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:...

Book Review: Grounded Theory: A practical guide (Birks & Mills, 2011)...

[Birks, M. & Mills, J. (2011). Grounded Theory: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.] Astrid Gynnild, Ph.D. What is grounded theory and how is a grounded theory study carried out? Several recent publications have been trying to answer these questions, building on a literature list on the topic that covers more than 40 years of research and scholarship. According to the authors, this book is aimed at beginner researchers, research students and experienced researchers from a variety of disciplines who are unfamiliar with grounded theory. The first three chapters of the book deal with essentials, planning and quality processes of grounded theory research. Three later chapters deal with data collection, analysis and “theoretical integration”, and in the last three chapters the authors provide tips about presenting a grounded theory, evaluation and application of it and how it might be further contextualized. The book aims to be an easy-to-read volume with learning objectives on top of each chapter, suggested reader activities, examples of memoing, and many figures and tables. So far, so good. The authors have obviously put much work into the overall design of the book to make it as reader-friendly and easily accessible as possible. As experienced teachers in nursing they seem to be aware that providing an introduction to a new field is a challenging task, no matter the topic. However, as a “Practical Guide” in grounded theory, this book does not resolve any of the hitherto unresolved issues in the split grounded theory domain; rather, the book contributes to even more confusion. In their foreword the authors state that they “hope to demystify some of the complexities associated with grounded theory”. Their intent is to provide a balance between engaging in what they call the internal intellectual dialogue that is required and “meeting the practical requirements of undertaking research at a graduate level”. Their ultimate goal appears to be of a bridge building character; they want “to provide a balanced view of grounded theory methods, without adopting a dichotomous position”, and they add that there is much to be learned “from all antecedent grounded theorists” (p. 3). Signalling a stance as pragmatic bridge-builders of a scholarly method that has taken off in different directions might initially sound like a good idea, and it might work well with other methods. But it is inherently problematic in a book meant as an introduction to a methodological approach that is based on a thorough grounding of data. To the extent that there might be any propositions presented in this book, they are evidently not the result of a systematic analysis of data. Rather, the stated philosophy of apparent fairness, in this case, seems to be resolved by non-systematic switching between references to Strauss/Corbin, Glaser and Charmaz respectively, and next to a dozen other writers mostly from the Strauss/Corbin and Charmaz section. It appears that the authors have relied heavily on a rather diffuse method of skip-and-dip when collecting data for this book; they have picked a little bit here and a little bit there and created yet another mix which they call essentials of grounded theory methods. At the same time as they recognize that they are talking about different methods, the differences in methodological approaches between these methods are not explicated. As a consequence, concepts like abstraction and conceptualization, which at least in classic grounded theory are fundamental for the generation of new theory, are hardly mentioned. Theoretical sensitivity is devoted one and a half pages, but without...