PART TWO 5IARTINO OUT ^ Exorcise 5.2: strategies for kitchen-sinkers í Prow a fW chart of no more than ono page, setting oul your key con-ccpfs and how they relate. 2 Review your area of research interest in terms of the following questions and formulate your research problem in terms of ono kind of puzzle: • How or why did X develop? (a developmental puzzle) • How does X work? (a mechanical puzzle) • What causes Xor what influence does X hove on V? (a causal puzzle) (Mason, 1996; 14) 3 Use the zoom lens technique to focus in on some manageable 'unit of one' which might serve as an initial dalaset to resolve your puzzle. 74 6 Theory in Qualitative Research Some people become qualitative researchers for rather negative reasons. Perhaps they ate not very good at statistics (or think they are not) and so are not tempted by quantitative research. Or perhaps they have not shone at library work and so are not tempted to write a purely theoretical dissertation. However, the latter disposition begs the question of the relevance of theory to research. In part, this varies between social science disciplines. For, at least until recently, the different social sciences seemed to vary in the importance that they attached to theory. To take just two examples, psychologists and anthropologists, for all their differences, seemed to downplay theory. In psychology, thť benchmark was the laboratory study. For psychologists, the motto seemed to be: 'demonstrate the facts through a controlled experiment and the theories will take care of themselves'. Anthropologists were just as interested in 'the facts'. However, their most important facte were revealed in observational ca&e studies of groups or tribes usually found in faraway lands. Nonetheless, until recently, most English-speaking anthropologists followed psychologists in elevating 'facts' above 'theories'. By contrast, generations of sociology students have been m;ide very aware of the primary importance attached to theory in their discipline. For instance, although undergraduate sociology courses tend to be split into three main areas (the 'holy trinity' of social theory, social structure and research methods), it is the course in social theory which is usually given the most prestige. Moreover, theory has recently become much more important in psychology and anthropology, as battles have commenced between traditionalists and qualitative 'discourse analysts' (in psychology) and 'postmodern' and gender theorists (in anthropology). The social sciences' concern with theory is reflected in how PhD dissertations are assessed. As we saw in Chapter 4, 'the discovery of new (acts' is rarely an important or even a challenging criterion in the assessment of most qualitative research. Any scientific finding is usually to be assessed in relation to the theoretical perspective from which it derives and to which il may contribute. This means that, while 'facts' are never unimportant, they are always subsidiär)1 to theories. Successful dissertations display 'independent critical thought' (in the words of the University of London PhD regulations) by engaging with theory. ti li li 11 II l ■ l ' * PART TWO STARTINO OUT However, this begs an important question. What is 'theory'? In the following section I show why, for qualitative researchers., theory is altogether more interesting than the dry pages or theory textbooks. WHAT IS THEORY? Martin O'Brien (1993) has used the example of a kaleidoscope to answer this question. As he explains: a kaleidoscope .. [is] the child's toy consisting of a lube, a number of lenses and fragments of translucent, coloured glass or plastic. When you Kirn the tube and look down the lens of the kaleidoscope the shapes and colours, visible at ihe bottom, change. As the tube is turned, different lenses come into play and the combinations of colour and shape shift from one pattern to another. In a similar way, we can see social theory as a sort of kaleidoscope - by shifting theoretical perspeclive Ihe world under Investigation also changes shape. (1993; 10-11) How theory works as a kaleidoscope can be vividly seen in a concrete example taken from Eric Livingston (1987). Livingston asks us to imagine that we have been told to carry out some social research on city streets. Where should we begin? Some alternatives arc set out in Table 6.1. As Livingston points out, each of these different ways of looking involves basic theoretical as well as methodological decisions. Very crudely, if we are attached to social theories which see the world in terms of correlations between social facts (think of demography or macroeconomics), we arc most likely to consider gathering official statistics (option 1 in Table 6.1). By contrast, if we think lhat social meanings or perceptions are important (as in certain varieties of sociology and psychology), we may be templed by the interview study (option 2). Or if we are anthropologists or those kinds of sociologists who want to observe and/or record what people actually do in silu, we might elect lor options 3 or 4. But note the very different views of people's behaviour we get from looking from on high (3), where people look like ants forming geometrical shapes like wedges, and from street level (4), where behaviour seems much more complex. The point is that none of these data are more real or more true than the others. For instance, people are not really more like ants or complex actors. It all depends on our research question. And research questions are inevitably TABIE 6.1 Viewing a sirech data possibilities 1 OHkiol iralisfics llraffic flow, a«id«nis| 2 Interview* (how poop!« copo wild rush lioursl 3 Obsorvalion Írom o »owor (viewing geometric shapes) 4 Obwrvalion/vKloo ol slrecl level (how poo|>lo quouo/orgamie *e>r movemenls) Sour«: adapted Írom Livingston. 1987: 21-7 76 II 11 II ll l I II t I t THEORY IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH theoretically informed. So we do need social theories to help us to address eve« quite basic issues in social research. However, O'Brien's analogy of a kaleidoscope and Livingston's example of viewing a city street only take us so far. What precisely Is a 'theory'? And how doc.-* it differ from a 'hypothesis'? Questions like Ihis mean that I can no longer postpone the potentially tiresome business of defining my terms. Once 1 have completed these definitions, I will, once again, provide a set of concrete examples to clarify what I mean. THEORIES, MODELS AND HYPOTHESES In this section, we shall be discussing models, concepts, theories, hypotheses, methodologies and methods. In Table bX I set out how each term will be used. As we:.....from the i.i hie, wi ■''■ • ■■ provide an overall framework foi how we look at reality. In short, they tell us what reality is like and Ihe basic elements it contains ('ontology') and what is the nature and status of knowledge ('epistemology'}. In this sense, models roughly correspond to what are more grandly referred to as 'paradigms' (see Cuba and Lincoln, 1994). In social research, examples of such models are functionalism (which looks at the functions of social institutions), behaviourism (which defines all behaviour in terms of 'stimulus' and 'response'), symbolic interactionism (which focuses on how we attach symbolic meanings to interpersonal relations) and ethnomethodology (which encourages us to look at people's everyday ways ot producing orderly social interaction). Within the narrower sphere of qualitative research, Gubrium and Holstein (1997) use the term 'idiom' to encompass both the analytical preferences indicated by 'model' and tastes for particular vocabularies, investigatory TABLE 6.2 Basic terms in research Torrn Modtl Concept IhíCVy Hypofhoiii M.--I .:. .,,,, Method Meaning An overall framework ft» looting al reciily (e.g. behoviouiolism. refniniwn) An idea deriving item a given modo! (e.a 'Mimuh>í~ p N < > p » p ► ŕ h * h r ► r h i PART TWO STARTING OUT styles and ways of writing. They distinguish (and criticize) ŕour different 'idioms': • Naturalism A reluctance to impose meaning and a preference to 'get out and observe the field'. • Ethnomclitodology Shares naturalism's attention to detail but locates it in talk-in-inleraclion. • Emotionalism Desires 'intimate' contact with research subjects and favours the personal biography. • Postmodernism Seeks to deconstruct the concepts of the 'subject' and the 'field'. Concepts are clearly specified ideas deriving from a particular model. Examples of concepts are 'social function' (deriving from functionalism), 'stimulus/response' (behaviouralism), 'definition of the situation' (inter-actionism) and 'the documentary method of interpretation' (ethnomethod-ology). Concepts offer ways of looking at the world which are essential in defining a research problem. TVoriťSTirrange sets of concepts to define and explain some phenomenon. As Strauss and Corbin put it: 'Theory consists of plausible relationships produced among concepts and sets of concepts' (1994: 278). Without a theory, such phenomena as 'death', 'tribes' and families' cannot be understood. In this sense, without a theory there is nothing to research. So theory provides a footing for considering the world, separate from, yet about, that world. In this way, theory provides both: • a framework for critically understanding phenomena • a basis for considering how what is unknown might be organized (Gubrium, personal correspondence). By provoking ideas about I he presently unknown, theories provide the impetus for research. As living entities, they are also developed and modified by good research. However, as used here, models, concepts and theories are self-confirming in the sense that they instruct us to look at phenomena in particular ways. This means that they can never be disproved but only found to be more or less useful. This last feature distinguishes theories from hypotheses. Unlike theories, hypotheses are tested in research. Examples of hypotheses, discussed in Silverman (1993), are: • How we receive advice is linked to how advice is given. • Responses to an illegal drug depend upon what one learns from others. • Voting in union elections is related to non-work links between union members. In many qualilalive research studies, there is no specific hypothesis at the 78 f h - ŕ r ŕ r ŕ r ŕ THEORY IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH outset. Instead, hypotheses are produced (or induced) during the early stages of research. In any event, unlike theories, hypotheses can, and should be, tested. Therefore, we assess a hypothesis by its validity or truth. A methodology defines how one will go about studying any phenomenon. In social research, methodologies may be defined very broadly (e.g. qualitative or quantitative) or more narrowly (e.g. grounded theory or conversation analysis). Like theories, methodologies cannot be true or false, only more or less useful. Finally, methodi\m specific research techniques. These include quantitative techniques, like statistical correlations, as well as techniques like observation, interviewing and audio recording. Once again, in themselves, techniques are not true or false. They are more or less useful, depending on their fit with the theories and methodologies being used and the hypothesis being tested and/or the research topic that is selected. So, for instance, behaviouralists may favour quantitative methods and inteniclionists often prefer to gather their data by observation, But, depending upon the hypothesis being tested, behaviouralists may sometimes use qualitative methods - for instance in the exploratory slage of research. Equally, interaclionists may sometimes use simple quantitative methods, particularly when they want lo find an overall [■ illerri in Iheii data. The relation between models, concepts, theories, hypotheses, methodology and methods can be set out schematically as in Figure 6.1. Reading the Models Concepts 1 Tlioorios Hypothf Methodology Y Me hod 1 ' Finding b — FIGURE 6.1 lovols of analysis 79 PART TWO STARTING OUT figure downwards, each concept reflects a lower level or generality and abstraction. The arrow from 'findings' to 'hypotheses' indicates a feedback mechanism through which hypotheses are modified in the light of findings. Let me now try to put flesh on the skeleton set out in Figure 6.1 through the use of some concrete examples. Imagine that we have a general interest in the gloomy topic of 'death' in society. How are we to research this topic? Before we can even define a research problem, let alone develop a hypothesis, we need to think through some very basic issues. Assume that we are the kind of social scientist that prefers to see the world in terms of how social structures determine behaviour, following the sociologist Emile Durkheim's (1951) injunction to treat social facts as real 'things*. Such a model of social lire will suggest concepts that we can use in our research on death. Using such a model, we will tend to see death in terms of statistics relating to rates of death (or 'mortalit)''). And we will want to explain such statistics in terms of other social facts such as age or social class. Armed with our concepts; we might then construct a theory about one or Other aspect of our topic- For instance, working with our assumption that death is a social fact, deteimined by other social facts, we might develop a theory that the rate of early death among children, or 'infant mortality', is related to some social fact about their parents, say their social class. From this theory, it is a quick step to tine hypothesis that the higher the social class of its parents, the lower the likelihood of a child dying within the first year of its life. This hypothesis is sometimes expressed as saying that there is an 'inverse' relationship between social class and infant mortalit)'. As already implied, a model concerned with social facts will tend to favour a quantitative methodology, using methods such as the analysis of official statistics or the use of large-scale social surveys based on apparently reliable fixed-choice questionnaires. In interpreting the findings of such research, one will need to ensure that due account is taken of factors that may be concealed in simple correlations. For instance, social class may be associated with quality of housing and the latter factor (here called an 'intervening' variable) may be the real cause of variations in the rates of infant mortality. This overal! approach to death is set out schematically in Figure 6.2. Figure 6.3 sets out a very different way of conceiving death. For certain sociologists, social institutions arc created and/or stabilized by the actions of participants. A central idea of this model is that how we label phenomena' defines their character. This, in turn, is associated with the concept of 'definitions of the situation' which tells us to look for social phenomena in how meaning gets defined by people in different contexts. The overall message of this approach is that 'death' should be put in inverted commas and hence leads to a theory in which 'death' is treated as a social construct. Of course, this is very different from the 'social fact' model and, therefore, nicely illustrates the importance or theories in defining research problems. Its immediate drawback, however, may be that it appears to be counterintuitive. After all, you may feel, death is surely an obvious fact. Either we are dead or not dead and, if so, where does this leave social constructionism? 30 THEORY IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Models Model of social facts I Concepts Morality, social class Theories Social class and infant mortality ! Hypotheses Inverse relationship -^- Methodology Quantitative I Method Analysis of official statistics I ' Findings Intervening variables? FIGURE 6.2 Death as a social lad Let me cite two cases which put the counter-argument. First, in 1963, after President Kennedy was shot, he was taken to a Dallas hospital with, according to contemporary accounts, half of his head shot away. My hunch is that if you or I were to arrive in a casualty department in this state, we would be given a cursory examination and then recorded as 'dead on arrival' (DOA). Precisely because they were dealing with a President, the staff had to do more than this. So they worked on Kennedy for almost an hour, demonstrating thereby that they had done their best for such an important patient (cf. Sudnow, 1968a). Now think of contemporary debates about whether or when severely injured people should have life-support systems turned off. Once again, acts of definition constitute whether somebody is alive or dead. And note that such definitions have real effects. Of course, such a way of looking at how death is socially constructed (sometimes called 'social constructionism') is just one way of theorizing this phenomenon, not intrinsically better or worse than the 'social fact* approach- 31