obtained and analyzed in social research—can be furthered.” (p.1, emphasis in original)

最初的扎根理论(Glaser & Strauss,1967)的立场是,定性和定量方法或数据之间没有冲突。扎根理论强调理论的形成,而非验证。形成理论的过程与数据的类型(定性或定量)无关。

“Our position in this book is as follows: there is no fundamental clash between the purposes and capabilities of qualitative and quantitative methods or data. What clash there is concerns the primacy of emphasis on verification or generation of theory…We believe that each form of data is useful for both verification and generation of theory, whatever the primacy of emphasis…In many instances, both forms of data are necessary…Although the emphasis on qualitative data is strong in our book, most chapters also can be used by those who wish to generate theory with quantitative data, since the process of generating theory is independent of the kind of data used.” (Glaser & Strauss,1967, pp.17-8, emphasis in original)

Glaser & Strauss (1967, p.261) 接着指出,“…the important problems concerning qualitative research that we have tried to attack in this book: How can we further systematize qualitative research, and how can we systematically relate qualitative and quantitative research to obtain the best of both methods for generating grounded theory?” (emphasis added)

你没看错!最初提出扎根理论这一方法就是吸收了定性和定量研究方法。谈到定量分析,Glaser & Strauss (1967, p.187) 指出,定量分析的技术是如何灵活地用在形成理论(即扎根理论研究的目的)里,“To be sure, there are many styles of quantitative analysis with their own rules. Our focus here is an illustration of how these numerous other styles can also be flexibly adapted to generating theory.”

特别注意,提出所谓“建构主义扎根理论”的查美斯和她的搭档Bryant是如何无视上述这些观点的(see: Bryant & Charmaz, 2007, p.26):

“Chapter VII of The Discovery of Grounded Theory concerns ‘theoretical elaboration of quantitative data’, and so does lay the basis for Glaser’s valid contention that GTM can use all kinds of data. But we would still hold to the generally accepted view that GTM is a qualitative research method, even if it can incorporate quantitate data: this characteristic is also true for many other qualitative methods.”

人云亦云!!!以讹传讹!!!“the generally accepted view that GTM is a qualitative research method”?大家都这么认为扎根理论是一个定性研究方法,所以你们也跟着这么定义和解释?把格拉泽和斯特劳斯(Glaser & Strauss, 1967)提出的扎根理论当空气。这是在做学术研究吗?

斯特劳斯(Strauss,1987, p.xiv) 之后也把他和格拉泽最初提出的、扎根理论的立场抛之脑后,把扎根理论定义为扎根理论风格的定性分析(the grounded theory style of qualitative analysis):

“One last comment: My colleague and co-developer of the grounded theory style of qualitative analysis, Barney Glaser, teachers and uses that style in research essentially as I do. There are some differences in his specific teaching tactics and perhaps in his actual carrying out of research, but the differences are minor.”

难怪斯特劳斯自己的学生、科宾(in: Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p.viii)现在会这么说:

“At the time of my [Corbin’s] training, supposedly there was one ‘grounded theory’ approach, though this point is open to debate. Throughout the years, what was initially grounded theory has evolved into many different approaches to building theory grounded in data. Each evolution has been an attempt to modernize or to extend the original method, bringing it more in line with contemporary thought.” (emphasis added)

提出所谓建构主义扎根理论的查美斯和她的搭档Bryant还没彻底弄清楚到底是什么扎根理论,连书都没有仔细读,还张冠李戴(某某观点到底是谁的都搞错)。

譬如,Bryant & Charmaz (2007, p.2):

“…Glaser strongly maintains that GTM is a method that can use all forms of data: qualitative and quantitative. Glaser has consistently made this argument over the years, but it is worth noting that the full title of Glaser and Strauss’s book was The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.”

最初的扎根理论是怎么说的? “Although the emphasis on qualitative data is strong in our book…” (Glaser & Strauss,1967, pp.17-8) ,以及,“…the important problems concerning qualitative research that we have tried to attack in this book: How can we further systematize qualitative research, and how can we systematically relate qualitative and quantitative research to obtain the best of both methods for generating grounded theory?” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.261, emphasis added)

Bryant & Charmaz (2007) 接着糊弄: “Glaser (2003) recently changed his stance on the grounded theory quest to discover a single basic social process.” (p.9) 是“Glaser (2003) recently changed” 还是Bryant & Charmaz (2007)根本没弄明白什么是“basic social process”?

连谁的观点/说法都搞错。见:Charmaz (2006): “Focused coding is the second major phase in coding. These codes are more directed, selective, and conceptual than word-by-word, line-by-line, and incident-by-incident coding (Glaser, 1978)…” (p.57)

暂且不谈focused coding 里有什么问题: “Focused coding means using the most significant and/or frequent earlier codes to sift through large amounts of data.” (p.57)

扎根理论里是这么做文献回顾的?这是理论性编码(theoretical coding)?见:查美斯的搭档Bryant(2019)解释扎根理论里的文献回顾:“Use of the literature – initially to establish the basis for the research, but far more importantly, to refer to and engage with the relevant literature as an additional and critical form of data against which interim or later analyses can be positioned – this is what is referred to as theoretical coding.”(p.xxvi)




https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-448901-1320587.html

上一篇:扎根理论线上讲座:扎根理论研究方法论的误用与滥用
下一篇:有关2022/01/22扎根理论线上讲座的一些补充内容(1)
收藏 IP: 223.104.220.*| 热度|

1 武夷山

评论 (0 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2022-8-14 05:12

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部