Methodological confluence: Weaving Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) and Indigenous research methods

Q1 Social Sciences
Tebogo B. Sebeelo
{"title":"Methodological confluence: Weaving Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) and Indigenous research methods","authors":"Tebogo B. Sebeelo","doi":"10.1177/20597991241256794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Qualitative research methods have treated Western knowledge systems and Indigenous studies as polar opposites with asymmetrical power relations. Studies have documented the hegemonic dominance of Western science over Indigenous knowledge systems. Despite this tension, there is an opportunity to integrate Western science with Indigenous knowledges to bridge these discordant systems. This paper argues that Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT), a Western-based version of grounded theory can be weaved with Indigenous research. CGT’s emphasis on co-construction, relationality, value-free inquiry, and social justice align with Indigenous research principles. Using examples from both CGT and Indigenous scholarship, the paper argues that CGT with its pragmatist and constructivist orientation can exist alongside an Indigenous research agenda. Furthermore, the flexible, emergent, and relativist nature of CGT aligns with some aspects of Indigenous research. The paper demonstrates that both knowledge systems can be treated on an equal par, engender methodological reciprocity and provide mutual benefits to each other. Weaving CGT and Indigenous research might provide new avenues of thinking about doing research with Indigenous communities and other marginalized communities.","PeriodicalId":32579,"journal":{"name":"Methodological Innovations","volume":" 31","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methodological Innovations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991241256794","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Qualitative research methods have treated Western knowledge systems and Indigenous studies as polar opposites with asymmetrical power relations. Studies have documented the hegemonic dominance of Western science over Indigenous knowledge systems. Despite this tension, there is an opportunity to integrate Western science with Indigenous knowledges to bridge these discordant systems. This paper argues that Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT), a Western-based version of grounded theory can be weaved with Indigenous research. CGT’s emphasis on co-construction, relationality, value-free inquiry, and social justice align with Indigenous research principles. Using examples from both CGT and Indigenous scholarship, the paper argues that CGT with its pragmatist and constructivist orientation can exist alongside an Indigenous research agenda. Furthermore, the flexible, emergent, and relativist nature of CGT aligns with some aspects of Indigenous research. The paper demonstrates that both knowledge systems can be treated on an equal par, engender methodological reciprocity and provide mutual benefits to each other. Weaving CGT and Indigenous research might provide new avenues of thinking about doing research with Indigenous communities and other marginalized communities.
方法论的融合:编织建构主义基础理论(CGT)和土著研究方法
定性研究方法将西方知识体系和土著研究视为权力关系不对称的对立面。研究记录了西方科学对土著知识体系的霸权统治。尽管存在这种紧张关系,但仍有机会将西方科学与土著知识相结合,以弥合这些不和谐的体系。本文认为,建构主义基础理论(CGT)这一基于西方的基础理论可以与土著研究相结合。建构主义基础理论强调共同建构、关系性、无价值探究和社会正义,这与土著研究原则不谋而合。本文通过 CGT 和土著学术研究中的实例论证了 CGT 的实用主义和建构主义取向可以与土著研究议程并存。此外,CGT 的灵活、新兴和相对主义性质与土著研究的某些方面相吻合。本文表明,这两种知识体系可以同等对待,在方法论上互惠互利。将 CGT 与土著研究结合起来,可以为土著社区和其他边缘化社区的研究提供新的思路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Methodological Innovations
Methodological Innovations Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信