Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contested Concepts: Negotiating Debates About Qualitative Research Methods Such as Grounded Theory and Autoethnography

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Constructing Methodology for Qualitative Research

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods ((PSERM))

Abstract

Learning how to use a qualitative research method is a challenging task that is often made more difficult by contested definitions and descriptions of the method in question. How should novice researchers deal with methodological debates and disagreements within the research community when attempting to employ a contested research method for their own study? Pace explores this question using two qualitative methods as examples: grounded theory and autoethnography. This chapter considers why grounded theory and autoethnography qualify as contested concepts while unpacking their procedures and the controversies that surround them. Suggestions for negotiating debates about contested research methods are drawn from the experiences of research students and supervisors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, P. (2006). Rescuing autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 400–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartleet, B. L. (2009). Behind the baton: Exploring autoethnographic writing in a musical context. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38(6), 713–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, T. (2000). A question of genre: De-mystifying the exegesis. TEXT, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.textjournal.com.au/april00/brady.htm

  • Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). Introduction. Grounded theory research: Methods and practices. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (1990). ‘Discovering’ chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science and Medicine, 30(11), 1161–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). The power of names. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 396–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. (2006). Analytic autoethnography, or déjà vu all over again. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 419–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: a methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research, 36(4), 273–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: researcher as subject. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733–768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2006). Analyzing analytic autoethnography: An autopsy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 429–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 167–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (1st ed., pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayano, D. (1979). Auto-ethnography: Paradigms, problems, and prospects. Human Organization, 38(1), 99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. (2010). Grunge blotto. TEXT, 14(2). Retrieved from http://www.textjournal.com.au/oct10/miller.htm

  • Saldana, J. (2008). Second chair: An autoethnodrama. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(2), 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Hoy, J. (2002). The visitor: juggling life in the grip of the text. In A. P. Bochner & C. Ellis (Eds.), Ethnographically speaking: Autoethnography, literature and aesthetics (pp. 274–294). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., & James, D. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: Some questions about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32(6), 767–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trauth, E. (2001). The choice of qualitative methods in IS research. In E. M. Trauth (Ed.), Qualitative research in IS: Issues and trends (pp. 1–19). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C. (2013). Grounded theory for qualitative research: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vryan, K. D. (2006). Expanding autoethnography and enhancing its potential. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 405–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, J., & Brien, D. L. (2011). Addressing the ‘ancient quarrel’: Creative writing as research. In M. Biggs & H. Karlsson (Eds.), The Routledge companion to research in the arts (pp. 186–203). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education and the Arts, CQUniversity Australia, Mackay, QLD, Australia

    Steven Pace

Authors
  1. Steven Pace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education and the Arts, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia

    Bobby Harreveld

  2. School of Education and the Arts, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia

    Mike Danaher

  3. North Rockhampton Campus, Central Queensland University, North Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia

    Celeste Lawson

  4. Central Queensland University , Townsville, Queensland, Australia

    Bruce Allen Knight

  5. Central Queensland University, Rockhampton North, Queensland, Australia

    Gillian Busch

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pace, S. (2016). Contested Concepts: Negotiating Debates About Qualitative Research Methods Such as Grounded Theory and Autoethnography. In: Harreveld, B., Danaher, M., Lawson, C., Knight, B., Busch, G. (eds) Constructing Methodology for Qualitative Research. Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59943-8_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59943-8_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-59942-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59943-8

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation