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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Main Authors: Janet McGaw, Alasdair Vance
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