Social scientists are not divided into mindless observers and non-observant thinkers; rather, the differences between social scientists relate to how they think, how they observe, and how (if at all) they connect their thoughts and observations.

Sociological imagination

How to embrace everyday life - this visible, but the unnoticed world of habits and restrictions, advice and approval, illusions and disappointments, routine and banality? If, however, to speak seriously, everyday life is one of the spatio-temporal dimensions of the unfolding of history, the form of human life, the area where hope for innovation arises - banalities, flowing into each other, form new worlds.

N.N. Kozlova Horizons of everyday life of the Soviet era (voices from the choir)

1. Grounded theory (“grounded theory”) as a type of qualitative research

Once again about the typologies of qualitative research. Methodology classical sociological research involves identifying a number of criteria with the help of which the real diversity of classical research is ordered and its types are distinguished. The most common ones are information collection method(survey, focus - group, expert types of research); , focus on studying the subject in statics or dynamics(point, “moment” and repeated types of research), purpose of the study(theoretical and applied types in the classification proposed by V.A. Yadov; ; or fundamental, quasi-fundamental, applied and intelligence in the classification proposed by me).

I have already noted that the real diversity of qualitative research can also be “captured” a number of typologies, identified using various type-forming characteristics. One of the possible criteria for such structuring is nature of research practice How integrated holistic activity of the researcher, which includes a certain “practical logic” of the research process, and the priority of certain methods of collecting primary information, as well as images and, accordingly, languages ​​of the research result. Based on the typology proposed using this criterion by J. Cressuel and refined by V. Semenova, I believe the following types of qualitative research can be distinguished:

• ethnographic,
• "case study"
• “oral history” (ora/ history),
• "grounded theory"
• "life story"
• auto oe tnograph ic.

The proposed typology differs from the typologies proposed by English and Russian researchers two points: highlighted autoethnographic research practice as a specific enterprise that cannot be reduced to any other type; research practices such as "family history" due to the fact that, in my opinion, it is very close to the “history of life”, although they differ in the objects of study: in the “history of life” it is an individual, in the “history of the family” it is a family unit, taken in the unity of its intra-family ties .

Of course, the identification of these types is quite arbitrary and tentative: the “young age” of qualitative sociology, and its “umbrella”, mosaic nature, create significant difficulties for structuring, clearly “laying out on shelves” all the real wealth of specific research practices. It is not by chance that debates about the relationship between the ethnographic type of sociological research and the “case study” type research are not silent.

study": a number of authors talk about the ethnographic type of "case study", others - about "case study" as a type of ethnographic. In any case, I believe that an attempt to organize the real diversity of these studies, the desire to highlight the main elements that create the specificity, the “specialness” of this or that variety of qualitative research, is always useful and fruitful.

Without being able to consider every from the identified research practices (today there is already extensive literature on them), - etc., I will try to analyze the last three, guided by the following circumstances: Firstly, grounded theory, "life history" and especially autoethnography despite significant experience in their use primarily in Western sociology, still most problematic, cause the greatest fire of criticism, focusing on themselves all the main claims to qualitative sociology, but at the same time demonstrating the possible contours of its development; Secondly, these research strategies are very poorly represented And the more analyzed in sociological literature in Russian (with the exception, perhaps, of “life history”, a number of articles by Russian sociologists are devoted to the analysis of the cognitive capabilities of which; ; etc.; Thirdly, it is these research practices Was used in our studies of the process of socio-economic adaptation of the population of post-Soviet Russia, and therefore their cognitive horizons there may be not only in theory conceptualized, but also explicated from “living life” - our real research experience of their implementation in empirical research.

General characteristics. Grounded theory as a type of qualitative sociological research practically not understood in Russian sociology - the only exceptions are two publications by T.S. Vasilyeva; , the first (and only) translator of one version of this practice, presented in the work of A. Strauss and J. Corbin “The Basics of Qualitative Research” 1. At the same time, today in the West (mainly in England and the USA) “grounded theory” is one of the most popular research practices, which is successfully used to study various areas of the social: education for adults, the organization of social work, medical care;

Corporation culture, etc. There is a peculiar "groundiada" where grounded theory is conceptualized and developed. In particular, its basic principles are subject to reflection; , research projects where, within the framework of this strategy, collection methods that are uncharacteristic for it are used (documents, including archival materials), computer programs for working with data: “Atlas”, “Nvivo” 1.

Birth grounded theory is usually associated with the joint work of the famous American sociologists Anselm Strauss and Barney Glaser, “The Discovery of Grounded Theory,” published in 1967. Following the first work, several more basic books were published developing the ideas of this type of research. These are the works of B. Glaser “Theoretical Sensitivity” and “Basics of grounded theory analysis”, “Qualitative Analysis for Social Researchers” by A. Strauss (“Qualitative Analysis for social scientists”) and the work of A. Strauss together with D. Corbin “Basics of Qualitative Research” (“Basics of Qualitative Research”). Starting work on the creation and presentation of grounded theory to the sociological community as a concept. co-authors, like-minded people B. Glaser and A. Straues then, in the process of further reflection and acquisition of new research experience, began in various ways represent the proper (ideal) implementation logic research of this type 2 . That is why today in the methodology of qualitative sociological research parallel actually exist two versionsgrounded theory thereby creating a choice for the empirical sociologist. It is worth emphasizing that the disagreements between the Straussian and Glaserian versions of grounded theory are, in my opinion, Not

It should be said that the development of grounded theory in recent years has also begun in the research of Russian sociologists: for example, the study of practices of exclusion of children with disabilities (See: Yarskaya-Smirnova E.R. Sociocultural analysis of atypicality. Saratov, 1997); analysis of the process of socio-economic adaptation of the population of post-Soviet Russia (See: Gottlieb A.S. Socio-economic adaptation of Russians: factors of success and failure // SotsIs. 2001. No. 7), etc.

“ Researchers associate the moment of rupture with the date of publication of B. Glaser’s book “Fundamentals of Analysis Using Grounded Theory,” published in 1992, where Glaser made 129 amendments (claims) to the version of Strauss and Corbin presented in the work “Fundamentals of Qualitative Research,” published in 1990.

so methodical(how to do research), how much methodological nature(why it is necessary to do this) and therefore are quite principled. At the same time, in grounds, basic According to the provisions of grounded theory, as an analysis of their works shows, American authors agree.

I suppose that main idea qualitative research of this type (and here there is no disagreement between Glaser and Strauss) is to through the use of certain procedures inductively(from “raw” data - “up”) “ derive a theory of the phenomenon being studied. This theory should be rooted in primary data, don't lose touch with them. The term “Grounded theory” was translated into Russian by T.S. Vasilyeva as grounded theory, although, in my opinion, it would be more correct to translate it as "rooted theory", or "soil theory", rooted in primary data,« growing» of them, like from the soil. The primary data here is considered to be information from a free interview or observation, which in this research strategy are the main methods of collecting sociological information.

The most important feature that makes up the specificity of this strategy is the internal organizational and logical connection between the stages of the study: here Each stage influences and determines the next one. This means that data analysis begins as the first interviews or observations, so everyone subsequent data collection depends on the hypotheses put forward at the information processing stage previous interviews and observations. Thus, this type of research involves constant movement from data collection to conceptualization and back: from conceptualization to data collection. At each stage of the study, hypotheses are tested and adjusted, Each stage sets the direction for the next. The main organizational and logical idea of ​​qualitative research is the absence of a clear time and organizational division between the stage of collecting information and the stage of processing it - here it seems to have reached its goal maximum incarnations. It is no coincidence that A. Strauss himself calls grounded theory not a type, but style qualitative research.

This type of research belongs to scientific or scientific direction qualitative research within the typology I proposed. Maybe this the most scientific type possible in qualitative sociology, although, of course, this is a different form of science than the modern form of science 1. It should be said that the scientific nature of grounded theory (more precisely, its measure) is one of points of contention between Glaser and Strauss. On the one hand, and on this point American sociologists have no disagreement, the so-called scientific character manifests itself in image of the result how American authors see it: the result of research into such mud Always stands a theoretical interpretation of reality "that is credible and helpful in understanding a given field of study". On the other hand, B. Glaser criticizes the Straussian criteria of scientificity, according to which the logic of grounded theory is built, calling them positivist. In fact, A. Strauss believes that procedures Such qualitative research should be designed in such a way that comply with the canons of “good” science, although a few tweaked, modified in relation to qualitative research, as well as the complexity of the social phenomena being studied.

Following this principle, A. Strauss and D. Corbin identify 4 criteria by which a “good” “grounded theory” can be distinguished: it must correspond to the fragment of reality being studied, be " understanding», generalizing, controlled. Let's look at these criteria in more detail.

1. American authors believe that “grounded theory” as a type of research should be aimed at the most adequate representation of the phenomenon being studied. At the same time, and here Strauss and Corbin are right, at each new level of abstraction the process of interpretation is to a certain extent influenced submissions researcher, his values And preferences, which from the point of view of Weber’s value neutrality of knowledge is unacceptable. For increase validity The theory being derived here, qualitative analysis (processing of interview data, observations) is carried out by a group. Researchers discuss their ideas, which through joint analysis intersubjectively are verified (confirmed). This joint search for meaning actually represents research triangulation(although Strauss doesn't say this) is a way to increase the validity of the qualitative research results that I talked about earlier. At the same time, A. Strauss emphasizes that the group discussion contains the most important analytical premise - creating diversity which would take into account the diversity of social

A. Strauss and J. Corbin call grounded theory the scientific method.

no life. Horizon of meanings is explored using a so-called “thought experiment”. In the process of further analysis, this “field” of meanings is studied, i.e. correlates with subsequent field data, with emerging theoretical hypotheses until it becomes possible to formulate “the most significant and closest to reality interpretation". This fundamental characteristic of “grounded theory” - the creation of a diversity of meanings, A. Strauss calls “ complexity».

• 2. " Understanding» nature of the theory means that in it right« captured» understanding researchers of the situation being studied. The most important condition for such adequacy, according to American sociologists, is clarity the resulting theory those who study, and those who will use the acquired knowledge . In my opinion, the requirement of understandability, highlighted by American sociologists as an important criterion of “goodness”, to a certain extent diverges from another requirement: theory must be formulated in concepts, not in common words(away from common sense - A.G.). Apparently, this, and I already talked about this, - fundamental contradiction of qualitative research, which strives to be scientific (and therefore “speak” in the language of theoretical concepts) and at the same time, not having the opportunity to use mathematical means of proving its conclusions, is forced to appeal in search of verisimilitude to the people it studies. To people who, as a rule, do not understand theoretical language.
• 3. Grounded Theory claims to create a generalizing theory. This means that the conditions that explain the social phenomenon being studied should not be “microscopic”, i.e. only directly “adjacent” to this phenomenon. Quite the contrary: the social phenomenon being studied must “fit” into broad social context. This means that the theory resulting from this type of research is should include as elements explanations and macroscopic phenomena", economic conditions, social movements, trends, cultural values, etc. . According to A. Strauss, any grounded theory Missing these broader conditions, it loses its quality. In this sense, to be generalizing theory means to explain a social phenomenon in a broad perspective and, if possible, in different contexts of its existence. Controlled character theory as a result of this type of research means here that the theory must be controlled by “raw” data, that are basis analysis. They need to be continually addressed throughout the analysis process, no matter what level of analysis the researchers are at.

Among the above criteria, B. Glaser subjects the greatest criticism to the requirement that the theory was generalizing. In my opinion, B. Glaser’s criticism of this particular criterion is quite convincing. Indeed, Strauss and Corbin's attempt to fit the resulting theoretical description into a broader social context, into macrosocial conditions not typical for qualitative research with its refusal to create “big narratives” and focus on analysis micro level social life. The positivist “manners” of American sociologists are really evident here. Along with this, other signs of the scientific nature of the Straussian version of grounded theory are also criticized, which, according to B. Glaser, emasculate the specifics of qualitative sociological research: accuracy, necessity verification hypothesis as opposed to its direct creation from empirical data.

He reminds Strauss and Corbin that the verification model was precisely the element they were trying to get away from in their first paper, The Discovery of a Deficient Theory. B. Glaser generally does not accept the traits classical research, which, of course, “come through” in the Straussian version. Thus, he believes that the problem cannot be formulated by a researcher before data collection, how it's done in classical research and as Strauss and Corbyn suggest it. On the contrary, in his opinion, the research problem turns out to be natural by-product open coding, the very first procedure for summarizing empirical data. Ideally, in his opinion, a researcher working in a grounded theory strategy begins a study with an abstract question: “What is going on here, what is the problem?”

Another reproach of Glaser to Strauss is the focus more on the “cultural scene” (cultural realities) rather than on the inner world of the informants, which, in his opinion, follows from the fact that Strauss introduces a lot of rules production of knowledge instead flexibility and creativity researcher.

Glazer’s dissatisfaction is also caused by the statement of Strauss and Corbin that “even an ordinary researcher can build a grounded theory,” seeing, apparently, in such an approach a manifestation of a certain instrumentalism, impersonality, rather characteristic of classical research, as opposed to the unique improvisation of the researcher and research flair, especially in demand in qualitative research. In general, one can agree with the American researcher V. Bebchuk, who believes that B. Glaser is “more committed to the principles and practices that are interpreted as a qualitative paradigm,” for deviations from which he criticizes his former co-author and friend. The paradox of the situation, in my opinion, is that it is B. Glaser, a graduate of Columbia University, who insists on greater “quality” with his innovations in the field of “quantitative” methods coming from P. Lazarsfeld, while rigor and some “rigidity” ” is defended by A. Strauss, who graduated from the University of Chicago with his “qualitative” aspirations in the field of sociological research.

In my opinion, both of these versions have an equal right to exist. Moreover, Strauss’s version, with all its “quantitative attractions,” is, it seems to me, more preferable due to its greater democracy: tearing off a certain veil of sacredness from grounded theory, it makes it possible any researcher, even for those with little experience, step by step master the ss “wisdom”. That is why I further analyze the logic of the research search grounded theory" in CC Straussian version.

Logical sequence of research (logic of exploratory search). In its most general form, it can be presented as follows: based on “raw” data, which ideally does not include the researcher’s interpretations, codes are highlighted(concepts) that represent first level of interpretation. As a rule, at this level it is generalized one of the aspects data about a specific phenomenon. From codes, climbing the abstraction ladder, are generated categories, central categories and finally theory: the researcher, moving from the codes “up”, sets relationships between codes, generalizes them into more abstract concepts (categories), the categories are “condensed” into even more abstract concepts (central categories) and are ultimately formalized into a theory as a general description of a specific social phenomenon (see Fig. 1). In details The logic of research in this type of qualitative research can be represented, as A. Strauss believes, by the following elements:

• conceptual indicator coding model,
• data collection,
• coding,
• central category,
• theoretical sampling,
• comparison,
• theoretical saturation,
• theory integration,
• analytical memos,
• theoretical classification.

In general, and I have already said this, the logic of this type of research is aimed at creating “a complex, woven from concepts, holistic theory”, which is formulated in close connection with intensive data analysis. A. Strauss identifies some “rules of thumb” (general rules) as methodological directives. So, as the very first data is received, the process of encoding begins And continues throughout the study. The coding results serve as the basis for the formation theoretical sampling. The principle of theoretical sampling is as follows: subsequent data collection depends on the theoretical understanding of the phenomenon, from the results of the researcher’s analytical constructions on the previous stage.

Rice. 1.

This sampling of data continues until it reaches theoretical saturation, i.e. until the data obtained cease to contain new theoretical elements, only confirming that already was discovered earlier. As soon as it is revealed central category or categories, the researcher begins to look for connections between them, gradually saturating the theory.

Parallel with coding comes writing analytical memos(written comments by the researcher in the form of short essays) regarding the study, the feelings of the researcher, his ideas, codes, understanding of theoretical literature.

The researcher must constantly ask “ generating» (term by A. Strauss - A.G.) questions.

• What happens in the field, how does this case differ from another?
• What does a given word or sentence or action mean in the “normal” sense?
• What else could it mean?
• Where else can similar phenomena be found?

Generative questions play a significant role in this type of research: with their help hypotheses are put forward, comparisons are made, a theoretical sample is formed etc. As the research progresses, the question of which categories become the most significant and central is resolved, and integration of the entire process. The first, preliminary attempts at integration begin in the initial stages of the study by searching for connections between codes and categories. As research continues integration process occupies a greater share in the complex of actions of the researcher. This also applies to working with MSMS. In the process of developing research, scientists come to the need sorting (classification) memos, which makes them conceptually more “dense” and richer. At the same time, the first memos are much less integrated (that is, they contain less generalized information). At the last stages, the importance of sorting increases: here the memos must summarize the previous ones, be more generalized and abstract at the same time.

The relationship between the three most important elements logic of exploratory search - collecting data, coding and writing memos - cannot be unambiguous. Coding newly collected data can motivate the researcher both to write memos and to collect new data. Data collection and coding, on the other hand, may lead to additional coding already collected(and possibly already analyzed) data. Figure 2 gives an idea of ​​the relationship between these stages.

In the conceptual indicator model guiding the coding of data, behavioral acts, events observed, described in documents or obtained from interviews - act

Rice. 2.

indicators concepts that the analyst derives from them. This model is based on constant comparison indicators-data among themselves. The analyst then labels them as indicators of a certain class of events or behavioral acts, i.e. encodes them. By giving the class of indicators a name, he thereby designates them as category, raises to a higher level of abstraction. After the category is received, the indicators are data are compared already with the emerging concept. By making comparisons between additional data indicators and codes, categories, the analyst refines the latter so that they best match the data.

In general, within the framework of each research project, and this is emphasized by A. Strauss, there will be special, its own sequence steps, which depends on:

• what types of data are available, what can be accessed, and what is needed;
• the nature of the interpretations to which the researcher will subject them;
• the experience of the researcher or researchers;
• many different accidents that influence the researcher;
• the nature of the target audience to which the publications are addressed;
• the breadth of coverage and level of generalization achieved in theory and required by researchers.

The most important operations of grounded theory. The most important procedure for this type of research is data coding. The basis of this procedure is the so-called coding paradigm, representing the range of aspects of the life practices of the people studied, which the researcher should consider when coding. It's kind of reminder,"hint" to the researcher, what is important, significant should be “searched” in the data, how to structure them. The coding paradigm, according to A. Strauss, includes:

• conditions,
• interactions between actors (figures),
• strategies and tactics,
• consequences.

Find conditions most often it is quite easy, sometimes even the interviewees themselves point them out - you need to look for hints in the use of words such as “because”, “since”, “how”, “due to”. Likewise consequences of actions can be highlighted with phrases like “as a result”, “because of this”, “the result was”, “later it turned out”. Strategies and more detailed tactics, related to strategies usually do not pose difficulties even for an inexperienced analyst.

Interactions are also easy to find - they represent those interactions that occur between and among informants and other people. A. Strauss believes that if the elements of the coding paradigm are ignored, the ongoing process of data generalization cannot be called coding in the strict sense.

Generally, coding procedure in studies of this type it is represented by 3 components:

• open coding,
• axial coding,
• selective (selective) coding.

Open is the most first encoding type data produced by the researcher. Its name itself contains its main organizational goal: start, open up the research. Open coding is done through a detailed process thorough analysis field note, interview or other document - line by line(line by line) word by word. Such detailed, scrupulous coding here is the base, foundation, “grounding” of the future generalizing theory. Coding can be done sentence-by-sentence or paragraph-by-paragraph, or even across an entire observation or interview document. True, it is better to carry out such coding when there are already several categories and it is necessary to code “neighborhoods”. Interpretations obtained in the open coding procedure (codes) are always tentative and preliminary. Therefore, some of them may be considered erroneous and discarded at further stages of the study.

Content goal - concept production, which seem adequate to those collected earlier. Concepts here - naming, "labeling" word, phrase, fragment of text. Although these concepts are preliminary, they are still impetus to highlight other elements of the coding paradigm, further structuring of data. A. Strauss emphasizes that inexperienced analysts “instead of deriving concepts, make simple notes in the margins that do not differ much from the statements of the actors themselves.” He gives the following example: “The nurse says to the researcher: “When the patient started screaming, I left the room to maintain my composure.” This phrase analytically can be converted to "professional composure" with added notes and indication structural conditions threatening her peace of mind, as well as tactician, which she uses to maintain composure. This may lead the researcher to write memos, which immediately raises questions about others prevailing conditions and tactics, as well as about situations when the nurse's tactics do not lead to success or when there is no opportunity to use these tactics.

The "rules of thumb" here are:

• look for “a priori” (in vivo codes), i.e. those that the informants themselves use. “Tried to keep my composure” is a perfect example of an a priori code;
• give each code a name (a priori or constructed). At first, don't get too hung up on the question, is this the right term? - just call the code something;
• When analyzing line by line, ask as many specific questions as possible about words, phrases, sentences, and actions.

Axial coding procedure assumes thorough analysis, carried out around one category(rather than several at the same time), and searching for elements of the coding paradigm. Term

"axial" here means “rotation around an axis” of one category. Carrying out such an operation, the researcher begins to build a dense “fabric” of relationships around the “abscissa axis” of the category that is the object of his attention. At the same time, the analyst must make every effort to move only towards the set goal and not allow “temptations” in the form of various codes to interfere with this highly targeted coding process. As a result, the researcher accumulates knowledge about the relationship between the “axial” category and others.

Axial coding begins with a period of open coding, which usually extends (although not from the first interviews) and remains significant until the moment when the analyst focuses on central categories and moves on to selective coding.

Selective (selective) coding is available systematic coding within central category. To code selectively means that the analyst reduces the coding process only to those codes which are connected by quite significant connections with the central categories. Exactly central category now guides further data collection in accordance with theoretical sampling. Selective coding typically occurs after the researcher has determined which category or categories are central to the study, i.e. after open and axial coding.

Memo writing procedure assumes that primary landmarks.l yu s:

• must be of an organizational nature (what data to collect, where to do it, etc.);
• or act as reminders (remember to do this...);
• or represent a certain collection of disparate ideas;
• or contain some reflections for the purpose of stimulating the imagination.

Writing procedure further analytical memos comes down to combining the results of open or axial coding, recording the relationship between large categories, summing up and integrating previous memos. The famous English sociologist Thomas Flat recommends organizing memos as follows:

• indicate on each of them the date of writing;
• write a separate memo for each idea or topic;
• title them with headings that would help classify memos to different levels of generalization: code, category.

He also suggests dividing the memo structure into 3 levels: first answer the questions “Where is the source of the code?” and “Why did the code originate in this location?” Then find the meaning of the code. And finally, indicate which of the various meanings of the code can be selected for analysis. To do this, the sheet must be divided into 2 columns, in the first write, what does the code mean? in the second - what it might indicate.

The procedure for identifying a central category comes down to the analyst’s search for a category that would be associated with most of the others and would correlate with all codes (ideally). It is she who plays the main role in the process of theory integration. To do this, the analyst must constantly look for a “core theme” that relates to the main problem of the group of people being studied: “What is going on here?” In this way, the researcher quickly learns to “feel” the central category.

In grounded theory research, much attention is paid to the construction procedure. integrating diagrams. These diagrams are used for the most difficult, final stage the research process, when it is necessary to “put everything together” and integrate the results of the group’s work. The purpose of such diagrams is as follows:

• they give an idea of where has the research gone? based on the results of data collection, coding and writing memos;
• contribute to the growth of psychological confidence of researchers in the significance of their results;
• They help to clearly clarify the connections between codes, which means they also have analytical benefits.

Integrating diagrams tend to change as research progresses. Researchers should refer to such a diagram from time to time to ask the question: “What else did I not include?” As knowledge accumulates in the research procedure, the diagram is also redone as a certain visible result of the research.

• The term “thought experiment” here means a set of mental procedures carried out on idealized objects (concepts).
• I said earlier, in Chapter 3, that understandability is a favorite criterion for assessing the “goodness” of a study in qualitative methodology.

In contrast to the described, fairly universal and formalized approach to the processing and analysis of data from quantitative research, based on general unified samples and principles, the processing and analysis of data in qualitative research, which initially has methodological flexibility, can be carried out using various research tactics based on different research approaches.

A brief review of the history of the formation of approaches to the analysis of qualitative data will allow us to better understand the most developed and formalized tactics for analyzing (and conducting) qualitative research - the grounded theory method grounded theory or ascent to theory).

Grounded theory as a strategy for analyzing qualitative research data

Grounded Theory translated into Russian in different ways: “ascent to theory” (V.V. Semenova), “grounded theory” (T.S. Vasilyeva), “non-grounded theory”, “down-to-earth theory” (T. Shanin), “grown theory" (V. A. Yadov).

Grounded theory was originally developed by two social scientists - Bernay Glaser(Barney G. Glaser) and Anselm Strauss(Anselm Strauss) as an attempt to overcome the disadvantages inherent in analytical induction and preserve its advantages.

The grounded theory they created is not only and not so much the result of the analysis of qualitative data, it is an analysis strategy, a theory-building technique, and, in fact, verification of the result obtained.

Today, many textbooks have been written that reveal the tactics of using grounded theory in specific sociological research, but understanding grounded theory and applying it in practice remains a rather difficult task due to the fact that building a theory based on empirical data, on the one hand, requires a certain skill, and on the other hand, grounded theory procedures take a lot of time, which interferes with obtaining the required skill. Next, only the main stages and techniques of grounded theory will be considered, which will allow one to obtain only a general idea of ​​it, but will not be able to replace independent study of the approach, without which the practical use of grounded theory is impossible.

The application of grounded theory does not require specific data collection methods. The authors of the approach applied it by analyzing observational and interview data. Grounded theory can be used to analyze almost any qualitative data presented in the form of text: transcripts of individual and group interviews, texts of documents, biographical notes, etc.

Data analysis in grounded theory consists of three main types of coding, in three non-sequential stages.

First stage - open coding begins with the analysis of single excerpts (parts) of interview transcripts. The text is divided into semantic parts (phrases, sentences, paragraphs) and each individual selected semantic block is assigned a name (code) characterizing this part of the text. At this stage of the coding process, the following questions are asked: What is really going on in the text? What categories does the text passage suggest?

Open coding in grounded theory is viewed as the process of separating, validating, comparing, conceptualizing, and categorizing data. This is the first step in the procedure for interpreting research data. The “codes” obtained through open coding are the basic building blocks of future theory. “Codes” characterizing one phenomenon, one phenomenon, are combined into categories.

When using grounded theory, one not only identifies categories, but also talks about their development and content. By this we mean that with open coding, not only categories are discovered, but also their properties And measurements. Properties are characteristics or attributes of a category, and dimensions indicate the location of the property's value in a particular case being analyzed (in a particular interview) along a continuum of possible states. Thus, the result of the first stage of building a grounded theory - open coding - is the identified categories that are significant from the point of view of the purpose of the study, the properties of these categories and the measured values ​​of these properties for each case studied (interview). Categories with highlighted properties and their values ​​measured for each case are called filled with categories.

On second stage building a grounded theory, at the stage axial coding there is a procedure of connection, establishing connections between the categories identified during open coding. The authors of the approach proposed to consider all the processes being studied (processes of interaction between people) within the framework of the following paradigmatic model of social interaction:

Causal conditions -> Phenomenon -> Context -»Intermediate conditions -> Action Strategies -> Consequences

That is, in grounded theory, it is a priori believed that any process being studied can be represented within the framework of the specified model: causal conditions (factors that lead to the emergence of a phenomenon) give rise to the phenomenon being studied, in response to the emergence of a phenomenon, strategies appear (actions taken in response to causal factors). conditions), taking into account the context in which the phenomenon appeared, intervening circumstances influence actions (specific situational factors that influence strategies) and consequences (the results that the use of strategies leads to).

At the stage of axial coding, the categories identified during open coding must be considered within the framework of a paradigmatic model, i.e. It is necessary to determine for each category what exactly it is: a causal condition, a phenomenon, a context, an intermediate condition, an action strategy or a consequence.

We can consider that at this stage the researcher recreates the phenomenon being studied for each case (interview) studied. At the same time, it is not just categories that are related to each other, but categories with specific (for each case) values ​​of the selected properties (full categories).

Thus, for each case under study, a model of the phenomenon being studied, generalized in terms of categories, is formulated. This is the prototype constructed by grounded theory.

After open and axial coding, it is necessary to integrate the results of axial coding - combine the constructed models of the phenomenon being studied. The resulting generalized model of the phenomenon will be a grounded theory, and the procedure for formulating it is called selective coding. In order for the constructed models of all the cases under consideration not to contradict, but to complement each other in a single grounded theory, it is necessary to combine filled categories. If it turns out that any category in any of the interviews is not measured (that is, the category is not filled with meanings), selective coding of this category is carried out (hence the name of the stage - selective coding).

• This model represents the process in the form of a certain “axis” of successive events or phenomena. Hence the name of the stage - axial coding.
• In grounded theory terminology, this model is called a “story line”: a conceptualization of a [descriptive] story about a central category [the phenomenon being studied].

The “grounded theory” approach proposed by B. Glaser and A. Strauss has become quite widespread in the social sciences. The name of the approach well reflects the scientific intent of the authors, who tried to contrast deductive theoretical models with a theory based on systematically collected data [Vasilieva, 2007J. Within the framework of this approach, systematic ways of working with data have been developed (three-stage coding, flexible strategies for forming a theoretical sample, which the researcher adapts to the developing theory, a method of constantly comparing one data with another, as well as concepts with each other, etc.). constructing a theory of a phenomenon or occurrence. The researcher, as it were, “unfolds” the theory of the phenomenon from the data, presents the events associated with this phenomenon in dynamics, outlines the properties of the phenomenon, identifies the changes occurring in it, describes the causes, the nature of the changes, etc. .d.

As evidenced by numerous methodological literature [Vasilieva, 2007; Charmaz, 2006; Mills et al., 2006; Seaman, 2008, etc.], the philosophical foundations of grounded theory are very controversial and its ontological and epistemological assumptions are open to different interpretations. For example, K. Charmaz argues that the works of Glaeser and Strauss contain both positivist and phenomenological accents, and this circumstance can lead the reader to bewilderment. Positivist implications are seen in the grounded theory position of empirical realism, according to which things exist as meaningful entities independent of consciousness and experience, which presupposes the neutrality of the researcher engaged in the search for objective meanings in the data themselves. Traditional analytical procedures adopted in justification

Bath theories are precisely built on the assumption that theoretical categories follow from the data, with the researcher remaining a passive observer. The inductive process of discovery is accomplished by capturing themes that emerge solely from the data and continually comparing different pieces of data. B. Glaeser in particular insists that the researcher follow the data without introducing into it any of his own, “before experience”, obtained constructs [see: Seaman, 2008]. The phenomenological bias of grounded theory is observed at least in the fact that researchers carrying out their work within the framework of this methodological approach must, as accurately as possible, reproduce the “voices” of their respondents in their own perspective, reveal the meanings that the researched themselves bring to the study with their own life experience [Strauss, Corbin, 2007].

A number of authors argue that the grounded theory approach is evolving in such a way that its objectivist foundations are gradually being replaced by constructivist ones. For example, A. Strauss and J. Corbin [Strauss, Corbin, 2007] appeal more to the creation (construction) than to the discovery of grounded theory, thereby moving away from the predominantly positivist position of B. Glaser. Different views on the nature of grounded theory highlight a long-standing problem with the possibility of inductive inference. Within the framework of the grounded theory approach, this problem takes the form of a discussion about the status of the theoretical concepts and themes obtained as a result of the application of this methodology: whether the latter are the result of direct derivation from the data or are still largely set by the researcher himself and the perspective of vision assumed by him (the so-called discussion of the emergence /bringing (emergence/forcing)). It can be said that, in contrast to Glaeser, Strauss and Corbin's position opens up the possibility of using already existing theoretical positions as part of the analysis. However, the rather rigid technologization of procedures that these authors adhere to, as well as their general methodological orientation (for example, they state that a researcher working within the framework of grounded theory can certainly take a poststructuralist, feminist or some other position, but at the same time he risks losing much of what is present in the data) suggest that, overall, Strauss and Corbin are on the side of those who believe that the categories of grounded theory emerge from the data. At the same time, as J. Seaman rightly notes, Strauss and Corbin take a step towards separating grounded theory as a set of methods and techniques from grounded theory as a methodology.

K. Charmaz continues moving in the indicated direction. From her point of view, grounded theory is more a set of flexible methodological techniques than a complete, rigorous methodology, and in this sense it can be correlated with various metatheoretical and philosophical positions (and above all with the most significant methodological positions of the 21st century - social constructionism, feminism , poststructuralism and hermeneutic phenomenology). Following K. Charmaz, we might say that grounded theory today is more a process of careful interpretation than a process of discovery. Thus, we propose to consider grounded theory among a number of qualitative interpretive approaches, generally based on the philosophical tradition of justifying the specifics of the humanities. When creating a theory, the researcher focuses on understanding the meanings and meanings that people attach to phenomena or occurrences, so we can say that, working within the framework of a grounded theory approach, it turns out to be very close to the situation of understanding, the conditions of which are described by philosophical hermeneutics. In our opinion, it is precisely the appeal to the hermeneutic tradition that allows us to largely clarify the features of the status of knowledge obtained as a result of the application of grounded theory techniques.

From the point of view of hermeneutics, the emergence of categories and themes is possible precisely because we enter the study armed with a pre-understanding of the phenomenon or phenomenon that interests us. Our pre-understanding is formed, among other things, by referring to existing ideas about these phenomena or phenomena in the relevant literature, as well as by turning to the theoretical perspectives themselves, through the prism of which a given phenomenon or phenomenon can be considered. Theoretical concepts set the context for viewing empirical data; Systematic work with these data through the use of grounded theory methods and techniques allows them to be combined into a more complete and holistic configuration, thanks to which the data receives new light, etc. The task facing the researcher is to form a preliminary understanding of the phenomenon that will provide an enriching context for the vision and increase the researcher’s “theoretical sensitivity” in handling data, while at the same time leaving his mind sufficiently open and capable of flexible perception of new things.

By emphasizing the possibility of turning to the ideas of philosophical hermeneutics to understand the status of knowledge in grounded theory, we do not at all want to say that the grounded theory approach is a type of hermeneutic approach. On the contrary, we believe that their differences are quite significant. The specificity of each of them is determined by their ultimate goal, which determines the general logic of the movement of interpretive analysis and the structure of the results obtained. As already stated, the purpose of grounded theory is to create a theory of some phenomenon or phenomenon, while the purpose of hermeneutic phenomenology is to interpret and understand the meanings of a particular experience or experience. Accordingly, the interpretative structure created within the framework of grounded theory involves tracking the main process and its conceptual development, based on identifying variations and describing them in dynamics (for example, Strauss and Corbin are talking, first of all, about identifying variations in the actions and interactions of the phenomenon being studied ; see, for example, a grounded theory of how women cope with pregnancy complicated by chronic illnesses: [Strauss, Corbin, 2007, pp. 98-119]. Interpretation in a hermeneutic approach does not imply such dynamic conceptualizations, but stops only at describing the most significant themes relevant to a particular experience, taking into account the perspective of vision held by the researcher (see, for example, the thematic analysis of women's experience of love:).

• In our opinion, a better translation is “theory derived from data.” However, the translation “grounded theory” has been established in Russian-language literature, which we use in this work.

In most studies, the relationship between religion and economy is studied using quantitative methods, in which the researcher a priori specifies certain sets of categories. The respondent, for the most part, can only agree or disagree. In this study, the emphasis is on the identified categories of the informants themselves, how they connect their economic activities with the main maxim of Christianity - salvation. Therefore, a focused semi-structured interview was chosen as the method for collecting field data (interview guide in Appendix 1). Its focus is on the topic of work and how a believer should conduct himself there. Moreover, this not very rigid structure gives great freedom to the informant to express his own categories. In the ideal case, there is practically no imposition of the interviewer's categories on the informant. The same method will be used to survey experts, based on the results of which it is planned to compile a list of relevant church documents.

Grounded Theory procedures were chosen as data analysis methods. It was originally developed by B. Glaser and A. Strauss, and its basic principles were first outlined in the book “The Discovery of Grounded Theory.” Later, various modifications of the grounded theory appeared: “In addition to the works of B. Glaeser, A. Strauss and their direct followers, the most famous are the versions of K. Charmatz and A. Clark.” In interview analysis, there are three types of data coding: (1) open coding, (2) axial coding, and (3) selective coding. Open coding identifies concepts according to their properties and dimensions, while axial coding establishes relationships between categories and subcategories, taking into account context, conditions, action/interaction strategies, and consequences. Finally, during the selective coding stage, the central category will be identified. Also during this procedure, there is a “systematic linking of the central category with other categories, validation of these connections and filling of categories that require further improvement and development” Ibid. Page 97.

The collection of two types of interviews (experts and laypersons), as well as the analysis of documents and interview transcripts, are planned to be carried out independently of each other. This is done in order to exclude mutual influence of categories and their non-introduction into various discourses (officially church and lay).

Methodological design of the study

Regarding sample size, since in qualitative research there is no strict formula by which it would be possible to determine the necessary number of objects needed for an in-depth and complete analysis, so-called “theoretical saturation” is often referred to to determine the number. It lies in the fact that data collection continues until the increase in new codes is zero. According to one study on this issue, the optimal sample size in this case is 12 interviews. If theoretical saturation is not achieved with the specified number, then the sample size is planned to be increased to 20 interviews.

Description of empirical material. Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church

The text for analysis must be an official document of the Roman Catholic Church, reflecting the position of this institution on the issue of the economic life of the individual. To compile a corpus of such texts, two expert interviews were conducted with theologians: a priest who had already graduated from the seminary, and a seminarian in his last year of seminary. On their recommendation, my attention was first drawn to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. M: Paolina. 2006., which contains two chapters concerning the economic life of the individual and society - the chapters “Human Labor” and “Economic Life”.

The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church is a systematic presentation of the Church's position on various social issues in various public spheres. It was compiled in 2005 by a theological commission at the direction of Pope Benedict XVI. The starting point of the so-called doctrina socialis was the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII, who issued the famous district message “Rerum Novarum” (1891) Leo XIII Rerum Novarum. Electronic variant. URL: http://krotov.info/acts/19/1890/1891rerum.html (date of access: 04/27/2016), dedicated to issues of economic justice Zamagni S. Catholic Social Thought, Civil Economy and the Spirit of Capitalism // The True Wealth of Nations. Catholic Social Thought and Economic Life. Ed. by Finn Daniel K. Oxford University Press. 2010. P. 90. The reason for the appearance of such a document was a number of socio-economic events that occurred at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries: the increase in the use of machine labor, the opening of new markets, the development of industry and commerce, increasing urbanization and the exodus from the countryside Teixeira P., Almodovar A. Economics and Theology in Europe from the Nineteenth Century: From the Early Nineteenth Century's Christian Political Economy to Modern Catholic Social Doctrine // The Oxford Handbook of Christianity and Economics. Ed. by Oslington P. Oxford University Press 2014. P. 114. In addition, the Church faced the French Revolution, the overthrow of the monarchical regime and the emergence of liberalism.

The Pontiff in his district message speaks out against two ideological movements: “predatory capitalism” and socialism. The first he accuses of the heartlessness of business owners and the fact that now “... a few rich people can keep many poor people under a yoke that is little better than slavery” Leo XIII Rerum Novarum. Electronic variant. URL: http://krotov.info/acts/19/1890/1891rerum.html (access date: 04/27/2016). Socialism, which arose as a way to overcome all the problems of “predatory capitalism,” turned out to be no better, since it violates basic and natural human rights, especially the right to property. In this regard, Pope Leo XIII decided to answer the “challenge of the time” and propose, on behalf of the Church, a third way to solve the problem that had arisen. In fact, it consists of applying Christian moral laws to a new economic reality.

Subsequently, the social teaching of the Catholic Church received powerful development in the writings of Pope John Paul II, many of which were devoted to labor issues. Three encyclicals had a particular impact on social teaching: Laborem exercens (1981), Sollicitudo rei socialis (1987) and Centesimus annus (1991). In fact, the compendium brings together everything that was said in various encyclicals, decrees, and the Catechism. Thus, the official church position on many issues and problematic situations in various spheres of human existence was formulated.

In the theoretical justifications of modern qualitative methods, this problem is considered in the context of the methodological tasks that sociologists set for themselves when using qualitative methods in their research. One such methodological approach, which is being developed by researchers such as J. Corbin and A. Strauss, is called “grounded theory.” In the context of this approach, “theoretical understanding of the reality being studied is directly included in the process of collecting, analyzing and interpreting data” 1 . Researchers address the challenges of adapting established scientific procedures for qualitative research; develop special forms of reports on the rules and methods of conducting research; determine the criteria for assessing the research results.

1 Vasilyeva T.S. Fundamentals of qualitative research: Grounded theory // Methodology and methods of sociological research. (Results of the work of exploratory research projects for 1992-1996) M., 1996. P. 56.

Grounded theory is based on pragmatism and symbolic interactionism. Pragmatism manifests itself in changing the method in accordance with a changing reality, or more precisely, with a change in the researcher’s perception under the influence of changes in the object being studied. Perception plays an extremely important role in the work of the researcher as a participant in communication. Luhmann compared perception to the gateways of a social system, which either allow or reject any message. As a result, in the process of communication development, a certain bifurcation occurs, in the sense of a state of uncertainty regarding its continuation or interruption. According to N. Luhmann, society is “a flow of self-reproducing information messages in a system that describes itself and observes itself” 1 .

1 Luhmann N. The Concept of Society // Problems of Theoretical Sociology. St. Petersburg, 1994. P. 33.

To ensure that these “gateways” of perception do not interrupt and distort the flow of information messages as little as possible, it is necessary to abandon strict determinism. N.K. Denzin identifies three basic assumptions of symbolic interactionism. "Firstly, social reality is a social product of feelings, knowledge and understanding. The interaction of individuals creates and determines their own meaning of situations. Secondly, people are able to assign the meanings they need through self-reflection. They are able to give certain forms to their behavior and control it and the behavior of others Thirdly, in the course of social interaction, one adjusts one’s points of view on the behavior of others to the meanings that others give to their behavior 2 .

2 Denzin N.K. The Research Act. A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Englewood Cliffs (New Jersey), 1970. P. 5.

This adjustment is often carried out unconsciously, automatically. This usually occurs in a situation where a key phrase or word appears that indicates the possibility of a mismatch of meanings. In the given example about the different perceptions of the concept of “fine weather,” the sociologist and the villager would never have noticed the different interpretation of this concept and would not have tried to adapt to the interlocutor if the peasant had not asked a clarifying question-statement: “So you had rain? We’ve had a week and a half of not a cloud in the sky, everything is on fire.” If this question had not been asked, the interlocutors would not have noticed anything and would have lost the illusion of understanding each other and receiving reliable information about the weather.

The phenomenological method indicates that in everyday life it is not always easy to detect a discrepancy between the meanings of words and actions. "Garfinkeling" reveals differences in "background expectations" and "rules of speaking" most effectively in a laboratory experiment, but in a qualitative field study, creating a situation of artificial anomie most often leads to a breakdown in communication. The “gates” of the respondent’s perception are slammed shut in front of the sociologist, because frequent clarifications like: “What did you mean?” in the “rules of speaking” are also typified accordingly and, if the sociologist is not a foreigner with poor command of the language, but a representative of the same culture and generation to which the respondent considers himself, then this is no longer identified as “lack of understanding”, but as “lack of understanding” or “provocation, indirect aggression”, etc. For example, this can be interpreted as the fact that the “smart” city dweller demonstrates by his lack of understanding that the “dark” peasant cannot express his thoughts in a coherent, understandable, literate language. Such an interpretation is possible because the “main thesis of the interchangeability of perspectives” is violated and, although options for adjusting the interlocutors to each other are possible here, this communication will be unnatural and can further obscure the “horizons of typicality” of the individual world of the other.