Dissonance, Disagreement, Difference: Challenging Thematic Consensus to Decolonise Grounded Theory
Over the past two decades researchers have been exploring new hybrid methodologies to decolonise Indigenous mental health research. Grounded Theory with Community Participatory Action Research (CPAR), often using Indigenist methods, is the most common. Grounded Theory’s claim to rigour is its transp...
Published in: | International Journal of Qualitative Methods |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2023
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231220775 https://doaj.org/article/f969272c0ad34960a2bb669e63b02955 |
id |
ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:f969272c0ad34960a2bb669e63b02955 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:f969272c0ad34960a2bb669e63b02955 2024-01-07T09:43:17+01:00 Dissonance, Disagreement, Difference: Challenging Thematic Consensus to Decolonise Grounded Theory Janet McGaw Alasdair Vance 2023-12-01T00:00:00Z https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231220775 https://doaj.org/article/f969272c0ad34960a2bb669e63b02955 EN eng SAGE Publishing https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231220775 https://doaj.org/toc/1609-4069 1609-4069 doi:10.1177/16094069231220775 https://doaj.org/article/f969272c0ad34960a2bb669e63b02955 International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol 22 (2023) Social sciences (General) H1-99 article 2023 ftdoajarticles https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231220775 2023-12-10T01:35:05Z Over the past two decades researchers have been exploring new hybrid methodologies to decolonise Indigenous mental health research. Grounded Theory with Community Participatory Action Research (CPAR), often using Indigenist methods, is the most common. Grounded Theory’s claim to rigour is its transparent, organised process of sifting and theme finding, while CPAR respects Indigenous self-determination and Indigenous ways of knowing doing and being, involving Indigenous research participants in all stages of the research from data collection to analysis. On the surface it would seem to be the ideal methodological approach to navigate the cultural divide. However, this article will argue that Grounded Theory’s inherent weakness is in the process of thematic analysis, which uses consensus during the analysis phase to find dominant themes. Drawing on the social systems theory of Niklas Luhmann and the political theory of Chantal Mouffe, this article will argue for a group process of “agonistic pluralism” instead. Searching for shared truths has a tendency to smooth out differences. The article proposes an approach for configuring a research team and conducting team analysis that struggles with, and accounts for, dissonances, disagreements and differences. Furthermore, it argues these differences should be recorded as important findings along with agreed themes. The approach has been developed to explore community perspectives on the relationship between culture and health, and in turn, to develop culturally appropriate mental health therapies for First Nations young people within a Western paediatric hospital. Article in Journal/Newspaper First Nations Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles International Journal of Qualitative Methods 22 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles |
op_collection_id |
ftdoajarticles |
language |
English |
topic |
Social sciences (General) H1-99 |
spellingShingle |
Social sciences (General) H1-99 Janet McGaw Alasdair Vance Dissonance, Disagreement, Difference: Challenging Thematic Consensus to Decolonise Grounded Theory |
topic_facet |
Social sciences (General) H1-99 |
description |
Over the past two decades researchers have been exploring new hybrid methodologies to decolonise Indigenous mental health research. Grounded Theory with Community Participatory Action Research (CPAR), often using Indigenist methods, is the most common. Grounded Theory’s claim to rigour is its transparent, organised process of sifting and theme finding, while CPAR respects Indigenous self-determination and Indigenous ways of knowing doing and being, involving Indigenous research participants in all stages of the research from data collection to analysis. On the surface it would seem to be the ideal methodological approach to navigate the cultural divide. However, this article will argue that Grounded Theory’s inherent weakness is in the process of thematic analysis, which uses consensus during the analysis phase to find dominant themes. Drawing on the social systems theory of Niklas Luhmann and the political theory of Chantal Mouffe, this article will argue for a group process of “agonistic pluralism” instead. Searching for shared truths has a tendency to smooth out differences. The article proposes an approach for configuring a research team and conducting team analysis that struggles with, and accounts for, dissonances, disagreements and differences. Furthermore, it argues these differences should be recorded as important findings along with agreed themes. The approach has been developed to explore community perspectives on the relationship between culture and health, and in turn, to develop culturally appropriate mental health therapies for First Nations young people within a Western paediatric hospital. |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Janet McGaw Alasdair Vance |
author_facet |
Janet McGaw Alasdair Vance |
author_sort |
Janet McGaw |
title |
Dissonance, Disagreement, Difference: Challenging Thematic Consensus to Decolonise Grounded Theory |
title_short |
Dissonance, Disagreement, Difference: Challenging Thematic Consensus to Decolonise Grounded Theory |
title_full |
Dissonance, Disagreement, Difference: Challenging Thematic Consensus to Decolonise Grounded Theory |
title_fullStr |
Dissonance, Disagreement, Difference: Challenging Thematic Consensus to Decolonise Grounded Theory |
title_full_unstemmed |
Dissonance, Disagreement, Difference: Challenging Thematic Consensus to Decolonise Grounded Theory |
title_sort |
dissonance, disagreement, difference: challenging thematic consensus to decolonise grounded theory |
publisher |
SAGE Publishing |
publishDate |
2023 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231220775 https://doaj.org/article/f969272c0ad34960a2bb669e63b02955 |
genre |
First Nations |
genre_facet |
First Nations |
op_source |
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol 22 (2023) |
op_relation |
https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231220775 https://doaj.org/toc/1609-4069 1609-4069 doi:10.1177/16094069231220775 https://doaj.org/article/f969272c0ad34960a2bb669e63b02955 |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231220775 |
container_title |
International Journal of Qualitative Methods |
container_volume |
22 |
_version_ |
1787424542715543552 |