2 Three theoretical approaches to qualitative methods Flashcards
Symbolic Interactionism
a theoretical approach founded by George Herbert Mead around the beginning of the 20th century. It was strongly influenced by Darwinism, and the idea that human consciousness developed from the interplay between organism and environment, in which the pragmatic success of specific kinds of actions plays as a decisive role.
Key features of Symbolic Interactionism
o Through interaction we socially construct meanings
o Meanings are symbolically represented in signs, gestures and symbols
o This allows us to abstract from a specific concrete situation and to imagine it symbolically
o This allows us to think before we act
o Those significant symbols which seem to be understood in the way they were meant, are pragmatically successful
o Significant symbols allow the emergence of language and any other form of mutual understanding
o Through specific symbols (language) we can understand each other and communicate and we can think of ourselves in the position of the other and take the role of the other
o We can also strategically use these capabilities to provoke and anticipate specific reactions of the ‘other’ (‘We all play theatre’ ‘The presentation of the self in everyday life’ Erving Goffman)
o Through our ability to take the role of the other we can also reflect on the impression we make on others and we get to know who we are in the eyes
of the other. We get to know our own identity (self)
o Our thus emerged ability to reflect and make free choices also is the basis
for subjectivity, innovation, creativity, for change
Ethnomethodology
was developed by Harold Garfinkel in the 1960s and 1970s. It was developed in the enthnographic discipline for studying the knowledge base of certain ethnic groups. Ethnomethodology tries to discover the methods an ethnic group uses to conduct their daily activities. Garfinkel searches for the specific ways in which groups conduct their daily life and create a joint reality. In doing so he is not so much interested in the deliberations and reasons people give for their actions but in the ways in which these actions are practically conducted. So he is less interested in individuality (in interaction, like in symbolic interactionism) but more in structural aspects of the situation or context. Ethnomethodology shows that we often do not fully and correctly understand each other but that in most cases this is sufficient. Actors are also not passive members of such a culture but are actively reproducing reality in interaction (actors are no judgemental dopes).
Key features of Ethnomethodology
o We act based on typifications and categorisations, which create our frames of reference
o We create generalised routines, habits, rituals, patterns of actions and expectations
o We only need small and short clues to recognise a full pattern
o Without surprises we assume that the world will continue to be and function as it did before
o We assume that one would see the things in the same way as we do if one
would put oneself in our position
o We assume that biographical differences do not play any significant role and
that we thus judge the same situation in the same way from the same
perspective
o We confidently assume that there are things we all know (common sense
knowledge)
o These assumptions are continuously tested and negotiated, but most of
them stay implicit and unquestioned
Post-structuralism
In poststructuralism, as it was originally coined by Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida in the sixties and seventies of the last century, it is also assumed that reality is socially constructed. But in this case, they assume that this is not so much the result of deliberative interactions, but rather are the result of the unintended consequences of our collective actions. The meaning of the world around us is contained in what they call a joint discourse, or a societal discursive structure. Since these discursive structures are not purposively created through individual actions, they are much more seen as the result of specific societal structures, power-relations, or what is sometimes called “power-geometries”.
In poststructuralism, one is very well aware of the fact that these discursive structures are constantly incrementally changing, and that these discursive structures can be interpreted in different ways, depending on the specific context.
Key features of Post-structuralism
o Discourses are drifting, are on the move, are dynamic, evolve and are the
unintended consequence of all our aggregated actions
o Discursive meanings mean different things in different situations and moments. They are contextual. Discursive meanings are multiinterpretable, ambivalent. They can be deconstructed (Derrida)
o They inherently bear a certain potential for (critical) re-interpretation and therefore for change.
Typical methods of data collection for symbolic interactionism
Semi-structured interviews and narrative interviews
Typical methods of data collection for ethnomethodology
Focus groups, Ethnography, Participant Observation and Action research.
Typical methods of data collection for post-structuralism
(policy) documents, interaction recordings, media and visual data
Methods of interpretation for symbolic interactionism
narrative analysis, content analysis, hermeneutic methods and grounded theory
Methods of interpretation for ethnomethodology
conversation analysis, frame analysis and grounded theory
Methods of interpretation for post-structuralism
objective hermeneutics, discourse analysis, content analysis and frame analysis
Common ground of symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology and post-structuralism
o Subjectivity, Interpretation
o ‘Verstehen’ / ‘understanding’ / Sense
o Contextual, Situational
o Reconstruction of case/action/situation/context
o Construction of ‘reality’ through interactions / Discourse
o Comparison of cases, development of (generalisable) typology of cases / ideal-types
o ‘Text’ and other symbolic presentations as empirical material
Role of the individual in symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology and post-structuralism
These theoretical positions differ in the degree in which they emphasize the role of the individual in the process of the social construction of reality or conversely, the role of social and physical structures in everyday human life. Symbolic interactionism thus puts the strongest emphasis on the individual, and how individuals symbolically create reality by interacting with each other, while post-structuralism gives discursive structures, which are often not deliberately crafted, a much larger determining role. Ethnomethodology, with its emphasis on cultural norms, and the way individuals contribute to the establishment of them, could be positioned somewhere in between.
