Role theory revisited

[Peter Howie]

Hi Regina,

I am writing separately regarding role theory but wanted to make a  
plug for grounded theory. Or Grounded Theory. Grounded theory is a  
relatively new way to do research that those of us who studied at  
University before the mid to late eighties may not be familiar with.   
Glazer, Strauss "Discovered" it in the 67 but it took another 20 years  
to get more into the social and other sciences and more books were  
published which included Strauss another significant exponent.

Grounded theory is well worth  a look as a methodology. Its principle  
purpose is to develop substantive or formal theory. It is based on a  
smallish number of a particular kind of qualitative enquiry. The data  
is then scrutinised in a particular manner. And voila - a theory that  
at the least completely satisfies one set of data (which is often more  
than any formal theory does anyway). I have proposed writing a paper,  
and have actually begun it - comparing a grounded theory research with  
a psychodrama director. The kind of scrutiny that a director gives to  
all the factors in a system that is a psychodrama or sociodrama is  
very similar to what a grounded theory researcher gives to their data.  
The use of naive questioning is similar. The preparedness to entertain  
unfamiliar ideas and put forward provocative propositions is similar.

Of course becasue it is qualitative researh it garners all the  
detractors of qualitative research. The advantage of grounded theory  
is that it aims to produce theory rather than prove or disprove a  
hypothesis or ismply explore or expound something. Grounded theory  
does not aim to prove something works (like psychodrama) or doesn't  
work (like some particular program). Sp,e folks on this list may have  
used it. I used it for a Uni unit as an exercise. I found it much  
harder and more satisfying than qualitative methods.

This is the kind of research that psychodramatists can get interested  
in, fall in love with, thrive on. It also involves conversations  
rather than measurements. It doesn't need SPSS computer programs. I  
creates great reflective learning moments for all concerned. It does  
not need top down support though you would definitely need a  
supervisor who knew this stuff or someone to guide you - the books are  
not enough - I found that out and the books are contradictory because  
already there are different schools of Grounded Theory.

I am not in a position to do more at present but I am slowly working  
towards some Phd research that may allow me to do some of this kind of  
stuff.

Cheers

Peter

Peter Howie B.Sc, TEP
Managing Director
The Moreno Collegium for Human Centred Learning, Research and  
Development
0411 873 851
www.morenocollegium.com.au

On 12/02/2009, at 1:45 AM, REGINA SEWELL wrote:

> Adam,
>
> Sheldon Stryker was a sociology professor who wrote, among other  
> things:  Symbolic Interactionism : A Social Structural Version.  You  
> can google him.
>
> I also struggle with research... on one hand, it gives us a picture,  
> however blurry, of reality.  On the other...  what we find is only  
> as useful as the tools we use...  sort of like soup...  if you use  
> crappy ingredients, the soup may be adequate, but may not be  
> fabulous... and even if you use great ingredients, but the wrong  
> combination or screw up the process somewhere down the line, you  
> could have a culinary disaster.  I suppose, in the end, I'm not all  
> that fond of research.  Case studies are interesting and as a  
> collection can give us great information...  generalizability  
> becomes an issue though.
>
> And at the bottom of it all, there is a sense when something is  
> working even if you can't tell exactly what.  And hopefully, if  
> you're really tuned in, you can also tell when things aren't working  
> and shift gears.   I suppose, I prefer to think of therapy as more  
> of an art than a science.
>
> Peace,
>
> regina sewell, ph.d.
> cleaning up old emails... responses interspersed.
> REGINA SEWELL (rs) writes to peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au   
> January 11, 2009
>       Your lay out of roles makes a lot of sense.  I think that's  
> how I have interpreted Sheldon Stryker's role theory which provides  
> a micro-macro link between social structure and behavior and identity.
>          AB: Hi Regina, are there some references to Stryker, should  
> I google him?
>
>   2. RS  I do a lot of this w/ my clients and expand the notion of  
> choice points - leaving an unsatisfying role (ie changing jobs,  
> getting divorced) or leaving an unsatisfying unit of social  
> structure (aka you like what you do for a living but hate the  
> company/your co-workers/your boss) or changing how you frame and  
> play your role (keeping your job at the same company but changing  
> your framework - maybe when they throw squish balls at you, they are  
> trying to say - "I kind of like you" rather than "Yo Kim, we think  
> you suck" and maybe look at your work load as a request rather than  
> a demand... " We'd like you to get X done" rather than, "The World  
> will end as we know it if you don't get everything done yesterday"
>         You do raise the research question - is behavior really a  
> true measure of internal processes?
> AB: I have major questions about the possibility of accurate  
> research in the human sciences!
>               I think so much involves a host of interacting and  
> changing variables and that precision is impossible. But practical  
> work does not require precise knowledge---that illusion that  
> precision can deliver and approximation can't is I think weak.
>
>    RS and how do you measure it accurately?  AB see above
>
>    RS   I only see my clients once a week or so for a short period  
> of time.  So do you use their self- reported behavior - for example,  
> how they interact with their partner, their parent?  But what are  
> they leaving out?  Call me cynical...  but I simply assume that all  
> clients lie - sometimes directly, more likely by ommission, or  
> because they are lying to themselves because they aren't yet ready  
> to face the issue or are ashamed or don't even see it.
>          AB:  not cynical, and word lie is misleading, implying  
> intentional. On the other hand, wary, dubious, is appropriate  
> because self-deception is prevalent at many levels and I daresay if  
> we cut it fine enough, ubiquitous even among the most "analyzed"
>
>     RS  And then there is the question of internal vs external  
> processes that Patti raised, how do we really know what's going on  
> inside.  Does external behavior really mean what we think it means?   
> Or are there intervening variables.  For example, I once had a  
> client who was struggling with depression, was smoking a lot of pot  
> and drinking a heck of a lot.  We did some intense action work  
> around being rejected for being gay as a young kid, around being  
> molested...  he made the decision to start working out... which led  
> to the decision to quit smoking pot and to drink less, which  
> eventually led to the decision to go to a sleep disorder clinic  
> where he found out he had sleep apnea, got the gear to deal with  
> that and was able to sleep... and ....   In the meantime, he did a  
> lot of work around his mother -- looking at her various roles, the  
> roles that were expected of him and how he played them was able to  
> let go of his anger, reframe some aspects of their relationship.   
> She ha!
>  d an unexpected heart attack and he managed to have intense honest  
> conversations with her just before she died and in the wake of that  
> was, for the first time in years, able to enter into a sexual  
> relationship with someone that was meaningful and was, for the first  
> time ever, able to talk honestly and openly about his boundaries,  
> feelings, etc.  How much, if any, of this relates to work we did?
>
> AB I view such work as intersubjective and partaking of the many  
> variables alluded to above, and therefore impossible to control or  
> quantify exactly. This is the work of "idiographic" research, case  
> study work.
>       The question involves what might the therapist learn, so that  
> she can
>              -- avoid certain maneuvers when a patient presents a  
> given situation
>             -- apply certain maneuvers because in a similar  
> situation they seemed to help
>                      -- telll the difference
>             and know that this process must be reiterated many times  
> because experience, as Hippocrates, the "father of medicine" said,  
> is fallacious... meaning that our biases and lack of controls can  
> lead us into erroneous hypotheses...
>         but still that's what we must do, and then be open to  
> revision...
>
>   RS  Is it possible that just by coming to see a counselor and  
> hearing himself talk he would have made the changes and that our  
> work was more of a placebo?  Was it the action methods we used or  
> was it the unconditional positive regard, genuineness, and  
> acceptance I offered?  Was the change in the relationship due to a  
> change in his role or hers or both?  Or was it simply more of a  
> narrative reframe?
>       aB: No! you were doing a score of discernable operations (see  
> Yalom's list of elements of group psychotherapy, or my chapter in  
> Foundations of Psychodrama)... and in their aggregate, may have  
> helped an indeterminate amount.
>
>    RS And, per the layout of role you set forth (or maybe it's the  
> riff I'm taking in response to yours), that we have different roles  
> that relate to different positions of social structure or different  
> people that in my office, my clients act differently than they do in  
> the outside world.  Not really a problem in terms of counseling -  
> much of what I/(we?) do is role training - and that the skills  
> learned are transferable --  but what does that mean in terms of  
> measurement?
>          AB:  I deplore the assumption that measurement is valid!
>
> RS And how do we create a valid, consistent, reliable instrument to  
> measure this so that our results are generalizable?  Oh, and when do  
> we do this if we are not on the publish or perish tenuretrack highway?
>          AB we do idiographic case studies, and do it quite well.  
> Rarely is it done quite well, though: See my paper on my website on  
> the art of case formulation.
>
>    Peace, regina sewell, Ph.D.   and ab: to you, too, pal. Thanks  
> for your participating in this forum. Warmly, Adam
>
>
> regina sewell, Ph.D.
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090212/10f5fe9d/attachment.html>