Situational Analysis in Practice by Adele E Clarke and Carrie Friese


2258cb5bfd3a54a-261x361.jpg Author Adele E Clarke and Carrie Friese
Isbn 1629581070
File size 3MB
Year 2015
Pages 347
Language English
File format PDF
Category psychology


 

SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS IN PRACTICE For Anselm . . . SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS inPractice Mapping Research Researchwith with Mapping Grounded Grounded Theory Theory Adele E. Clarke Carrie Friese Rachel Washburn editors Walnut Creek, California left coast press, inc. 1630 North Main Street, #400 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 www.LCoastPress.com Copyright © 2015 by Left Coast Press, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. isbn 978-1-62958-106-4 hardback isbn 978-1-62958-107-1 paperback isbn 978-1-62958-108-8 Institutional eBook isbn 978-1-62958-109-5 consumer eBook Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Situational analysis in practice : mapping research with grounded theory / Adele E. Clarke, Carrie Friese and Rachel Washburn, editors. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-1-62958-106-4 (hardback : alk. paper) —isbn 978-1-62958-107-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) —isbn 978-1-62958-108-8 (institutional ebook)Â�—isbn 978-1-62958-109-5 (consumer ebook) 1. Grounded theory. 2. Social sciences--Methodology. I. Clarke, Adele. II. Friese, Carrie. III. Washburn, Rachel, 1975h61.24.s58 2015 001.4'2—dc23 2014047860 Printed in the United States of America The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi/niso z39.48–1992. CONTENTS Foreword by Kathy Charmaz╇ 7 Acknowledgments╇9 PART I: INTRODUCING SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS Chapter One: Introducing Situational Analysis╇ 11 Situational Analysis Strategies╇ 13 Distinctive Strengths and Contributions of Situational Analysis╇ 15 Using Situational Analysis╇ 16 Situating Situational Analysis as an Interpretive Qualitative Method╇ 22 Overview of the Book╇ 50 PART II: On Situational Analysis as an Interpretive Qualitative Method Introduction╇77 Chapter Two: From Grounded Theory to Situational Analysis: What’s New? Why? How? Adele E. Clarke╇84 Chapter Three: Feminisms, Grounded Theory, and Situational Analysis Revisited Adele E. Clarke╇119 Chapter Four: Building Emergent Situated Knowledges in Participatory Action Research Bill Genat╇155 PART III: EXEMPLARS OF SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS RESEARCH Introduction╇171 Chapter Five: Situating Knowledge Jennifer Ruth Fosket╇195 Chapter Six: Using Situational Analysis for Critical Qualitative Research Purposes Michelle Salazar Pérez & Gaile S. Cannella╇216 Reflection: On Using Situational Analysis for Critical Qualitative Research Purposes╇234 Chapter Seven: Rethinking the Disclosure Debates: A Situational Analysis of the Multiple Meanings of Human Biomonitoring Data Rachel Washburn╇241 Reflection: On Mapping Human Biomonitoring╇261 Chapter Eight: Governing through (In)Security: A Critical Analysis of a Fear-based Public Health Campaign Marilou Gagnon, Jean Daniel Jacob, & Dave Holmes╇270 Reflection: Allowing Mute Evidence to Be Heard: Using Situational Analysis to Deconstruct a Public Health Campaign╇285 Chapter Nine: Leveraging the “Living Laboratory”: On the Emergence of the Entrepreneurial Hospital Martin French & Fiona Alice Miller╇292 Reflection: Mapping Maps: Situating Oncology Asset Maps in the Representational Process╇314 Appendix A: Grounded Theory & Situational Analysis Websites╇ 323 Appendix B: Selected Exemplars of Situational Analysis by Discipline╇ 325 Appendix C: Selected Exemplars of Situational Analysis by Mapping Focus╇ 330 Index╇333 About the Editors & Contributors╇345 Foreword S ituational analysis has come of methodological age. This book marks, demonstrates, and celebrates the commanding presence situational analysis now enjoys in qualitative research. Situational analysis has taken its rightful place as a recognized innovative method of this century. Adele Clarke made her cutting-edge statement of the method in the first edition of Situational Analysis only ten short years ago. Since then, the method has gained substantial attention within and across diverse disciplines and professions. The past few years have shown a remarkable increase in the number of studies that situational analysis has generated. Situational Analysis in Practice testifies to its varied topics, range of analyses, theoretical reach, and growing number of proponents. What makes situational analysis innovative and distinctive? The method not only addresses the messiness of the empirical world, but moreover acknowledges the messiness of conducting research. This simple but profound axiom guides the entire process: The situation of inquiry itself becomes the fundamental unit of analysis. The assumptions we hold, the actions we take, the data we generate, and the analyses we construct all reside within the situation of inquiry. No longer can researchers hide behind data and present their findings as objective facts separate from the conditions of their production. Every study develops within a situation and likely is transformed by multiple situations throughout inquiry. Yet situational analysis does more than acknowledge the complex nature of the empirical world and the limitations of the methods on which social scientists have traditionally relied. Situational analysis provides a way out. A major strength of this approach is that it offers a considered and rigorous way out of research conundrums. The method fosters interpretive theoretical understandings of situations while simultaneously subjecting them to rigorous scrutiny—throughout the research process. Situational analysis offers methods that make the hidden and chaotic visible and comprehensible. The method’s explicit emphasis on language and discourse prompts researchers to examine nuances of meanings and of silences—ours as well as those of our research participants. Situational analysis fosters learning about implicit 7 ╇ 8 foreword meanings, tacit actions, and assumptions embedded in discourses. In short, the research situation merges with the process and product. Situational analysis was built on theoretical and methodological alliances and oppositions. The method endorses methodological strategies of earlier versions of grounded theory but opposes the quest for disembodied and unanchored generalizations. Like constructivist grounded theory with which this method is aligned, situational analysis builds on Anselm Strauss’s legacy of pragmatist philosophy and grounded theory methods and takes his legacy into the 21st century. Situational analysis, however, gives Strauss’s legacy new form that transcends 20th-century perspectives and practices. Similarly, situational analysis draws on diverse sources—feminist theory, postmodernist critiques, epistemological debates, and science and technology studies, to name a few—but synthesizes, integrates, and transforms them to produce an original statement and a unique method. The chapters in this book explain the essentials constituting the method and exhibit products of it. In one short volume, readers new to situational analysis will be able to understand its theoretical and methodological underpinnings, see how select researchers have put the method to practice, and, moreover, be able to apply the lessons gained to their studies. Situational Analysis in Practice takes the method from its experts and gives it to all qualitative researchers. Kathy Charmaz, author of Constructing Grounded Theory ACKNOWLEDGMENTS B ooks are complex endeavors, and we owe debts of grati- tude to many people. We thank them here especially for their generosity of spirit, a precious attribute. Special thanks go to Norm Denzin, who suggested that Adele Clarke organize a session on situational analysis for the 2013 meetings of the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry in Urbana/Champaign, Illinois. That session became the core of this book. All the presenters offered early versions of their reflections on using situational analysis, now revised and published here with their original research articles. As editors, we are delighted to include them and express our gratitude to them for being ideal contributors—prompt, thoughtful, courteous, really smart, and fun! Norm has created a particularly vibrant qualitative community at the International Congresses of Qualitative Inquiry. Discussions there with many people over the past decade have deeply enriched our understandings and strengthened our perspectives. Supportive colleagues and faculty make major differences in our lives. For decades of remarkable collegiality, we thank the qualitative teaching faculty at ucsf from nursing and sociology: Kit Chesla, Carol Dawson-Rose, Janice Humphreys, Holly Kennedy, Susan Kools, Ginnie Olesen, Howard Pinderhughes, Roberta Rehm, Janet Shim, Lenny Schatzman, and Carolyn Wiener. Everyone has gone far out of their way to encourage the development of situational analysis. ucsf anthropologists have also been a haven of support and intellectual stimulation, and we thank Vincanne Adams, Deborah Gordon, Sharon Kaufman, Barbara Koenig, and Ian Whitmarsh. Staff and students at ucsf have also been terrific. Brandee Woleslagle, Cynthia Mercado-Scott, and Regina Gudelunas have kept Adele Clarke and the whole Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences purring along despite cutbacks. Doctoral student Megan Dowdell provided excellent bibliographic and indexing support. And sociology and nursing doctoral students in the qualitative courses since 1990 have all contributed to the forging and polishing of situational analysis in countless ways. They were willing guinea pigs for this extension of grounded theory and taught us how to use it, teach it, and make it better and better. 9 10 ╇ acknowledgmen ts Special thanks also go to thoughtful colleagues from around the globe who have discussed, commented on, and supported situational analysis workshops over the years: Stine Willum Adrian, Gabriela Alonso-Yanez, Warwick Anderson, Paul Atkinson, Isabelle Baszanger, Geof Bowker, Stacy Carter, Lisa Cartwright, Monica Casper, Daniel Cefaï, Kathy Charmaz, Amanda Coffey, Lars Dahlgren, Suzanne de Castell, Annie Dugdale, Maria Emmelin, Ulrike Felt, Mary Margaret Fonow, Ulrike Froschauer, Daiwe Fu, Andrea Hagn, Bente Halkier, Peter Hall, Donna Haraway, MarySue Heilemann, Lene Koch, Charlotte Kroløkke, Patti Lather, Joanna Latimer, Merete Lie, Reiner Keller, Katie King, Marjorie MacDonald, Ray Maietta, David Maines, Reuben Message, Guenter Mey, Jan Morse, Katja Mruck, Michelle Murphy, Carrie Sanders, Susan Leigh Star, Jörg Strübing, Mette Nordahl Svendsen, Angela Wroblewski, and Chia-ling Wu. Monica, Kathy, Reiner, and Jörg truly went the distance in providing superb comments. Presses vary widely, and it is our great good fortune to be publishing this volume with Left Coast Press, Inc. and to be working with Mitch Allen and Stephanie Adams. Mitch was an early supporter of grounded theory and situational analysis, and working with him feels like coming home. Notably, Left Coast also published Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation on the full range of grounded theory approaches. Carrie Friese thanks Stephanie Miller for steadfast support and expresses profound appreciation to Hazel (now eight months old) for being awe inspiring and life changing. Rachel Washburn thanks Peter Davidson for his patience, love, and unwavering support. For caring and sustaining friendship, Adele Clarke thanks Monica Casper, Pam Mendelsohn, Jenny Ross, and Dan Doyle. Since 1971, Allan Regenstreif has always “been there” and assumed she could accomplish whatever she wanted—even doing this book in three months. So this one, too, is for Allan, without whom. . . . PART I INTRODUCING SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCING SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS W elcome to this volume on the qualitative research method called situational analysis (hereafter, sa). It includes an ambitious introductory essay that situates sa in the historic renaissance of qualitative inquiry since the 1960s, several previously published papers focused on the method itself, and five exemplars—excellent examples—of sa research. Also included are reflections by those researchers on the process of using this method in the empirical projects on which these papers are based. sa is an extension of grounded theory (hereafter, GT), transnationally the most popular form of qualitative analysis in the social sciences and humanities today (e.g., Clarke & Charmaz 2014). sa has also been widely taken up and now merits its own edited volume. GT was developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in 1967 and has been elaborated over the years by a number of scholars, especially Kathy Charmaz (1995, 2000, 2006, 2014 [2006]; Morse et al. 2009). GT’s roots are in sociology (e.g., Strauss & Corbin 1997), and it quickly spread to nursing (e.g., Schreiber & Stem 2001). Soon, GT was also taken up in organization and management studies (e.g., Locke 2001); education (e.g., Cresswell 2007); library and information science (e.g., Star & Bowker 2007), counseling psychology (e.g., Fassinger 2005); computer and information science (e.g., Bryant 2002; Urquhart 2007); social work (e.g., Oliver 2012); public health (e.g., Dahlgren, Emmelin, & Winkvist 2007); science, technology, and medicine studies (e.g., Clarke & Star 2008); and queer studies (e.g., Plummer 2005). Over the past almost five decades, GT has grown to merit its own hefty Handbook of Grounded Theory (Bryant & Charmaz 2007) and major new Situational Analysis in Practice, edited by Adele E. Clarke, Carrie Friese, and Rachel Washburn 11–75 © 2015 Left Coast Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 11 12╇ Adele E . Clarke , Carrie Friese, R achel Washburn texts (e.g., Birks & Mills 2011; Charmaz 2014 [2006]; Corbin & Strauss 2014; Dey 1999). After using and teaching GT for over twenty years, Adele Clarke, who studied with Anselm Strauss, developed sa by extending GT modes of analysis to include an array of poststructural and other contemporary concerns (Clarke 2003, 2005, 2007). For Clarke, GT itself is a “theory/methods package” that incorporates symbolic interactionism and pragmatist philosophy (Clarke 2005:2–5; Clarke & Star 2008; Star 1989). Both GT and sa are there-fore rooted in social constructionism and seek to explore the multiplicity of perspectives and the processual and contingent nature of social life through a relational ecological framework. Over the years, Clarke had generated a critique of GT and she developed sa to explicitly address what she saw as shortcomings of the method. This includes its positivist tendencies, a lack of reflexivity, oversimplification instead of addressing differences, and a lack of analysis of power (see Clarke 2005:11–16). sa specifically addresses these shortcomings by acknowledging the embodiment and situatedness of the researcher, grounding qualitative analysis in the broader situation of inquiry, attending carefully to differences, complexities, and range of variation in the data, including discourse data and analyses, and taking nonhuman elements (material things such as animals and technologies) into analytic account. In sa, the situation of inquiry itself broadly conceived becomes the key unit of analysis. This differs radically from traditional GT, which centers on the main social processes—human action—in the area of inquiry (Clarke 2005:19–31). In sa, the situation of inquiry is empirically constructed through making three kinds of maps (situational, social worlds/arenas, and positional) and through doing analytic work with the maps. Such work includes writing analytic memos of various kinds about each map, examining relations among the elements, and often updating the maps to reflect one’s evolving analysis of the situation. The roots of sa in GT include especially the ecological orientation of symbolic interactionism, Strauss’s social worlds/arenas theory (1978, 1982a, 1982b, 1984, 1993), and pragmatism (e.g., Denzin 1996; Koopman 2009; Rorty 1979, 1982). Its new roots include Foucault’s (e.g., 1972, 1973, 1978) emphasis on discourse, Foucault’s (1975, 1991) concepts of the “conditions of possibility” and “dispositive,” Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) work on assemblages and rhizomes, and science and technology studies. Clarke was also inspired by C. Wright Mills’s (1940) concern with situatedness, Denzin’s (2009 [1989/ 1970]) pioneering efforts at situating qualitative research, and Haraway’s introducing sit uat ional analysis 13 (1991) concept of “situated knowledges.” sa integrates poststructural assumptions and strategies of inquiry with those of symbolic interactionist social theory and offers strong emphases on analyzing discourses (narrative, visual, and historical), elucidating differences, including nonhuman elements in analysis and analyzing relations of power. Reflecting its theoretical orientation, Clarke’s (2005) book was titled Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn.1 Today, both social theory and research methods are increasingly transdisciplinary and travel widely (Barry & Born 2013). As a methodological advance in GT, sa, too, has been widely recognized in qualitative methods (e.g., Clarke 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012; Clarke & Friese 2007; Clarke & Keller 2014; Morse et al. 2009), including a German translation of the book and several articles (Clarke 2011, 2012; Clarke & Keller 2011, 2014). A second edition is in progress (Clarke, Friese, & Washburn Forthcoming 2016).2 It is most gratifying that sa is already being taken up in research outside the United States and across varied disciplines and professional venues. Demonstrating its transdisciplinarity, sa research has to date appeared in journals of counseling and psychotherapy, education, family studies, health policy, library and information science, public health, nursing, science and technology studies, social work, sociology, and others and is taught in urban planning and architecture. sa has also been traveling transnationally. In addition to the United States, we know that it has been taught in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Taiwan, and Japan. Situational Analysis Strategies The main strategies of sa are the three maps that researchers do across the full trajectory of the research project from the earliest design stages to preparation of publications. The first maps, situational maps, lay out all the major human, nonhuman, discursive, historical, symbolic, cultural, political, and other elements in the research situation of concern. Ideally, this map is initially made during the early design phase, laying out everything about which at least some data should be gathered and gaining a tentative sense of possibly important relations among them. This is helpful in guiding data collection and can also help researchers develop stronger proposals for funding their research. Downstream in the research, situational maps are used to provoke analysis of relations among the different elements, called 14╇ Adele E . Clarke , Carrie Friese, R achel Washburn relational mapping. Working against the usual simplifications in particularly postmodern and potentially feminist and critical ways, these maps capture and provoke discussion of the many and heterogeneous elements, their relations to one another, and the messy complexities of the situation (Clarke 2005:83–108). Relationalities and complexities have come to the forefront of concerns across the social sciences and humanities in this century (e.g., Lather 2007; Law 1999, 2004, 2007; Law & Mol 2002; Taylor 2005), and sa explicitly addresses such issues (e.g., Clarke & Keller 2014). Second, the social worlds/arenas maps lay out all of the collective actors and the arena(s) of commitment within which they are engaged in ongoing discourses and negotiations. Such maps offer interpretations of the broader situation, taking up its social organizational, institutional, and discursive dimensions (Strauss 1978).3 They invoke distinctively poststructural assumptions: We cannot assume directionalities of influence; boundaries are open and porous; negotiations are fluid; discourses are multiple and potentially contradictory. Negotiations of many kinds from coercion to bargaining are the “basic social processes” that construct and constantly destabilize social worlds’ relations and arenas maps (Clarke in prep.; Strauss 1979). Symbolic interactionism tells us that things could always be otherwise—not only individually but also collectively, organizationally, institutionally, and discursively. These maps portray such poststructural possibilities. The flipside of social worlds/arenas maps are discourse/arenas maps. That is, social worlds are themselves “universes of discourse,” routinely producing discourses about themselves, about other social worlds, and about issues of concern in the arena (Strauss 1978). Such discourses can be positionally mapped and analyzed in various ways (see Clarke 2005:109–124). Third, positional maps lay out the major positions taken, and not taken, in the data vis-à-vis particular axes of variation and difference, focus, and controversy found in the situation of concern. The discursive data can include interviews, observations, media discourse materials, websites, and so on. Perhaps most significantly, positional maps are not articulated with persons or groups but rather seek to represent the full range of discursive positions on key issues in the broad situation of concern. They allow multiple positions and even contradictions to be articulated. Discourses are thus disarticulated from their sites of production, decentering them and making analytic complexities more visible. Complexities are themselves heterogeneous, and we need the improved means of representing them that sa offers (see Clarke 2005:125–136). introducing sit uat ional analysis 15 In doing sa, researchers also code data and write memos as in GT (e.g., Charmaz 2014 [2014:109–191]), including memoing about each map. Researchers make situational and social worlds/arenas maps early in the project and then make them again after major waves of data collection and analysis. Positional maps are usually done quite late in the project once most or all of the data have been collected. While situational maps are rarely included in write-ups, both social worlds/arenas and positional maps commonly are, and most of the exemplars offered in this volume include such maps. Distinctive Strengths and Contributions of Situational Analysis Compared to GT, what is new about sa includes: • doing the three kinds of analytic maps and working with them; • enhanced reflexivity of the researcher; • attention to elucidating differences and varied perspectives in the data; • moving beyond the knowing subject of interviews to include analyses of discourses; • “helping silences speak” by analyzing absent positions in positional maps of discourses; • elucidating important nonhuman elements in the situation of inquiry (technologies, buildings, animals, etc.) and their relations in the situation;4 and • pursuing analyses of power, especially through analyzing implicated actors (discussed below). (All of these issues are discussed in detail in Clarke’s article “From Grounded Theory to Situational Analysis: What’s New? Why? How?” included in Part ii of this volume.) A particular strength of sa is that it can be done with interview, ethnographic, historical, narrative, visual, and/or other discursive materials. Public and institutional discourses are growing in importance due to wide and fast electronic access. sa’s capacities for analyzing such discourses are excellent, making the method especially useful for multi-site research where several different kinds of data are gathered. For example, one might gather data through interviews with software designers, websites describing their programs, and ethnographic observational materials from conferences. With 16╇ Adele E . Clarke , Carrie Friese, R achel Washburn sa, the researcher has the alternatives of analyzing all the data together or separately and comparing the outcomes (see also Keller 2011, 2012b, 2013). Mapping all the actors and discourses in the situation regardless of their power also ruptures taken-for-granted hierarchies and promotes epistemic diversity—an enhanced understanding of the varied perspectives present in the situation that are often rooted in different assumptions about epistemology— how we can know and understand (e.g., Pascale 2011). Historically, there have been highly stratified hierarchies in terms of the valuation of different kinds and bases of knowledge. A key feature of poststructuralist and interpretive approaches, as well as postcolonial and indigenous approaches to knowledge, often involves ignoring such tired and exclusive hierarchies and instead seeking to represent the full array of interpretations and understanding present in the situation. This produces epistemic diversity in the analysis. Implicated actors are actors silenced or only discursively present in situations. In discourse data, they are usually constructed by others for others’ purposes. There are at least two kinds. The first, while physically present, are silenced, ignored, or made invisible by those having greater power in the situation. Second are those not physically present but solely discursively constructed by others, usually disadvantageously. Neither kind of implicated actor is actively involved in self-representation. This concept provides a means of analyzing the situatedness of less powerful actors and some of the consequences of others’ actions for them.5 Using Situational Analysis Here we briefly introduce the uses of sa in qualitative research in general qualitative inquiry, in participatory action research, in policy research, and in feminist and other critical qualitative research. (For fuller discussions, please see the sa texts by Clarke [2005] or Clarke, Friese, & Washburn [Forthcoming, 2016].) SA in General Qualitative Inquiry sa is a method of analysis that can be used in the full array of qualitative research endeavors. It is commonly used in interview-based studies, but also in ethnography, narrative and visual discourse analysis, and historical studies. It is especially useful in multi-site or multi-modal research that can draw together different kinds of data about a particular phenomenon or sets of introducing sit uat ional analysis 17 data about different sites, or both. To date, sa has been used in qualitative research across the wide variety of disciplines and specialties noted above (see also the Appendixes of this volume and the sa website www.situational analysis.com for listings of works using sa). Outstanding examples of sa in qualitative research in addition to those in this volume include one on psychotherapy. Strong and colleagues (2012) studied how counselors responded to the dsm-iv-tr, a highly contested psychiatrically oriented administrative set of classifications of mental problems required to receive insurance coverage for therapy services. The authors offer situational, relational, and two different positional maps of their data that were innovatively generated through an online survey of counselors, invited contributions to a website blog, and in-depth interviews. They chose the sa method because of its strengths in elucidating differences and helping researchers specify the array of positions taken in a discourse, their focus of interest. Indeed, they found a wide array of positions about the dsm-ivtr and many and divergent strategies used by counselors to deal with the “administrative fact” of being forced to use it in order to be paid for their work. Particular tensions were found among counselors who practice psychotherapy from non-psychiatric frames such as family systems or feminist approaches. Another general sa research paper by Martinez (2013) challenges ethnocentric myths about acculturation and dietary change among Latino immigrants. The myth has been that when “at home” in Latin America, people ate more healthily because foods were more local, less processed, and usually prepared in the home. In sharp contrast, in her innovative SA interview and participant observation study that included home visits to cook with families, Martinez found that the modernization of food production and consumption—even huge tortilla factories and McDonalds—had long been part of the Latin nutritional landscape (e.g., Pilcher 2012). What worsened immigrants’ diets once in the United States was food insecurity due to a combination of their undocumented status, arduous work with irregular hours, inadequate kitchen facilities, poor health care, and overall impoverishment. SA in Participatory Action Research and Policy Research sa has been innovatively used by Genat (2009 and this volume) to develop an interactionist approach to participatory action research (par) that is also relevant to policy research. Genat draws deeply on symbolic interactionism 18╇ Adele E . Clarke , Carrie Friese, R achel Washburn and feminist standpoint epistemologies and situated knowledges, and he aligns his approach with postcolonial theory (e.g., Gandhi 1998) and decolonizing methodologies (e.g., Denzin, Lincoln, & Tuhiwai Smith 2008; Mertens, Cram, & Chilia 2014; Tuhiwai Smith 2012 [1999]). Genat’s approach to par is based on social worlds/arenas mapping and seeks to enable researchers and their local research partners to foreground shared local understandings in order to both critique more dominant discourses originating elsewhere and to generate locally based statements of need on which policy positions to improve the local situation can be founded. (Genat’s article is introduced in more detail in the Introduction to Part ii.) Similarly, some years ago, Samik-Ibrahim (2000) argued that GT methodology was a really strong research strategy for use in developing countries because of its bottom-up, inclusive approach to data gathering and analysis. And several studies in Botswana have used it, including in needs assessment (e.g., Seboni 1997; Seloilwe 1998; Shaibu 2002). Because of its parallels to GT and its inclusion of things and discourses, sa is also well suited to policy development and needs assessment projects where formulation of local goals and concerns is central. Situational maps that lay out what is actually in the situation can be especially useful, and can help analysts discern what is not in the situation that might address local needs. Situational Analysis in Policy Research In policy research, social worlds/arenas mapping strategies are particularly important as they can help in carefully delineating all the “stakeholders” or interested parties (both individual and organizational or institutional) whom policies might affect. This is a very important aspect of the policy development process. Among the most common errors in policy development is failure to consider the breadth of the consequences of changing a policy or instituting a new policy captured in the sad term “unintended consequences.” For example, Newbury (2011) views sa as appropriate for social work policy development as that discipline focuses on developing human services policies for what she calls “centerless systems,” the wide-open ecologies of community settings in which social work must operate and where policies should be effective. Policy research might also draw on situational maps to assess the full range of elements that a particular policy should be capable of addressing. In a project that contributes to policy analysis, organization studies, medical sociology, and science and technology studies, Chen (2011) analyzed the introducing sit uat ional analysis 19 development of harm reduction policies in Taiwan to prevent hiv/aids by reducing needle sharing among injection heroin users. He used sa to analyze how harm reduction policy was recently imported into Taiwan in this multi-sited project. Historically, “activism in the streets” was the originating impetus for promoting free access to clean needles—in New York City and Sydney in the late 20th century. In contrast, Chen shows how the bureaucratic and/or legislative office is today becoming a new site for assembling various harm reduction policy options developed and packaged elsewhere and now traveling transnationally. Local officials can select and adapt from the available options to address distinctive national and local conditions, needs, and goals by drawing on precedents, introducing local expertise, and transplanting skills and know-how (see also Reid 2005). Further, in terms of policy research, positional maps offer fresh perspectives on the contested issues in the situation in which policies might engage (whether intentionally or not). For example, Carder (2008) analyzed the different positions taken about the challenging problem of managing medication distribution in assisted living settings. While some people assert that such settings should promote the independence, choice, and privacy of residents, these goals also create preÂ�dicaments in terms of medications. Based on data from a five-year ethnographic study in six different settings in Maryland, Carder interestingly analyzed how two concerns, safety and autonomy, dominate the discourse, displacing other important issues (such as reasonableness and offering individual choice rather than rigid institutional policies for all residents) by demanding more attention than deserved in such settings. SA in Feminist and Other Critical Qualitative Research Feminist qualitative research has been another common site for the use of sa, and Clarke’s “Feminisms, Grounded Theory, and Situational Analysis” in this volume discusses the use of sa in an array of such endeavors. The excellent “how-to-do-sa” article by Fosket (this volume) is also on a feminist topic—the innovative use of chemotherapy as a preventive strategy for women at high risk of breast cancer.6 Elsewhere, Fosket (2004) analyzed the construction of a website-based breast cancer risk assessment tool to screen women for eligibility for chemoprevention. In another feminist qualitative project, Khaw (2012) used both GT and sa to theorize the process of leaving an abusive partner. She first did a classic situational map and later, with more data, generated project-focused maps

Author Adele E Clarke and Carrie Friese Isbn 1629581070 File size 3MB Year 2015 Pages 347 Language English File format PDF Category Psychology Book Description: FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrDiggMySpaceShare Situational Analysis creates analytic maps of social processes and relationships identified using grounded theory. Creator of the method, award-winning sociologist Adele E. Clarke and two co-editors show how the method can be, and has been, used in a variety of critical qualitative studies. The book-Updates the basic concepts and methods of situational analysis, a methodology created by Clarke;-Provides five important case studies of its use in a variety of health and educational settings;-Offers reflections from the original researchers on the studies and their impact;-Includes lists of published articles and available websites focused on situational analysis.     Download (3MB) Good Enough Endings: Breaks, Interruptions, and Terminations from Contemporary Relational Perspectives Zariskian Filtrations Professionalism and Ethics in Teaching (Professional Ethics) Engineering The Next Revolution In Neuroscience The Triumphant Victim: A Psychoanalytical Perspective on Sadomasochism and Perverse Thinking Load more posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *