University of Applied Sciences, Fulda

Ethnomethodology

This method is closely linked with Garfinkel--a student of the émigré Viennese social scientist Alfred Schutz--and Aaron Cicourel, the initiator of ethnomethodological theory. He came upon this method while working on a project investigating tape-recorded reports of jury deliberations. He found that the existing methods did not suffice to get the required results and therefore established another approach to data analysis.
Ethnomethodology focuses on the ordinary, the routine, the details of everyday life. With this method he tried to explain everyday communication complications and structure; especially that part of the behaviour which everybody takes for granted, not thinking about the whys and hows of it. This method deals with those norms, understandings, and assumptions which are taken for granted because they are so deeply ingrained that people do not pay any attention to them, unless the routine is changed in some way.
This change in the routine is exactly what happens to a newcomer in another cultural setting. The perspective and understanding of the newcomer is different from that of the members of the host community; therefore nothing is taken for granted by him. To find out more about these processes, Garfinkel observed the reactions of people while the researcher behaved in an unexpected way; for example, facing people on an elevator instead of facing the door. He also conducted in-depth interviews with people about what they understand and why they act the way they do in different situations.

Grounded Theory

In the field of social sciences “qualitative approach” is mostly taken synonymous with grounded theory which is the most prominent among the so-called qualitative approaches to data collection and data analysis. Grounded theory was a reaction to the dominant hypothetico-deductive methods of research which relied heavily on statistics. The hypothetico-deductive methods analysed the phenomenon quantitatively, and on the basis of an accepted theory. In order to achieve statistical results which can be valid and reliable, the amount of critical value should be as low as possible. To achieve this result one has to do the research involving as many subjects as possible. This helps to minimise the critical value and help the researcher to reject his null hypothesis. The obvious and great shortcomings of these methods are that individual variants have to be completely ignored , and that the researcher is not able to pay attention to elements which are either difficult to measure or are deeply rooted in human understanding and knowledge, such as thoughts, feelings, and values.
Social phenomena are complex. Yet much of the social research seems to be based on quite the opposite assumption; considering that the researchers working in various research traditions describe or analyse the phenomena they study in somewhat simplified terms. Apparently their assumption is that coming researchers will add to the work already done and that in time there will be enough accumulated research results to come up with a valid and acceptable explanation of a phenomenon. The justification of such an approach is the fact that one researcher cannot take all the important elements of a phenomenon into consideration. Although this justification is in itself correct, it ignores the fact that
many an inquiry can nevertheless handle more complexity than is often achieved by the researchers.
Another important point is that research should usually bring about some kind of practical results or better to say not every researcher can provide the ground for some theoretical abstract result. Grounded theory was the result of endeavours to satisfy both necessities: to carry out more in-depth research and at the same time offer a practical result. This approach to qualitative analysis was developed by Glaser and Strauss in the early 1960s during an observational field study of hospital staffs’ handling of dying patients (1965, 1968).
One of the roots of grounded theory is American pragmatism, and, in particular, the work of John Dewey, “including its emphases on action and the problematic situation, and the necessity for conceiving of method in the context of problem solving “ (Strauss 1987:5). Here again achieving a practical result is of great importance. Truth is therefore a pragmatic concept: usefulness, value and success are the criteria. American pragmatism sought to integrate ideas and social space with a process orientation that emphasised the interrelatedness of things. In contrast to traditional humanism, American pragmatism proceeded from the assumption that mental and physical life were essentially inseparable. It reflected the typically American optimism- the belief that progress was inevitable, that human action could shape the future, and that experimentation was the basis for acquiring the knowledge to do so. Rather than searching for an absolute or certain truth, now based on science, in an objective reality where the unknown was only waiting to be discovered, pragmatists focused on human experience and the dynamic variables that connect the interdependent of that experience to social reality.
The second stream of thought which contributed to the development of grounded theory was the tradition of Chicago Sociology at the University of Chicago from the 1920s through the mid-1950s. Strauss points out that it extensively utilized field observations and intensive interviews as data-collecting techniques, and furthered much research on the sociology of work. Both the philosophical and the sociological traditions assumed that change is a constant feature of social life, but that its specific directions need to be accounted for; they also placed social interaction and social processes at the centre of attention. In addition, Chicago Sociology almost from its inception emphasised the necessity for grasping the actors’ viewpoints for understanding interaction, process and social change“ (1987:6). Dewy enriched this concept, since for him experience was a vital key. He believed that the continuous interaction of human beings with their natural and artificial environment was essential for growth (both of society and the individual), thought, social progress, and personal development. He referred to himself as a "radical empericist".
For Dewy nothing was absolute; therefore human beings are always in search of understanding the experiences that they make. He believed that the process of inquiry goes through three phases. It begins with the problematic situation, a situation where instinctive or habitual responses of the human organism to the environment are inadequate for the continuation of ongoing activity in pursuit of the fulfilment of needs and desires. The second phase of the process involves the isolation of the data or subject matter which defines the parameters within which the reconstruction of the initiating situation must be addressed. In the third, reflective phase of the process, the cognitive elements of inquiry are entertained as hypothetical solutions to the original problems, the implications of which are pursued in the abstract. The final test of the adequacy of these solutions comes with their employment in action.
As a student in Chicago, Anselm Strauss--together with Barney Glaser, the founder of grounded theory--became acquainted with Herbert Blumer, who coined the term symbolic interactionism. Strauss, however, refused to allow himself to be labelled a symbolic interactionist. Barney Glaser, on the other hand, studied with Paul Lazarsfeld and thereafter added his experiences grounded theory his own experiences and his dissatisfaction with standardized methods and multivariate analysis.
Grounded theory does share with symbolic interactionism a number of basic assumptions about communication and interaction: George H. Mead (1983a, 1928b) who, like Dewey, taught in Chicago, had already brought the subjective, language-related components of interaction processes to the attention of sociological theory. Mead pointed out that actors react to social objects on the basis of meanings which they attribute to them. These meanings arise during instances of interaction, and are developed and permanently modified in the course of an interaction process. They are, however, ‘objectivised’ and become a framework or frameworks of conditions for human behaviour.
Fundamental to grounded theory is that the research is not based on a theory before the researcher has begun the work. Instead, the theory arises from the work itself or in the process of data collection and analysis:
A grounded theory is one that is inductively derived from the study of the phenomenon it represents. That is, it is discovered, developed, and provisionally verified through systematic data collection and analysis of data pertaining to that phenomenon. Therefore, data collection, analysis, and theory stand in reciprocal relationship with each other. One does not begin with a theory and then prove it. Rather, one begins with an area of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge ”. [Strauss and Corbin 1990: 23, emphasis added by writer]
In the case of grounded theory, “how you study the world determines what you learn about the world. Grounded theory depends on methods that take the researcher into and close to the real world so that the results and findings are ‘grounded’ in the empirical world” (Quinn Patton 1990:67).
He then quotes Glaser and Strauss:
In contrasting grounded theory with logicao-deductive theory and discussing and assessing their relative merits in ability to fit and work (predict, explain, and be relevant), we have taken the position that the adequacy of a theory for sociology today cannot be divorced from the process by which it is generated. Thus one canon for judging the usefulness of a theory is how it was generated - and we suggest that it is likely to be a better theory to the degree that it has been inductively developed from social research. . . . Generating a theory from data means that most hypotheses and concepts not only come from the data, but are systematically worked out in relation to the data during the course of the research. Generating a theory involves a process of research. [1967:5-6, emphasis in the original]
As was said before, the theory does not determine the research, but it is developed and tested during the research process. It is then clear that in order to develop a comprehensive theory the researcher should pay close attention to the methods of collecting the data. Though there are various ways of carrying out this task, the main features of this process are to get as close as possible to the field and try to be as objective as possible. Herbert Blumer explains what it means to generate grounded theory by being immersed in the empirical world:
The empirical social world consists of on-going group life and one has to get close to this life to know what is going on in it. The metaphor that I like is that of lifting the veils that obscure or hide that[what] is going on. The task of scientific study is to life[lift] the veils that cover the area of group life that one purposes to study. The veils are not lifted by substituting, in whatever degree, performed images for first-hand knowledge. The veils are lifted by getting close to the area and by digging deep in it through careful study. Schemes of methodology that do not encourage or allow this betray the cardinal principle of respecting the nature of one’s empirical world . . . the merit of naturalistic study is that it respects and stays close to the empirical domain. [1978:38, emphasis added by the writer]
It is, then, important to find a methodology which fits in the framework of the question asked. Some of the approaches ,which follow the qualitative tradition were explained here. The difference between them is the type of the question asked.
Stephan Tischer, et al., summarises grounded theory thus:
“Grounded theory is not a method that can be clearly demarcated but a school ofsocial science methodology whose research strategies may be summarised as follows:
The individual case as an independent unit of investigation: autonomous units of action, which have a history, should first be reconstructed according to their own logic, with some theoretical goal - that is, concepts should be formulated on the basis of a case which can explain the circumstances of the particular case.

• 
  Sociological interpretation as a ‘Kunstlehre’: the process of theory generating is similar to artistic activity, where two conflicting approaches--one the impartial view, the other the scientific arrangement of reality--should be united.
  
• 
  The continuity between everyday and scientific thought: everyday knowledge is not structurally different from scientific
  

knowledge. It is an indispensable resource for the scientific process and must be made useful to it.

•