65
66 Glaser and Strauss pointed out two trends that contributed towards the overemphasis of theory verification in the sociological field: The “Grand Theory” effect and strong advances in quantitative data gathering after WW2. These two trends are discussed below.
5.2.1 Grand Theory Influence
Glaser and Strauss felt that many sociologists, instead of developing their own theories, were more focused on verifying and reorganizing the grand theories created by the “Great Men” of the past (Karl Marx, Max Weber, Georg Simmel etc.). A grand theory is a form of highly abstract theorizing in which the formal organization and arrangement of concepts takes priority over understanding the social world28. Grand theories tend to have very little application to the daily lives of ordinary people. For example, a basic premise of conflict theory that was proposed by Karl Marx is that individuals and groups within society will work to maximize their own benefits and that social order is maintained by domination and power, rather than consensus and conformity29. This theory has far reaching implications for society in general but less utility when dealing with specific areas of focus such as, for example, the interaction between employees with different cultural backgrounds at large multinational companies.
It seemed then to Glaser and Strauss that the sociological field was moving away from fieldwork and preoccupied with analyzing and verifying highly abstract grand theories. Glaser and Strauss emphasized that newly generated grounded theories should not only be understandable by sociologists, students and laymen but should also be applicable to the area of study and be able to explain the behavior under investigation (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p.3). Thus, they felt it was important to create theories grounded in everyday experience and not just as a philosophical backdrop to the individual’s everyday experiences.
In addition to the need for theories that could be applied to everyday experiences, Glaser and Strauss also challenged the idea that the purpose of social research is to uncover preexisting and universal explanations of social behavior i.e. ‘Grand Theories’. (Suddaby, 2006) Glaser and Strauss
28https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press- releases/grand-theory
29 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp
67 point out that the belief at the time was that the great sociologists of the past had generated exceptional theories on various aspects of social life and now the task of their current crop of less able sociologists was to reformulate, test and modify the theories of these great men. (Glaser &
Strauss,1967, p.10).
5.2.2 Quantitative Research Advances
A second factor that contributed to the overemphasis on theory verification was the preeminence of quantitative research. Glaser and Strauss point out that after WW2 “Outstanding quantitative researchers made great strides both in producing accurate evidence and in translating theoretical concepts into research operations. The result was an ability to begin the challenge of testing theory rigorously.” Glaser and Strauss further add that, “The methods of qualitative researchers on these issues had not been developed to the point where they offered any assurance of their ability to assemble accurate evidence and to test hypotheses.” (Glaser and Strauss, p. 16) This resulted in qualitative research taking a backseat to quantitative research and further causing the idea of theory creation through qualitative means to be overlooked.
Consequently, between the acceptance of grand theories and the preeminence of quantitative methods in testing theories, theory generation through qualitative (and quantitative) methods was deemphasized. Glaser and Strauss’s proposed solution to this situation is presented below.
5.2.3 Glaser And Strauss’s Proposed Methodology
Thus, due to the state of sociological research of their time, Glaser and Strauss proposed a methodology for theory creation based on data systematically obtained from fieldwork/social research. It was also important that the created theory did not suffer from too much abstraction and could be comprehended by laymen. Glaser and Strauss described their new method as the discovery of theory from data systematically obtained from social research (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p.2). This original method described by Glaser and Strauss is built upon two key concepts:
“constant comparison,” in which data are collected and analyzed simultaneously, and “theoretical sampling,” in which decisions about which data should be collected next are determined by the theory that is being constructed (Suddaby, 2006, p.634). These two principles remained the core principles of GTA as the method then went through many reinterpretations as it was adopted
68 firstly by sociologists and then by researchers in other fields. As GTA spread, the different interpretations resulted in a divergence of opinion firstly between Glaser and Strauss and then by other subsequent researchers.
5.2.4 The Split and Diversification of GTA
Since Glaser and Strauss’s 1967 publication GTA has gone through many reformulations and developments and, due to differences of opinion among researchers, presently there is a lack of clarity regarding what GTA is and how it should be implemented. The primary reason for the lack of agreement on GTA’s methodology stems from a difference of opinion between Glaser and Strauss. The essential difference between the two co-founders of this methodology are that Glaser believes that through systematic comparison the categories will emerge organically, while Strauss (and Corbin) encourage emerging categories through posing analytic questions and hypothesis.
(Charmaz, 2000)
This fundamental difference in opinion is just one aspect of a complicated methodological debate that has obscured GTA’s application and resulted in GTA methods evolving in different ways depending on the perspectives and proclivities of its adherents (Charmaz, 2000, p.528). O’Reilly, Paper & Marx (2012) add to this when they write that, “while GT has been in existence for more than 40 years, its methodological execution varies greatly from one study to another, leaving the methodology elusive and misunderstood by many—even those who advocate its use. (O’Reilly, Paper & Marx, 2012, p.249). For these reasons when utilizing the GTA it has become imperative to firstly choose an appropriate implementation framework and secondly to describe the implementation of each principle of that framework to ensure correct execution of the methodology. Below the data collection process is discussed and the primary data set is identified.
Following this, the particular GTA framework selected for this paper as well as its application to the primary data set is discussed in detail.
69
5.3 GTA Implementation
5.3.1 Data Collection
The primary data collection was done through semi-structured interviews and this was supplemented through various other data collection methods. Below is a basic description of the process of data gathering for each research site. This process is summarized in table 7.
1. Gathering background information: Prior to each interview, information on each research site was gathered through homepage information, research papers and online news articles or reports. This information was used to create a basic profile of each research site.
Next, with the research purpose in mind, interview questions were drafted regarding any information gaps in the research site profile.
2. Interview: The interviews, with the exception of the LC Hirari, were conducted via phone or a video call with a representative of each LC. The LC representative was usually a founder, co-founder, a member of an executive committee or a chief representative. The total amount of interview time was 8 hours and 8 minutes, although there is a fair amount of variability in the interview times due to various factors such as the complexity of the organizations, the time availability of the representative or their preference for answering questions by fax or e-mail. The interviews by e-mail or Fax, with the exception of the LC Hirari, were all follow-up interviews.
3. Data Reports: Where available, data reports on the LCs’ operations were gathered. These consisted mainly of quantitative data describing the circulation of the LCs in question.
4. Observation: The kind of observation visits depended on the widely variable nature of the LCs. These included activities such as attending a LC affiliated market, taking part in a volunteer activity or observing a meeting of LC representatives.
5. Surveys: In order to gather data on the characteristics of currency users, surveys were conducted at 4 LC organizations. These are Tama Currency, Awa Money, Toda Oar and Maayu.
70 LC Name Total Interview
Time Interview by
E-mail / Fax Data
Reports Observation Survey of LC Users
1 Earthday
Money 1 hour 58 min X Digital
Account Data 1 Observation
(Market) X
2 Tama
Currency 44 min 2 times
(e-mail) X 1 Observation
(Meeting) Survey 3 Awa Money 27 min 2 times
(e-mail) X 1 Observation
(Festival) Survey 4 Beach
Money 23 min X X X X
5 Toda Oar 34 min 3 times
(e-mail) 2017 Report 1 Observation
(Festival) Survey 6 Yorozu Ya 25 min 2 times
(e-mail) X X X
7 Hirari X 4 times
(e-mail) 2017 Report X X
8 Sarari 59 min X 2008/ 2018
Reports X X
9 Maayu 33 min 1 time (e-mail) X 1 Observation
(Presentation) Survey 10 Genki 41 min 1 time (fax) 2006 - 2018
Report X X
11 Omusubi Currency 43 min 1 time (e-mail) X X X
12 Atom
Currency 51 min 1 time (e-mail) 2004 - 2018
Reports 1 Observation
(Volunteering) X
8 hours 8 minutes of Transcribed Interviews
17 Written
Interviews 6 Data
reports 6
Observations 4 Surveys