José Javier Timal Mota
"A comparison among four language research methods:
Ethnography, Grounded Theory, Case Study, and Life History "
Episteme No. 11 Año 3, abril-septiembre 2007
http://www.uvmnet.edu/investigacion/episteme/numero11-07/
Fecha de consulta:
A comparison among four language research methods:
Ethnography, Grounded Theory, Case Study, and Life History
José Javier Timal Mota
UVM-Puebla
Resumen
La investigación cualitativa es una disciplina que cobra suma importancia para la
elaboración de trabajos de investigación dentro del área del aprendizaje de lenguas.
El siguiente artículo presenta cuatro enfoques tradicionales con sus diferencias y
similitudes. Veremos cómo algunos métodos para coleccionar información, tales
como las entrevistas, son viables en los cuatro enfoques y cómo el contexto social
es elemental en casi todos ellos. Por último, el artículo sugiere que es importante
para el investigador, conocer claramente cuáles serán sus propósitos u objetivos
para su investigación. Aspectos como el contexto, los sujetos y los métodos para
coleccionar información, serán claves para elegir el enfoque tradicional adecuado.
...............
Introduction
Qualitative inquiry has been an old idea and its principles have been used in different disciplines.
We can see that anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, linguists, and many others have
carried out their investigations using this approach and employing terms like ethnography,
participant observation, case study, and life history among others. The notion of qualitative
inquiry might be related also to naturalistic inquiry. According to Williams (2005), qualitative
inquiry is the research conducted in natural settings, which uses natural methods such as
observation, interviewing, and writing that involves people who have natural interests in what
they are studying [1].
This conception may be applied to researchers, teachers, and
students focused in the field of Teaching of English to Speakers of
Other Languages (TESOL).
For a better understanding of this essay, I will use term qualitative
inquiry in order to avoid possible confusion and to convey the
question led characteristics of this approach. In the context of
qualitative inquiry, Williams (2005) presents the idea that the
paradigms for inquiry have received considerable attention in the
practice of researchers and evaluators [2]. With this notion he
explains that paradigms would be for example, the way people
conceptualize their nature of reality, the way they try to know
something and those things they are trying to know. In this paper
I will describe four core traditions and relate to each other for
comparison. This will permit an overview in the field of qualitative
inquiry and the basic knowledge for anyone who would like to do
qualitative inquiry as well.
...............
Ethnography
This tradition works mainly for groups of people. Researchers who do ethnography try to see what
happens through the subjects' point of view. When the physical presence of the investigator is
necessary, he or she becomes an observer that participates in the member's setting for gathering
data and usually employs interviews as the main data source. Also, Richards (2003) points out
that an ethnographer is a researcher who tries to describe and understand how an individual or
group of individuals behaves socially and culturally [3].
Depending on the ethnographer's point of view, emic and etic appear as two perspectives to study
a situation, that is, to look events from an insider and outsider point of view respectively. Due to
the fact that an ethnographer becomes an observer, his or her presence is essential but requires
large time of commitment on the part of the researcher. Within an ethnographic research there is
one perspective that appears as essential for understanding the origins of ethnography. This is the
naturalistic- ecological hypothesis proposed by Wilson (1982) [4]. This perspective considers the
context as a significant element. This is, if I would like to know how language learners interact
with the teacher, I should have to investigate this in the natural context (the classroom itself) in
which this behavior occurs rather than in the experimental laboratory.
...............
Grounded Theory (GT)
What a researcher does here mainly is discovering a theory. In other words, it is an approach that
generates a theory from the data. Most research approaches have data collection with a theory in
mind. In the field of grounded theory, the researcher collects data and analyzes it and then tries
to generate a theory based on the analysis. Each theory is then tested again and revised as new
data is collected and analyzed. This continues until the researcher feels that there has been
enough data and data analysis to generate a stable theory. As Richards (2003) says, this is a
popular method because the steps are very explicit so researchers feel safe doing it [5].
They basically do not have doubts as to whether they are doing
the right thing or not. Most of grounded theories consist of
interviews and observations. Nevertheless, Glaser and Strauss
(cited in Merriam 2002) suggest other strong and valuable data.
They suggest that collections of letters, speeches, literature and
any materials which might be helpful to an investigation are also
potential sources of data [6]. A researcher in GT collects, codes,
and analyzes his data in order to develop his theory. This
sampling procedure called by Glaser and Strauss (cited in Merriam
2002) as theoretical sampling allows researchers to compare
different groups in order to find differences and similarities for
possible categories [7]. Last, the sampling procedure also
recommends that a GT research does do not only takes into
account individuals but also sites and events.
...............
Case Study (CS)
The idea here is to consider what can be the object of a study. So, Merriam (2002) mentions that
the object of a study will be the analysis that is considered as a unit or group of units and time
and space will act as indicators [8]. Through interviews and maybe observations, the researcher
can choose his or her case (a program, an individual, an event or an activity) knowing that the
case is unique or typical. Another definition is the one developed by Adelman and Kemmis (cited
in Nunan 1996, p.75) who suggest that a CS is the “instance in action” [9]. So, as a language
teacher I can choose my instance (a foreign language learner) and find out how this case relates
in context (his classmates).
...............
Life History (LH)
Environment is considered here as an important aspect. Goodson (cited in Richards, 2003) states
that LH involves more work than a life story because it is necessary to collect a vast variety of
evidence. He also emphasizes that life story tellers could create this broader concept of life history
of an individual based on his evidence given by interviews or discussions [10].
Moreover, interviews serve here as the main source of data but life but life history might also use
documents, pictures, and other historical accounts. Also, Woods (cited in Richards 2003) claims
that triangulation is an essential component to lose authenticity in the interviews [11]. In
conducting such an the interview, it might be possible that the informant could not be telling the
truth, for this, the attention to others sources like written personal accounts could give more
plausibility to the history.
...............
Comparisons
I have chosen the first two traditions to be compared because both have a close relationship.
Ethnography and Grounded Theory use interviews and observations as their main sources of data
collection. However, Glaser and Strauss (cited in Merriam 2002) offer a more varied option of
documentary materials like letters, speeches, or pieces of literature [12].
Although both approaches study a group of individuals, Merriam (2002) indicates that that GT
could also employ sites or events but at the same time GT might focus to develop a theory from
people or individual in relation to a phenomenon [13]. Researchers in both approaches are
required to stay constantly near their subjects collecting interviews made through day by day
visits. An ethnographer is supposed to go beyond the observation; he or she takes an
anthropological view as participating herself or himself in the field.
Due to the fact that an ethnographer concentrates on the behavior of a social group, the whole
study will employ anthropological tendencies like cognitive and structural anthropology which talk
about the interaction between people and its surrounding world (Silverman 2004) [14]. On the
other hand, a researcher in GT needs to go through some steps for reaching its theory; he
analyzes data in order to generate categories, which are like his bricks to construct the theory.
So, whereas an ethnographer is guided from an anthropological view, the GT researcher's theory
needs to meet certain social conditions that Glaser's study (cited in Merriam, 2002) proposes: the
grounded theory has to make sense with the data, provide clarity to be explainable, to be
important to the real problems and that it can be changed in some future [15].
Regarding to data analysis, these approaches certainly show a difference. The GT works as a
comparative method of data analysis (developing categories) in the form of a system going
through open, axial, and selective coding. However, an ethnographer would make use of
describing, analyzing and interpreting the culture group chosen. Moreover, Merriam (2002) points
out that in the process of GT there must be central category which relates directly to other
categories [16].
The two other traditions, Case Study and Life History share some features as well. Both of them
focus on examining an entity in terms of unit , For example, a CS could addresses an activity, a
curriculum or an individual, and the LH might concentrate on the background of a person. Also,
they both make use of the interviews mainly for their data sources. In addition, Richards (2003)
offers a clear rationale for the existence of these traditions, he indicates that if TESOL certainly
generalizes geographic, social and intellectual aspects, the need of specific cases should not be
ignored [17]. Consequently, LH and CS appear as the alternatives which provide detailed
descriptions, good quality and in-depth investigations.
Generally, the four traditions here face different challenges.
Data from interviews seems to be a careful task for GT and
LH. In this sense, Richards (2003) explains that large
amounts of interviews could produce different outcomes when
for example a psychologist trying to obtain clinical interviews,
he got significant evidence related to school life issues [18].
In addition, in Ethnography the analysis of interviews requires
great periods of time and the researcher could feel pressured
in trying to develop his theory. Moreover, an ethnographer
deals also with time availability and his presence is essential
for collecting data. Finally, in the CS the researcher focuses
more on aspects dealing with selecting, type of case,
rationale, and limits (Creswell, 1998) [19].
...............
Conclusions
After a comparative description of the four approaches in language learning, we can see how the
notion of natural setting is significant to conduct a study. If our teaching practices are of the
natural kind since we deal with people then we use data collection methods which are also
natural. Interviews seem to be the only same method to collect data in the four previous
traditions, the additional sources like observations, written accounts, pictures or literature pieces
would be useful in accordance with the aims of the researcher's interests. But also, the researcher
would like to have data triangulation and for that these additional accounts will be also necessary.
It can be also concluded that the concept of context is essential in almost all the four traditions.
For example, in the Case Study approach, a language learner is the instance and one could
investigate how that case functions in relation to the context of that language learner. At this
point, there might no be clear difference to distinguish between ethnography and case study since
both take into account a phenomenon in context.
Once we have our objectives clear along with our purposes we can make use of one of the
approaches described earlier. There is no doubt that all four traditions serve a specific purpose,
but at the same time, they also share some features. I might concentrate on the cultural behavior
of a group, or I could focus in knowing the effects of a curriculum in an institution, or finding out
about the experience and beliefs of a new teacher in a rural school after one year. However, it
seems to be that the researcher needs first to determine what the purpose or his aims are going
to be in his study; aspects like the setting, the subjects, the way and the tools he would choose
for collecting data will provide a clear understanding of the type of tradition best fitted.
...............
References
[1] Williams, D. (2005) Educators as Inquirers. Utah. Mckay School of Education, pp 42
[2] Williams, D. (2005) Educators as Inquirers. Utah. Mckay School of Education, pp 45
[3] Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire. Palgrave
[4] Wilson, S. (1982). The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research. Chicago.
Review of Educational Research, pp 248.
[5] Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire. Palgrave, pp 18.
[6] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 142.
[7] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 143.
[8] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 178.
[9] Nunan, D. (1996) Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge. Cambridge University
Press, pp 75.
[10] Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire. Palgrave, pp 22.
[11] Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire. Palgrave, pp 22.
[12] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 142.
[13] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 143.
[14] Silverman, D. (2004) Interpreting Qualitative Data. London . Sage, pp 48.
[15] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 143.
[16] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 143.
[17] Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire. Palgrave, pp 21.
[18] Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire. Palgrave, pp 23.
[19] Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. California. Sage, pp 86.
...............
Bibliography
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. California, Sage
Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire, Palgrave.
Silverman, D. (2004) Interpreting Qualitative Data. London, Sage.
Williams, D. (2005) Educators as Inquirers. Utah, Mckay School of Education.
Nunan, D. (1996) Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Wilson, S. (1982). The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research. Chicago. Review of
Educational Research.
...............
Author
José Javier Timal Mota
Licenciatura Lenguas Modernas por la facultad de Lenguas de la Benemérita Universidad
Autónoma de Puebla (BUAP). Cursó la maestría en la Enseñanza de Idioma Inglés en la misma
institución, de la cual desarrolla el proyecto de tesis sobre identidad social en un estudio de caso.
Ponente en el Segundo Foro de Especialistas Universitarios en Lenguas Extranjeras en la BUAP.
Actualmente es profesor de asignatura en la UVM-Puebla y en la Facultad de Lenguas de la BUAP.