Metodologiniai svarstymai apie grindžiamosios teorijos ir veiklos tyrimo derinimo galimybes

Abstract

Grindžiamoji teorija (GT) ir veiklos tyrimas (VT) laikomi skirtingomis metodologijomis. GT remiamasi kokybine paradigma ir konstruktyvizmu su pozityvizmo elementais, siekiama objektyvios tiesos tyrėjui dirbant autonomiškai ir taikant sisteminius duomenų rinkimo bei analizės būdus. VT naudojama mišrių tyrimų paradigma ir dalyvavimas. Ši metodologija kritikuojama dėl objektyvumo stokos, nes tyrimo dalyviai įtraukiami į žinių generavimą tyrimo procese. Straipsnyje pagrindžiamos GT ir VT derinimo galimybės. Remiantis konceptualia analize daroma išvada, kad GT ir VT gali būti derinami, tačiau tyrėjas turi nuspręsti, kurią metodologiją laikys pagrindine. GT ir VT derinimas leidžia tyrėjams suteikti praktinę dimensiją teorijai ir mokslo dimensiją praktikai

Today we find a variety of national and international scientific resources that describe different versions of Grounded theory (GT). It is referred to GT authors (Glaser, Strauss & Corbin, Charmaz) and other researchers who apply different versions of GT and write about its fundamental strengths: systematic procedures, emancipatory decisions, self-empowerment of researcher to immerse into the data, and emerging theory being substantiated by empirical data and its interpretation. Reading the resources leads GT researchers to the understanding of this methodology as a set of systematic procedures which are applied in an integrated way by striving to the fundamental outcome – created original and based on empirical data GT. Researchers constantly applying GT alone may learn its principles, progress of adopting the necessary intellectual skills though at some point experience “being trapped”. Why? Because GT application does not stimulate their creativity and this methodology becomes “well-known” routine or “typical” process by recognizing what is “right” and “wrong”. Such attitude regarding the qualitative research methodology is risky due to emerging normative approach to the range of qualitative data collection, analysis and interpretation. Initially, the researchers’ self-empowerment to manage the different GT versions helps to avoid the routine. However, in this case there comes a time when each version is assigned by researcher with “labels”. For example, Glaserian version is named classic, emerging and theory-driven; version of Strauss and Corbin is seen as hypothesis testing, though in fact it is treated as a resource of hypotheses; in Glaserian version GT emerges, and in Strauss and Corbin version GT is forced. [...]