Grounded theory example. Nikolskaya A.V.

The phenomenological method is a qualitative strategy of “collecting and analyzing data on the phenomenological composition of experience and the meaning that a certain object, situation, event or some aspect of one’s own life has for a person” . The method exists in the "halo" of a broad philosophical and psychological approach, originating in the phenomenological philosophy of Husserl, aimed at understanding the complete system of formations of consciousness that constitute the objective world through a direct intuitive consideration of the essences of transcendentally pure experiences. The initial basis of phenomenology as a scientific method is the idea that any individual experience is true, and reliable information about it can be obtained by studying the connection between things, human experiences and the values ​​of the inseparability of being and the world, revealing the intentionality of consciousness as its sense-forming attitude to the world. “From its very inception, phenomenology appeared in the works of E. Husserl as a form of research – the relationship of the sign, subject referents, the meanings and structure of our experiences, the ways of our everyday perception of things and the work of consciousness that ensures the coherence, meaningfulness and safety of our experience in time” . .

The phenomenological method is used in psychological research practice, psychotherapy, and psychiatry. Often the method is implemented as part of a case study, on the example of which a deep detailed study of a mental phenomenon is carried out. Phenomenological research is designed to bring the researcher closer to the immediacy of empirical data, to reflect the diversity and uniqueness of the inner world of a person, to fill in the ideas about those properties of mental phenomena that are lost in the formalized operation of statistical data. The phenomenological method is focused "on obtaining clear, accurate and systematic descriptions of certain aspects of a person's experience, on revealing the structure of experience and the meaning that a certain object, situation, event or some aspect of one's own life activity has for a person" .

Data collection in a phenomenological study is carried out through the reports of the subjects (in the form of an oral or written survey, when introspective reports, reflections on a certain topic are created), reflective self-reports of the researcher, through any texts and documents that contain descriptions of the inner life of a person.

Data analysis is carried out in stages, when semantic units are identified in the interviews, written reports, observations, texts, which are then combined into “clusters of meanings”, and on this basis a generalized description of the experience of the person under study is made.

To use the method in an empirical study, one must have a deep understanding of the essential aspects of the method, communication skills, be familiar with the practice of its application and interpretation of the results. A novice researcher can master this method only under the guidance of an experienced person who owns this knowledge, qualities, and experience. The author of this manual does not belong to such specialists, therefore, he cannot recommend its use.

The content and procedures of the phenomenological method are described in sufficient detail in the article by A.M. Ulanovsky. .

2.3.2. Grounded Theory Method

Grounded theory is a detailed, theoretically substantiated, empirically equipped method, which includes a number of rational procedures and research techniques, which can be called an approach rather than a specific method. Its essence lies in the stage-by-stage construction by the researcher of his own analytical scheme, the theory of the particular phenomenon being studied, which makes it possible to interpret events in a certain area of ​​social phenomena.

The creators of the method A. Strauss and J. Corbin were inspired by the idea of ​​freeing themselves from the influence on the process and results of sociological research of already existing theories, which, in their opinion, by setting the procedures for collecting and interpreting data, alienate the researcher from the reality being studied, do not allow to identify the features of the unique studied social phenomenon. To overcome the influence of pre-existing theories, they proposed to single out a number of analytical phases in the conduct of the study (organization of the study; data collection; ordering of data; comparison with literature data; theoretical analysis of data), techniques (definition of a priori constructs, intersection of data collection and analysis, use of "open" , "axial", "selective" coding, etc.), following which (not necessarily in the proposed order) will ensure the movement from unstructured data to interpretations that reflect the originality of real phenomena of social life and build a valid and reliable theory, free from the pressure of existing theories and approaches. The “quality” of such an approach lies in the rejection of preconceived provisions, hypotheses and the organization of the study as their confirmation; the orientation of the research on the path of "discoveries" of positions and hypotheses, instead of following the prescribed order of actions, in constant reflection of the emerging positions and actions of the researcher and their flexible change. At the same time, the construction of a “grounded theory” includes both quantitative and qualitative methods in the collection, processing, and interpretation of data.

The method has been actively developed and continues to be developed by researchers, branching out and gradually turning into a set of organizational stages, techniques, validation procedures, etc. Researchers also note the disadvantages of the method: time and economic costs, inaccessibility for all researchers (certain research qualities and skills are required), lack of methodological criteria to guarantee the accuracy of the results.

A description of the method by its developers is available in .

In the theoretical substantiations of modern qualitative methods, this problem is considered in the context of the methodological tasks that sociologists set themselves when using qualitative methods in their research. One of such methodological approaches, which is being developed by such researchers as J. Corbin and A. Strauss, is called "grounded theory". In the context of this approach, "theoretical understanding of the reality under study is directly included in the process of collecting, analyzing and interpreting data" 1 . Researchers solve the problems of adapting regular scientific procedures for qualitative research; develop special forms of reporting on the rules and methods of conducting research; determine the criteria for evaluating the results of the study.

1 Vasilyeva T.S. Fundamentals of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory // Methodology and Methods of Sociological Research. (Results of the work of search research projects for 1992-1996) M., 1996. S. 56.

Grounded theory is based on pragmatism and symbolic interactionism. Pragmatism manifests itself in changing the method in accordance with the changing reality, or more precisely, with the change in the perception of the researcher under the influence of a change in the object under study. Perception plays an extremely important role in the work of the researcher as a participant in communication. NLumann compared perception to the gateways of the social system, which either let through or reject any message. As a result, a certain bifurcation occurs in the process of communication development, in the sense of a state of uncertainty regarding its continuation or interruption. According to N. Luhmann, society is "a stream of self-reproducing information messages in a system that describes itself and observes itself" 1 .

1 Luman N. The concept of society // Problems of theoretical sociology. SPb., 1994. S. 33.

So that these "gates" of perception do not interrupt and distort the flow of information messages as little as possible, it is necessary to abandon strict determinism. N.K. Denzin identifies three basic assumptions of symbolic interactionism. "Firstly, social reality is a social product of feelings, knowledge and understanding. The interaction of individuals creates and determines their own meaning of situations. Secondly, people are able, through self-reflection, to assign the values ​​they need. They are able to give certain forms to their behavior and control it and the behavior of others.Third, in the course of social interaction there is an adjustment of one's points of view on the behavior of others, to the values ​​that others attach to their behavior 2 .

2 Denzin N.K. The Research Act. A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Englewood Cliffs (New Jersey), 1970. P. 5.

This adjustment is often carried out unconsciously, automatically. This usually happens in a situation where a key phrase or word appears that indicates the possibility of a mismatch of meanings. In the above example of different perceptions of the concept of "good weather", a sociologist and a villager would never have noticed a different interpretation of this concept and would not have tried to adapt to the interlocutor if the peasant had not asked a clarifying question-statement: "So you had rains? we have a week and a half in the sky not a cloud, everything is on fire. If this question had not been asked, then the interlocutors would not have noticed anything and parted with the illusion of understanding each other and receiving reliable information about the weather.

The phenomenological method indicates that in everyday life it is not always easy to detect a mismatch between the meanings of the meaning of words and actions. "Garfinkeling" reveals differences in "background expectations" and "rules of speaking" most effectively in a laboratory experiment, but in a field qualitative study, the creation of a situation of artificial anomie most often leads to a break in communication. The "gateways" of the respondent's perception slam shut in front of the sociologist, because frequent clarifications like: "What did you mean?" in the "rules of speaking" are also appropriately typified, and if the sociologist is not a foreigner with a poor command of the language, but a representative of the same culture and generation to which the respondent belongs, then this is already identified not as "not understanding", but as "incomprehension" or "provocation, indirect aggression", etc. For example, this can be interpreted as the fact that a "smart" city dweller demonstrates by his lack of understanding that a "dark" peasant cannot express his thoughts in a coherent, understandable, literate language. Such an interpretation is possible because the "basic thesis of the interchangeability of perspectives" is violated, and although there are also possible options for adjusting the interlocutors to each other, this communication will be unnatural and may further obscure the "horizons of typicality" of the individual world of the other.

The article proposes to use the methodology of building a grounded theory according to A. Strauss to create a classification of forms of deviant behavior in dogs. An algorithm for applying the theory is described and an analysis of the results obtained is proposed. The question of the subjectivity of the perception of deviant behavior of domestic animals by both the owners and the researcher is discussed.

Keywords: grounded theory, qualitative research, inductive method, deviant behavior, subjectivity of perception

To date, the main source of knowledge about the psyche of animals is their behavior. Psychological analysis of specific forms of motor activity of animals, the structure of their actions, acts of behavior directed at individual components of the environment, gives an idea of ​​certain mental processes.

Usually, the psychological analysis of animal behavior is carried out by a detailed study of the movements of the experimental animal in the course of solving certain problems. An important role is played in zoopsychological research and observation of the behavior of animals in natural conditions. Here, it is important to trace changes in behavior under various changes in the environment [Fabry, 2003].

However, in general, zoopsychology, in contrast to ethology, developed as a laboratory science. A laboratory experiment has certain limits on the possibilities of its application, therefore, experimental data must be supplemented with data on the results of observations of free behavior that is not imposed on the animal.

Today, one of the most interesting branches of zoopsychology and psychology in general is the problem of coexistence in one family of people and their pets - cats and dogs - in the anthropogenic environment. Such an environment is often the background for the development of various neurotic disorders in both humans and animals (large population density, noisy megacities, high rhythm of life, etc.).

Observations in natural conditions have their own specifics, in particular, it is difficult to strictly fix the observation parameters, to provide comparable conditions, etc. In laboratory studies, it is easier to use quantitative methods by ensuring the comparability of parameters. In turn, studies in natural conditions require the use of certain techniques that are adequate to the conditions of observation.
In natural conditions, at first we are forced to rely on the use of qualitative methods (interviewing, observation).

The specifics of conducting field zoopsychological research in the anthropogenic environment involves studying the characteristics of the interaction between people and animals and the influence of these interactions on the behavior and psyche of the latter.

What opportunities exist for zoopsychological research of this kind?

The research tools available to the zoopsychologist are interviews with people, as well as observation of the behavior of animals in the anthropogenic environment and observation of the interaction of animals with owners in various situational contexts.

Interviewing and observation are qualitative research methods that are always effective in the initial stages of work, so there is often no alternative to them. Later, elements of quantitative techniques can be introduced into the study, which are not antagonists of qualitative methods, but complement them.

Since this paper discusses the methodology and methodology of zoopsychological research in the anthropogenic environment, it is first necessary to understand how to work with the obtained primary data (interview and observation protocols). This material must be aggregated in a certain way. Qualitative research data aggregation methods are known and developed by such scientists as A. Strauss and D. Campbell [Campbell, 1980; Strauss, 2007] for sociological and socio-psychological research.

Specificity of qualitative analysis

A non-mathematical analytical procedure that uses the results of data obtained in various ways, this, in fact, is a qualitative study. This data, in addition to observations and interviews, may include books, videos, etc.

It is widely believed that the results of qualitative analysis are preliminary and inaccurate. But qualitative methods, like quantitative ones, clarify certain situations that arise in real life through surveys. When conducting quantitative surveys, the main sources of errors are usually: respondents' misunderstanding of the question asked, errors in understanding or predicting their behavior, as well as conscious or not fully conscious elements of insincerity associated with the pressure of social norms [Belanovsky, 2001]. An important advantage of individual interviews is that they provide reliable elimination of the factor of misunderstanding of the issue. The action of other factors is not eliminated, but modified. This may cause discrepancies in the conclusions of various studies, the purpose of which is to obtain an answer to the same question using different methods.

The true specificity of qualitative research is that in such research between the stage of obtaining primary data and the stage of meaningful analysis there is no link of formalized counting mathematical operations. The rejection of formalized methods of analysis that create the illusion of strict scientific certainty returns the problem of understanding the processes of scientific observation and the formation of a scientific conclusion to epistemological issues. The absence of a complete reflective description gives incompleteness to specific methodological recommendations related to the analysis of qualitative data.

Some areas of research are more suited to qualitative types of research. For example, when studying the deviant behavior of animals, we are always faced with certain phenomena, each of which, having common characteristics, also has many differences (for example, the conditions in which the animal lives, the relationship of the animal with family members, if we are talking about dogs and cats , life history, etc.). Using the inductive method, analyzing each individual case, we must try to isolate not only the phenomenological similarity, but also the general patterns of the emergence of the phenomenon of interest to us. In addition, qualitative methods can provide a clearer picture of the complex details of a phenomenon that is difficult to obtain with quantitative methods.

One of the proposed methods for working with qualitative research data was proposed by A. Strauss in his method of constructing a grounded theory.

A grounded theory is a theory that is inductively derived from the study of the phenomenon being presented, as it is created and developed through the systematic collection and analysis of data related to the phenomenon under study [Strauss, 2007].

A good grounded theory must meet four criteria for applicability to the description of a phenomenon: it must correspond to reality, it must be understandable because it represents this reality, it must be generalizing and controllable (in the sense that it must provide control over actions regarding the phenomenon) [ Kornilova and Smirnov, 2006].

In classical science, the explanation of empirical patterns has always been built from the general to the particular, that is, by the deductive rather than inductive method. The repeated occurrence of the same event allows us to derive only observable patterns, that is, no repetition in itself makes the event necessary. In fact, the person's certainty that some event will occur, and the need for regularity, are the psychological basis upon which inductive inferences are made. Consequently, an event, in the occurrence of which a person does not believe, is not included in the output schema [Popper, 1983]. However, inductively revealed regularities can be taken into account in the process of constructing scientific hypotheses. The very same hypothesis, being confirmed, means understanding the essence or regularity that underlies the repetition.

A.Strauss' method for constructing a justified theory

So, the theory differs from the detailed description of the phenomenon primarily in that it uses concepts. Similar data is grouped and assigned some values. This means referring interpretations to data. Second, concepts are connected by formulating relationships.

Data analysis, in which data is separated, conceptualized, and put back together in new ways, is called coding. The search for coding categories is the central process by which theory is built from data. Coding categories are words and terms denoting phenomena and their relationships that are relevant to the problem under study. The search for such categories is, in essence, the process of creating a conceptual apparatus, on the basis of which a generalizing idea or concept is formed, organizing primary data into an analytical generalization.

The analysis includes not only the data obtained at the empirical stage of the work, but also all the knowledge that has arisen as a result of studying these data.

The task of analysis is not only to process and organize the mass of collected data, but to organize the multitude of ideas that have arisen from the study of these data.

Encoding is a general term applied to the process of conceptualizing data. A code is a term that refers to the result of such an analysis, that is, a certain idea that arose when studying the data.

Ideas and their corresponding codes are the result of a kind of insight (insight), which arises on the basis of already existing knowledge and concentration of interest in a certain direction.

The researcher should not be embarrassed that the ideas and their designations that initially arise in him are, from his point of view, not very successful. In the process of work, the system of categories is improved and branched out.

As the number of identified and labeled relationships increases, the concept becomes more and more dense. Consolidation and integration of the concept is the establishment of links between categories and the creation of a hierarchically organized system of subcategories.

As the concept condenses, the system of codes absorbs the primary data. The researcher sees that specific data from the array he received is less and less likely to form new categories. If initially new categories arose literally on every line, then as the analysis progresses, the researcher discovers that viewing even many pages from an analytical point of view no longer gives anything new. This situation is called theoretical saturation.

The result of the study will never become the only possible interpretation of the data, claiming absolute reliability, but it allows further development and verification.

Thus, the techniques and procedures of analysis using a qualitative research approach make it possible to develop a theory related to a specific subject area that meets the following criteria: compatibility of theory and observations, significance, generalization, reproducibility, accuracy, verifiability [Campbell, 1980; Strauss, 2007].

The possibility of using the methodology of grounded theory in zoopsychological research

Start of the study

First of all, it is necessary to establish the boundaries of what will be studied. This helps narrow the problem down to a realistic size. The task was to describe the forms of deviant behavior of domestic dogs and to identify the mechanisms of their occurrence.

However, it is important to remember that some problem areas involve one form of research. For example, if one wants to find out which drug is more effective in the treatment of deviant behavior, then a "blind" double clinical experiment is more suitable for this purpose than an inductive theory. However, if it is necessary to find out how the treatment affected the behavior of the animal, its relationship with family members, whether and how much the family structure has changed, in this case the inductive theory is more suitable.

Encoding procedure

At the beginning of our study, the following forms of deviant behavior in dogs were described in the literature: pathological fears, fear of loneliness, manifestations of aggressive behavior, uncleanliness, behavior to attract attention, obsessive behavior, deviant sexual and eating behavior, uncontrollable behavior during walks, self-injurious behavior , increased activity, begging or demanding food [Askew, 2002; Overall, 2005].

We took these forms of deviant behavior as our initial categories, implying that in the future we plan to bring these initial categories to a classification similar to the nosological classification of clinical psychiatry. Considering that many forms of deviant behavior in dogs can be corrected with the help of psychotropic drugs used in the treatment of human psychiatric disorders, we decided that a classification similar to the classification of psychiatric disorders would greatly simplify the procedure for diagnosing and choosing treatment for animals.

For example, we want to investigate the phenomenon of obsessive behavior in dogs.

Suppose we see an animal chasing its tail and biting it. We note that the movements of the animal are clearly compulsive, that is, these movements can be labeled as a compulsive disorder. Then we ask ourselves the question: what happens when a dog grabs its tail? We note that she bites him. Therefore, we can assume either self-injurious behavior or tail itching. Thus, we discovered a certain phenomenon and gave it certain names - itching, self-damaging behavior, obsessive compulsive movements.

At this stage, it is important not to summarize (that is, to repeat the essence of the phenomenon in a descriptive form), but to conceptualize the data. For example, a dog is constantly chasing its tail and biting it. Such a descriptive form does not provide a concept with which to work. It is conceptually more efficient to work with a term like itching or self-injurious behavior than tail biting, as a term like "itch" can be applied to a wide variety of cases.

Each concept is taken and it is found out to which class of phenomena it belongs. It is similar or different from the previous one. For example, the concept of "itch". Why can a dog itch? We need to differentiate the cause of this itching (allergies, fleas, docked tail neuroma). Or maybe this itch has some psychogenic origin, that is, we need to identify the cause of self-damaging behavior (an acute stressful or psycho-traumatic situation). That is, the itch experienced by the dog has some properties or qualities.

Properties of the "itch" category - localization, intensity, etc. Itching can vary in intensity from high to low, etc. These properties of itching are its general properties, they belong to it regardless of the situation in which it occurs.

Interview analysis

Interview analysis is very important. Sometimes it is necessary not only to carefully consider phrase by phrase, but even individual words. Such an analysis suggests what to focus on in the next interview or in the next observation. For example, a line-by-line analysis of interviews with the owners of an itchy dog ​​may lead us to believe that the cause of the itching is most likely psychogenic, since this animal often stays at home alone for the whole day, boredom, fear of loneliness can concentrate attention dogs on a certain area. In the following interview with the owners of this dog, attention is drawn to the circumstances of the animal's life.

In another case, we interviewed the owner of a dog that shows aggression towards a child in the family. It turned out that the animal often experiences pain as a result of chronic arthritis, and aggression towards the child manifests itself as a dog's reaction to this pain. Here is a fragment of the interview: “Pain relief is the main problem. At times, his pain intensifies, then it becomes really bad. We all families do not sleep, sorry for him to tears. He is so sick that he does not want to leave the apartment for a walk. Medicines only provide temporary relief.

We see the category “pain” and the property of pain to change in intensity, we see the property of the owners to respond to this pain also with different intensity, we see the restriction of activity (the dog does not want to leave the apartment), we see the category “pain relief”, which has the property duration (temporary relief).

Further, just from this interview fragment, we may have the following questions: how do the owners of not only this particular dog, but also other dogs suffering from chronic arthritis, provide pain relief to animals? What, besides drugs, can provide pain relief (for example, the attention and caress of the owners, which, in turn, can lead us to isolate a psychosomatic phenomenon)? When does the pain appear - in the morning or at night? When is it more intense - before or after the movement? How much aggression decreases or increases depending on the pain experienced, etc.

Let's take the phrase "I feel sorry for him to tears." What does "to tears" mean? Is this a figurative expression or is the owner really crying out of pity for the dog? If she does cry, how does the animal react to her tears? How do other family members react to tears, especially given that they are forced to stay up at night? Do these nightly vigils irritate any of the family members? If yes, how much does it neuroticize the situation in the family? How does the animal react to this? And so on, until all possible values ​​are validated during the interaction with the interviewee.

In the next step, we need to compare phenomenologically similar cases. For example, in one family, the owners react to the fact that the dog is chasing its tail (obsessive compulsive disorder), with irritation, in another family they sympathize with the animal, in the third, depending on the mood of the owners, the dog either scolds or simply does not pay attention, in the fourth family, one of the family members punishes the dog, and someone protects and regrets, etc. How does different behavior of the owners affect the dynamics of the disorder in the animal? How do animals with different temperaments react to similar reactions of their owners to obsessive behavior?

We paid attention to certain words and phrases: "never", "always", "it's impossible", etc. These words and phrases should be signals for closer consideration. Why never? Or why always? Never means under no circumstances? How is the "never" condition handled? What are its consequences? Are there ways around this "never"? For example, the owner tells us in an interview that his dog always, in any circumstances, obeys him unconditionally, at the command “next” he will walk beside exactly as much as the owner needs, without reacting to any external stimuli. Let's ask ourselves questions like: what if the dog needs to urinate after she spent the whole day indoors? What if the dog comes face to face with another dog that he is afraid of? And if one of the acquaintances, to whom the dog is strongly attached, met during a walk and called out to the dog, etc.

If, to all our questions, the owner still claims that the animal is able to walk side by side on command in any circumstances, then we can assume that the animal is so “depressed” by the owner that it experiences a severe depressive state or suffers from an endogenous disorder, which implies a strong degree autization.

Summarizing the results of the study

At the end of the first stage of the study, we received the following forms of deviant behavior in dogs.

• Deviant behavior caused by organic lesions of the central nervous system (oncological, neurological, vascular).
• Hyperactivity due to MMD (minimal brain dysfunction) due to hypoxia in childbirth.
• Neuroses (phobic, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders).
• Mood disorder in the form of depression.
• Characterological disorders (excitable, hysterical, anankastic, paranoid type).
• Endogenous mental disorders.
• A reaction to an unfavorable environment, which implies that the problems that have arisen in relationships with the dog are determined by the personal characteristics or inexperience of the owners.

At the second stage of work, we tried to establish links between the received categories.

During initial coding, many different categories are identified. Some refer to certain phenomena, such as the manifestation of motor stereotypes in the behavior of an animal. Other categories refer to conditions that are associated with these phenomena, such as the occurrence of stereotypes when the animal is anxious. The third categories indicate the strategies in place to manage the phenomenon - owners try to avoid situations that make the animal anxious, or owners yell at the animal, or owners give the animal sedatives and anti-anxiety tranquilizers. Finally, some categories refer to the consequences of an action in connection with a certain phenomenon - the animal will become even more anxious, fearing punishment from the owner, or, thanks to medication, the level of anxiety is reduced and the animal falls asleep.

Causal conditions direct us to events or occurrences that lead to the appearance or development of a phenomenon. For example, an organic disease of the central nervous system (brain tumors, subdural hematoma, neurological deficit as a result of cerebral ischemia) or a stressful situation for the animal can lead to the appearance of the phenomenon of tail circling.

In fact, a single causal condition rarely causes a phenomenon. For example, when considering tail circling in connection with an organic brain lesion, we must take into account the properties of the disease (whether or not there is a breed predisposition, whether there is a history of vascular disease or oncological diseases, etc.), as well as the properties of the interaction of an individual animal with its owners ( their character traits). Now you need to describe the deviant behavior (phenomenon) specifically. That is, to identify its properties (frequency of manifestations, time of manifestations, place where it manifests itself). Further, we can say that the animal is in an agitated state, or that it has impaired coordination of movements. We can also consider the intensity and duration of tail circling.

In principle, organic disease itself is a phenomenon. But the focus of our study is tail circling. The disease itself is of interest to us only as a condition for the emergence of the phenomenon and the possibility of explaining its type, duration, etc. That is, any event can be a causal condition. It all depends on the situation and what we consider as a phenomenon.

To treat motor stereotypy, one must know the specifics of the case well. We know that an organic disease of the brain can lead to motor stereotypes (for example, circling behind the tail), but motor stereotypy can manifest itself both within the framework of obsessive-compulsive neurosis and within the framework of endogenous mental disorder.

At the same time, we should not forget about the existence of intermediate conditions. Intermediate conditions include time, space, culture, the economic status of the owners, their personal characteristics, and so on. For example, a dog suddenly began to circle behind its tail in the forest. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the time interval that elapsed before she was examined. In addition, it matters whether the owner was able to bring the dog to the car, how important it was for him to help the dog (in different cultures, the attitude towards the dog is different). Does the owner have a car or did he have to travel by public transport, does he have money for treatment, finally, was this event so stressful for the owner that he considered that he needed medical help first of all, etc.

It should also be taken into account that whenever we encounter the phenomenon of deviant behavior in pets, there are certain actions of the owners and the peculiarities of their interaction with animals, which are aimed at coping with the phenomenon, managing it, responding to it.

These actions have certain properties. They are procedural, that is, developing in nature. They are goal-oriented, goal-oriented, performed in response to or to control the phenomenon. There are always intermediate conditions that support or limit actions-interactions. These terms must be disclosed. There are certain signals in the data that indicate strategies for actions and interactions. These are action-oriented verbs or participles. They make it clear what someone is doing in response to the phenomenon. For example, if the owner complains to you that his dog is showing aggression while eating, then in his words you can hear the following: “I try not to walk past his place when he eats, he growls so that I am afraid that he might bite me. It’s better to wait until he finishes eating, then you can communicate with him again.” We have a phenomenon - aggression during eating, which disrupts the free movement of the owner around the house (context). Master trying not to be at this time next to the dog, he afraid, prefers to wait, when the dog finishes the meal (strategic actions taken in response to the phenomenon).

Actions and interactions taken in response to or to control the phenomenon produce certain results, or consequences. They are not always predictable. Failure to take action also has results or consequences. Consequences can be cases, facts or events. The consequences of one set of actions can become part of the conditions (as context or intermediate conditions) that affect the next set of actions.

For example, the owner could not take the dog, which suddenly started circling behind its tail, out of the forest and had to leave, resulting in stress for the animal. Later, the dog was found by a group of friends, however, the dog's reaction to new people was alert and aggressive, although the dog had not previously shown aggression towards strangers.

The result of such work should be to put forward a hypothesis about the mechanisms of occurrence of deviant behavior. For example, when considering "deviant behavior", we single out the phenomenon of "tail circling", which is combined into a broader category - "motor stereotypes". A phenomenon can be caused by different causes, have different properties, occur in different contexts and under different intermediate conditions. The strategies of the owners' actions to control the phenomenon and the strategies of their interaction with the animal will also be different. Accordingly, the consequences will be different - from deterioration to cure. Based on the data obtained, we can put forward and test different hypotheses. For example, we can hypothesize that the success of treating deviant behavior depends on the interaction of the animal with the owners or on the characteristics of the animal's psyche, and so on.

So, we found that:

• neuroses in dogs are caused by a traumatic or stressful situation, which usually took place in early ontogenesis;
• depressive disorder is also based on a traumatic situation;
• often deviant behavior is the first symptom of an incipient organic brain disease;
• characterological disorders in dogs are of a polyetiological nature and can occur with a deterioration in the condition of the animal if, as a result of the disease, the interaction of owners with the dog is difficult;
• endogenous mental disorders, apparently, are of a hereditary nature and are not amenable to behavioral correction;
• most often, problems in the behavior of dogs are associated with the personal characteristics or inexperience of their owners.

Conclusion

Of course, objective knowledge is not limited to empirically identified regularities. Here the problem of the objectivity of the observer arises, as well as the problem of distortion of knowledge by the subject in the process of cognition [Mamardashvili, 1984].

Indeed, the very phenomenon of deviant behavior of pets (dogs and cats) is perceived subjectively, starting from the level of owners. So, we conducted a survey of the owners of 44 dogs and 44 cats, revealing the presence of deviant behavior in their pets. The question was asked as follows: "Do you think that your cat (dog) has any behavioral problems?".

The owners of twenty cats and fourteen dogs noted some anomalies in the behavior of animals. Cat owners in most cases paid attention to aggression, motor stereotypies and soiling of the house. Dog owners - also on aggression, motor stereotypes and fears. At the same time, in relation to six cats, the owners paid attention to the fear of animals in relation to strangers. When everyone cat owners were asked if their animals were afraid of strangers, it turned out that in addition to the six indicated animals, five more cats were afraid of strangers. It's just that other owners don't perceive this cat's behavior as deviant.

Similarly, two dog owners, describing deviant behavior in their pets, noted hyperactivity and increased vocalization. When everyone Dog owners were asked if they had noticed hyperactivity and unreasonable barking in their dogs, and three more dogs were identified with similar behavioral manifestations. And in this case, some of the owners did not consider such behavior problematic.

In psychology, as in no other science, the element of subjectivism is great. On the one hand, the existence of laws in which objective knowledge is represented is a problem of subjective formulations, that is, laws do not exist regardless of the cognizing subject. Laws are made by man; they do not exist outside the act of making them. On the other hand, criteria for objective (supra-individual) knowledge are necessary in the process of subjective or psychological cognition [Kornilova, Smirnov, 2006]. The very possibility of psychology as a science is a methodological problem [Vygotsky, 1982].

This paper presents one of the possible options for constructing a theory in such an area of ​​zoopsychology as the deviant behavior of animals. Of course, when constructing a theory, one cannot but take into account the subjectivity in the perception of the problem both on the part of the owners of animals and on the part of the researcher. However, we believe that line-by-line analysis of interviews with the possibility of subsequent clarification of controversial points, as well as multiple comparative analysis of the data obtained, can reduce the risk of subjectivity in favor of true knowledge.

Literature

Askew G. Behavior problems in dogs and cats. Moscow: Aquarium, 2002.

Belanovsky S.A. Focus group method. M., 2001.

Vygotsky L.S. The historical meaning of the psychological crisis // Sobr. cit.: in 6 vols. T. 1. M .: Pedagogy, 1982.

Campbell D. Models of experiments in social psychology and applied research. M., 1980.

Kornilova T.V., Smirnov S.D. Methodological foundations of psychology. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006.

Mamardashvili K.M. Classical and non-classical ideals of rationality. Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1984.

Overall K. Clinical methods for correcting the behavior of dogs and cats. M.: Sofion, 2005.

Popper K. Logic and the growth of scientific knowledge. Moscow: Progress, 1983.

Strauss A., Corbin J. Fundamentals of Qualitative Research. Moscow: KomKniga, 2007.

Fabry C.E. Fundamentals of zoopsychology. Moscow: Psychology, 2003.

Nikolskaya Anastasia Vsevolodovna. Candidate of Sciences in Psychology, Senior Inspector of the Department of Postgraduate and Doctoral Studies, Department of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University M.V. Lomonosov. Mokhovaya, 11/5, 125009 Moscow, Russia.
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You must have JavaScript enabled to view.

Nikolskaya A.V. Fundamentals of qualitative research in applied zoopsychology [Electronic resource] // Psychological research: electron. scientific magazine 2009. N 2(4)..mm.yyyy).

The “grounded theory” approach proposed by B. Glezer and A. Strauss has become quite widespread in the social sciences. The name of the approach well reflects the scientific intention of the authors who tried to oppose deductive theoretical models to theory based on systematically collected data [Vasilyeva, 2007J. Within the framework of this approach, systematic ways of working with data have been developed (three-stage coding, flexible strategies for forming a theoretical sample that the researcher adapts to a developing theory, a method of constantly comparing some data with others, as well as concepts with each other, etc.). building a theory of a phenomenon or phenomenon.The researcher, as it were, “deploys” the theory of the phenomenon from the data, presents the events associated with this phenomenon in dynamics, describes the properties of the phenomenon, identifies the changes occurring in it, describes the causes, nature of the changes, etc. .d.

As evidenced by numerous methodological literature [Vasilyeva, 2007; Charmaz, 2006; Mills et al., 2006; Seaman, 2008 and others], the philosophical foundations of grounded theory are highly controversial and its ontological and epistemological assumptions are open to various interpretations. For example, K. Charmaz argues that in the works of Glezer and Strauss there are both positivist and phenomenological accents, and this circumstance may lead the reader into bewilderment. The positivist implications are seen in the empirical realist position inherent in grounded theory, according to which things exist as meaningful entities independently of consciousness and experience, which implies the neutrality of the researcher engaged in the search for objective meanings in the data themselves. Traditional analytical procedures adopted in the justification

theories are built on the assumption that the theoretical categories are derived from the data, and the researcher remains a passive observer. The inductive process of discovery is accomplished by fixing on topics that emerge solely from the data and constantly comparing different pieces of data. B. Glaeser, in particular, insists that the researcher should follow the data without introducing any of his own, “pre-experienced” constructs [see: Seaman, 2008]. The phenomenological bias of grounded theory is observed at least in the fact that researchers doing their work within the framework of this methodological approach should, as accurately as possible, reproduce the “voices” of their respondents in their own perspective, reveal the meanings that the researchers themselves bring to the study with their own perspective. life experience [Strauss, Corbin, 2007].

A number of authors argue that the grounded theory approach is developing in such a way that its objectivist foundations are gradually replaced by constructivist ones. For example, A. Strauss and J. Corbin [Strauss, Corbin, 2007] appeal more to the creation (construction) than to the discovery of a grounded theory, thereby moving away from the predominantly positivist position of B. Glaser. Differing views on the nature of grounded theory sharpen a long-standing problem with the possibility of inductive inference. Within the framework of the justified theory approach, this problem takes the form of a discussion about the status of the theoretical concepts obtained as a result of applying this methodology and whether the latter are the result of a direct derivation from the data or are still largely set by the researcher himself and his perspective of vision (the so-called discussion of the emergence of /introduction (emergence/forcing)). It can be said that, unlike Glaeser, the position of Strauss and Corbin opens up the possibility of using already existing theoretical provisions as part of the analysis. However, the rather rigid technologization of procedures, which these authors adhere to, as well as their general methodological orientation (for example, they state that a researcher working within the framework of a grounded theory, of course, can take a post-structuralist, feminist or any other position, but at the same time he risks losing much of what is present in the data) suggests that, in general, Strauss and Corbin are on the side of those who believe that the categories of grounded theory emerge from the data. At the same time, as J. Seaman rightly notes, Strauss and Corbin take a step towards separating grounded theory as a set of methods and techniques from grounded theory as a methodology.

K. Charmaz continues to move in the indicated direction. From her point of view, grounded theory is rather a set of flexible methodological techniques than a complete, rigorous methodology, and in this sense it can be correlated with various metatheoretical and philosophical positions (and, above all, with the most significant methodological positions of the 21st century - social constructionism, feminism , poststructuralism and hermeneutic phenomenology). Following K. Charmaz, we could say that a grounded theory today is more a process of careful interpretation than a process of discovery. Thus, we propose to consider grounded theory in a number of qualitative interpretive approaches, which are generally based on the philosophical tradition of substantiating the specifics of the humanities. When creating a theory, the researcher is guided by the understanding of the meanings and meanings that people attach to phenomena or phenomena, so we can say that, working within the framework of the justified theory approach, he turns out to be very close to the situation of understanding, the conditions of which are described by philosophical hermeneutics. In our opinion, it is the appeal to the hermeneutic tradition that makes it possible to clarify in many respects the peculiarities of the status of knowledge obtained as a result of applying the techniques of a justified theory.

From the point of view of hermeneutics, the emergence of categories and themes is possible precisely because we enter the study armed with a pre-understanding of the phenomenon or phenomenon that interests us. Our pre-understanding is formed, among other things, by referring to the already existing ideas about these phenomena or phenomena in the relevant literature, as well as by referring to the theoretical perspectives themselves, through the prism of which this phenomenon or phenomenon can be considered. Theoretical representations set the context for seeing empirical data; working systematically with this data through the application of grounded theory methods and techniques allows them to be combined into a more complete and holistic configuration, thanks to which the data receives new illumination, etc. The task facing the researcher is to form such a preliminary understanding of the phenomenon that will set a context that enriches the vision and increase the “theoretical sensitivity” of the researcher in dealing with data, at the same time leaving his mind sufficiently open and capable of flexible perception of the new.

While emphasizing the possibility of referring to the ideas of philosophical hermeneutics to understand the status of knowledge in grounded theory, we do not want to say that the grounded theory approach is a variation of the hermeneutic approach. On the contrary, we believe that their differences are quite significant. The specificity of each of them is due to their ultimate goal, which determines the general logic of the movement of interpretive analysis and the structure of the results obtained. As already mentioned, the goal of a justified theory is to create a theory of a certain phenomenon or phenomenon, while the goal of hermeneutic phenomenology is the interpretation and understanding of the meanings of a particular experience or experience. Accordingly, the interpretative construction created within the framework of a justified theory involves tracking the main process and its conceptual development, based on the identification of variations and their description in dynamics (for example, Strauss and Corbin are primarily concerned with identifying variations in the actions and interactions of the phenomenon under study). see, for example, the grounded theory of how women cope with pregnancies complicated by chronic diseases (Strauss, Corbin, 2007, pp. 98-119]). Interpretation in the hermeneutic approach does not imply such dynamic conceptualizations, but stops only at the description of the most significant topics related to a particular experience, taking into account the perspective of vision that the researcher adheres to (see, for example, the thematic analysis of the female experience of love: ).

• In our opinion, a better translation is "a theory derived from data". However, the translation “grounded theory” has become entrenched in the Russian-language literature, which we use in this work.

In most studies, the relationship between religion and economy is studied using quantitative methods, in which the researcher a priori specifies certain sets of categories. The respondent, for the most part, can only agree or disagree. In this study, the emphasis is on the identified categories of the informants themselves, on how they connect their economic activity with the main maxim of Christianity - salvation. In this regard, the focused semi-structured interview was chosen as a method of collecting field data (interview guide in Appendix 1). Its focus is on the theme of the work and how the believer should conduct himself there. At the same time, this not very rigid structure gives the informant more freedom to express precisely his own categories. In the ideal case, there is practically no imposition of interviewer categories on the informant. The same method will be applied to the survey of experts, the results of which are planned to compile a list of relevant church documents.

Grounded Theory procedures were chosen as data analysis methods. It was originally developed by B. Glaser and A. Strauss, and its main principles were first set forth in the book "The Discovery of a Grounded Theory". In the future, various modifications of the justified theory appeared: “In addition to the works of B. Glezer, A. Strauss and their direct followers, the most famous are the variants of K. Charmats and A. Clark.” There are three types of data coding in interview analysis: (1) open coding, (2) axial coding, and (3) selective coding. Open coding separates concepts according to their properties and dimensions, while axial coding establishes links between categories and subcategories, taking into account context, conditions, action/interaction strategies, and consequences. Finally, at the stage of selective coding, the central category will be revealed. Also during this procedure, there is a “systematic linking of the central category with other categories, validation of these links and filling in the categories that require further improvement and development” Ibid. Page 97.

The collection of two types of interviews (experts and with the laity), as well as the analysis of documents and interview transcripts, is planned to be carried out independently of each other. This is done in order to exclude the mutual influence of categories and their non-introduction into various discourses (officially ecclesiastical and laity).

Methodological scheme of the study

As for the sample size, since in qualitative research there is no strict formula by which it would be possible to determine the required number of objects needed for a deep and complete analysis, so-called “theoretical saturation” is often referred to to determine the number. It lies in the fact that data collection continues until the growth of new codes is zero. According to one study of this issue, the optimal sample size in this case is 12 interviews. If theoretical saturation is not reached with the indicated number, then the sample size is planned to be increased to 20 interviews.

Description of the empirical material. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

The text for analysis should be an official document of the Roman Catholic Church, reflecting the position of this institution on the issue of the economic life of the individual. To compile a corpus of such texts, two expert interviews were conducted with theologians: a priest who had already graduated from the seminary, and a seminarian in his last year at the seminary. On their recommendation, my attention was first drawn to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. M: Paolina. 2006., which contains two chapters concerning the economic life of the individual and society - the chapters "Human labor" and "Economic life".

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is a systematic presentation of the position of the Church on various social issues in various public spheres. It was compiled in 2005 by a theological commission at the behest of Pope Benedict XVI. The starting point of the so-called doctrina socialis was the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII, who issued the famous circular letter "Rerum Novarum" (1891) Leo XIII Rerum Novarum. Electronic variant. URL: http://krotov.info/acts/19/1890/1891rerum.html (Accessed: 04/27/2016), dedicated to economic justice Zamagni S. Catholic Social Thought, Civil Economy and the Spirit of Capitalism // The True Wealth of Nations. Catholic Social Thought and Economic Life. Ed. by Finn Daniel K. Oxford University Press. 2010. P. 90. The reason for the appearance of such a document was a number of socio-economic events that occurred in the late XIX - early XX centuries: the increase in the use of machine labor, the opening of new markets, the development of industry and commerce, increasing urbanization and the exodus from the Teixeira countryside P., Almodovar A. Economics and Theology in Europe from the Nineteenth Century: From the Early Nineteenth Century's Christian Political Economy to Modern Catholic Social Doctrine // The Oxford Handbook of Christianity and Economics. Ed. by Oslington P. Oxford University Press 2014. P. 114. In addition, the Church faced the French Revolution, the overthrow of the monarchy and the emergence of liberalism.

The pontiff, in his district address, opposes two ideological currents: "predatory capitalism" and socialism. He accuses the first of the heartlessness of the owners of enterprises and that now "... a few rich people can keep many poor people under a yoke that is little better than slavery" Leo XIII Rerum Novarum. Electronic variant. URL: http://krotov.info/acts/19/1890/1891rerum.html (date of access: 04/27/2016). Socialism, however, which arose as a way to overcome all the problems of "predatory capitalism", turned out to be no better, since it violates the basic and natural human rights, especially the right to property. In this regard, Pope Leo XIII decided to respond to the “challenge of the time” and propose, on behalf of the Church, a third way to solve the problem. In fact, it consists in applying Christian moral laws to the new economic reality.

Subsequently, the social teaching of the Catholic Church received a powerful development in the writings of Pope John Paul II, many of which were devoted to labor issues. Three encyclicals had a particular development in social doctrine: Laborem exercens (1981), Sollicitudo rei socialis (1987) and Centesimus annus (1991). In fact, the compendium brings together everything that was said in various encyclicals, decrees, and the Catechism. Thus, the official church position was formulated on many issues and problematic situations in various spheres of human existence.