I contacted a researcher directly with the following nearly verbatim message, but I thought I might also get good information by posting here. I'm a (very) novice researcher currently working on my doctoral thesis. I find Ponterotto's article "Qualitative Research in Counseling Psychology: A Primer on Research Paradigms and Philosophy of Science" enormously helpful in identifying where my thesis fits within the four major paradigms he describes, which is decidedly critical-ideological. However, there is a question that keeps nagging me. He describes grounded theory as being most closely aligned with the contructivist-interpretivist paradigm, which makes sense to me. However, at some point in my career, although not now with how little research experience I have, I would like to use grounded theory to advance social change within a critical-ideological paradigm in support of the marginalized group that is the focus of my research interests. If grounded theory is not used in critical-ideological research, how can researchers do everything they can to promote transformative change through critical research? I understand that the point of critical research is to support an oppressed group in a way that spurs them to act and create transformative and emancipatory change for themselves, but it seems like grounded theory should also have a place in critical-ideological research. Is it possible to use grounded theory within a study operating from a critical-ideological paradigm? Does the critical researcher's open bias preclude using grounded theory? I don't know if my questions make sense. I'm sure my naiveté as a researcher is evident in my questions, but that's why I'm asking, to solicit guidance because I'm not an experienced researcher. Also, I'd be grateful for any readings anyone can suggest on this topic.
Referring to the social sciences with the double paradigm (Ritzer), I think it becomes a fairness to do the study as you do. I came down to support him. Good luck
- Badges
- Science method