Vietnamese deference rituals in everyday life encounters a grounded theory study of hanoi city

iii Appendix 3.3: The integration of four activities: theoretical sampling, data collection, Appendix 3.4: The research timetable May 2013 – July 2014 115 Appendix 3.7: Short Questionnai

i

MASTERS BY COURSEWORK THESIS

VIETNAMESE DEFERENCE RITUALS IN

EVERYDAY LIFE ENCOUNTERS:

A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY OF HANOI CITY

By Trung-Kien Nguyen

Supervisor: Professor Sharyn Roach Anleu

Department of Sociology

Flinders University of South Australia

ADELAIDE 2014

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.1.2 The deference rituals are the subordinate’s obligation 444.2 The presentation of deference rituals following the status-based principle 484.2.1 The form of deference rituals reflecting asymmetrical status 48

iii

Appendix 3.3: The integration of four activities: theoretical sampling, data collection,

Appendix 3.4: The research timetable (May 2013 – July 2014) 115

Appendix 3.7: Short Questionnaire for foreign participant 119

Appendix 7.1: Various dimension of ritual resulted from different rules 121

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Structure of Goffman’s model of deference and demeanour 9Figure 2 The sacred object in Erving Goffman’s model of interaction rituals 14Figure 3 The properties and dimensions of the concept ‘respect’ 39Figure 4 The distribution of respect-related terms on the scale of biased/equal 47

Figure 6 The transition of personal pronouns from family model to social model 50

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 3 Comparisons of the use of exclamations between the low-rank and the high-rank 55

iv

Table 5 The unequal exchange of deference rituals between the unequal statuses 59

Table 8 The advantage of age and power status in attaining respect 68Table 9 A comparison of features between personal honesty and social etiquette 74Table 10 The difference between personal honesty and social etiquette in key rituals 75

TABLE OF BOXES

Box 1 Various terms relating to the notion of ‘respect’ in Vietnamese language 40

Box 3 Several practical terms denoting the respectful rituals in the Vietnamese context 44Box 4 Guessing someone else’s age in Vietnamese communication 52

Box 6 Various meaning of the term ‘face’ in Vietnamese communication 88

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My warmest thanks first go to Professor Sharyn Roach Anleu, the supervisor of this thesis I could not bring this research project to completion without her great support During the period of doing this study, she always had words of encouragement for me, and patiently listened to me, read and discussed drafts with me The intellectual stimulation and challenges provided by her have influenced my work and continue to influence my research in the future

I would like to thank Elaine Kane and many other Australia Awards Liaison officers of International Student Services Unit (ISSU) of Flinders University, who have provided with more than I can express I am greatly indebted to Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affair and Trade (DFAT) for giving me permission to extend my scholarship, helping me to improve the quality of this research project The research and travel fund provided by Australian Award Scholarships have supported me to complete the fieldwork in Vietnam

Many other people have stimulated, encouraged, advised and assisted me in this project I would like to record my gratitude to Ms Phung Thi Thanh Thu for her unwavering support in editing English and translation some Vietnamese terms into English Thu’s reading of early draft and her comments and discussions were unexpected and generous gift I would like to thank Associate Professor Nguyen Quy Thanh for his sharing of his idea on Vietnamese deference rituals I am very much indebted to Ms Hoang Thanh Hoa for her assistance and encouragement during fieldwork Many people including Cao Vinh Hieu, Vu Bich Ngoc, Le Tran Ngoc Anh, Tran Duy Anh, Nguyen Thi Mai Phuong, Nguyen Thi Ha Thuy, Nguyen Huu Cuong, Nguyen Hong Linh, Phung Thi Hai Hau, and Pham Thi Bich Ngoc enthusiastically helped me to complete my two-month fieldwork in Hanoi, Vietnam The generous outpouring of assistance I received from my research participants was

vi overwhelming Finally, it is with deep love, respect, gratitude that I dedicate this thesis to my family

1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the problem

Imagine, when an Australian gets on the bus, he or she usually exchanges a greeting with the bus driver, for example saying ‘Hello’ or ‘Good morning/evening’ When he or she gets off the bus, he or she often says ‘Thank you’ to the driver, while the driver might say ‘You’re welcome’ or ‘No worries’ Saying ‘Hello’, ‘Good morning’, ‘How are you’, ‘Thank you’,

‘No problem’, ‘Excuse me’, or ‘I’m sorry’ is very common in Australia in particular and in Western societies in general Not merely is it true in public places but also in non-public situations where interaction between two or more people in small group occurs According to the American sociologist Erving Goffman, those talk above can be called ‘deference ritual’

an individual uses to show his/her appreciation to specific recipients during social intercourse (see Goffman 1956b, pp.477-478) Those deference rituals can be also regarded as everyday rituals referring to the practices of individuals in the presence of other people in ‘everyday life’ The topics of the everyday are diverse They include substantive topics such as reading, talking, walking (De Certeau 1984), ‘emotions, home, time, eating, health, shopping and leisure’ (Scott 2009, p 1) According to Scott (2009, p.2), these daily rituals have three sets

of features in common: (i) they are ‘mundane, familiar, and unremarkable’ because they seem trivial, even boring and meaningless to an observer; (ii) they appear ‘routine, repetitive and rhythmic’ because they are habitually practiced and repeated day-to-day; and (iii) they are

‘private and personal’ in the sense that they belong to ‘individual choices’ rather than to a group’s or organisation’s requirements These features are also true of deference rituals which this study will examine including invitations, greetings, farewells, addressing someone, saying thank you, apologising, joking, and discussions, along with gestures such as hand-shakes and head nodding and so on

2

Given those features above, it seems that deference rituals are not worth studying Randall Collins (2004) attests that although small words such as ‘Hello’, ‘Thank you’, ‘Sorry’ or ‘See you later’ are repeated many times in everyday life, they are ‘on the surface meaningless’ in the sense that they convey no information or no ‘explicit content’ in conversation (Collins

2004, p.17) Nevertheless, it cannot be stated that these words play no part in society Manning, for example, while acknowledging that ‘small talk’ and ‘passing exchanges’ such

as ‘Hi! How are you’ do not function as questions for information, attests that they play a role

of ‘little ceremonial gifts’ because they show the respect for the recipients, especially strangers in conversation (Manning 1989, p 376) To understand the significance of these tiny ‘gifts’, we can ask what will happen if people omit or exclude these verbal expressions from their daily encounters Collins predicts that if these rituals fail or are excluded from everyday interaction, social relationships can be ‘downgraded’, making the connections between individuals weaker (Collins 2004, p.17-18) In his early work, Goffman also stresses the essential role of those rituals in maintaining social relationships and social solidarity (see Goffman 1956b, p.496) For instance, greetings and farewells are ‘access rituals’ which help strangers approach each other, while apology functions as ‘remedial interchanges’, correcting the faults that have been made (Goffman 2010, pp 79, 113, originally published in 1971) The importance of deference rituals in particular and everyday rituals in general has been accepted by many social scientists from classic theorist Emile Durkheim to modern social scientists such as Jack Douglas (1971), Lefebrve (1971), Michel de Certeau (1984) Therefore, studying ‘[the] mechanism of social rituals’ helps us answer the question of ‘what holds society together?’ (Collins 2004, pp 40-1)

However, Goffman’s theory of rituals mostly draws upon the twentieth centurey western societies This raises concerns about whether Goffman’s theory can be generalized to non-Western societies in the twentieth-first century, for example, Vietnamese society Recent

3

decades have witnessed a number of studies applying Goffman’s theory of deference rituals into non-Western societies, such as Chinese society (Chen 1993; Chen & Yang 2010; Gu 1990) or Japanese society (Erbaugh 2008; Fukada & Asato 2004; Hill et al 1986; Kumatoridani 1999a; Matsumoto 1989; Ohashi 2008) Nonetheless, there studies have two limitations First, they have approached deference rituals mostly from a linguistics perspective, leading to the focus on linguistic forms, patterns, strategies or principle of languages rather than the relations between individuals and social structures Second, it seems that most of the current research has a strong practical bias in the sense that their researches are mostly based on Chinese and Japanese societies (Chen, He & Hu 2013, p 141) Not merely this fact casts doubt on the representation of non-Western social reality of Chinese and Japanese societies, but also raises the alarm of the neglect of studying other non-Western societies such as Vietnam

In Vietnam, social rituals in general and deference rituals in particular have also been neglected by sociology and other social disciplines There has been much talk in academic circles of macro issues such as politics and civil society (Abuza 2001; Dalton & Ong 2005; Gray 1999; Thayer, C 1992; Thayer, CA 2009), economic reform and policy (Anh 1994; Đặng & Beresford 1998; Fforde & De Vylder 1996; Ohno 2009; Witter 1996), but litter examination of how Vietnamese individuals interact with each other in everyday life Several topics, which are close to everyday rituals such as public sphere (Nguyen, QT & Trinh 2009), social capital and social network (see for example Dang & Bui 2011; Nguyen, QT & Cao 2012; Nguyen, TMP 2011), have been examined but never focused on the forms and details

of daily encounters The micro approach to deference rituals in everyday encounters is missing from current Vietnamese literature, resulting in a lack of understanding social life at micro level

4

Significance of the study

The study of deference rituals in the Vietnamese milieu is crucial because: (i) the theories on social rituals of Goffman and others have not been confirmed wisely in non-Western contexts; (ii) as the result of the advancement in information technology as well as the diffusion of globalisation worldwide, there have been rapid and fundamental changes in the twenty-first century’s societies, compared to the twentieth century’s societies; (iii) Vietnamese sociologists and social scientists seem to neglect the study of deference rituals and micro social world

Therefore, the findings from this study will provide new perspective on deference rituals of

an Asian country in which there are the mixture of and conflict between its traditions and global cultural trends This study might contribute to the growth of microanalysis in general and the study of interaction rituals in Vietnamese and Eastern sociology in particular

Purpose of the study

Applying grounded theory methods proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), developed by Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998), Corbin and Strauss (2008), this study aims to explore the deference rituals of Vietnamese people in their everyday encounters Not solely does it look

at how Vietnamese people behave in everyday interaction, but also aims to identify the fundamental rules governing Vietnamese deference rituals In this study, Vietnamese people are urban dwellers living and/or working in Hanoi city (see more details in Chapter III) Urban circumstance is taken into consideration It therefore, explicates and extends Erving Goffman’s theory of deference rituals in contemporary urban life of Vietnamese society

Research questions

To identify deference rituals in everyday life: How do Vietnamese people manage to express

or withhold deference rituals to others in their everyday encounters? What forms of deference

5

rituals do Vietnamese people often show when they meet or run into someone else in daily situations? How do these evidence of Vietnamese deference rituals demonstrate Goffman’s theory of deference rituals?

To examine the Vietnamese rules of deference rituals: How do Vietnamese respondents

perceive deference rules and rituals in communication with others? What are the principles that shape and control deference rituals of Vietnamese people?

6

CHAPTER II INTERACTION RITUAL THEORY BY ERVING GOFFMAN

2.1 An overview of ritual studies

To understand the deference rituals, it would be necessary to begin with an overview of the concept ‘ritual’ and its scholarly literature According to Bell (1992, p.14; see also Collins

2004, p.11), the rise of ritual as ‘a formal term of analysis’ is in the late nineteenth century in association with ‘human experience’ Being derived from the ‘debate on the origins of religion’, ritual has become a central topic of many disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, history of religion and religion study, philosophy and culture study (Bell 1992, p 3; 1997, p 3) In attempting to define the term ‘ritual’, there have been many scholarly disciplines in three fields: religion, culture, and society Myth-and-ritual theorists place rituals in the context of religious ceremony These theorists include the linguist Friedrich Max Muller, the folklorist Andrew Lang, especially the anthropologist Edward B.Taylor who proposed the evolutionary framework, and his follower the linguist William Robertson Smith Robertson Smith, for example, showed the influence of rituals as the ‘primary component of religion’ in ‘creating and maintaining community’ (for an overview, see Bell 1997, p.4) Furthermore, rituals are understood as a component of culture

by social anthropologists Clifford Geertz, for instance, views ‘religion’ as ‘a cultural system’

in the sense that ‘man [sic] is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself [sic] has spun’ (Geertz 1973, p 5) The individuals as actors of social interaction put on their behaviours the ‘cultural clothes’ which contain symbolic meanings To process their encounters, each actor has to interpret the meanings that others imply in their demeanours For Geertz, therefore, a ritual is ‘consecrated behavior’ and ‘[i]n a ritual, the world as lived and the world as imagined, fused under the agency of a single set of symbolic forms, turn out

to be the same world’ (Geertz 1973, p.112) In Geertz’s words, the religious rituals can be called ‘cultural performances’ (1973, p.113)

7

The difference of the sociological approaches to rituals from those of other disciplines can be identified by the sociologists’ emphasis on the presentation of rituals in social interactions and the role of rituals in provoking social cohesion This point can be traced from the theory

of Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, who is famous for his work The Elementary Forms

of Religious life (Durkheim 1976, originally published in 1912) In that work, Durkheim

examines rituals in terms of religious forms of Australian tribes A religion comprises two elements, namely, the beliefs and the rites (see Durkheim 1976, for example, pp 48, 102) For Durkheim, the ritual practices will be started only if ‘[m]en [sic] look for each other and assemble together’ (1912/1976, p.211, see also p.156) The importance of the physical assembly or ‘face-to-face interaction’ or ‘bodily co-presence’ later is strongly stressed by the American sociologist Erving Goffman, and more recently Randall Collins as the ‘analytically viable’ unit of microsociology or theory of interaction rituals (see Goffman 1959, p 14;

1967, p 1; 1971, p.6; 1974, p 495; 1983, p 4; Collins 2004, p.42) The physical co-presence

is necessary because it offers participants the opportunities to co-perform the rites of their group The rites here are not merely a verbal communication like moaning, weeping, lamenting or singing but nonverbal ones like sitting, dancing, hugging or kissing (see Durkheim 1912/1976, pp 383-384, 393) In Durkheim’s own words: ‘It is by uttering the same cry, pronouncing the same word, or performing the same gesture in regard to some object that they become and feel themselves to be in unison’ (Durkheim 1976, p 231) That

is to say, the role of such words is to connect ‘individual consciousness’, making collective consciousness In that intersubjectivity, each individual’s identity seems to vanish, embodying the identity of the group as the whole, that is, the ‘collective existence’ (Durkheim 1976, p.387) As a result of feeling united, participants also attain some kind of emotional exaggeration which Durkheim termed ‘a sort of electricity’, leading them to ‘an extraordinary degree of exaltation’ (p 216) This ‘emotional energy’ (Collins’s terminology)

8

in turn helps to create and maintain social relationships and social cohesion between members of a certain group From that point, Durkheim concludes that religious rituals are the very models of the social rituals, which are ‘transfigured and personified’ Therefore, the important implication here is that, we are able to ‘interpret the ritual in lay terms and social terms’ (Durkheim 1976, p.348)

Another aspect of Durkheim’s framework that should be taken into account is how the failure

of conducting a ritual has a bearing on the group (see Durkheim 1976, p.130) In his exploration, every religion requires its followers to strictly obey specific interdictions that are strongly associated with sacred objects In his words, ‘[t]he religious interdiction necessarily implies the notion of sacredness; it comes from the respect inspired by the sacred object, and

its purpose is to keep this respect from failing’ (1976, p.301) By adhering to these interdictions, followers participate in the ritual practices, such as sacrifice, showing their respect to the sacred object and making the group united On the contrary, participants’ failure to follow these rites, or breaking the rules will result in either the failure of achieving the ‘desired results’ of the group, or the destruction of such a group as well as the religion Durkheim’s idea is valuable when we explicate the consequence of the failure of social rituals for social cohesion In the light of Durkheim’s work, Erving Goffman further developed and applied the theory of interaction rituals in analysing social life The next sections will examine his model of deference and demeanour as well as his general model of interaction rituals

2.2 Erving Goffman’s theory: deference and demeanour

2.2.1 Model of deference and demeanour

This study applies the frame of deference and demeanour theory, which is a theoretical model

of interaction rituals developed by Erving Goffman The theory of demeanour and deference

9

was developed based on Goffman’s observational data of mental patients in a hospital (Goffman 1956b, p.473) Figure 1 demonstrates the structure of deference and demeanour which Goffman developed in his essay in 1956

Figure 1 Structure of Goffman’s model of deference and demeanour

The starting point of his framework is ‘rules of conduct’ This is the concept he borrows from Emile Durkheim whose concepts derive from a discussion of ‘moral rules’ (Durkheim 1974,

p 42) and rules that govern religious practices (for example, see Durkheim 1976, p 207, originally published in 1912) Durkheim views rules of conduct as a basic social function that makes the individuals ‘its servitors’, even submits them to ‘every sort of inconvenience, privation and sacrifice’ because they are sometimes contrary to the individuals’ ‘most fundamental inclinations and instincts’ (1976, p.207) By doing so, the individuals get ‘the sensation of a perpetual dependence’ (1976, p 207), maintaining the society as the united whole Being consonant with Durkheim’s analyses, Goffman defines a rule of conduct as ‘a guide for action, recommended not because it is pleasant, cheap, or effective, but because it is

Rules of conduct

Ceremonial rules

(Etiquette)

Substantive rules (Law, morality)

Demeanour

-Good demeanour

-Bad demeanour

Deference -Avoidance rituals -Presentational rituals

Ceremonial profanations

10

suitable or just’ (1956b, p 473) Here Goffman highlights his ambition for explanation of what directs and controls the individual’s social practice, particularly, how he or she demeans himself or herself in order to meet other’s expectations

To identify the pattern of an individual’s behaviours is to find out what types of rules of conduct govern them Goffman argues that there are two types of rule operating in society, the substantive rule and the ceremonial rule (Goffman 1956b, p 476) The former term is also called a ‘moral rule’ or ‘intrinsic’ (Durkheim 1974, pp.42-43) to distinguish it from the

‘symbolic’ or ‘ritual’ rule (Goffman 1956b, p.500) It is substantive because it is ‘one which guides conduct in regard to matters felt to have significance in their own right’ (Goffman 1956b, p.476) This type of rule is codified into ‘law, morality, and ethics’ (Goffman 1956b, p.477) in order to govern all social actions and practices in society The importance of those substantive matters becomes clear when an individual disobeys the rule and receives the

‘sanctions’ attached to those matters

Contrary to Talcott Parsons who regarded ‘moral rule’ as a fundamental element to build his general theory of social action (see the discussion on Durkheim's concepts in Parsons 1949,

pp 431-3, originally published in 1937), Goffman’s work put more focus on the second type, the ceremonial rules This did possibly distinguish him from Parsons and his followers (see Gouldner 1971) According to Goffman, this type of rule is described as below:

A ceremonial rule is one which guides conduct in matters felt to have secondary or even no significance in their own right, having their primary importance-officially anyway-as a conventionalised means of communication by which the individual expresses his character or conveys his appreciation of the other participants in the situation (1956b, p.476)

Rather being ‘measured by the standards of intrinsic rationality’ (Parsons 1949, p.431), a ceremonial rule deals with the matters that seem less important or less essential This rule is codified into ‘etiquette’ (Goffman 1956b, p.477) directing the individuals design his or her

11

behaviours in terms of ‘sign-vehicles’ or ‘token’ in order to communicate with others in everyday activities (Goffman 1956b, p.477) In other words, under social etiquette the individual’s behaviours are symbolised

The individual’s behaviours, as ceremonial behaviours, contain two basic components, that

is, ‘deference’ and ‘demeanour’ To understand the theory of demeanour, then, is to differentiate those two concepts which may overlap because of their referring to the same activities in terms of empirical level (Goffman 1956b, p.491) Indeed, a ‘good demeanour’ is

a person showing deference to those present, whereas, giving deference requires a person to demean himself or herself well according to social rules However, if we take those notions

as just ‘analytical terms’ (1956b, p.491), there are basic elements we should take into account

to consider the distinction between the two Those elements are the individual, the individual’s self, the others, and the situation Table 1 outlines the definition of Goffman’s terminologies and presents the dissimilarities in theoretical ideas between “deference” and

“demeanour”

Table 1 The difference between deference and demeanour

Nature A component of ceremonial activity and

the appreciation’s symbolic means A component of ceremonial behaviour, expressed through deportment, dress, and

bearing

Purpose To convey the appreciation or regard of

the individual to the recipient or the other

recipients

To gain respect from other recipients

To express the individual character before the other or to show other recipients who he/she socially is

Role To deal with other in his or her immediate

presence

To deal with the self before other

Goffman considers both deference and demeanour as elements of ceremonial behaviours undertaken by the individual The interaction stressed here is not individual with group, or group with group, but individual with individual This point brings into play the perspective

of the individual’s daily encounters with other individuals (see Goffman 1956b, p.478) In such face-to-face situations, there is no god, or ‘sacred object’ to which the individual worships and pays attention Instead, ‘the individual himself [or herself] stubbornly remains

as a deity of considerable importance He [or she] walks with some dignity and is the

recipient of many little offerings’ (1956b, p.499) In other words, the individual, or more precisely, the individual’s self, becomes ‘god’ or ‘sacred object’ to which others give deference to it Goffman has gone beyond Durkheim’s arena of religious study to shed light

on social rituals and behaviours

Recognising ‘ceremonial’ elements in social interaction, we can grasp the fundamental relationship between deference and demeanour Goffman interprets deference as a ‘symbolic means’ which conveys the appreciation of the individual to the others in everyday encounters (1956b, p.477) and demeanour as something ‘conveyed through deportment, dress, and bearing, which serves to express to those in his [or her] immediate presence that he [or she] is

a person of certain desirable or undesirable qualities’ (1956b, p.489) That is to say, the individual employs demeanour in order to deal with him or her self, meanwhile, he or she uses deference rituals to deal with the others and their selves In deporting himself or herself, the individual thinks of his or her image as a sacred object and tries to ensure that it is consistent with social ‘attributes’ accepted by society such as ‘discretion and sincerity;

13

modesty in claims regarding self; sportsmanship; command of speech and physical movements; self-control over his [or her] emotions, his [or her] appetites, and his [or her] desires; poise under pressure; and so forth’ (1956b, p.489) By doing so, the individual attains the respect others have of him or her but also creates ‘the image of himself [or herself] (1956b, p.489) In giving deference to others by rituals such as salutations, compliments or apologies, the individual in turn holds the self of others as a sacred object To give deference

to others is then to follow others’ ceremonial expectations, whereas, to bear oneself appropriately is to practice one’s ceremonial obligations (Goffman 1956b, p.496) It is noteworthy that the image of the individual is the aggregate of the practices of both demeanour and deference That is to say, the individual merely plays a part in shaping his or her own self In Goffman’s words:

Rather the individual must rely on others to complete the picture of him [or her] of which he himself [or herself] is allowed to paint only certain parts Each individual is responsible for the demeanour image of himself [or herself] and the deference image of others, so that for the complete man [sic] to be expressed, individuals must hold hands in a chain of ceremony, each giving deferentially with proper demeanour to the one on the right what will be received deferential from the one on the left (Goffman 1956b, p 493)

2.2.2 General Model of Interaction Rituals

Throughout his career, Goffman had built up different theoretical models or frameworks As Branaman (see 1997, p lxiii) comments, in terms of using metaphor, there are three different theoretical models, that is, drama (1959), and game (1963b, 1969), and ritual (for example

1955, 1956a, 1956b; 1957, 1963a, 1967a, 2010) In terms of ritual studies, if Durkheim is the one who paved the way for the micro-sociological study of ritual, Goffman is probably the person who validated the specific rules of ‘interaction ritual’ guiding ‘small behaviors’ in

14

everyday encounters (see Goffman 1967, p.1; see also 1982).In so doing, Goffman had developed his framework around an axis, that is, the ‘sacred object’ of rituals (view Figure 2)

Figure 2 The sacred object in Erving Goffman’s model of interaction rituals

The sacred object can be seen as one of the most principal parts that Goffman inherited from Emile Durkheim’s theory of religious forms of interaction (1912) and applied into social interaction In Durkheim’s study, the sacred objects are everything that is built around and based on one or a set of particular gods who is worshiped by his/her followers The sacred objects can be that god, any divine symbol supporting that god, for example a flag, a statue or

an anthem which ensures the religious group’s members pay tribute to the god by practicing the same meaningful rituals In Goffman’s social interaction, the sacred object is no longer god but the own self of the individual and the self of fellow-participant of the individual Therefore, ritual is regarded as ‘status rituals’ or ‘interpersonal rituals’ in the sense that they are ‘informal and secular’ rather than ‘sacred’ or ‘divine’ (Goffman 1956b) To Goffman, rituals are not considered as religious rites regarding to a certain god or holy thing, but rather,

as an individual’s daily behaviours and treatments regarding to a certain person or set of persons who is interacting with that individual The term ‘ritual’ thus surpasses the field of

The

individual

(actor)

participant Gaining respect from

15

religion, referring to every routine in day-to-day encounters Ritual or social ritual hence is the rule of doing or the means of behaving in face-to-face encounters in which a social actor ought to represent his or her own acts with specific symbolic meaning before his or her audience or recipient whom we might interpret as ‘sacred’ objects in Durkheim’s eyes In Goffman’s own words, that is the ‘way in which the individual must guard and design the symbolic implications of his [or her] acts while the immediate presence of an object that has a special value for him’ (Goffman 1956b, p 478) The ‘special value’ of the sacred object requires the individual and his/her fellow-participants to pay respect to each other The individual’s own self or the social face is ‘the positive social value a person effectively claims for [herself or] himself’ (Goffman 1967b, p 5) To ensure that ‘positive’ image in others’ eyes, the individual must show deference rituals towards them Those deference rituals also play a role in showing regard to other participant’s self in order to gain the deference for the individual himself/herself

Based on the sacred object idea, Goffman grew a general model of social interaction To understand Goffman’s imagination, let’s use take into account the similarities of different frameworks that he had developed This section considers three famous models: face-work (Goffman 1967b, originally published in 1955), demeanour and deference (1956b) and drama (Goffman 1959) Table 2 shows the comparison of three models in terms of different criteria Goffman took into account

16

Table 2 Comparison of demeanour, facework and drama

A person of certain desirable or undesirable qualities

Face, the positive social value, the image of self

Face-work or saving

face-Impression management

profanations, bad/improper demeanour

Face-losing by threats

Misrepresentation by incidents (for

instance, unmeant gesture)

Situation A ceremonial activity A ritual game A drama or onstage

Source: Summary of the works (Goffman 1967 (1955), 1956b, and 1959)

In all Goffman’s models, the self is the ‘multiple selves’ (Branaman 1997, p.lii) which is managed by one kind of ‘holding company’, namely, the individual (Goffman 1963b, p 80) Given three frameworks above, the self often comprises two significant parts: the active social actor, and the social image of the self (see Goffman 1967, p.31, 1959, pp.244-246) The active social actor can be interpreted as the subject of behaviours, who thinks, directs and

manages his or her social acts in everyday encounters with other individuals In The Nature of Deference and Demeanor (1956b), Goffman generally calls the active actor ‘the individual’,

whereas in other work (Facework, 1956a), he sometimes regards as the ‘player’ of ‘a ritual game’ (1967, p.31), and in theatre metaphor, he views as ‘the performer’ (The Presentation of the Self in Everyday life, 1959, p.244) Nonetheless, these dissimilar terms refer to the same

individual who has the ability to think or feel about the encounter they engage in (1956b, p.478), the capacity to learn lessons and skills to cope with ‘judgmental contingencies of the situation’ (1967, p.31), and the ‘fantasies and dreams’ to perform his or her show before

17

audiences and teammates (1959, p.245) In sum, the self qua this individual is the self

consisting of all ‘psychobiological’ attributes (1959, p.246)

While the active social actor, as the first part of the self, has been well-defined in his theoretical framework, Goffman puts stronger emphasis on the second part of the self – the social image.Here the self is the image of the individual in terms of social ‘construct’ (1955, p.45), that depicts who he or she is in society By social construct, Goffman implies that this self is the result of ‘the whole scene of his [or her] action’ that ‘comes off’ (1959, pp.244-245), that is the process of social interaction which is ‘from without’ rather from ‘inner psychic propensities’ of the individual (1955, p.45) (for an overview of Goffman's concept of self, see Branaman 1997, pp xlvii-lxiii; Elliott 2007, pp 37-44) In order to strengthen this claim, Goffman argues that this image of self is constituted by many social attributes which

are socially accepted or approved (see Goffman 1967, p.5, 1956b, p.489) In The Nature of Deference and Demeanor, Goffman terms this image as a ‘person of certain desirable or undesirable qualities’ (1956b, p.489) Not merely can this self’s image be good and acceptable, but also bad, unacceptable The individual who behaves well will be considered

as the person who possesses the ‘desirable’ attributes and vice versa

Throughout Goffman’s sociology, the social actor usually looks for the ‘positive’ image of self For example, Goffman views ‘face’ as ‘the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself [or herself]’ (1967, p.5), leading to his or her practices of face-saving in order to maintain his or her face consistently before others Similarly, in the 1959 account, the character to which the performer tries to play onstage in front of his or her audience is the creditable or respectable image The honourable self, as mentioned above, then is a ‘sacred object’ or ‘ceremonial thing’ in Durkheim’s religious ritual framework to which the individual adheres (Goffman 1967, p.32, 1956b, p.497)

While actively searching for a positive self image, the social actor in Goffman’s perspective

Given three terms mentioned, the meaning of the two terms ‘face-work’ and ‘demeanor’ is closer Goffman defines ‘face-work’ as ‘the actions taken by a person to make whatever he is doing consistent with face’ (1967, p.12), namely, ‘face-saving practices’ or face-

maintenance To do face-work is not merely to save the individual’s own face with ‘a defensive orientation’, but also to save others’ face with ‘a protective orientation’ (1967, p.14) In this point, we can see the similarity between face-work and the pair of demeanour and deference Face-work is demeanour in the sense that the individual practices face-saving

in order to maintain his or her own face, or to express a particular kind of person before others Face-work is also to give deference to others because it tries to show the individual’s regard to others’ face

Another fundamental aspect of Goffman’s theoretical scheme is that the individual often faces troubles caused by the misconduct of the interaction-work He assumes that ‘the rules

19

of conduct which bind the actor and the recipient together are the bindings of society’ and the practices of small rituals such as gestures of demeanour or deference are central to social relationships (Goffman 1956b, pp.496-497) Therefore, if these practices are not maintained, society, as the unique entity, can be destroyed Goffman’s concern with the failure of ritual practices in all models is in line with this premise In the dramaturgical model, the performer acting on stage ought to face with the ‘incidents’ of ‘misrepresentation’ such as ‘unmeant

gestures, inopportune intrusions, faux pas, and scenes’ which could disrupt the performance (1959, pp 65, 206) While doing face-saving, the player has to cope with the ‘threats’ that cause him or her ‘to be in wrong face’ or ‘to be out of face’ (1967, pp 14, 8) To maintain his

or her face, the individual applies ‘the avoidance process’ and ‘the corrective process’ (1967, pp.15-23) in order to prevent the potential threats, keeping his or her face consistent with the

image he or she wants to portray In The Nature of Deference and Demeanor, Goffman

defines the incident of losing face as the ritual profanations in practice of demeanour That ritual failure occurs when the statuses of the individual and/or the fellow-participants are misunderstood or misidentified, leading to placing the interactant in ‘a higher or lower position than [each] thinks right’ (1956b, p.493) Another example of ritual failure is when the individuals disrespect themselves by acting ‘in a way that seems purposely designed to destroy the image others have of them as persons worthy of deference’ (1956b, p.496) The lack of respect regarding to oneself or others’ selves leads to downgrading of the relationships between participants in particular and the cohesion of society in general

The comparison of Goffman’s three social interaction models fosters a deeper understanding

of the demeanour and deference model Even though Goffman did not often relate his theoretical terminologies together, he adhered to the consistent framework containing basic elements: the individual, the other, the self of both the individual and the other, social interaction rituals of the participants and the situation of face-to-face encounter Employing

20

this framework, we cannot limit our analyses of Goffman’s theory in any particular account Linking his ideas together would produce a richer and more profound single model The theory of deference and demeanour then goes beyond the work in which it was firstly proposed

21

CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 Grounded Theory Approach

This research employs qualitative research design through the study of the The Vietnamese participants in ‘their natural setting’ and interpreting information in terms

of ‘the meaning people bring to them’, namely, relying on the participants’ opnions to construe data collected (see Denzin & Lincoln 2005, p 3; 2008; Marshall & Rossman

2011, p 2) Quantitative research relies on the ‘positive’ or ‘postpositive’ knowledge claims which try to collect evidence to test a theory or hypothesis In contrast, qualitative research is derived from the socially constructed knowledge claims that aim to construct hypotheses or theories from the informants’ views and information (Creswell 2003, pp 6-9) This study therefore is an exploratory rather than explanatory study (Creswell 2003, 2009)

This study applies grounded theory, a qualitative methodology (Creswell 2007; Marshall & Rossman 2011; Patton 2002; Silverman 2011) which was proposed by sociologists Barney G Glaser and Anselm L Strauss (1967) and developed by other scholars such as Anthony Bryant, Kathy Charmaz, Corbin and Strauss (see Bryant & Charmaz 2007; Charmaz 2006; Charmaz & Mitchell 2001; Corbin & Strauss 2008) Grounded theory is regarded as a ‘general methodology’ in which the researcher elaborates and generates theory from informants’ viewpoints and behaviours (see Strauss & Corbin 1994, p 273)

My interest in conducting this study is based on the stance that ‘theories are limited in time’ and that ‘they are always provisional’ (see also Glaser 1978, p 123; Strauss & Corbin 1994, p 279) This stance facilitates the challenges Goffman’s theory of

22

interaction rituals because his theory was mostly built upon Western societies, in particular North America, in the mid-twentieth century so it needs to be examined in non-Western societies in twentieth-first century, such as Vietnamese contemporary society

It is worth noting that grounded theory methods require the researcher to have no preconception in his or her mind (see Glaser & Strauss 1967, Strauss & Corbin 1994,

1998, 2008, Charmaz 2006, Bryant & Charmaz 2007) Since this study aims to elaborate Goffman’s theory, several concepts such as deference rituals or demeanour are considered as a theoretical scheme (or paradigm) This paradigm is used to check and compare with the data gathered from fieldwork (see Strauss & Corbin 1998, p.12) That is to say that, taking Goffman’s those concepts still allows new and specific concepts of Vietnamese context to emerge in processes of sampling and data collection in the field In the sections that follow, readers can see the ‘constant comparative methods’ (see Glaser & Strauss 1967, Strauss & Corbin 1998, Charmaz 2006), that strongly addresses the interplay between data collection and data analysis This grounded theory study incorporated the following processes: theoretical sampling, data collection, coding process and memoing and diagraming Theoretical sampling was designed for data gathering in the field Data collection gemerated rich information from research participants These two activities were followed by coding process and memo-writing and diagraming, in which, the data were conceptualised, theoretically developed and integrated Coding processes and memo-writing, became the next guides leading to further inquiry Theoretical sampling and data gathering, hence, could be (and actually were) adjusted to fill in new gaps emerging from coding and memoing processes In other words, the ‘constant comparative methods’ which

23

closely link data collection and data analysis, must be used from the beginning of the fieldwork (see Charmaz 2006; Strauss & Corbin 1998, p.207, 2008; Glaser & Strauss 1967) Despite being presented separately, these parts were indeed interconnected

on Vietnamese deference rituals in everyday encounter is the goal that the sampling procedure is trying to achieve

The discovery of Vietnamese deference rituals was satisfied by theoretical sampling which helps me to ‘maximise opportunities to discover variations among concepts and

to densify categories in terms of their properties and dimensions’ (Strauss & Corbin

1998, p.201) The theoretical concepts, which arose and evolved continuously from the beginning to the end of the study, became the principle directing theoretical sampling, data collection, coding, memo-writing and data analysis Theoretical sampling was hence ‘cumulative’ in the sense that its subsequent sample was often built upon previous data gathering and analysis (Strauss & Corbin, p.203)

24

The saturation of theoretical categories

Theoretical sampling aims at the theoretical saturation of concepts The number of interviews is identified based on the saturation of theoretical categories (Glaser & Strauss 1967, Strauss & Corbin 1998, Charmaz 2006) According to Charmaz (2006, p.113, see also Strauss & Corbin 1998, p.212), when grounded theory sampling and data collection stop is when categories ‘are saturated’ My study follows three indicators of theoretical saturation suggested by grounded theorists: (i) category: ‘no new or relevant data seem to emerge regarding a category’; (ii) the properties/dimensions of category: ‘the category is well developed in terms of its properties and dimensions demonstrating variation’; (iii) the relationship among categories: they must be ‘well established and validated’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p.212; see also Charmaz 2006, p.113, Glaser 2001, p.191) The sampling procedure below shows the progress from the beginning to the point when theoretical saturation

is met

Research site

Due to my time frame, solely Hanoi city – Vietnam’s capital was selected for site study Hanoi can be regarded as the largest city of Vietnam in terms of area with 3323.6 square kilometre, and a high population density of 2059 people per square kilometre (Vietnam General Statistics Office 2012) Hanoi has 12 urban districts, 1 town and 16 rural districts (Hanoi's People Committee 2012); in which, Hanoi’s urban districts were the place the author conducted the fieldwork

While Ho Chi Minh city (or was called Saigon) is a centre of Southern Vietnam,

25

Hanoi should be seen as in the same position for Northern Vietnam This can be revealed by the fact that Hanoi is a metropolitan city that attracts continuous flows of immigrants for jobs or study every year The immigrants come from various regions

of the country, in particular Midland and Northern Mountains and Red River Delta, and Northern Coastal Central regions, making it the ‘representative city’ of the Northern and Central Vietnam Hanoi contains both local people who have been living in the place for a long time (more than three generations living in the capital) and immigrants who have moved in for a shorter period of time (from less than three generations to short-term visiting, travelling, studying or business) The background differences between these city-dwellers gives rise to the complicated interaction rituals, highlighting various nuances of deference rites Deference rituals of the Vietnamese living in Hanoi not only represent the cultural and customary behavioural codes of ‘the native Hanoians’, but also the Northern Vietnamese

Hanoi was selected as the studied site because the author had lived in Hanoi for 8 years (from 2005 to 2012) so he has deep experience of the capital’s life This familiarity helped to facilitate the sampling recruitment and the understanding of Vietnamese’s deference rituals in Hanoi

Population and sample

Hanoi city is the second most populous city in Vietnam with around 6.844 million people in 2012, only after Ho Chi Minh city (Vietnam General Statistics Office 2012,

p 61) According to Vietnam General Statistics Office (2012), urban population of Hanoi city is around 2931 thousand people, accounted for 42.8% of its total population Urban dwellers are targeted population of this study

26

The Vietnamese participants were the main object of this study The author conducted

20 interviews, an increase from the originally planned number of 10 to ensure the coverage of the study Nine females and 11 males are selected for the study; in which, there are 17 Vietnamese and 3 foreigners, 8 interviewees in the age from 19 to 35, 6

interviewees aged from 37 to 50, 6 persons aged from 60 to 92 (see Appendix 3.1 for

detailed profile of interviewees) Two Australians and one Chinese American who have experience interacting with Vietnamese people and cultures were selected These three participants were believed to provide profound insights of Vietnamese deference rituals from less bias perspective

Sampling procedure

Theoretical sampling adheres to the coding process, in which, open sampling in correspondence with open coding, relational and variational sampling to axial coding, discriminate sampling to selective coding (see Strauss & Corbin 1998, pp.206-212) This study applies convenience and snowballing sampling approaches to recruit

research participants (for details of theoretical sampling steps, see the Appendix 3.2)

Open sampling was conducted from January 4 to 9, 2014 Seven participants were selected conveniently for interviews In this phrase, the researcher remained open to any theoretical possibility Several on-street markets where Vietnamese people often come to sell and buy foods or necessities were chosen as the starting location for recruiting potential participants It is worth noting that on-street markets in Hanoi city

is a convenient place on the street created by sellers and buyers to exchange goods It

is not officially organised nor built by the authority and does not have a fixed location Five on-street markets located in Hanoi city were selected for recruiting the

27

first interviewees: two located in Hoan Kiem district, one in Dong Da district, one in

Thanh Xuan district, and one in Cau Giay district (for more details, see Appendix 3.2)

All participants were recruited by ‘sampling on basis of convenience’ (Corbin & Strauss 2008, p.153) Namely, individuals who appeared in the five chosen markets were probably approached and asked to join the study Any potential participant who meets the following criteria could be recruited: Vietnamese nationality; living or working in Hanoi - namely urban dwellers; 18 years old and older; having ability to understand and answer the questions; involved in everyday encounters in selected markets; agreeing to participate in the study There is no criterion on gender, job, religious, hometown and so on, taken into consideration in this phrase, enabling any theoretical possibility to emerge

The second stage, named relational and variational sampling, took place from January

13 to February 14, 2014 This sampling stage is to identify ‘significant variations’ in information of the interviewees (see Strauss & Corbin 1998, p.210) The researcher selected 9 respondents who could provide their insight on the relationships among concepts discovered in open sampling and open coding, and the dimensions and properties of those concepts in terms of conditions, actions/interactions, and consequences of Vietnamese deferential practices In the second stage, the participants are selected purposively based on both general criteria of the first stage and their characteristics such as sex, age, occupation The study of a more diverse group of participants in the second stage helps explain the findings that emerged from first stage coding and the writing of memos In the second stage, the researcher went

to different places such as markets, parks, or cafés to recruit participants A snowballing technique was applied to identify participants who met the demand of

28

knowledge from the previous stage The researcher utilised his personal network to seek participants The selected participants had never met the researcher before the interview took place Among 9 interviewees, six were recruited by snowballing techniques, other three by purposive techniques

The final sampling stage, applying discriminate sampling method, was conducted from February 19 to 26, 2014 Four respondents were selected by the snowballing technique; three of them were foreigners who have experience and contact with Vietnamese culture and people Among the three foreigners, two people are married

to Vietnamese women Two interviews took place in Vietnam, one was interviewed via Skype At this stage, the researcher tries to validate or negate his interpretations (Strauss & Corbin 1998, p.211) to enhance his understanding of Vietnamese deference rituals The researcher selected a Vietnamese as the last respondent to compare his or her opinions on Vietnamese deference rituals with the opinions of the foreign interviewees After interviewing the 20th interviewee, the fieldwork was stopped as the researcher found information saturated

3.3 Interviewing

This study employs interviewing, as a qualitative method, using open-ended questions (see Patton 2002, pp 16-17), to gain more insights into respondents’ perspectives The interviews applied neither structured questionnaire nor close-ended option (see

the Appendix 3.2 for Interview guidelines)

In spite of Glaser’s warning (1998) on the use of preconception when preparing interview guides, this study would follow the ideas proposed by Charmaz (2006, pp.18, 25, see also Strauss & Corbin 1998, Corbin & Strauss 2008) that the researcher

29

might phrase or plan the general open-ended questions before fieldwork to avoid any

‘forcing data’ during interview The guidelines for interview are ‘general’ and

‘unstructured’ (see Straus & Corbin 1998, pp 204-5) Based on the research questions, open-ended questions are developed to get insight from the interviewees These initial questions are based on the result of literature review and/or the author’s experience (see Strauss & Corbin 1998, p.205)

Beside audio-recoding the conversations, the observational information on participant attitude and behaviours during actual interview was also recorded in notes The recording stuck to the strategy proposed by Clifford Geertz (1973) about ‘thick description’, that is, the researcher tries to jot down and describe the interviewee and his or her relationship to the situation as detailed as possible In other words, the data which this study collects is ‘rich data’, namely ‘detailed, focused and full’ (Strauss & Corbin 1994, p 279)

In twenty interviews conducted, 19 were face-to-face interviews and 1 interview was carried out via Skype due to the distance between the researcher and the informant All participants were provided with interview guidelines in Vietnamese before the

actual interview (see Appendix 3.6) The guideline provides expected questions that can be asked depending on the conversation with different interviewees For three foreigners involved in the study, a short general questionnaire in English was sent to

these interviewees via email prior to the actual interviews (see Appendix 3.7).

30

3.4 Data processing, interpretation and analysing

3.4.1 Strategy of data processing

In order to reconcile the qualitative data, the findings from each interview were compared and contrasted with each other In this task, qualitative data were compared, cross-checked and combined between different data sources (from different respondents, The Vietnamese participants and foreigners), between interviews from different times (see Denzin 1978, pp 291-307; Patton 2002, pp 555-63) In addition

to that, while in the field, the researcher asked participants to review the data and findings after they are transcribed, keeping them from biases (Patton 2002, pp 561-562)

The process of interpretation and analysing, according to Taylor and Bogdan (see also Spradley 1980; Taylor & Bogdan 1984, pp 130-6) was started from the time when the researcher started the fieldwork This step was characterised by practices such as reading and re-reading the data, keeping track of themes, hunches, interpretations and ideas, looking for the emerging themes, constructing typologies, reading the literature The subsequent step was the coding process (Saldaña 2012) in which all the data from observational field notes and interview records were labelled, classified, sorted, arranged into the scheme of codes and categories in order to develop the theoretical themes and models as well as hypothetical proportions (see also Taylor & Bogdan 1984, pp 136-140)

This study used NVivo for qualitative analysis; this qualitative research software offers functions such as coding, memo-writing, diagrams, sifting and sorting

31

categories (for the support of using computer program in qualitative research, see Corbin & Strauss 2008, p 315) The data consisted of over 22 hours audio-taped These interviews and fieldnotes were transcribed into Microsoft Word and then imported into NVivo The data corpus consisted of around 600 pages of transcriptions and fieldnotes NVivo helps organising the data, developing a coding scheme, making memos and writing the report It should be noted that some of diagrams and memos were developed by notebook and Microsoft Word because of convenience Herein the use of NVivo is represented along coding process, memo-writing and diagramming

3.4.2 Coding

Coding is about conceptualisation Coding turns data from primary form in terms of informant’s viewpoints into short labels, namely codes This coding process, starting from the onset of data collection, progressively increases in number of codes based on information revealed, becomes more abstract and gets connected by diagraming and sorting Coding is the base on which, data analysis relies This study’s coding process

is designed following the approach of Strauss and Corbin (1998, 2008) The coding process is divided into three parts: open coding, axial coding and selective coding The open coding identified 913 items that were combined though axial coding into

278 abstract concepts Qualitative software – Nvivo – was applied to undertake these three phases of coding In those phases, data collection and data analysis are connected and compared, in order to get theoretical saturation

Open coding

Open coding - ‘initial coding’ (Charmaz 2006), is to recognize categories regarding research goals and to dig up their properties and dimensions (Strauss & Corbin 1998,

32

p.101) In this phase, data will be treated openly as Charmaz (2006, p.48) states clearly that: ‘Initial codes are provisional, comparative, and grounded in the data They are provisional because you aim to remain open to other analytic possibilities and create codes that best fit the data you have’

No preconceived concepts are utilised to code in this step Some concepts rooted in Goffman’s theory such as avoidance and presentation rituals, demeanour are used to compare with data instead of being used as codes My approach to the data is to learn how the informants construct their reality or form their views In other words, language and viewpoints of the informants and situations rather than predetermined concepts are the source of code As far as I am a Vietnamese, I have my own view and experience of deference rituals that are enacted in Vietnamese everyday encounters These preconceptions, however, are not treated as a guide defining the content and result of my study, but rather as ‘one view among many’ (see Charmaz

2006, p.54) They are held throughout my study and checked with the data and codes emerging during data collection and analysis

This coding stage took place according to the open sampling process from January 6

to the end of the analysing and writing stage, namely August 2014 (see Strauss & Corbin 1998, p.136) The interview audio recorders were transcribed by the researcher during the fieldwork All transcripts were saved to Microsoft Word format, numbered, named and arranged into folders Note that each interview transcript is named by using the pseudonym of the interviewee engaged in such an interview Due

to the late release of NVivo for Mac, the open coding was processed in Microsoft

Word The interview transcriptions were coded by techniques including in vivo code,

paragraph by paragraph, and incident by incident The researcher kept the transcripts

33

in Vietnamese in order to get better understanding of Vietnamese verbal rituals During the process of coding, some useful paragraphs, dialogues, or sentences were translated into English

Axial coding

Axial coding follows open coding In this phase, the coding process was carried out from January 13 – second phase of sampling process to August 2014 – completion of the thesis report If data is segmented into small parts during open coding, the second coding stage helps to re-assemble these parts to create relations and variations As Strauss & Corbin stated (1998, p.124), ‘axial coding is the act of relating categories to subcategories along the lines of their properties and dimensions’ If a category

‘stands for a phenomenon’ which may be ‘a problem, an issue, an event, or a happening’, a subcategory is the answers to the questions about such a phenomenon, including ‘when, where, why, who, how, and with what consequences’ (Strauss & Corbin 1998, pp 124-5)

In order to build the relationships between categories and subcategories, the researcher sets up links between structure and process (Strauss & Corbin 1998, p.127), namely, a paradigm This is the ‘organisational scheme’ (Strauss & Corbin

1998, p.128) of the relationship between categories and subcategories that includes

three parts: conditions, actions/interactions and consequences Conditions are

information that provides answers for the questions including where, when, how come

and why; actions/interactions refer to the questions by whom and how; consequences

denote the questions what happens as a consequence of those actions/interactions (see Strauss & Corbin 1998, p.128)

34

Selective coding

The third and final stage of the coding process is selective coding This coding stage started at the beginning of the third sampling stage - February 13 until August 2014, the time when the writing process is completed In this stage, the categories and subcategories and their relations which arose from two previous stages of sampling, led to the integration and refinement of the evolving theory (see Strauss & Corbin

1998, p.143) A central category is chosen as a core from which the theory of

deference rituals could be built For more details of coding process, see Appendix 3.2)

3.4.3 Memos, diagrams and theoretical development

Memo-writing and diagraming are part of the analytic process in this study They were carried out along with data collection, theoretical sampling and coding process

In this study, memoing consisted of code notes, theoretical notes and operational notes However, it is worth noting that all these types of notes could be included in one memo (Strauss & Corbin 1998, p.218) These types of notes were developed by using both handwriting and Microsoft Word Operational notes, which remind

‘procedural directions’ and other issues of the research process (Strauss & Corbin

1998, p.217), were conducted during fieldwork in Vietnam Based on guidance by Strauss and Corbin (1998, p.217), code notes were conducted from the beginning of coding process (open coding) until the end (axial coding and selective coding), depicting the ‘actual products’ resulting from that process Theoretical notes which delineate the researcher’s ‘thoughts and ideas about theoretical sampling and other issues’ (Strauss & Corbin 1998, p.217), were mostly conducted after fieldwork