Dissonance, Disagreement, Difference: Challenging Thematic Consensus to Decolonise Grounded Theory

Abstract

Over the past two decades researchers have been exploring new hybrid methodologies to decolonise Indigenous mental health research. Grounded Theory with Community Participatory Action Research (CPAR), often using Indigenist methods, is the most common. Grounded Theory’s claim to rigour is its transparent, organised process of sifting and theme finding, while CPAR respects Indigenous self-determination and Indigenous ways of knowing doing and being, involving Indigenous research participants in all stages of the research from data collection to analysis. On the surface it would seem to be the ideal methodological approach to navigate the cultural divide. However, this article will argue that Grounded Theory’s inherent weakness is in the process of thematic analysis, which uses consensus during the analysis phase to find dominant themes. Drawing on the social systems theory of Niklas Luhmann and the political theory of Chantal Mouffe, this article will argue for a group process of “agonistic pluralism” instead. Searching for shared truths has a tendency to smooth out differences. The article proposes an approach for configuring a research team and conducting team analysis that struggles with, and accounts for, dissonances, disagreements and differences. Furthermore, it argues these differences should be recorded as important findings along with agreed themes. The approach has been developed to explore community perspectives on the relationship between culture and health, and in turn, to develop culturally appropriate mental health therapies for First Nations young people within a Western paediatric hospital.