analytical process and relationship between data an theory

6.2 analytical process and relationship between data an theory

In order to accommodate this argued procedure of investigation I approached the social movement of Guatemala through several ‘stages’ of development during the research. These have been outlined in the section ‘research overview’ (3.2.1) below in a schematic overview, but I will provide a simplified account here of the implications of an iterative relationship between data and theory. This account is not exhaustive and does not address particularly intricate questions, but should, hopefully, give an idea of how the iterative approach has been influential in the development of the theoretical and methodological application.

First, I engaged with the social movements at a level of interest and planning. At this stage no theoretical foundations or contemplations were involved in relation to SMO research and my own engagement was primarily directed because of interest rather than research. However, at this stage (around April 2015 when the movements began), I realized the potential and significance of researching the movements as well. Sadly I was unable to visit Guatemala and get ‘a closer involvement’ with the movements at this point in time, but I received numerous accounts from my family and friends in the country and followed the developments closely on various media outlets. From around June 2015 I started planning the research project; however, at this point still no theoretical elements were incorporated in analyzing the movement or selecting empirical data. I started collecting data and following the movement from the onset in order to develop a comprehensive insight and knowledge about the case in an ad hoc approach, relying on the general data sources available and commonly accessed sources. This was done in order to develop and understanding of the case sympathetic to movement participants and citizens of GT and as closely related to the general population’s perception as I could. Albeit direct participation and similar ethno methodological research methodologies would have been preferable to meet this end it was not possible to apply such methods as I could not travel to GT at the time. However, I have stayed in GT for longer periods on several occasions because I have family in the country, which has provided much insight into the lives and conditions of the people of the country¹³⁷.

However, not until the second stage, did theory become a significant aspect of my development of understanding the case. While this stage was still prior to the research process, I started contemplating political and social theories in relation to the case in question on how these influenced societal conditions, the political landscape, macro-economic factors, impunity, corruption, and so on. This engaged my thoughts with many theoretical aspects from international relations to political economy over sociological and cultural, but which were all to be revised again later in the process.

At the third stage, I took a substantial step back towards the first approach, focusing closely on the development of the case first-hand as I gained the opportunity to go to GT in December 2015 to stay there until March 14^th 2016. At this ‘leap’ I returned to look at the practicalities, the imminent situation as I would experience it being in the country where the events had taken place and where the movement had now subsided but never the less many demonstrations still occurs. Theory was put in the back while I was waiting for further counseling with my supervisor and a more concrete framework could be set up. I again focused on ad hoc sources of information and focused on gathering as much knowledge as possible without a particular framework rather than working inside a special one.

At the fourth stage, my supervisor was picked and a more exact framework was to be established as well a more concrete methodology for the actual research. Until this point my inquiries had been ‘unguided’ by methodological and theoretical premises and merely been led by the practical circumstances and contextual development of the case. As such I had to return to theory and this time around to a more concrete body of theories. I turned towards SMO theory in particular at this point and reviewed the literature from the onset beginning with Marx’s theories of social revolution to more contemporary theories such as Jasper’s emotional, action-oriented approach.

After reviewing the literature of social research I had to go back to the case to review both methodological implications and case-specific implications for theoretical choices and in order to develop a specific approach to my analysis and to the use and application of theory. Again this involved a look at the data available, the appropriateness of theory in relation to the specific case and the questions that could realistically be answered with the available data and theory. Again this meant iteration between data and theory and this time around also methodology.

Even as the research progressed, I was obligated to reconsider and reaffirm relationships between theory and empirical observations on many occasions. Specially in relation to Smelser’s theories of strain, but also between the overarching framework and empirical observations, for instance which empirical observations belonged to which category (or categories) in the overall frame of analysis. I should stress that this has importance both for theoretical and empirical concepts as the interpretation of the theory in relation to empirical data is a mutually influential process. For instance, which empirical observations can be understood in terms of conduciveness for the social movement? How far should the theoretical concept be ‘stretched’ in regards to empirical observations? These questions have not been easy to answer, and to analyze which empirical factors have had influence on the conduciveness, i.e. the overall frame in which the social movement is set, has not been an easy task. Notwithstanding, I have only included some aspects in this research where others may have chosen to incorporate more (or other aspects). The final analysis presented in this paper has undergone many such iterations before its final form was concluded.

What I have sought to illustrate through this account, is how the iterative approach shaped the relationship between data and theory in the initial stages of the research by going back and forth between the two. It should be noted, that this is merely a simplified account of a simple aspect of this process, and that the iterative process is not limited to this aspect of the research process or design. This approach has also been very influential in developing the analysis’ sensibility towards case-specific circumstances and contextual particularities because it has allowed for a qualitative ‘openness’ incorporated in its design by not making either theory or data the guiding aspects of the research. I believe this is an important aspect of the qualitative case study, exactly because the case specific parameters may be of increased significance.