Issue no.1 , March 2008
Comparative Failure in Science
Originally published in Science, 143(3610) (March 6, 1964): 1012-14 Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. Besides degree of clarity, another aspect of a demotion is the relative failure which it indicates. The clearer the forms of comparative failure, the more painful they are likely to be. However, a certain degree of failure may indicate nothing more than the lack of outstanding success, while indicating moderate success. A perennial problem for some scientists is their feeling of comparative failure as scientists. This problem becomes clearer if we consider two major sources of this feeling that are inherent in the vary nature of scientific work. (i) In science, strong emphasis is placed on the achievement of recognition; (ii) the typical basic scientist works in a community filled with “great men” who have made important and decisive discoveries in their respective fields; they are the acknowledge guiding lights. These esteemed scientists, who have attained honors beyond the reach of most of their colleagues, tend to become models for those who have been trained by them or who have worked under them. As Eiduson has put it in her recent psychological study of basic research scientists “Scientists: are idols-oriented.” To take these honored men as models is important for training as well as for a life of research. During training, one learns to think creatively. Emulation of these models results on the internalization of values, beliefs, and norms of the highest standard. This emulation of the great continues and guides the scientist in his research work, however individual in style his work may be. But it is precisely here that a feeling of comparative failure may arise. In emulating a great man the scientist tends to compare himself with the model. He estimates how closely he has equaled his model in ability to adhere to high standards of research, to think of relevant problems, to create “elegant” research designs, to devise new methods, to write clearly, to analyze data. In addition, because of the strong emphasis on attaining recognition for research contributions the scientist perhaps will compare his own degree of success with his model’s to gauge how he himself is doing. In using the great man’s achievements and the recognition accorded him as criteria, the scientist may be motivated to strive continually and unremittingly towards greater heights. On the other hand, he may see himself, over time, as a comparative failure for not having attained a comparable amount of recognition. Eiduson brings out the dynamics of this problem for scientists: The model, then, is the ego ideal figure who represents the ultimate position, and in fact, defines what a scientist should do, how he should think, how he should act. By comparison, everything else is inevitably of lesser worth [italics mine]. We have seen the way scientists in this group rebuke themselves as they become old, distracted, sit on committees or government advisory boards, or become administrators- and thus move away from the ideal. From this picture it is obvious that the scientist is hard on himself. He has a built-in, clearly marked scalar system, along which attitudes and kinds of performances are measured. When he moves away and deviates from the pattern, he becomes a maverick, or a person who has tossed aside the flaming torch. Average Success With this basic problem in mind, I recently made a study of the organizational careers of basic research scientists, one purpose of which was to ascertain the consequences, for the scientist’s career, of...Overcoming Obstacles: Opportunities of academically talented women in Iran...
Shahla Alborzi, Ph.D.; Mohammad Khayyer, Ph.D. with the assistance of Tina L. Johnston, Ph.D. Abstract The aim of the present research was to study the lifetime obstacles and opportunities of academically successful women working at Iran universities. Successful female academics in Iran are concerned about the social and personal barriers to pursuing successful careers in academia. These women continually work to overcome these barriers in an ongoing process called overcoming obstacles. This basic social process has five stages: perceiving inequality, conflicting, dissolving, empowering and acting purposefully. Throughout the process, these women have first become aware of gender inequities and then worked towards overcoming them using self-motivation properties and support from external sources such as family, mentors and colleagues. This substantive theory, though rooted in a specific country with a strong male dominated social structure, is applicable to all societies as they continue to work towards equitable access to high-level career opportunities. Introduction For many years, researchers have studied the life and contributions to society of academically talented persons around the world. These studies have tried to increase knowledge about their features, interests, motives and also, their success and failures (Hulbert & Schuster, 1993). Many societies view the support of talent development as critical to their nation progress. Sociologists have noted that the progress and development of each nation depends on the development of its gifted and talented individuals (Kitano & Perkins, 1996). Usually, giftedness in childhood is determined on the basis of specific intelligence testing or performance criteria; however, the process of identification of giftedness in childhood does not accurately predict giftedness in adulthood, specifically in women (Kerr, 1997). Fahlman (2004) describes the characteristics of giftedness in adulthood suggesting that these gifted characteristics are affected by social supports and interpersonal relationships. Reis (1991) stated that human societies have interpreted the characteristics of adult giftedness according to individual performances and contributions to society. The subjects of this study will be termed gifted or talented interchangeably as each of them exhibits high levels of performance and contributions to their families, university positions and Iranian society. From another point of view, throughout history, powerless individuals and groups without voices have been recognized as minority populations. These numbers include individuals with low social and economic status. Women, because of their social position relative to men, have been the focus of research (Bizzari, 1998). These researchers have studied and reported on such problems as accessibility to jobs, wage comparisons between males and females, the structure of family, demands of nurturing children and educational access (Garrison, 1993; Hulbert & Schuster, 1993). Despite the broad range of studies of women’s issues, few studies have been carried out that focus on academically talented women, particularly studies that have shown the impact of socio-individual factors on the lives of these women in Iran. Furthermore, the few studies that have been carried out in Iran are highly quantitative in nature and, therefore, have not examined the deeper cultural meaning of the ongoing obstacles and opportunities of gifted women in Iran (Alborzi, 1998). The lack of research on this topic in general, and specifically in Iran, provided a catalyst to conduct the present study. The authors sought to better understand the obstacles, challenges and also opportunities that academically gifted women have experienced in Iran. A good understanding of life obstacles and opportunities of academically gifted women must involve an appreciation of the cultural context within which these events and actions take place as well as an evaluation of their significance...Stabilising of Life: A substantive theory
Aino-Liisa Jussila, Ph.D. Abstract The purpose of this grounded theory study was to explore how families live after one parent has been diagnosed with cancer and to develop a substantive theory to explain how families solve the main concern in their lives. The study design was prospective using 32 joint couple conversations with parents of 13 families (N=26) during different stages of the cancer trajectory as well as 26 hours of observations of five families, including ten parents and nine children (N=19), collected during a boarding course on psychosocial rehabilitation. The data consisted of 2377 incidents and a memo fund of 97 pages. The main concern of families was how to respond to the shock of a parent falling ill with cancer. The core category was stabilising of life through facing of hardships and assuming an attitude towards the future which patterned out as detaching, fighting, adjusting and submitting. Introduction Cancer as a disease influences not just one person in the family; instead, it can be perceived as a family disease since the falling ill of one family member affects the entire family and its well-being (Anderson and Tomlinson 1992, Åstedt-Kurki et al. 1999, Anderson 2000). Therefore, when one of the parents falls ill with cancer, it impacts the everyday life of the diagnosed person and their family members. In addition, the cancer patient’s relatives or significant others find that the disease is a part of their lives (Eriksson 1996, Kuuppelomäki 2000, Eriksson and Lauri 2000a, 2000b, Eriksson 2001, Lindholm et al. 2002). It is essential to include the family in caring for the patient and to treat the entire family as a patient, since the family has a great importance to the cancer patient. According to earlier research, however, the family may even be ignored and misunderstood by health care professionals, although the family with cancer has many issues to be addressed in order to be able to decrease anxiety and to be able to offer the emotional support that the patient requires. Thus, family life with cancer should be studied to improve health care of the cancer patients and their families. The Discovery Process The purpose of this grounded theory study was to explore how families live after one parent has been diagnosed with cancer and to develop a substantive theory to explain how families solve the main concern in their lives. The study design was prospective using 32 joint couple conversations with the parents of 13 families (N=26) at different stages of the cancer trajectory as well as 26 hours of observations with five families, including in total ten parents and nine children (N=19), collected during a boarding course on psychosocial rehabilitation. The data consisted of 2377 incidents and the memo fund of 97 pages. The data was collected and analysed according to the classic grounded theory methodology (Glaser, 1978, 1998, 2001). A Grounded Theory of Family Survivorship through Stabilising of Life The substantive theory of family survivorship and its core category of stabilising of life provide a typology of strategies for families living with a parent diagnosed with cancer. According to this typology, families can remain in one type of behaviour or move from one to another. The properties of stabilising of life are facing of hardships and assuming an attitude towards the future. They are related to the feelings and actions prevailing in the family and, in turn, indicate that the family’s stabilising of life, as regards facing of hardships and assuming an attitude...Pushing For Privileged Passage: A grounded theory of guardians to middle level mathematics students...
Tina L. Johnston, Ph.D. Abstract This grounded theory research identified conflict over decisions about placement into high ability mathematics classes. A theory termed pushing for privileged passage emerged from data collected from parents and educators in the Northwest United States as well as international literature. Pushing occurs following a break down of trust among parents and/or educators over various facets of the school and over student abilitygrouping decisions in mathematics specifically. Subsequently they try to circumvent the system to gain advantaged placement for specific students. Those who push use investing strategies to insure a child’s future success. They use pressuring techniques on decision-makers to garner advanced mathematics access. Finally, those who push use strategic lobbying for program changes. Introduction Despite research suggesting that grouping students by ability is detrimental to low and high achieving students (Ballantyne, 2002; Boaler, 2002; Boaler, Wiliam, & Brown, 1998; Camblin, 2003; Oakes, 1985; Slavin, 1990; Slavin, 1995; Stevenson, Schiller & Schneider, 1994; Wheelock, 1992) and illadvised by research on the needs of adolescents (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Camblin, 2003; Mills, 2001; Oakes, et al, 2000), ability grouping is a common practice in middle level mathematics classes (Braddock & McPartland, 1990; Wheelock, 1992). Most schools offer a low, average and advanced mathematics group. However, schools also exist with as many as six and as few as two group levels, at both grade level and advanced (Johnston, 2006; Oakes, 1985). Middle schools that group students by ability use criteria for placing a student into the various mathematics groups. A committee organizes and establishes these filtering criteria. This process is sometimes affected by outside forces along with the committee participants’ beliefs, student population needs, and examples from other schools. Once criteria are established, students are filtered into various ability groups by educators or counselors using the filters as well as personal or group judgments (Johnston, 2006; Oakes, 1985). Methodology This study employed the use of classic grounded theory (GT) based on the early work of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and further development by Glaser (1978, 1992, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005). The study set out to better understand the issues surrounding the various ability grouping models in middle level mathematics classes, hoping to better understand the practice and problems associated with it. The resultant theory centers around the issue of mathematics placement, outlining a process that explains the actions of the various guardians (parents & educators) in a child’s education. Forty-one subjects who worked with or had children attending 13 schools in 10 school districts and three states were interviewed. Sixteen teachers, three administrators, and 23 parents were interviewed. Twelve of the 14 teachers taught middle level mathematics classes and two taught 5 th grade students. Nineteen of the parents had one or more children at the middle school level; many also had children in other school levels. One had children only in high school and two had children only in elementary school. Seven parents had children in at/below grade level classes and 16 had children placed in advanced mathematics classes. Six out of the 19 teachers and administrators spoke of their own middle school aged or older children. Open-ended interviews were conducted. Subjects were informed of the topic of the project. If administrators or teachers did not immediately begin to share their thoughts on ability grouping in middle level mathematics, the researcher asked them to discuss their schools’ mathematics ability grouping arrangement; similarly parents were asked to discuss their children’s mathematics placement. Following this, minimal...Eliciting Spill: A methodological note
Alvita Nathaniel, Ph.D. Classic grounded theory is an inductive process that focuses on the experiences and perceptions of research participants (Glaser, 1978, 1998). Although grounded theorists may utilize other types of data, most are likely to gather information through qualitative interviews. The theorist seeks to understand what is going on as people resolve their main concern in a given substantive area. People know what is important to them and most want to tell their stories. They feel encouraged to talk when they recognize that their stories are valued. Once the informant realizes that he or she is being heard, the story flows. This is what Glaser refers to as “spill.” When this occurs, the theorist becomes a vessel to receive the story. As Glaser describes it, “The researcher will become a ‘big ear’ to pour into incessantly” (1998, p. 124). But, as easy as this seems, the researcher must overcome certain positivist tendencies to allow this to happen. Rather than asking a list of pre-planned questions, the grounded theorist will try to develop one question that will trigger the telling of a story. Eliciting spill requires a deliberate process that employs a deep understanding of the fundamentals of classic grounded theory. Derived from Glaser’s writings, the following are suggestions intended to help the novice grounded theorist to elicit spill. Prepare for the Interview The theorist must understand how the classic grounded theory method guides every step of the process. Grounded theories emerge from data: they are not preconceived. For that reason, the theorist should choose a broad substantive area. It is more likely that the researcher will be able to recognize important concepts and patterns of behavior if the area of study is relatively broad. For example, life transitions pose many problems which must be processed or resolved. These periods of change provide rich data for analysis and culminate in important theories. The researcher must be open to hearing the story from the informant’s perspective. After all, the focus of the research in classic grounded theory revolves around the participant’s own perception of a problem in their lives and their struggle to resolve the problem. Attentively listening to participants’ stories and remaining open to their ideas and interpretations is the only way the researcher can arrive at new knowledge. To avoid preconception, which halts the generation of new knowledge, it is best if the theorist reviews the literature after the GT process is well underway. However, because of institutional pressures, it is likely that most researchers will conduct a literature review early in the research process. So, an alternative to delaying the review of literature is to consciously put aside what has been learned from the literature and enter each interview with an open mind, free of preconception. This requires conscious effort and time for decompression between the literature review and data collection. Choose the Right Sample A grounded theory emerges from a group’s main concern and how it is continually processed or resolved. As the theorist seeks to understand what is going on with a group of people, he or she should focus attention on that specific group and give careful attention to choosing an appropriate sample. The researcher may want to interview a few people close to those involved in the substantive area under study to learn more about associated social-structural processes, to theoretically sample, and so forth. However, the theory is properly discovered by sampling those directly involved. For example, if one wishes to know about...