Issue no.1 , March 2009

Volume 8, Issue no. 1, March 2009

  Volume 8, Issue no. 1, March 2009 – pdf  Editorial Judith A. Holton, Ph.D. Jargonizing: The use of grounded theory vocabulary Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. On-the-Job Ethics – Proximity Morality Forming in Medical Schools: A grounded theory Hans O. Thulesius, MD, Ph.D. Unprivatizing: A bridge to learning   Virginia Leigh Hamilton Crowe, RN, MS, Ed.D. &  Jeanne Ellen Bitterman, MA, MA, Ed.D. Grounding the Translation: Intertwining analysis and translation in cross-language grounded theory research Svetlana Shklarow, MD, RSW, Ph.D....

Jargonizing: The use of the grounded theory vocabulary

This paper is Chapter 1 of Dr. Glaser’s forthcoming book, Jargoning: The use of the grounded theory vocabulary (Sociology Press, 2009) Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. When in doubt, jargonize. When you wish to belong, network, be collegial or be ‘a part of’, jargonize. When you want to sound knowledgeable, jargonize. When you wish to sound experienced, jargonize. Jargonizing is normal. All people, all human kind, jargonize in their lives to some degree or other. We use the vocabulary (jargon) of the area in which we act and talk. Jargon is a vocabulary of action by which to talk about what is going on. Most fields have their jargon. Few do not. Jargonizing cannot be stopped. It is needed. It can be very meaningful, properly so, for a field. In this book, however, I am writing about jargoning as just words with little or no real meaning, but sounding good and knowledgeable when talking about an area that one knows little or nothing about. In this way, jargonizing continually regenerates the GT (grounded theory) vocabulary wrongly as it is being applied to QDA (qualitative data analysis) concerns. Grounded theory is the buzzword in academic circles doing QDA research. Even though jargonizing cannot be stopped, it can be explained and seen for what it is and its consequences in eroding and remodeling GT as originated. I hope to mute the remodeling of GT to a significant degree. Paradoxically, jargonizing continually sells GT to the unknowing with the consequence they are buying into QDA as if it was classical GT. The resulting favorable attitude toward GT is therefore not really GT, but QDA. In this book, I shall deal with the jargonizing of qualitative data analysis (QDA) with the powerful grab of GT vocabulary in which jargonizing has lost the GT meanings behind the vocabulary. For most of the jargonizers, the true GT meanings of its vocabulary were probably never there to begin with. For an extreme jargonizing example, see The Sage Handbook (p.510)2: “Grounded theory has proven useful in orienting and sensitizing several generations of ethnographers.” Jargonizing seems to hide from the jargonizer as well as the listener, the fact that very often they simply do not know what they are talking about; especially when it is accompanied by a high degree of (unjustifiable) certainty. Furthermore, GT jargonizing is very much needed by QDA methodologists, as they have no vocabulary by which to talk about their methodology, I, Barney Glaser, have become known for a QDA methodology view that I did not discover or generate. How paradoxical. The vocabulary contribution of classical GT clearly goes far beyond the contributions of method and of its substantive products. Does jargonizing change GT as it remodels it? Absolutely No. It just remodels it for the people who jargonize QDA and do not know any better. The classical GT method may appear lost when talking about – jargonizing – QDA, but the classical GT method remains virtually the same and unchanged for its 40 years of existence. The remodeling of GT is actually a different, QDA method. Olavur Christiansen wants to stop the jargonizing but its grab will not let it happen, especially when it fills a vacuum (Christensen, 2007). Dropping original GT by QDA remodeling does not drop the classical method. Jargonizers do not realize this. Whoever might believe the jargonizing QDA as the “now” GT, does not know classical GT. Furthermore, jargonizing itself is accused as a jargon of “methodological rhetoric”...

Grounding the Translation: Intertwining analysis and translation in cross-language grounded theory research...

Svetlana Shklarov, MD, RSW, PhD Candidate Abstract Grounded theory research in cross-language, cross-cultural context is associated with the challenges of linguistic sensitivity of conceptualization. The author, a bilingual researcher, offers reflection on her experience of doing grounded theory research, assuming a dual role of a theorist and a translator. The reflection is based on self-observations. Grounding the translation is shown to be acheived through the strategy of intertwining the activities of translation and conceptual analysis, performed by one person. The two activities are inseparable in time and take place along with constant comparison across language boundaries. Intertwining requires that theoretical sensitivity of the researcher be enriched with the sensitivity to linguistic and cultural meanings. Intertwining, through revealing differences between linguistic meanings or language structures, facilitates the emergence of concepts and theoretical categories from the very act of translation. Combining the functions of translation and analysis and using the strategy of intertwining worked effectively for this researcher. Introduction Translation has been so much a part of qualitative research in multicultural settings that we rarely give heed to the depth of processes involved in cross-language data collection and analysis. Certain aspects are better understood than others. The most common, traditional concern is the accuracy and equivalency of information transferred from one language to another – the quality and ethics of translation (e.g., Houbert, 1998; Hunt & Bhopal, 2004). More recently researchers began to analyze the challenges of representation across languages, multiple interpretations, reflexivity, and the integral role of the translator (e.g., Friedrich, 1992; Mc Laughlin & Sall, 2001; Muula, 2005; Temple & Edwards, 2002). In this article I present a reflection on my experience of conducting grounded theory research, as a sole bilingual researcher with monolingual participants. Through analyzing my self-observations in this project, which I was conducting for my PhD, I examined the aspects of translation in cross-language grounded theory study. In this study I explored life stories narrated by Russian-speaking Holocaust survivors, recent émigrés from the Former Soviet Union. My research design involved a full combination of translation and analysis, in which I assumed the position of a bilingual investigator who performed both functions. In such setting, a theory emerges from the data written (or spoken) in the language of monolingual participants that is unknown to the audience (the source language). Research results are presented in the language of the audience (the target language). There are no specific prescribed procedures for translation in the context of grounded theory research. Therefore, I experimented in my study with some patterns of working in cross-language area, using my previous experiences in translation. I applied more systematically those patterns that worked for me, and observed how these patterns fit into the analysis. In my research, I have found that doing cross-language grounded theory involves strategies that differ from those involved in traditionally understood translation. My experimenting led me to the discovery of a strategy that emerged naturally in my work, namely, the intertwining of the activities of translation and conceptual analysis. Both translation and conceptual analysis were activities, or acts, which I performed as a bilingual person (in that, these were both my functions). Intertwining these activities was the strategy that I used to achieve better grounding of my translation in cross-language data, while discovering a grounded theory. In this article I analyze some properties of the strategy of intertwining, and reflect on the relevant features of language translation in this context. In my attempts to reflect on my experiences doing this research,...

On-the-Job Ethics – Proximity Morality Forming in Medical School: A grounded theory analysis using survey data...

Hans O. Thulesius, MD, Ph.D. Abstract On-the-job-ethics exist in all businesses and can also be called proximity morality forming. In this paper we propose that medical students take a proximity morality stance towards ethics education at medical school. This means that they want to form physician morality “on the job” instead of being taught ethics like any other subject. On-the-job-ethics for medical students involves learning ethics that is used when practicing ethics. Learning ethics includes comprehensive ethics courses in which quality lectures provide ethics grammar useful for the ethics practicing in attitude exercises and vignette reflections in tutored group discussions. On-the-job-ethics develops professional identity, handles diversity of religious and existential worldviews, trains students described as ethically naive, processes difficult clinical experiences, and desists negative role modeling from physicians in clinical or teaching situations. This grounded theory analysis was made from a questionnaire survey on attitudes to ethics education with 409 Swedish medical students participating. We analyzed over 8000 words of open-ended responses and multiplechoice questions using classic grounded theory procedures, but also compared questionnaire data using statistics such as multiple regression models. The paper gives an example of how grounded theory can be used with a limited amount of survey data. Background Medical ethics is different from other subjects taught at medical school and the importance of formal ethics courses has been questioned (Hafferty & Franks, 1994). Some medical schools combine instruction in bioethical principles with teaching of humanities programs (Andre, Brody, Fleck, Thomason & Tomlinson, 2003). The teaching of ethics varies in Swedish medical schools from interspersed lectures to formal ethics courses. We designed a questionnaire survey in order to elucidate how Swedish medical students view the ethics education in medical schools (Thulesius, Sallin, Lynöe & Löfmark, 2007; Lynöe, Löfmark & Thulesius, 2008). Many students gave input to the ethics course curriculum: Should ethics be taught in lectures or learned through group discussions? Should the ethics course be a separate course among others, or should it be part of other courses with lectures and group discussions interspersed? Should it come early or late in the medical school curriculum? Should the literature be specific ethics literature or novels and short stories with relevant ethical content? From multiple-choice responses we found that strong ethics interest was associated with frequent experiences of physician teachers as good role models and an absence of poor role models (Lynöe et al., 2008). In the present study we wanted to explore what was going on in medical schools regarding the medical ethics education by analyzing open-ended survey responses together with response data from multiplechoice items. Method We constructed a survey on attitudes towards the medical ethics education during 2005 as a request from the delegation of medical ethics of the Swedish Society of Medicine. Swedish medical students from the 1st, 5th and 11th (last) term participated. The survey consisted of 14 items, of which 10 had a total of 59 multiple-choice response options and generous space for open-ended comments, and 4 items were open-ended only, see Table 1. The overall response rate to the questionnaire survey was 36%, and varied between different centers from 13% to 83%, with a total of 409 respondents, 308 women (75%) and 101 men (25%). More than half (220/409) of the respondents gave one or more written open comments amounting to >8000 words. These comments were transcribed into Word from handwritten text. “Walking survey” data from informal interviews with four physicians, of which two has been teaching medical ethics at...

Unprivatizing: A bridge to learning

Virginia Leigh Hamilton Crowe, RN, MS, Ed.D. Jeanne Ellen Bitterman , MA, MA, Ed.D. Abstract Depression is a complicated condition situated in a cultural environment that often impedes learning. The purpose of this grounded theory study was to better understand depression from the perspective of those who are living with depression. Data were collected from many sources including document review and autobiographical literature; however, the primary data were collected through in-depth interviews. Fifteen individuals, thirteen women and two men, who felt they had learned both about and from their depression volunteered to participate in the primary interview process. Analysis of the data generated categories, properties and the core concept of unprivatizing. Through theoretical coding a process of learning about one’s depression emerged which suggests that learning about one’s depression can be experienced as a transitional and meaningmaking process that occurs over an extended period of time and facilitates development. Background The disease of depression remains a great mystery. It has yielded its secrets to science far more reluctantly than many of the other major ills besetting us. (Styron, 1990, p. 11) Depression, or depressive illness, is often referred to as a constellation of disorders that depict a condition or disease which disrupts a person’s mood, behavior, physical well-being, and thought (National Institute of Mental Health Depression Brochure, 2000; O’Connor, 1997; Thompson, 1996). Depressive illness is most often attributed to a complex interaction between physiological, psychological, and sociocultural factors (Mazure, Keita, & Blehar, 2002; Murthy, 2001; Surgeon General’s Report on Mental Health, 1999). Depression is not a rare phenomenon nor is it without significant cost. According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) (2000), in any given 1-year period, 9.5% of the population will suffer from a depressive illness. The World Health Organization (WHO) notes that major depression presents the greatest burden of disease for women and is a leading cause of disability globally for both males and females (Lopez et al., 2006; Murthy, 2001). In the United States, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a leading cause of disability and produces one of the highest medical costs of all behavioral conditions (Goldman, Nielson, & Champion, 1999; Hasin, Goodwin, Stinson, & Grant, 2005). It is most difficult to calculate the significant personal and family costs associated with depressive illness, specifically given that one of the most indefinable and devastating of these costs is suicide (Dumais et al., 2005; Goldman, Nielson, & Champion, 1999). The Surgeon General’s Report on Mental Health (1999) states that more than 80% of people with depression can be treated successfully with medication, mental health therapy or a combination of both (Goldman, Nielson, & Champion, 1999; Mazure, Keita, & Blehar, 2002; Murthy, 2001; O’Connor, 1997). The difficulties dealing with depression include the underdiagnosis and cultural stigma associated with mental illness; the complex interaction between physiological, psychological, and sociocultural factors; and the numerous yet often elusive and compounding contributors and triggers to depressive episodes. Thus, to become aware of, acknowledge, and continue learning about depression and how it interacts with one’s life are daunting tasks (Beck, Tush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979; Burns, 1999; O’Connor, 1997). And while much is known about what the experts believe is important to teach the depressed individual (Beck, Tush, Shaw, & Emery 1979; Burns, 1999; O’Connor, 1997), little is known or understood about the essential process of learning about depression from the perspective of those living with and learning about their own depression. The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences...