Role theory revisited

[Ivo Banaco]

Hi Adam,

Looks like you are being a victim of some extreme deconstrucionism. Do you
agree? ;-)
Deconstrucionism: Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to
"deconstruct" the ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political,
cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as
philosophical and religious "truths." Deconstructionism is based on the
premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then
define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of
people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism,
deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas
and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In
other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience
necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and
challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate
truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all.


On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Adam Blatner <ablatner at verizon.net> wrote:

>  Hi Peter: First I looked it up:
>  *www. <http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory>*
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Grounded*_*theory*
>
>  www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/*grounded*.html
>
> *many other things under "Grounded Theory"*
>
>        Second, I found mysefl impatient and wondering what has come out of
> any sociological theory that has practical implications. Because of the
> theory, I will behave this way differently from how I might have behaved.
>       In trying to help structure my church, community, club, personal
> relations, extended family relations, do therapy, be a patient in therapy, a
> member of a personal growth group, etc.
>         I guess I await some response to that.
>
>    What I like about applied role theory is that it offers me a way to talk
> in the aforementioned contexts about frictions, problems that arise, a way
> to analyze what's going on so we can re-negotiate our expectations, de-fuse
> annoyances, resolve conflicts. It helps me do "shadow work" (a quasi-Jungian
> term referring to paying attention to my less-worthy motivations and ideas
> that I might otherwise tend to avoid).
>
>     Back to Grounded Theory---what you say sounds good, but I confess my
> present status in life is such that I'm not sure I want to apply myself to
> the challenge of certain levels of theory when I am not at all convinced
> that the wider context is valid---namely, what should and should not be
> considered valid theory. I reflect on what I just wrote and am aware of the
> irony, since I have done a great deal of theoretical thinking. I guess what
> I'm saying is that I want to start with real questions. I don't think the
> question: Can you give me a good research theory? is useful, as it implies
> some given criteria for what others (fellow academics?) consider
> "good"---and I might dispute those criteria.
>
>      I hesitate to speak up this way because I'm not even trying to satisfy
> academic requirements.
>
>             Part of me holds with Kurt Lewin's line, nothing is so useful
> as a good theory; and part of me finds 90% of the writing in sociology and
> related subjects turgid and depleting---evoking in me a sense of "So what?"
>
>     I'm open to a few anecdotes where theory has in fact made a difference.
> Warmly, Adam
>
> ---- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Peter Howie <peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au>
> *To:* Group talk Listserv <list at grouptalkweb.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:28 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Role theory revisited
>
> 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<http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Symbolic-Interactionism/Sheldon-Stryker/e/9780805391541/?itm=6>.
> 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
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.234 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1949 - Release Date: 02/11/09
> 18:11:00
>
>
> 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/20090212/62724d20/attachment.html>