I can see why you might have trouble deciding, because both approaches attach importance to understanding meaning, and it is common to use a developmental, process-oriented stance in both.

I personally am more familiar with CGT, and I think it would be a good fit to what you describe, both in terms of how you would apply the method and what you would produce from it. In considering this, be sure to read the new material in the second edition of Charmaz on Constructing Grounded Theory, where she talks more about the historical linkages to Symbolic Interactionism as a theoretical perspective. If the kinds of things she says there appeal to you, that would be an argument in favor of CGT.

Also, I have yet to view it myself, but there is an hour-long interview with Charmaz about CGT from 2013 on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5AHmHQS6WQ

Dear David

I really appreciate your reply.  I attach a poster of my research proposal.  By any chance is there a paper out there that clearly outlines the difference between both approaches?  I am getting so frustrated that I cannot make a decision on this.  Thank you!

Fiona

Looking over your poster, the main link to phenomenology I find is an interest in the "lived experience" of your participants. That is of course a hallmark of phenomenology in general, but it is hard for me to imagine an in-depth qualitative study that did not deal with lived experience.

You also say "my research needs to be conducted and represented in a manner that does justice to phenomena as they are experienced by the people living them." But that is also the path that a constructivist grounded theory would follow.

So, I would want to see more specific justifications for doing phenomenology than what you have offered there.

Another thing to think about is the extent to which your interests are more social or psychological, since the first would tend to be identified with grounded theory and the second with phenomenology. This also connects to the kind of career goals you have, since there is no way to avoid being "labeled" according to the method you choose.

Thanks so much David, I really appreciate the time you have taken to read through my poster and my research project.  I agree with you, I think my intention was always to follow CGT as opposed to IPA.  I think I just need to have enough conviction to follow my choice now.  I thank you most sincerely for your advice.  Kind regards, Fiona

I think that constructivist grounded theory offers a richer, more complex and deeper form of analysis than phenomenology. Nothing stops you integrating the most relevant phenomenological techniques into your essentially constructivist grounded theory.

Thank you so much Anitra I really appreciate your time and advice.  I think I have been thinking the same thing, I am just having a 'moment' aka a 'wobble'!

Fiona,

You may be aware that this dilemma is considered in the Yahoo! IPA online discussion group hosted by BIrkbeck College, London University. Having attended a Grounded Theory university workshop (and indeed interacted through a video link with one of its founders!), personally I opt for Phenomenology in my writing (6 monographs).

Charmaz is clear on Grounded Theory, but at the cost of it appearing to converge with Phenomenology. But the latter asserts equipped practical understanding to be basic. As distinct from the former*s dynamic duo of founding fathers, Heidegger argues that as Hubert Dreyfus writes succinctly *primordial understanding is know-how* (Being-in-the-World, MIT Press, 1991, p. 184). From this hermeneutic practices perspective, for instance, *understanding* chronic arthritis is evident in behaviour, a person's being able to anticipate and act, assisted by her/his *equipment* (in a very broad sense) such as an anti-inflammatory drug or glucosamine, enabling the person to achieve modes of *being-with-others* (Heidegger). Only subsequently is such *understanding how* interpreted - given voice propositionally - in the form of an agent *understanding that* or as Heidegger himself writes (Dreyfus translation, ibid, p.184) *in the sense of grasping something thematically*. IPA explores these themes.

Hermeneutic phenomenology (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur) places the person firmly within the social or as *being-with-others*, in genres or modes of existence enabled - or disabled - by *Zeug* (*equipment*, *tools* or *gear*). Such analysis, Reckwitz and others argue (correctly I believe), has been reinvented as *practices theory*.

Hope this helps. Regards,

Tony Wilson

Tony's anser is a good example of why you might or might not want to get involved in phenomenology in general, although it does not address interpretive phenomenological analysis as a branch of the overall approach.

Part of the reason that I myself prefer grounded theory is that it is not so thoroughly embedded in relatively abstract philosophy. In practice, most users of IPA also avoid getting involved in those debates, and like most users of GT, tend to treat it as a method that does not necessarily depend on a philosophical position.

Interestingly, Charmaz in her 2nd edition and several of the authors in the Handbook of Grounded Theory that she co-edited have been begun to re-explore pragmatist philosophy as the basis for Strauss' version of GT. Although Strauss repeatedly referred to pragmatism as the roots for his own methodological position, he never wrote this up with respect to GT.

In any event, I think you could use either GT or IPA as a means of collecting and analyzing data without needing to exploring the deeper philosophical background to what are now widely recognized methods in their own right.

Fiona,

David makes a most interesting point about pragmatist philosophy *as the basis for Strauss' version of GT*. Despite earnest attention to workshop and video presence of a founder, I still find GT difficult to follow, both intellectually and as a research method - perhaps because indeed it does not clearly *depend on a philosophical position*!

Having been a PhD examiner in Australia and Asia, I find successful theses generally present a section on the philosophical grounding of their research. (All research of course - implicitly or explicitly - takes a philosophical stance, whether or not this is curtailed or celebrated). Good theses show how the philosophy adopted has shaped the questions asked and route taken in research. (For instance, writing incorporating phenomenology as its chosen guide in communication studies would ask how media audiences tacitly regard screen content as *equipment* for constructing a narrative).

As can be seen from Jonathan Smith and his colleague*s books, IPA invests in the wider philosophy of phenomenology - or Heidegger*s hermeneutics. Thus the latter*s idea that people operate from *horizons of understanding* experience is presented as being their *thematic understanding*. There are good clear guides to phenomenology freely available online such as Steven Mulhall's *Heidegger and Being and Time* and indeed I discuss these ideas in my second Routledge book - just published - the Preface to which Google has kindly excerpted online!

Tony Wilson (Jeffrey Cheah Educational Foundation, Malaysia)

Hello,

 I combined the two in my (completed) MSW research. I described phenomenology as the main methodology, borrowing compatible data analysis methods from Constructivist Grounded Theory. This made for a rigorous study both philosophically and technically, but is the opposite of Anitra above, who suggests integrating phenomenological techniques into an essentially grounded theory methodology. Why choose between these two? Find a way to integrate them and use the power of both in your study. As long as everything fits together to maximize the exploration of your research question, you should be on strong ground.

Gord

Gordon,

I agree! Charmaz' writing, already mentioned above, suggests a route whereby such integration of grounded theory and phenomenology may be achieved - at least in my minimal acquaintance with this writing. It's worth remembering, following Gordon's comment, that phenomenology is both an epistemology and ontology. That is, it attempts to give a fundamental account of human beings in terms of  how they understand the world. (Mulhall's book presents this account intelligibly). So as Gordon says GT should be integrated with phenomenology as basic not the other way around.

Hi Anitra, David, Gordon and Tony,

Thanks ever so much for your insight and advice, I really appreciate it.  I will take on board all you have said in terms of the most appropriate philosophical approach as well as looking deeper into the methodology. 

Sincerest thanks,

Fiona

I do not have an answer to offer you but I wanted to thank you for posing the question! For my dissertation I am undertaking a "secondary" analysis of data originally collected for a grounded theory study, however I am using IPA to conduct my analysis. I am glad there is someone else out there who is spending a lot of time and energy considering the strengths and limitations of these two qualitative methodologies :). 

Personally, I had wanted to stick with GT for my dissertation and I had planned in particular to employ constructivist GT. However,  my committee was helpful in guiding me toward the selection of a similar methodology to the one with which the data was first collected but would allow me to explore the data from a different perspective and with different objectives than the original study. This is how I ended up pursuing IPA. 

One of the bonuses of IPA is that the analysis generally stays at the descriptive level and therefore you do not need to worry about reaching theoretical saturation or developing a theory. I find that going forward with my dissertation research, as a novice researcher,  not having all of the demands that I would have if I had stuck with GT feels more achievable. 

Good luck with your decision Fiona!

Amy,

I suggest one of the advantages of IPA is that the theory is not only already 'there' (as a hermeneutic account of the process of understanding - see Stephen Mulhall or Richard Polt) but also supports detailed analysis of research participant contributions!

Regards,

Tony