Primerjava mikrofenomenološke in konstruktivistične poskusne teoretske analize

Dragan, Oskar (author), Strle, Toma (mentor), Repovš, Grega (comentor)

V magistrskem delu primerjam mikrofenomenologijo in konstruktivistično poskusno teorijo. Izhajam iz predpostavk, da zbiranje in analiza podatkov v kvalitativnem raziskovanju nista epistemološko nevtralna procesa ter da metodološke in analitične odločitve, ki jih pri raziskovanju sprejemamo, vplivajo na to, kakšno razumevanje predmeta proučevanja dobimo v dani raziskavi (Mills idr., 2006a; 2006b; Vogrinc, 2008). Tako se sprašujem, kakšen vpliv imajo epistemološke predpostavke obeh metod na analizo in oblikovanje rezultatov. Teoretično opredelitev mikrofenomenologije in konstruktivistične poskusne teorije, ki ju uporabim za analiziranje istih podatkov – opisov doživljanja med reševanjem naloge za preučevanje vidno-prostorskega delovnega spomina –, združim z opisom in opazovanjem lastnega analitičnega dela, s čimer opredelim epistemološke predpostavke obeh metod in nakažem, kako se le-te odražajo v analitičnem procesu in rezultatih. Primerjava predpostavk pokaže, da je mikrofenomenologija veliko natančnejša pri opredeljevanju tega, kaj doživljanje je, kar ima pomembno vlogo predvsem v začetni fazi analize, ko se odločamo, kaj ni in kaj je primerno za nadaljnjo analizo. Vseeno si metodi mnoge predpostavke delita, kar se v rezultatih odraža v nekaterih podobnih zaključkih, do katerih pridemo z obema pristopoma. Razlike v rezultatih so posledica tako specifične »poti« analiziranja, ki sem jo ubral, kot tudi nekaterih predpostavk o doživljanju, iz katerih izhajata obe metodi. S svojim delom sem prispeval k večjemu razumevanju rezultatov, oblikovanih z mikrofenomenologijo in konstruktivistično poskusno teorijo: opredelil sem epistemološke temelje obeh metod in pokazal, kako se le-te – v obliki zahtev, ki jih prepozna raziskovalec – odražajo v analizi in rezultatih.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: kvalitativno raziskovanje
• Work type: Master's thesis/paper
• Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
• Organization: PEF - Faculty of Education
• Year: 2022
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-135271
• COBISS.SI-ID: 99392259
• Publication date in RUL: 15.03.2022

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: Comparison of micro-phenomenology and constructivist grounded theory analysis

Abstract

In the master thesis I am comparing micro-phenomenological and constructivist grounded theory. I start with the presuppositions that gathering and analysis of data in qualitative research are not epistemological neutral processes and that the methodological and analytical research decisions we make influence our understanding of the research phenomena (Mills idr., 2006a; 2006b; Vogrinc, 2008). Hence, I am investigating how do epistemological presuppositions of both methods influence the analysis and the formation of results. Combining theoretical descriptions of micro-phenomenology and constructivist grounded theory analysis and applying them on the same data set – descriptions of experience of solving visual-spatial working memory task – with the reflection of my analytical work, allows me to define the epistemological presuppositions of both methods and how they are reflected in the analysis process and derived results. Presupposition comparison shows that micro-phenomenology is much more detailed when defining what experience is, which plays a significant role primarily in the first step of the analysis when determining what is not and what is suitable for further analysis. Nevertheless, both methods share some presuppositions, reflected in some of the similarities within the results formed using both methods. The differences in the results are due to both the specific analytical “path” I took as well as some of the presuppositions about lived experience that, in contrast to constructivist grounded theory, micro-phenomenology accepts. My work contributes to better understanding of the results formed with micro-phenomenology and constructivist grounded theory: I described the epistemological foundations of both methods and showed how do they – in a form of demands, that the researcher recognizes – reflect in the process of analysis and in results.

• Keywords: qualitative research