Note: the take-home message is at the end!!!
“This is a practice of doing research, informed by a sophisticated inductivism, in which data collection, analysis, and writing are not discrete phases but inextricably linked”. (O’Reilly 2012, p.5).
As we know
“A deductive approach to research is one where a hypothesis is derived from existing theory and the empirical world is explored, and data collected, in order to test the truth or falsity of the hypothesis. A simplistically inductive approach to research is one where the researcher begins with as open a mind and as few preconceptions as possible, allowing theory to emerge from the data. A more sophisticated inductivism views theory as precursor, medium and outcome of ethnographic study and writing”. (ibid. p.29)
And we know that ethnographic research tends to be more inductive than deductive, to work hard to make ideas earn their way, to want to hear and sense the field, to learn from research participants, and to achieve a way of understanding that is meaningful.
Further, the notion of abduction (which may be a better way to understand iterative-inductive) recognises an on-going interaction between the researcher, the research field, and externally sourced and internally emergent (or created) ideas over a period of time and as part of the practice of research.
However, none of the approaches above adequately deals with the role of the literature review or the role of a theoretical framework in ethnographic research that wishes to be iterative inductive. As social science develops, transfers concepts to new settings, builds on prior understandings in given fields, it becomes more and more appropriate to consider extant (or external?) or pre-existing theories and concepts. Think of concepts such as institutional racism, stigma, theories of learning, cognitive dissonance theory, etc. Some of these have become almost common-sense terms in everyday parlance. No researcher can ignore what they already know. Furthermore PhD supervisors and colleagues often ask an ethnographer: ‘what is your theoretical framework?’ implying that they will have a toolkit of theories and concepts to pull out of a bag and use in the field.
As time has gone by, my own research has taken shape, developed, and built on previous ethnographic understandings to become something of a body of research on British abroad. I am increasingly using a practice theory (or structuration) theoretical framework, which shapes what I do and how I make sense of the worlds I inhabit. This theoretical framework is somewhat independent of the research, the field, and our iterative-inductive understandings. It is, for me, a starting point, but strangely it has come to me over time as an end-point, a reflection and reconsideration of earlier work. I use it to construct Practice Stories
“Practice stories pay attention to people’s feelings and emotions, their experiences and their free choices, but also to the wider constraints and opportunities within which they act. More than that, practice stories take account of how these different features of social life interact, and thereby how structures (like social classes, for example) get produced or reproduced. Theoretically, practice stories can draw from a wide range of social theory that comes under the description of structuration theory or practice theory”.
However, a practice theory framework does not exclude the use, application, or amendment of more substantive series that are created as part of the research or that are imported from previous studies. As I have argued in International Migration and Social Theory.
So, perhaps a theoretical framework is actually more of a broad-brush all-encompassing approach to understanding wider aspects of human behaviour, while it is the more substantive theory and concepts that we wish to hold lightly (to quote one of the recent summer school participants, a design ethnographer), or use as sensitising concepts (to quote Herbert Blumer) in iterative-inductive ethnographic research.