The Local-Cosmopolitan Scientist

Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. [This paper was originally published in The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LXIX, No. 3, November 1963] In contrast to previous discussions in the literature treating cosmopolitan and local as two distinct groups of scientists, this paperi demonstrates the notion of cosmopolitan and local as a dual orientation of highly motivated scientists. This dual orientation is derived from institutional motivation, which is a determinant of both high quality basic research and accomplishment of non-research organizational activities. The dual orientation arises in a context of similarity of the institutional goal of science with the goal of the organization; the distinction between groups of locals and cosmopolitans derives from a conflict between two goals. Several studies in the sociology of occupations and of organizations have concluded that some professionals in organizations tend to assume “cosmopolitan” orientation that manifests itself in their working professional goals and the approval of colleagues throughout their professional world, in focusing on a professional career, and in a concomitant lack of loyalty to and effort for the organization. Other professionals tend to assume a “local” orientation that manifests itself in their lesser commitment to the profession in more concern with the goals and approval of the organization and in focusing on an organizational career.ii With the growing movement of scientists into research organizations, there has been some interest by sociologists of science in studying the many problems and strains generated by the often conflicting professional and organizational demands and practices that, in turn, generate the adoptive cosmopolitan and local types of orientations.iii A partial list of these problems might include varying incentive systems, differential emphasis on publication of research results, types of authority and supervision related to the professional need of autonomy, divergent and conflicting influences on work situations, assignments and research problem choices, budgets of time and money, kinds of compatible work groups, focus of performance, multiple career lines and commitments. The major goals of many research organizations, particularly industrial research organizations,iv are, of course, not consistent with the major institutional goal of science: advancing knowledge by basic research. They often emphasize goals of application, product development, and expert service. The scientist seeking a professional career (one based on pursuing an institutional goal) in an organization of this type becomes a “cosmopolitan”, by and large directing his efforts to professional goals, rewards and careers. Insofar as the cosmopolitan is always looking within the community of research organizations for better professional positions and conditionsv and has little “local” loyalty to inhibit his mobility, the result is a high organizational turnover. A professional career may be impeded by a too-long stay in the industrial context. Indeed, insofar as the industrial organization needs basic research, it becomes detrimental for it to try and induce the cosmopolitan to focus his efforts on the major organizational goals – product development, application and service – since that refocusing may reduce the quality of his basic research contributions.vi Whereas studies of industrial research organizations have usually found scientists who have either a primary local or cosmopolitan orientation, I shall try to demonstrate a local-cosmopolitan orientation among highly motivated scientists in an organization devoted to the institutional goal of science. The congruence of goals reduces in considerable measure, if not completely, the strains between organizational and professional requirements that tend to generate distinct local and cosmopolitan types. My principal criterion for ascertaining the general orientation of these investigators will be the direction of their work effort. First, I...

The Literature Review in Classic Grounded Theory Studies: A methodological note...

Ólavur Christiansen, Ph.D. The place and purpose of the literature review in a Classic (Glaserian) Grounded Theory (CGT) study is to situate the research outcome within the body of previous knowledge, and thus to assess its position and place within the main body of relevant literature. The literature comparison is conceptual, i.e. the focus is on the comparison of concepts. The literature comparison is not contextual, i.e., it is not based on the origin of the data. This, of course, means that the literature comparison has to be made in a selective manner. It is obvious that relevant literature for conceptual comparison cannot be identified before stable behavioral patterns have emerged. Therefore, it is obvious that these literature comparisons have to be carried out at later stages of the research process, and especially towards the end. This restriction with regard to preliminary literature studies does not prevent the researcher from carrying out literature studies in order to find a loosely defined research topic that fits to his/her interests. However, if the researcher believes either that he/she can derive the participant’s “main concern and its recurrent solution” from this literature, or that he/she can ignore the empirical discovery of this “main concern” as the first stage of research, the choice of CGT would be meaningless. To study the literature as the first stage of the research with the deliberate purpose to define the research problem is a common pre-framing solution. If this were the case, the choice of CGT would be a meaningless choice. If the researcher wants to preconceive the research problem, he/she should choose another research method. The researcher may preconceive the research problem by defining it in accordance with what he/she thinks is most relevant, or what the literature claims to be most relevant, or by spotting gaps in the literature in order to identify untested hypotheses. If researcher has decided to use Glaser’s GT, a preliminary study of the literature in order to derive the research problem would be waste of time. The research problem, when empirically discovered from behavioral data, may be very different from what the extant or originally identified literature assumes it to be. To avoid the preconceiving and tainting influences from pre-existing literature and pre-existing concepts during treatment of the data, it is recommended that no literature studies in related fields are carried out before the empirical data work is finished and the theory has been generated from the data. However, studies that have applied CGT in closely related fields of enquiry could give some clues. Reading of them is recommended but only after the core category of a study has emerged when coding of data for “emergent fit” could be an option. Reading methodological literature does not need to be avoided. To read literature on CGT methodology may be necessary during the entire research process. It is even recommended to read totally unrelated literature or fiction, poetry or drama for analysing and recognizing behaviour patterns and their relationships. Systematic reading or “explication-de-text-reading” of unrelated literature in order to obtain general training in the discovery of behavior patterns and of relationships between these patterns is also recommended. To facilitate an appreciation of the delimiting of the literature review, it may be helpful to review the reasons behind the delimiting of the study itself. Due to the choice of research methodology, the research has been delimited to the main concern and its recurrent processing or solving for the people being studied. Essentially, what...

The Rediscovery and Resurrection of Bunk Johnson – a Grounded Theory Approach: A case study in jazz historiography...

Richard Ekins, Ph.D., FRSA Abstract This paper was written in the beginning phase of my transitioning from grounded theory sociologist (Ekins, 1997)1 to grounded theory musicologist (Ekins, 2010)2. In particular, it provides preliminary data for a grounded theory of ‘managing authenticity’, the core category/basic social process (Glaser, 1978) that has emerged from my ongoing grounded theory work in jazz historiography. It was written whilst I was ‘credentialising’ (Glaser, 2010) my transition to popular music studies and popular musicology. In consequence, it incorporates many aspects that are inimical to classic grounded theory. As with so much of Straussian and so-called constructivist grounded theory (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007), it roots itself in G.H. Mead and a social constructivist symbolic interactionism – inter alia, a legitimising (authenticating) strategy. Moreover, as is typical of this mode of conceptualising, the paper fills the void of inadequate classic grounded theorising with less conceptual theorising and more conceptual description. Nevertheless, the article does introduce a number of categories that ‘fit and work’, and have ‘conceptual grab’ (Glaser, 1978; Glaser, 1992). In particular, in terms of my own continuing credentialising as a classic grounded theorist, it sets forth important categories to be integrated into my ongoing work on managing authenticity in New Orleans revivalist jazz, namely, ‘trailblazing’, ‘mythologizing’, ‘debunking’, and ‘marginalising’, in the context of the ‘rediscovering’ and ‘resurrecting’ of a jazz pioneer. More specifically, the paper is offered to classic grounded theorists as a contribution to preliminary generic social process analysis in the substantive area of jazz historiography. Introduction This article focuses on a highly mediated event in the history of jazz. I conceptualise the ‘event’ as the ‘rediscovery and resurrection’ of William Geary ‘Bunk’ Johnson (c. 1879 [?1889] – 1949), a jazz pioneer more commonly known as Bunk Johnson. Bunk Johnson was regarded as one of the top New Orleans jazz trumpet players in the period 1905-1915, before the recording of jazz. Between 1915 and the early 1930s, he toured the Southern States in minstrel shows and circuses before retiring from music in the Great Depression years. He settled in New Iberia, Louisiana, where he worked in the rice and sugar fields. He had lost his teeth by 1934 and was unable to play trumpet (Hazeldine and Martyn, 2000). He was ‘rediscovered’ in 1938 by a group of jazz enthusiasts researching early jazz. Fitted out with new teeth and a new trumpet, he first recorded in 1942. He recorded extensively in New Orleans, San Francisco and New York, between 1942 and 1947, before his death in New Iberia, in 1949. To many writers and enthusiasts, within that tradition of so-called ‘authentic’ New Orleans jazz which privileged New Orleans as the birthplace of jazz and which privileged those black ‘stay at home’ (Godbolt, 1989: 13) musicians who did not migrate to Chicago (or New York, or San Francisco) in the early 1920s (Charters, 1963; Stagg and Crump, 1972), the rediscovery and resurrection of Bunk Johnson is, arguably, the most important single event in the history of New Orleans jazz revivalism (Stagg and Crump, 1972). I am particularly concerned with issues relating to how this event has been placed within a particular type of narrative; the issues around unpacking and problematising the event; and alternative modes of historical writing through which histories are constructed. Theoretically, my standpoint is rooted in a social constructionist ‘sociology of knowledge’ approach to jazz historiography. Pivotal to my approach is George Herbert Mead’s theory of time and the past (Mead, 1929b; 1932;...

A Commentary on Ekins (2011)

Hans Thulesius, MD, Ph.D. According to the author, Richard Ekins’ case study on jazz history “provides preliminary data for a grounded theory of managing authenticity“. The paper is well written, entertaining to read and I can recognise the style from Ekins’ paper male femaling1, one of my favourite GTs. The four concepts of trailblazing, mythologising, debunking and marginalising are catchy, interesting and make sense. Ekins says he has not done classic grounded theory but a conceptual description influenced by constructivist approaches. This is probably one explanation to why the main concepts in the paper are not tied together in a recognizable theoretical coding pattern. At least not to me. And the reason may be that the author has some more memo-sorting to do. This is an important part of classic GT, but often left out. By hand sorting memos, the integration of concepts to each other and to the core variable is improved since it stimulates writing of memos on memos. As such, the theoretical coding of the theory is stimulated – how concepts relate to each other as a typology, process, or any other possible conceptual constellation that explains what is going on in the substantive area. Another way of expanding the theory could be through a literature search for the core variable and the four concepts of trailblazing, mythologising, debunking and marginalising. To compare literature data in the diverse fields where these concepts appear would provide more data to be compared and eventually make the theory more mature. Author Hans Thulesius, MD, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Family Medicine Lund University, Sweden Email: hansthulesius@gmail.com   Notes 1. Ekins, R. (1993). On Male Femaling: A grounded theory approach to coross-dressing and sex changing. Sociological Review, 1(1),...

A Commentary on Ekins (2011)

Vivian B. Martin, Ph.D. Early in his article Richard Ekins concedes that the work before us is “inimical” to classic grounded theory. Unlike many who fly the flag of grounded theory, Ekins, the author of a well-regarded study of what he calls male femaling, or male cross dressers, is a student of grounded theory, but it appears that in his latest phase of research, jazz historiography, he is grappling with combining grounded theory with some of the strictures of his new substantive area. He offers what is in effect a case study of the rediscovery of New Orleans jazz pioneer William Geary “Bunk”Johnson, as an exploration in “managing authenticity,” his core category. I will discuss some basic classic grounded theory breaches he might reconsider, forgoing constant comparison and adopting existing theories among them, as well as the challenge of navigating a grounded theory study that is faithful to classic strictures but also aligned with a discipline’s norms. I briefly address the challenge of conceptualizing and transcending data in a field, jazz historiography, where excessive description is one of the ways in which authenticity is achieved. The subtitle of Ekins’ paper, which invokes the “case study,” alerts us to the fact that there is some method-mixing under way, and that usually does not augur well for classic grounded theory. Case studies, like many other methods, are useful for certain types of research. But one has to decide which method works best for the subject at hand. Ekins has essentially produced a case study with a few grabby concepts; there is nothing close to a theory with integrated concepts here, despite the claim of a core category. Managing authenticity, which is what Ekins has identified as his core category, mainly works as a conceptual label here rather than a core of a theory. This outcome is the result of how Ekins proceeded with his work. Case studies, at least the single case study as Ekins has executed it, come loaded with assumptions and preconceived concepts largely because they have been chosen specifically because of what they are perceived to contain. Ekins sought to study the resurgence of a near-forgotten early jazz trumpeter and has produced an article about the four different ways in which Bunk Johnson’s place in jazz history is narrativized over time. The four modes are: trailblazing, mythologizing, debunking and marginalizing. These concepts are Ekins’ contribution to the discourse around Bunk Johnson and his place in jazz history. Ekins’ work starts with this resurgence as a foregone conclusion and then proceeds to give conceptual labels to the highly descriptive story that unfolds. Ekins has not produced a classic grounded theory—nor does he claim to have done so. He aligns himself with symbolic interactionist and constructivist perspectives and has situated his work in these perspectives and influences such as George H. Mead’s theory of the past, a priori commitments very much counter to classic grounded theory. In starting with extant literature, any theory-building he would have hoped for is held hostage to the built in assumptions he has imported. Working a pre-formed agenda is just the first falling domino here. Case studies, as the well-regarded collection edited by Charles Ragin and Howard Becker (What is a Case, 1992) discusses, can take many forms. A researcher can have hundreds of cases or just one. But that’s not how ground theory works. At the heart of grounded theory is constant comparison, something not so easily accomplished with one case, excruciating details aside....

Response to Hans Thulesius and Vivian B. Martin on Ekins (2011)

Richard Ekins, Ph.D., FRSA I appreciate the valuable comments from Hans Thulesius and Vivian Martin. Both reviewers usefully and most helpfully pinpoint salient issues to be considered in forging future routes for my ongoing research in jazz historiography. I agree with Vivian Martin that ‘authenticating’ works better for early jazz and first wave USA revivalism (including Bunk Johnson) and would like to say that at the time I wrote the abstract, I was favouring ‘managing authenticity’ over ‘authenticating’ as the core category in order to provide a more embracive category within which to consider early jazz, the 1940s New Orleans jazz revival (including Bunk Johnson), and the world-wide New Orleans jazz revivalist movement which continues to this day. I have, indeed, written elsewhere of all the various phases of New Orleans style jazz considered in terms of the core category/basic social process of ‘authenticating’, e.g., ‘Authenticity as Authenticating – The Case of New Orleans Jazz Revivalism: An Approach from Grounded Theory and Social World Analysis’ (Ekins, forthcoming). Richard Ekins is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Cultural Studies, University of Ulster, UK. He is a record producer for 504/La Croix Records. Centre for Media Research (CMR) School of Media, Film & Journalism University of Ulster Coleraine Campus Cromore Road Co. Londonderry BT52 1SA Email:...