Sara Dexter
University of Minnesota

Introduction

While metaphors are commonly used as a rhetorical tool while writing up research, this paper describes how grounded metaphor can serve as an ontological and epistemological tool during case analysis. That is, I apply how metaphors guide perception, thought and action to developing grounded analysis during case study research. As an example of this, I will present the use of grounded metaphor in my own research where I framed a technology-rich curriculum implementation in two high schools as a Cargo cult.

Metaphors

Metaphor is usually only viewed as a characteristic of language or as a literary device. In Metaphors we Live By, authors Lakoff and Johnson (1980) take in a bit broader conception of metaphor and then show how we embed metaphors in our perceptions, thoughts and actions. For example, they point out how words such as "up" and "down" serve as orientational metaphors. Words such as up and down have a basis in the physical environment but they are also associated with concepts such as feelings, consciousness and quantity. An "up" orientation associated with any of these words all carries the same positive meaning. For example, "Iím feeling up", "Iím up on that topic", and "The stock market is up." In other words, our physical experiences help to create an orientation for our expression of non-physical understandings.

In a second sort of metaphor, again more broadly conceived than a traditional literary, comparative sort of metaphor, they describe ontological metaphors. These are metaphors that "allow us to pick out parts of our experience and treat them as discrete entities or substances of a uniform kind. Once we can identify our experiences as entities or substances, we can refer to them, categorize them, group them, and quantify themóand, by this means, reason about them (p. 25)." For example, Lakoff and Johnson call dynamics an ontological metaphor. That is, the interactions between individuals become an entity we can describe through our use of the word dynamics. Dynamics carries suggestions of a system, of forces and interplay between these parts.

Lakoff and Johnsonís conception of metaphor is very similar to the way schema is used in the cognitive sciences; they are basic units we use to organize information and meaning. Because they help us to organize meaning, some metaphors are linked to others. More basic metaphors such as orientation and ontological metaphors are often linked in meaning with more creative metaphors. For example, it is not just that "The stock market is up," for emphasis we might say that "It is sky high" or, "Going up like a rocket". Another example, if a work group had "bad dynamics," to make your point really clear you might describe them as a "dysfunctional family."

If we think of both basic and creative metaphors as a type of schema that help us to organize information and recognize how metaphors are often linked into a system of meaning, we can use metaphor to explore our understanding of the key concerns of case study work. If a metaphor is evoked by a set of experiences in the field, an exploration of the metaphor can deepen our understanding of those encounters. The metaphor we choose to represent data serves as an effective way to illustrate the values, assumptions, and communication rules, roles, and practices we associate with the phenomenon, setting or culture under our investigation. By highlighting and providing a structure of certain aspects of our investigation, metaphors communicate our understanding and interpretation of the researched. Thus, using metaphors and acknowledging their ontological and epistemological features can also heighten the researcherís awareness of his or her own subjectivity.

Grounded Metaphors in Case Studies

Metaphors, when grounded in data from our qualitative research, can highlight certain aspects of research site experiences, they can nuance or create new inferences, insights and hunches, and they can provide additional understandings of the concept, setting, or culture under consideration. All of these effects are especially key in case studies because case studies are used to study how or why questions in the context of a social group and to seek out the meanings its members have for the phenomenon in question. As a result, oftentimes experiences, meanings, and understandings in the settingóall non-physical itemsóare turned into entities in order to be able to describe or refer to them. Oneís fieldnotes might likely refer to the verbal and gestural exchanges of a school staff as dynamicsóor perhaps even as a dsyfuntional family.

The terms grounded or inductive are often used when describing qualitative researchersí approaches to producing explanations of phenomena, events, and understandings originating within the data. Researchers making meaning of data through developing grounded metaphors builds on the well-established qualitative research traditions of favoring concrete and contextual explanation, designs such as case studies, and data gathering techniques such as participant observation and the researcher following his or her hunches (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992).

Doctoral students at my doctoral institution, the University of St. Thomas in Saint Paul, Minnesota, have used grounded metaphors in diverse ways (LaMagdeleine, 1997). This includes comparing a prize fight to a school districtís budgeting process (Lee, 1993) and comparing the Swazi Ncwala celebration (a complex set of rituals designed to resolve conflict and reaffirm cultural unity after a transfer in power) to the meeting and reporting activities of a state-wide, blue-ribbon task force on school-to-work readiness (Robinson, 1994). Additional examples are exploring school yard bullying discourse as dominance theater (McCarthy, 1996) and a large health care organizationís attempts at integration for team-based care-giving as a search for the new millennium (B. Balik, personal communication January, 1998).

I, as well as these other qualitative researchers, constructed these grounded metaphors under the guidance of our dissertation chair, Don LaMagdeleine. Techniques he taught us which prompted our eliciting grounded metaphors include forced analogies, group editing and response strategies as well as his playful responses to our fieldnotes, coding and data memos. In this work he encouraged us to find grounded metaphors to explore and use as ontological tools.

My own dissertation research was a multi-site case study of atechnology-rich curriculum implementation in high school science classrooms within one school district. I sought patterns and themes during ongoing review of the data and discussed them with LaMagdeleine. He observed that the subjectsí desires for technology were akin to a cargo cult. While he associated the data with what I later found out was only one dimension of the cargo cult phenomenon, my exploration into the multiple meanings of cargo cults aided my data analysis by highlighting seemingly insignificant aspects in the data as well as sparking several hunches to check out through further data collection. His and my different readings of how the metaphor was represented in the data further underscores how metaphors are ontological and how this significantly influences interpretive work.

Using Cargo Cult as a Grounded Metaphor

The late 1950s anthropology literature on this topic describes the nativeís methods: A member of the tribe proclaims, as a prophet, that the Gods have told him that the deserving natives will soon receive their cargo. The European cargo was desired so as to rectify the current trading and status inequities between the natives and the White man. Their belief was that the cargo, like all other material goods, would come from the Gods and to receive it the natives should carry out ritual. A large ship (or airplane) would deliver the cargo if only they could properly and ritualistically appease the Gods.

The promise of cargo through ritual resulted in the group of believers employing a variety of means towards their desired end; rituals such as purging their current holdings of goods, traditional worship ceremonies, and story telling. There were also instances of rituals that borrowed from the Europeans such as readying simulation "airfields", building non-functional "control towers" and engaging in military-like drills and formations. Anthropologists reported that cult adherents reasoned that the Europeans obviously knew the proper cargo ritual and that their explanations of manufacturing, commerce and shipping were just ways to avoid telling the secret of the correct cargo ritual.

During ethnographic fieldwork of the 1960ís and 1970ís, anthropologistís analysis of cargo cults became less Euro-centric and less literal as they sought out what the islandersí cargo cult behaviors meant to the islanders. As a result, eventually cargo took on a meaning beyond actual physical goods. Cargo, with a capital "C" came to be interpreted as a symbol of what the islanders wanted for their future, be it political or economic progress.

Later anthropological writings further "nativized" Cargo by portraying Cargo as a means of wealth valuable to Melanesians mainly for its trading power and to increase oneís social standing: when goods of European origin began to be considered more valuable, naturally islanders would seek this new standard to use as currency while trading and cultivating relationships. This view defined Cargo cults as a part of Melanesiansí "natural" behavior, as opposed to being a reaction to Europeans, and acknowledged Cargo cults as tribesí clever, dynamic cultural adaptation (Lindstrom, 1993).

So, while originally "cargoism" was shorthand for using an irrational means to reach a desired rational ends, anthropology in the 1990s sees Melanesiansí Cargo cult behavior in a new light: It is a "rational", in the sense of conforming to local collective assumptions, and innovative means towards a rational end (Lindstrom, 1993).

This evolution in the interpretation of this phenomenon is preserved in the anthropology literature published throughout this forty year time span. Additional interpretations are preserved in literature from the field of religion sociology, which interpreted cargo cults as a form of millenarianism, the belief in a coming ideal society. Cargo cults as millenarianism characterized natives as not having any real reason for or knowledge of what to do with the European goods, just a belief that all would be well when the cargo was acquired. The fact that there were these obvious different meanings of cargo cult to explore helped to underscore for me the importance of the metaphor or schema we use to to organize our understanding of the data.

Early on in my research it seemed that there was intense desire for technology with little specific rationale as to its value for teaching and learning. It was this lack of specificity in reason combined with intense desire which prompted LaMagdeleine to suggest that the sites were like a cargo cult. As I started to read about millenarianism, I found that it cast the actors in a way that didnít reveal much of their perspective of why they thought the ideal society was coming. This didnít seem to ring true with the spirit of ethnography; it also clashed with the respect I had for the people at the sites.

As I sought out more information on cargo cults, I came across the literature written on the subject in the field of anthropology. Some of the classic ethnographies, such as Road Belong Cargo (Lawrence, 1964), were written early enough that they had some colonialist overtones to them. My reading about how anthropologists had in later years sought to soften this pejorative term made me recognize that any proclamation of a groupís means toward an end as "mad", or "irrational" was made from a cultural perspective. As a "friend" of technology and optimistic of what it could contribute to the classroom, it was important for me to think about how I might be taking a colonialistís attitudes towards what I was viewing as failed and dismal implementation result in this study.

I eventually came across an analysis of the term Cargo cult in an eponymously named book (Lindstrom, 1993). This text described the gradual deconstruction of the term cargo cult in anthropology as well as the termís use in other fields. These various meanings for cargo cult were a catalyst for my explorations of the experiences, meanings, and understandings in the settings in which I researched. My understanding of the research site, my inferences, insights and hunches, were all enhanced by playing with the metaphor cargo cult and its various meanings. In other words, playing with the metaphorís meaning parralled my playing with possible interpretations of my data. The metaphor helped me as an ontological tool to understand the nature of what it was that I was seeing at my sites.

Once I decided that the anthropology fieldís 1990s version of cargo cults, a rational means employed toward a rational end, would work as a metaphor, cargo cult also served me as an epistemological tool. That is, it made me reflect upon the aim, function and assumptions of my methods; how did I come to know what I thought I knew about this site. I took the stance that the school district members had, what to them was, a rational purpose for acquiring technology and a rational means for achieving thier end. This interpretation of the metaphor dovetailed with the aim, function and assumptions of my research method, the ethnography tradition. This is not surprising in that it was a search for greater ethnographic purity in the anthropology field which drove the reinterpretation of cargo cults in the first place. But this interpretation also served to steer me toward theory about culture as an analytic tool, an approach somewhat unconventional for traditional studies of technology in schools.

Finally, the Cargo Cult metaphor also assisted me in organizing and presenting the data when I wrote up the research. I fashioned an organizational framework of desire-means-end from the Cargo Cult metaphor and used it to organize my writing about the actions of the staff at my school sites.

Conclusion

In this paper I have discussed how through highlighting certain aspects of experience metaphors provide a structure for communicating the researcherís understanding of experiences. I propose that grounded metaphor, as a specialized type of grounded theory and analysis, can serve a key role in interpretation during case study research. At the same time, it is important to recognize that as metaphors emphasize some features, they do so at the expense of others. The power of metaphor to limit and mask understanding must be kept in mind.

The interactions and meanings that are all so important in a case study are amenable to expression through metaphor. By focusing on the development of grounded metaphor early on in case study work the metaphor can serve as an ontological and epistemological tool for the researcher. This will assist the researcherís use of the metaphor as a rhetorical tool all the more congruent in communicating the data of the case.

References

Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

LaMagdeleine, D. (1997, June). Case research as metaphor. Paper presented at the Qualitative Research Conference, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Lawrence, P. (1964). Road belong cargo. Manchester: University Press of Manchester.

Lee, J., (1993). Ringside view: A case study of school district resource allocation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Lindstrom, L. (1993). Cargo cults. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

McCarthy, T. (1997). Bullies and their victims: The killing ground. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Robinson, R. (1994). The ritual healing of public education: Case analysis of a legislatively created educational commission. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota.
 
 

Author contact information:

Sara Dexter
Lecturer, Department of Curriculum and Instruction
College of Education and Human Development
University of Minnesota
150 Peik Hall
159 Pillsbury Drive S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0208

sdexter@tc.umn.edu
(612) 626-7261