Role theory revisited
Peter Howie
peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au
Thu Feb 12 16:23:02 CST 2009
Dear Adam,
You are taking way to many "each-way" bets as you note in your last
lines :) The sentiments "what has come out of any sociological theory"
and your impatience with that concern - where have they come from and
why are they emerging right this moment? Its a bit like getting to de
Bono's black hat before anything flourishes or before you have done
enough yellow hat or blue hat (if I remember correctly). Maybe the
promise of theory is like a lover that continues to turn up late, with
lipstick on its collar and refuses to acknowledge they have done
anything wrong? For you I mean.
Both those articles aren't all that bad but the language created for
grounded theory is rather tough. The second artcile is written by a
colleague who is keen to supervise me writing the article comparing a
grounded theorest and a psychodrama director. All the early books are
pretty readable - written in a slightly Morenian style - way under
referenced - as you would expect from a very new idea being explored
for the first time. But the best easy and more useful book on the
matter would be: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide
through Qualitative Analysis (Introducing Qualitative Methods series)
by Kathy Charmaz (Paperback - Jan 27, 2006) It was reading this book
that alerted me to the similar roles required to do directing and
grounded research. This is a book for someone doing some grounded
research.
I think role theory is the perfect "in the moment" or even slightly
after the moment application of grounded theory. Adam, you might enjoy
reading Glaser. Let me know if you try him out. My partner Diz Synnot
nearly wrote her sociodrama thesis, which is required over here, on
one or other aspect of grounded theory as she got so enthused and
bought wvery book and read them with gusto. It is certainly congruent
with the spontaneity-creativity model of Moreno - more the aspect of
developing new conserves (theories) not so much spontaneity though
many writers write as though they were infused with spontaneity when
doing it. It is also congruent with any sentiment that "the current
theories don't match this area".
One thing that grounded theory does is really ramp up the
possibilities of insight, integration and an awakening happening
around an idea as it relates to a set of circumstances. It kind of
does an intensive limited focus (like on a psychodrama stage) and
turns the heat up (increases spontaneity?) and is into production of
ideas up front rather than getting it right first time (like trying
things again and again in a role training type session)
Anyway I must go.
Cheers for now
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 13/02/2009, at 1:52 AM, Adam Blatner wrote:
> Hi Peter: First I looked it up:
> www.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
> To: Group talk Listserv
> 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.
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090213/5c91ae08/attachment.html>
More information about the List
mailing list