Genzuk´s Ethnographic Research describes the ‘traditional’ way Social Sciences (and other sciences) have followed when investigating a field; they have a previous hypothesis, they collect data (interviews, observation, documents) and they give it an interpretation that suites the hypothesis. The paradoxical aspect of applying this ‘Scientific Method’ in the Social Sciences, is that more then often, there is a tendency to ‘bend’ the information so that results fit the chosen theory. It is a methodology that has a ‘fixed eye’ so I believe it rarely discovers anything.
Dick’s Grounded Theory, on the other hand, seems to proceed with a ‘cleaner eye’, with almost nothing beforehand, and by observing and comparing (systematically) evidence and data, it unveils the theory that lies underneath. The emergent theory, thus, really matches the situation.
Concerning my practice, theory and knowledge actually emerge from my own investigation. First I move rather intuitively, I follow an ‘image’ that leads me to another stage, and so forth, until I find myself in a place where I can see more clearly. It is always the process that talks back to me, and helps me understand and shape my first inspiration/ intuition. And unlike any scientific method, I try to give memory enough time to forget, I let things rest beyond my consciousness, I try to ‘run away’ from my ‘sight of discovery’, and come back later (late as possible) as if very indifferent, to see if what ever I found, still works for me, actually builds up with the piece, and allows me to move forward in a certain direction. Of course I take notes and draw lines that guide my thoughts and ideas, I may even have a couple of handbooks around the area, but it might also be a sudden erratic ‘flying paper’, that shows me there is always an effective way in which the back of my mind works.