| 1. |
- Lindgren, Sven-Åke, 1951
(författare)
-
Grounded Theory ett oavslutat projekt
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Sociologisk Forskning. - : Sveriges Sociologförbund. ; 43:1, s. 51-70
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article review and considers how the methodology of grounded theory has developed in the light of the profound critique it has attracted during recent decades. Four types of critique are examined, representing diverse meta-theoretical positions such as critical realism, constructivism, and postmodernism. Agreements and differences are described which indicate a consensus among researchers, irrespective of conflicting philosophical positions, that grounded theory is a workable approach for doing research. In particular, the discussion emphasizes how promoters of these perspectives deal with the basic aim of grounded theory to develop empirically based theories. A tendency to replace theory with narrative or other limited substitutes such as depiction is problematized. Questions of validation, evaluation, and legitimization of grounded theory, extended to include qualitative research in general, are touched upon. In conclusion it is argued that grounded theory, due to transformations and modifications inspired by positive critique, is better suited to meet today's demand for comlex and reflexive research methodologies.
|
|
| 2. |
- Sahlin, Ingrid, 1950
(författare)
-
Att prata ihop sig i rätten
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Sociologisk forskning. - : Sveriges sociologförbund. - 0038-0342 .- 2002-066X. ; 46:1, s. 28-45
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Negotiating experience in the court How do judges assess witness credibility, and how do they proceed to reach sustainable conclusions in a criminal court? This article is based on discussions in four focus groups with lay judges in Swedish district courts. In criminal court trials, a version of an event is generally reinforced if it is confirmed by witnesses. However, if their narratives are too similar, none of them is found trustworthy. The focus group participants agreed that if witnesses were suspected of having discussed their individual experiences of an event and accommodated them into a common story, their testimonies were not considered credible. While testimonies should ideally be untainted by other people’s impressions and opinions, other rules govern the truth of the court. The lay judges appreciated their deliberations, including negotiations on impressions and memories of the trial and they sometimes adjusted their perceptions in the light of information provided by other members of the court. However, if the lay judges are regarded as witnesses of what takes place in the trial, this gives rise to a paradox: While witness negotiations on experiences are regarded as a means to construct a false or biased story, the same kind of interaction between the judges is considered necessary to establish a consensual truth of what actually happened. Key words: witness credibility, lay judges, testimony, court deliberations
|
|
