Reflexive Serendipity. Grounded Theory and Serendipity in Disaster Management and Military Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.12.3.02Keywords:
Grounded Theory, Serendipity, Reflexive Serendipity, Military Sociology, Disaster ManagementAbstract
Grounded Theory (GT) is a research method that allows the researcher to make discoveries without a priori knowledge, and allows an open mind not an empty head. The use of this method is also desirable for serendipity to occur in the research process. This article therefore aims to chronologically present how serendipity has grown over time in the use of the GT method in a field of research focusing on highly demanding conditions such as disaster management and military operations. We will discuss a new concept, namely, reflexive serendipity, which encompasses the conditions required for making discoveries in the interview analysis. These may be contextual aspects and the role of the researcher, which includes having an open mind and the necessary perseverance and discipline to be able to succeed with GT and serendipity.
Downloads
References
Aldrich, Howard and Diane Herker. 1977. “Boundary-Spanning Roles and Organization Structure.” Academy of Management Review 2:217-230.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1977.4409044
Alvesson, Mats and Kaj Sköldberg. 2000. Reflexive Methodology—New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Google Scholar
Alvinius, Aida. 2013. Bridging Boundaries in the Borderland of Bureaucracies: Individual Impact on Organisational Adaption to Demanding Situations in Civil and Military Contexts. Doctoral Dissertation. Karlstad: Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Department of Social and Psychological Studies, Karlstad University Studies.
Google Scholar
Alvinius, Aida, Erna Danielsson, and Gerry Larsson. 2010a. “Structure Vs. Freedom of Action: Leadership During the Rescue Operation Following the 2004 Tsunami.” International Journal of Emergency Management 7(3/4):304-322.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEM.2010.037014
Alvinius, Aida, Erna Danielsson, and Gerry Larsson. 2010b. “The Inadequacy of an Ordinary Organisation: Organisational Adaptation to Crisis Through Planned and Spontaneous Links.” International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 15(1):87-102.
Google Scholar
Alvinius, Aida et al. 2014. “Emotional Smoothness and Confidence Building: Boundary Spanners in a Civil-Military Collaboration Context.” International Journal of Work, Organization, and Emotion 6(3):223-239.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWOE.2014.065757
Ansburg, Pamela I. and Katherine Hill. 2003. “Creative and Analytic Thinkers Differ in Their Use of Attentional Resources.” Personality and Individual Differences 34(7):1141-1152.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00104-6
Bosenman, Martin F. 1988. “Serendipity and Scientific Discovery.” The Journal of Creative Behavior 22(2):132-138.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1988.tb00674.x
Bryant, Anthony and Kathy Charmaz. 2007. The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941
Burt, Ronald S. 1992. Structural Holes. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674029095
Calás, Marta and Linda Smircich. 1992. “Writing Gender Into Organizational Theory: Directions From Feminist Perspectives.” Pp. 227-253 in Re-Thinking Organizations: New Directions in Organizational Theory and Analysis, edited by M. Reed and M. Hughes. London: Sage.
Google Scholar
Charmaz, Kathy. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar
Collins, Christopher S. and Joanne E. Cooper. 2014. “Emotional Intelligence and the Qualitative Researcher.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 13:88-103.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691401300134
Dey, Ian. 1999. Grounding Grounded Theory Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. San Diego: Academic Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012214640-4/50011-5
Dorfman, Leonid et al. 2008. “Creativity and Speed of Information Processing: A Double Dissociation Involving Elementary Versus Inhibitory Cognitive Tasks.” Personality and Individual Differences 44(6):1382-1390.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.12.006
Egeth, E. Howard and Steven Yantis. 1997. “Visual Attention: Control, Representation, and Time Course.” Annual Review of Psychology 48:269-297.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.269
Ellis, Carolyn and Arthur P. Bochner. 2003. “Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher as Subject.” Pp. 733-768 in Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar
Erdelez, Sandra. 1999. “Information Encountering: It’s More Than Just Bumping Into Information.” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 25(3): 26-29.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.118
Fine, Gary A. and James Deegan. 1996. “Three Principles of Serendipity: Insight, Chance, and Discovery in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Studies in Education 9(4):434-447.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839960090405
Glaser, Barney G. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney G. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence Vs. Forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney G. 1998. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney G. 2011. Getting Out of the Data: Grounded Theory Conceptualization. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney G. 2014a. “Applying Grounded Theory.” Grounded Theory Review. An International Journal 13(1):46-50.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246315593071
Glaser, Barney G. 2014b. Applying Grounded Theory: A Neglected Option. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney G. 2015. Choosing Grounded Theory: A GT Reader of Expert Advice. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014
Klep, Chris and Donna Winslow. 1999. “Learning Lessons the Hard Way—Somalia and Srebrenica Compared.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 10:93-137.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09592319908423243
Konecki, Krzysztof T. 2008. “Grounded Theory and Serendipity. Natural History of a Research.” Qualitative Sociology Review 4(1):171-188.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.4.1.09
Kyaga, Simon et al. 2015. “Bipolar Disorder and Leadership. A Total Population Study.” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 131(2):111-119.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12304
Locke, Karen. 2001. Grounded Theory in Management Research. London: Sage.
Google Scholar
Memmert, Daniel. 2009. “Noticing Unexpected Objects Improves the Creation of Creative Solutions—Inattentional Blindness by Children Influences Divergent Thinking Negatively.” Creativity Research Journal 21(2/3):302-304.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633798
Merton, Robert K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Google Scholar
Morse, Janice. 2007. “Sampling in Grounded Theory.” Pp. 229-244 in The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, edited by A. Bryant and K. Charmaz. London: Sage.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n11
Pole, Christopher J. and Richard Lampard. 2002. Practical Social Investigation—Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Research. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Google Scholar
Rivoal, Isabelle and Noel B. Salazar. 2013. “Contemporary Ethnographic Practice and the Value of Serendipity.” Social Anthropology 21(2):178-185.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12026
Rosengren, Karl E. and Peter Arvidsson. 2002. Sociologisk metodik. Stockholm: Liber.
Google Scholar
Shapiro, Kimron L., Judy Caldwell, and Robyn E Sorensen. 1997. “Personal Names and the Attentional Blink: A Visual ‘Cocktail Party’ Effect.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 23(2):504-514.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.23.2.504
Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet M. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar
Theeuwes, Jan. 1994. “Endogenous and Exogenous Control of Visual Selection.” Perception 23(4):429-440.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/p230429
Thomas, Gary and David James. 2006. “Re-Inventing Grounded Theory: Some Questions About Theory, Ground, and Discovery.” British Educational Research Journal 32(6):767-795.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920600989412
Van Andel, Pek. 1994. “Anatomy of the Unsought Finding. Serendipity: Origin, History, Domains, Traditions, Appearances, Patterns, and Programmability.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45(2):631-648.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/45.2.631
Webb, Adrian. 1991. “Co-Ordination: A Problem in Public Sector Management.” Policy and Politics 19(4):229-241.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/030557391782454188
Williams, Paul. 2002. “The Competent Boundary Spanner.” Public Administration 80(1):103-124.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00296
Wood, Noelle and Nelson Cowan. 1995. “Cocktail Party Phenomenon Revisited: How Frequent Are Attention Shifts to One’s Name in an Irrelevant Auditory Channel?” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21(1):255-260.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.255
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.