why we learn

I very much enjoyed reading Glaser and Strauss (1967). I found the text very liberating. It seems as the authors have turned the world on it’s head a bit, pushing back against the positivist sense of validity and the traditionally understood notion of systematic inquiry. The push against positivism was not as significant (for me) as the alternative form of systematic investigation provided. My history has been in the sciences, so I understand quite well the characteristics of the scientific method. The question that needs to be answered is whether or not the application of the scientific method to the interactions of organisms as complex as human beings is practical. My sense is that there is a consensus that is starting to build, as more and more people are coalesce around this idea that researchers “use the method that fits”.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) go further. One of the best points the authors make is related to the phenomena of researchers coming upon data within the course of the study that the chose to ignore because it runs contrary to their predetermined experimental design, or provides insight, that while interesting, fall outside the bounds of the study’s charter. This is just silly, they say. And, I tend to agree. What is the benefit of sticking with a tree that is bearing no fruit? The way in which the authors describe inquiry is exciting, as if you are on a quest, all sorts of possibilities exist and all forms of data are available for consumption. I’ve compiled a list of quotations from the text, which is nice in that it allows me to quickly scan and/or search what I considered noteworthy as I read.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. AldineTransaction.

Aguinaldo (2004) provides the reader with an alternative and useful interpretation of, and prescription for, judging validity. He encapsulates his argument nicely in concluding

The goal of validation is not to determine, once and for all, if a representation serves a particular function, but rather to discover and anticipate how it “does,” “can,” or “might,” function to incite and foreclose, emancipate and oppress, and so forth when applied to different times and contexts and evaluated from different social locations (Aguinaldo, 2004, p. 134).

Further, Aguinaldo provides the reader with some context, using the example of his own work on the abusive relationships extant in the community of gay men. Specifically, his focus is founded on four narrative strands that run through his work,

• a realist narrative premised on an objective perspective
• a critical narrative focused on political entities and injustice
• a deconstructive narrative which actively seeks disequilibrium and the “proliferation of possibilities”, and
• a reflexive narrative which makes known to the reader the intentions and subjectivity of the researcher.

Read more