seems clear that this study is based on an inductive approach (Timmermans and Tavory 2012). This is however a simplification of the analytical position. As the metatheoretical paradigm of this study is social constructionism it is implicated that one is always irrevocably merged with the world. Being objective and without presumptions when observing the world is therefore not possible. The term abduction is in this regard useful as a way of capturing the methodical approach. As with the inductive method, abduction has its point of departure in the empirical data but does not however reject theoretical preconceptions (Timmermans and Tavory 2012). As such it acknowledges the dialectic relationship between empirical findings and theory. Knowledge gained through my studies, as well as my subjective norm and value system has played a vital part in terms of how I have interpreted and reflected upon my observations. The implication of an abductive approach is that this study does not entail a coherent theoretical lens through which the data will be analyzed. Rather it is the other way around. The use of social constructionism as the metaheoretical frame does provide me with a general understanding of the epistemology of Balay’s practice, but it does not provide any concrete methods for how to analyze the data. In a general sense it can be said that analysis” is the process of “data bringing order, structure and meaning to the mass of collected data (Marshall and Rossman 1995: 111). As a way of doing so, Kvale’s three taxonomic ranks will be used. In analyzing qualitative data, Kvale makes a distinction between what he describes as understanding (Selvforsåelse), critical common sense (kritisk common sense) and theoretical understanding (teoretisk forståelse) (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). Understanding is the first level and implies that I am able to descriptively pass on the empirical data in an often condensed form. The next level, critical common sense, means
seems clear that this study is based on an inductive approach (Timmermans and Tavory 2012). This is however a simplification of the analytical position. As the metatheoretical paradigm of this study is social constructionism it is implicated that one is always irrevocably merged with the world. Being objective and without presumptions when observing the world is therefore not possible. The term abduction is in this regard useful as a way of capturing the methodical approach. As with the inductive method, abduction has its point of departure in the empirical data but does not however reject theoretical preconceptions (Timmermans and Tavory 2012). As such it acknowledges the dialectic relationship between empirical findings and theory. Knowledge gained through my studies, as well as my subjective norm and value system has played a vital part in terms of how I have interpreted and reflected upon my observations. The implication of an abductive approach is that this study does not entail a coherent theoretical lens through which the data will be analyzed. Rather it is the other way around. The use of social constructionism as the metaheoretical frame does provide me with a general understanding of the epistemology of Balay’s practice, but it does not provide any concrete methods for how to analyze the data. In a general sense it can be said that “data analysis” is the process of bringing order, structure and meaning to the mass of collected data (Marshall and Rossman 1995: 111). As a way of doing so, Kvale’s three taxonomic ranks will be used. In analyzing qualitative data, Kvale makes a distinction between what he describes as understanding (Selvforsåelse), critical common sense (kritisk common sense) and theoretical understanding (teoretisk forståelse) (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). Understanding is the first level and implies that I am able to descriptively pass on the empirical data in an often condensed form. The next level, critical common sense, means
Social_work_behind_bars.docx