For Peggy

Peggy asked for more on my previous post. Sorry Peggy, I'm writing this because I'm feeling bored and frankly, a little negative. So here's a barrage of thoughts.

To do full justice to what I wrote in my last post, I would have to offer some quotes from Barney himself. But I am too tired at this point to make my post into another academically-sound piece of writing. In fact, I don't even know if "vested social interests" is what Barney called it. But I do remember that it pertained to the understanding that academics are more interested in their own work, their own theories, their own language, and the advancement of their own careers than they are in the pure pursuit of knowledge. To protect their interests, they create a culture where in order for you to "advance" in academia, you have to play by their rules. If you don't, you are ostracized.

I came to this stark realization after having some really good and deep conversations with a visiting professor. After getting to know hir well, s/he told me the "secrets" to scholarly achievement. Scholars playing the game, so to speak, will only pay heed to another scholar if the other scholar has credentials behind hir name. And to get those credentials, you need to abide by the rules of the game: publish in the right journals, cite the right people, be cited by the right people. For many scholars (perhaps American ones in particular), what you have to say is less important than how well you've played the game. You could say something brilliant, but if you don't have the right credentials, it doesn't really count. It's as if you're not in the club, so your opinion doesn't matter.

I saw this "in action" last week with my own eyes. The speaker was saying some really brilliant things, but because s/he did not play the academic game, scholars in the club discredited hir. "We would have to know who s/he was first before we'd be willing to hear what s/he has to say."

Excuse me? Should not the content speak for itself?

I like academia, and I still think there is much good--and many good scholars--in it. Especially those who are older, accomplished, and really bored with the game people in academia play. I greatly admire true thinkers. The rest of those [us?] career-vested academics are, I'm afraid to say, fooling themselves (and those who are wow'ed by anything PhD) to think that they are really contributing to knowledge in any significant way.

I am thankful for people like Barney who have taught me not to be so small minded as to limit the periphery of my vision to see only what I have been socialized to see.

I will end this post with The Professor Song which I made up one day when listening to my children's Flea Fly Song (sung to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic):

One professor published behind a second professor's back

The second professor published behind a third professor's back

The third professor published behind a fourth professor's back

The fourth professor published behind a fifth professor's back

They were only playing te_____nure

They were only playing te_____nure

They were only playing te_____nure

When the one professor published behind another professor's back!

The moral of the story? Learn to play the game, but don't get your mind muddled in the muck.

The Difference Between Sociology and Psychology (Theory & Practice)

Ask Metafilter has this great page of answers on the question of the difference between sociology and psychology [link]. I might have read it before, but when I read it this time, all the lights went on like a big Christmas Parade:

I GET IT!!! I GET IT!!!

[Side note. Read the link above, and then entertain this question: Is Marriage and Family Therapy a sociologically-derived field of therapy?]

In working through Grounded Theory à la Barney Glaser (whose writings tend to be more resolute about "what is" and "what isn't" [read: positivist]), I am beginning to appreciate what Classic Grounded Theory means when it insists on a difference between Theory and Full Conceptual Description. There IS a difference.

Having done my undergrad in one of the top schools of psychology, I understand psychological theory well. A real snob-school will tell you what is and what isn't about psychology--it guards its turf well. Studying the family is about the intersection of sociology and psychology (with sprinklings of anthropology, communication studies, economics, etc). So none of our coursework "taught" us what sociology--specifically--is about. None of that turf-guarding stuff in family studies, and so we end up a little loosey goosey [read: postmodern?].

Anyway, I am having some fun embracing a more boundaried approach to defining what is and what isn't in terms of sociological theory, and even who can do sociological theorizing:

"This book [The Discovery of Grounded Theory] is intended to underscore the basic sociological activity that only sociologists can do: generating sociological theory. Description, ethnography, fact-finding, verfication (call them what you will) are all done well by professionals in other fields and by laymen in various investigatory agencies. But these people cannot generate sociological theory from their work. Only sociologists are trained to want it, to look for it, and to generate it." (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, pp.6-7)

Snobbish, isn't it?

That's okay. I'll play their bluff and pretend to be a sociologist for this dissertation. After all, if MFT is a sociologically-aligned field of therapy (see side note above), then I can very well claim sociology as my field!

Grounded (to a halt) Theory

Several posts ago, I gloated about how much I love Grounded Theory after reading Corbin & Strauss (2008).

Since then, I've started to re-read Charmaz's constructivist version of GT. I thought that I could somehow blend Corbin & Strauss (2008) with Charmaz (2006) and have a proposal that would have a happily congruent epistemological thread (thanks to Charmaz) with some hefty methodology (thanks to Corbin & Strauss).

BUT, Barney got in the way. No, not Barney the big purple dinosaur. Barney Glaser, the first author of the first book on GT with Anselm Strauss.

According to the most recent Handbook on GT (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007)--yes, there is actually a handbook on the methodology--there are three main schools of GTM.

1. The Glaserian school
2. The Strauss & Corbin school (the Corbin & Strauss 2008 book is the 3rd ed.)
   
3. The Constructivist school (i.e. Charmaz)

Well, I happen to have one of the books by Barney Glasser (1992), in which he systematically counters the Strauss & Corbin school. He claims that his is the original GT, and that the Strauss & Corbin version is not GT but "full conceptual description." In other words, the GT that I fell in love with is not legitimate.

As if it wasn't enough for me to have trudged through Corbin & Strauss (version 3 of the Strauss & Corbin school) and Charmaz (the constructivist school), now I have to not only read up on the Glaserian school, but possibly also read up on the original version of the Strauss & Corbin school. For sure, I have to read the original, original version of GT, i.e. Glaser & Strauss (1967).

[Insert expletive here.]

So many people have graduated with their PhDs without the in-depth study that I have been doing in order to legitimately claim that I understand my methodology well (I can say this because I read a good number of dissertations, some from my own department!)

I have two very contrasting thoughts battling within me right now.

1. A PhD dissertation is a joke, and most dissertations are wimpy.
2. I am the joke, and I should lighten up and get over my need to know things 100x more than I need to know them.

So, how much more reading do I have to do before I can write the second half of my proposal?

[Insert extra-loud expletive here.]

Grounded Theory

I've almost finished the latest (3rd) edition of the very popular text on Grounded Theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). It is a great read.

Juliet Corbin added several chapters of her analysis of Vietnam war veteran's experience of the Vietnam war as an example to teach people how grounded theory methodology works. Extremely helpful to have when you don't have anyone on your committee who is an expert on the latest in grounded theory methodology.

Chapter 12 ("Integrating Categories") was the best. You really get a sense of how all the hard work and detailed analysis come together to construct a theory. It gave me goosebumps to see how she so artfully put together all her painstaking analysis to form a cohesive theory.

I cannot wait to get my proposal completed and begin on my dissertation. I want to tell the story of conflict in large Chinese Family Business that is constructed from rigorous data-driven analysis and elaborated through a cohesive and compelling theoretical architecture.

Then, I want to publish my dissertation in the form of a book.

After that, more research to take the theorizing a higher level of abstraction to include everything about the Chinese family business as a human phenomenon from history to current times. An exciting project that can emerge out of the research is a movie or a documentary on The Chinese Family Business. Something like this documentary project: Becoming American: The Chinese Experience.

The next 10 years will be exciting.

-----

Corbin J. & Strauss A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

The Bamboo

One day I decided to quit...I quit my job, my relationship, my spirituality.... I wanted to quit my life. I went to the woods to have one last talk with God.

"God", I said. "Can you give me one good reason not to quit?"

His answer surprised me.

"Look around", He said. "Do you see the fern and the bamboo?"

"Yes", I replied.

"When I planted the fern and the bamboo seeds, I took very good care of them. I gave them light. I gave them water. The fern quickly grew from the earth. Its brilliant green covered the floor. Yet nothing came from the bamboo seed. But I did not quit on the bamboo.

"In the second year the fern grew more vibrant and plentiful. And again, nothing came from the bamboo seed. But I did not quit on the bamboo.

"In year three there was still nothing from the bamboo seed. But I would not quit. The same in year four.

"Then in the fifth year, a tiny sprout emerged from the earth.

Compared to the fern, it was seemingly small and insignificant.

But just six months later, the bamboo rose to over 100 feet tall.

It had spent the five years growing roots. Those roots made it strong and gave it what it needed to survive. I would not give any of my creations a challenge it could not handle.

"Did you know, my child, that all this time you have been struggling, you have actually been growing roots? I would not quit on the bamboo. I will never quit on you.

"Don't compare yourself to others." He said. "The bamboo had a different purpose than the fern. Yet they both make the forest beautiful.

"Your time will come", God said to me. "You will rise high."

"How high should I rise?" I asked.

"How high will the bamboo rise?" He asked in return.

"As high as it can?" I questioned.

"Yes." He said, "Give me glory by rising as high as you can."

Social Science Research: Deduction versus Induction

Many social science research texts (and professors) talk about hypothesis testing as a deductive process. "It's like moving from a general principle to specific instances," they tell us, and then, to complete the picture they explain, "as opposed to induction, which moves from specific instances to make a general principle."

Take for instance, the online Research Methods Knowledge Base. The author explains that in a top-down, deductive research process, "we might begin with thinking up a theory about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test. We narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data -- a confirmation (or not) of our original theories." (ref.)

Yet, when one looks up the definition of deductive reasoning, one gets something like this:

"Deductive reasoning is reasoning which uses deductive arguments to move from given statements (premises) to conclusions, which must be true if the premises are true. An example of deductive reasoning, given by Aristotle, is
* All men are mortal. (major premise)
* Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
* Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)" [ref.]

So, is hypothesis testing a deductive process as explained by the author of the Research Methods Knowledge Base? No. In fact, the process described is mostly an inductive one. The only thing deductive about the process is "thinking up a theory about our topic of interest." The rest of the process has its foundation in induction--that is, trying to induce from the data that the general principle is correct.

It is no wonder I have been confused about this for so long--bad teaching.

The scientific method, whether it be pure or social sciences, relies primarily on induction. Don't let someone confuse you by telling you that quantitative research is deductive and qualitative research is inductive. They both utilize inductive reasoning because they rely on data to make conclusions.

So where does deductive reasoning occur? In disciplines that come up with principles without the need to refer to data, for instance, mathematics or theology. It is, as mentioned above, when we just "think up a theory" or when we use abstract reasoning to come up with general principles.

An older Wikipedia entry on Deductive Reasoning found in Answers.com explains it well:

"Alternative to deductive reasoning is inductive reasoning. Many incorrectly teach that deductive reasoning goes from general information to specific information and that inductive reasoning travels in the opposite direction. This is not accurate [emphasis added]. Deductive reasoning applies general principles to reach specific conclusions, whereas inductive reasoning examines specific information, perhaps many pieces of specific information, to derive a general principle. By thinking about phenomena such as how apples fall and how the planets move, Isaac Newton induced his theory of gravity. In the 19th century, Adams and LeVerrier applied Newton's theory (general principle) to deduce the existence, mass, position, and orbit of Neptune (specific conclusions) from perturbations in the observed orbit of Uranus (specific data)."

In The Method of Sociology, Znaniecki explains it this way:

"Sociology can be nothing but a strictly inductive science. This does not mean that it should not use deduction: no science can live without the help of deductive reasoning (...) induction is the dominant and determining method of sociology: deduction must remain entirely subservient to it as an auxiliary method (...) The fundamental distinction between [deductive and inductive methods] is that from the point of view of the deductive method the final test of a new truth is its logical agreement with a truth already established, whereas from the inductive point of view the final test of a new truth is its validity in theoretic application to empirical facts. It is obvious that a science dealing with empirical reality could not be deductive, for it would either be incapable of proving anything or else be inapplicable to its object-matter [emphasis added]" (1934, pp.218-219).

I rest my case.

My Epistemological & Ontological Bent

I have come to the realization that epistemologically, I am social constructionist. I was not sure what to make of my ontological bias. I may have found it, in Critical Realism.

According to wikipedia, theologian NT Wright is one such example. This following quote by him (as taken from wikipedi under the title "Critical Realism" retrieved today) resonates well with me:

"..I propose a form of critical realism. This is a way of describing the process of "knowing" that acknowledges the reality of the thing known, as something other than the knower (hence "realism"), while fully acknowledging that the only access we have to this reality lies along the spiralling path of appropriate dialogue or conversation between the knower and the thing known (hence "critical")." (The New Testament and the People of God, pp. 35)

Pardon my French in the previous post. I just had to let some frustration out.

Epistemologies

It is incredible sometimes how one's epistemology can create so much conflict and controversy. Social research can be dangerous sometimes; not only others to me, but also I to others.

In the spirit of integrity and expediency go I.

And no more bullshit.

Thoughts On The Impartation of Knowledge

Sherman Kuek has written another gem of a quote:

"Knowledge must never be imparted out of insecurity or anxiety.

When knowledge is imparted out of insecurity, it causes one to project one’s self as the subject of knowledge. It makes one flaunt himself as the person who knows it all, while others are subtly implied to know nothing of equal value. In the thick of such insecurity, only the knower’s field of knowledge and realm of discourse are of vital consequence. Such a man knows nothing except his own loftiness.

When knowledge is imparted out of an anxiety that others might not know enough, it causes one to impose onto others the obligation to know as much as the knower does. It does not take into account the different capacities and efficiencies of people to absorb knowledge. Such a manner of imparting knowledge makes people into objects of information; it demeans the human spirit and belittles the learner."

I seem to find myself vacillating between one or the other. It is time to find a better way.