Comparison Two Methodological Paradigms in Public Health - Report Example

GROUNDED AND STANDPOINT THEORIES IN PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH Name College Course Professor Date Grounded and Standpoint Theories in Public Health Research Introduction There are many paradigms that can be applied in qualitative research in public health (Denzin & Lincoln, 2009). These include phenomenology, narrative analysis, the grounded theory, the standpoint theory, ethnography and action research. With a good understanding of each of these methodologies, a researcher can find one that is the most appropriate for their study question, and that they are most comfortable with (Creswell & Clark, 2007). This paper explains the grounded theory and the standpoint theory as methods of qualitative research in public health. The Grounded Theory The grounded theory utilises data analysis to construct theory. Data is collected and analysed and the main themes arising from the data are derived (Stoto et al., 2012). A lot of study has gone into this theory, and as such, many scholars have come up with different approaches to the grounded theory (Mavaddat, 2014). The grounded theory can be used in four different methods. These are the classic/ glaserian, the feminist, the constructivist and the Straussian grounded methods. Although the four methods all fall under the grounded theory, their differences are vast. This has made it problematic for researchers to choose one method. Some researchers, rather than pick one method and stick with it, have opted to use aspects of all methods in conjunction with each other. Unfortunately, this has made it even more complicated because the methods differ significantly (Cutcliffe, 2004). Epistemology Of the four methods of using the grounded theory, the classic and the constructivist grounded theories are the most common and by far the most controversial. The two are so vastly different that some scholars have analysed that the constructivist theory wandered too far from the original meaning and application of the grounded theory (Bryant, 2009). The two methods, thus, have different epistemological stances. The constructivist grounded theory. This theory, according to Charmaz (2003), “takes a middle ground between positivism and modernism, and presents accessible means for taking qualitative research into the 21st century”. The constructivist grounded theory draws its epistemological stance from a perspectives point of view. According to the constructivist grounded theory, reality is not fixed. Reality is not already part of objects, and merely waiting to be uncovered by persons (Crotty, 1998). Rather, reality is a perception. This means that every individual perceives something differently; and to them, that is the reality. Reality is, therefore, a product of human interactions with different objects and aspects of their environment; and what the individuals perceive from this interaction (Appleton & King, 2002). From this epistemological stance, therefore, the constructivist grounded theorists believe not in the presence of a reality that is a universal truth. Instead, they believe that there are many different realities since different people perceive different objects and occurrences differently. Charmaz (2003), therefore, presents that research is a function of the relationship between the realities of the researcher and the subject. The meanings of objects are drawn from the collective understanding of the viewer and the viewed and all other aspects of the research process, including the data and its analysis, follow this stance (Charmaz, 2014). The study is completed when the researcher and the subject have a common ‘reality’. The classic grounded theory. The classic grounded theory takes an epistemological stance that is in exact contrast to the constructivist grounded theory. The classic grounded theory centres on one reality. According to this theory, reality is indeed one universal truth. Glaser (2002) argues that the grounded theory is not fashioned to tell the stories of the research subjects. He claims that this theory is supposed to be observational. Therefore, the classic grounded theory focuses on the individuals’ behavioural patterns rather than their personal perceptions and experiences. This theory does not need much information on the thought processes of the participants. It focuses rather on how the subjects behave and what they portray throughout the duration of the study (Glaser, 1998). The classic grounded theory focuses on the overall implications of social behaviour, rather than the individual perceptions and experiences. This does not mean, however, that individuals’ perceptions are ignored. Attitudes influence behaviour. The classic grounded theory associates the various perspectives and, rather than handle them individually like in the constructivist theory, compiles them into a comprehensive report that analyses the general pattern of the behaviours caused by all these perspectives. Methodology The grounded theory is split into two fundamental methodologies, just as with the epistemology. The two methods, however, share the same four building blocks, even though they differ in beliefs, approach and interpretation of data. These are data co-construction, data processing, data interpretation and relativism (Birks & Mills, 2011). The constructivist grounded theory. Data co-construction. The constructivist grounded theory employs co-construction for both the data and its analysis. This means that the researcher and the subject interact and share ideas, experiences and perspectives. The result is that the researcher comes up with a report that details both sides of the coin. This way, Charmaz (2003) believes bias is avoided because the researcher can see things from another angle, resulting in a wholesome study experience. Data processing. The constructivist approach is based on perspectives. Therefore, a large percentage draws from ontology, which is, individuals’ beliefs about the world, reality, truth or existence. It also draws primarily from epistemology. This describes the .origin of our knowledge and beliefs, that is; it answers the question “How did we get to know/ believe what we know/ think?” Data interpretation. The constructivist approach seeks to present the research subjects in their fullness (Charmaz, 2003). Just as the data is arrived at using collective understanding between the researcher and the subject, its interpretation is also done by the same means. Data analysis, using this approach, is done as a function of the descriptions of the various participants. The researcher does not take an exclusive stand. Relativism. Constructivist grounded theorists embrace relativism. In their research, they recognise the interaction that must be there between different study topics. Therefore, just as many realities are considered, many concerns are addressed. This approach believes that the overall result of the study will be an integration of the different concerns and how they fit together into the general research question. The classic grounded theory. This theory disputes all the aspects of the constructivist approach as discussed above. Data co-construction. Glaser (2002) insists that the researcher bias is not a thing to be avoided at all costs. Instead, since the grounded theory is a perspective methodology, the researcher bias merely forms part of the pool of data to be analysed and interpreted. He (Glaser, 1998) adds that the researcher essentially “interviews himself”. This interview is then treated as field data, alongside the interviews of other participants, and is handled the same way in comparison and analysis. This way, the researcher biases are “revealed and accounted for” (Breckenridge et al., 2012). Data processing. The classic grounded theory does not use one fixed approach to data interpretation (Ghezeljeh & Emami, 2009). Rather than use one fixed theoretical lens, Holton (2007) writes, the approach can make use of any epistemological perspective that may be deemed necessary in the context of the particular research question. The ‘lens’ also changes by the researcher’s beliefs about the world. Data interpretation. In this approach, data is not interpreted as a function of the participants’ personal experiences and views. Rather, data is interpreted based on their behavioural patterns (Dellve et al., 2002). Data is interpreted collectively and focuses on the society in general rather than the individuals. Relativism. Unlike the constructivist approach, the classic approach handles only one primary concern at a time. One specific concern is resolved before others are considered. This way, the product will be organised and focused on the central research question (Pope et al., 2000). It prevents the researcher from going off topic so that the report is comprehensive and integrated. The Standpoint Theory Epistemology The standpoint theory, as the name suggests, is all about seeing things from different viewpoints (perspectives). This theory is based on the belief that occurrences beyond our control do not cause much of human suffering. Instead, the pain is caused by fellow humans; and mainly by things that could otherwise have been avoided very easily (Adler & Jermier, 2005). This happens, especially because many people are unable to see things from different perspectives. Anderson (2004) asks, “How effective are we as a community of educators and scholars in articulating the views of the least advantaged, understood as exploited people and natural environments?” Therefore, the primary driving force behind this theory is the researcher’s concern for the human race in general. It is this concern that puts the researcher in a position to empathise with people who are in a different position from his. This way, he can put himself in their shoes and in so doing achieve the goal, which is a different perspective approach. Methodology The standpoint theory, as earlier pointed out, focuses on approaching the same problem/ question from as many different perspectives as possible. Since concern drives the theory, it seeks, first and foremost, to present the views, beliefs, wants and needs of the less fortunate in the society. In other qualitative research methods, the perspective of the less wealthy would, more often than not, be overlooked, ignored or just forgotten. Oft times, assumptions and decisions are made from a central perspective, which usually happens to be that of the elite in the society. The standpoint theory seeks to be different in this aspect. Standpoint theorists have recognised this particular misgiving of research paradigms. Therefore, the standpoint theory argues that, even though all standpoints are limiting and all knowledge is partial (Adler & Jermier, 2005), the view of the less fortunate has a higher probability to be more accommodating than that of the elite and privileged. The assumption made by this theory is that decisions made by the elite and privileged angle are likely to be unfavourable and oppressive to the less privileged. This is because the elite may not have a good grasp of all the problems that plague the poor and oppressed. Their solutions would, therefore, not handle all the said problems and issues effectively. On the other hand, decisions made from the oppressed angle are more likely to be embraced by the elite. First, it is unlikely that they face the same problems, so a large percentage of the solutions may not even apply to them. Similarly, they have much more wiggle room within the framework provided by such solutions; so they are unlikely to cause much disruption to the elite anyway. Comparison Even though the grounded theory is presented in two completely contrasting methods, they share the fact they both use data to construct theory (Watt, 2007). The grounded theory, in general, is very prone to bias. This is because the researcher, more often than not, is part of the elite in the society. He or she is also more likely to conduct his/ her research in the same environment. Therefore, inasmuch as the grounded theory is a perspective paradigm, the views represented by the data collected do not cover the full scope of the society as it is on the ground. Only an insignificant percentage of the entire population is represented effectively, and this may result in solutions that are not beneficial to the larger percentage of the population. The standpoint theory, on the other hand, considers the less privileged in the society. However, with the focus of the theorists on this particular group of people, they are likely to miss some crucial indicatives and facts in the other group. It cannot be disputed that the elite in the society may also have their public health issues and questions. This approach, therefore, also shows bias against the elite. Conclusion Over the years, it has been a trend that the public health system overlooks the less privileged. Even when their concerns are addressed, however, there will always be a problem arising; the costs being too high, the facilities being too far away, poor living conditions causing a loop of health issues, the list is endless. For this reason, should I research any particular question in public health, I would most likely go for the standpoint approach. First, it is a theory-laden with sympathy and empathy, and those qualities, I believe, are paramount in this line of study. The standpoint theory is also more likely to address the problems faced by the poor and oppressed, such as the ones mentioned above, among others. Finally, I think that the world needs a little more sympathy. As a researcher, I believe I should be concerned about the entire human race; and as such, focus on providing the best remedies to the problems plaguing humans. What paradigm could achieve a more wholesome solution, in this regard, than the standpoint theory? References Adler, P., Jermier, J. (2005). Developing a field with more soul: Standpoint theory and public policy research for management scholars. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 942-944. Appleton, J. V. & King, L. (2002). Journeying from the philosophical contemplation of constructivism to the methodological pragmatics of health services research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40, 641-648 Birks, M., Mills, J. (2011). Grounded theory: A practical guide. Sage publications. Breckenridge, J., Jones, D., Elliott, I., Nicol, M. (2012). Choosing a methodological path: Reflections on the constructivist turn. Bryant, A. (2009). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of Anselm Strauss. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10. Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 249-291). London: Sage Publication Limited. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage Publications Limited. Cutcliffe, J. R. (2204). Adapt or adopt: Developing and transgressing the methodological boundaries of grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 51, 421-428. Dellve, L., Henning- Abrahamsson, K., Trulsson, U., & Hallberg, L. R. (2002). Grounded theory in public health research. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2009). Qualitative research. Yogyakarta: PustakaPelajar. Ghezeljeh, T. N., & Emami, A. (2009). Grounded theory: Methodology and philosophical perspective. Nurse Researcher, 17(1), 15. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3. Glaser, B. G. (2003). The grounded theory perspective II: Description’s remodelling of grounded theory methodology. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Mavaddat, R. m. (2014). GROUNDED THEORY: AN OVERVIEW. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 4(4). Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 320(7227), 114. Stoto, M. A., Nelson, C. D., & Klaiman, T. (2012). Getting from what to why: Using qualitative methods in public health systems research. AcademyHealth PHSR Interest Group Annual Meeting, June 26, 2012. Watt, D. “On Becoming a Qualitative Researcher: The Value of Reflexivity.” The Qualitative Report Volume 12 Number 1 March 2007 82-101, http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR12-1/watt.pdf Read More