Issue no.3, June 2005
Basic Social Processes
By Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon.Ph.D. with the assistance of Judith Holton Abstract The goal of grounded theory is to generate a theory that accounts for a pattern of behavior that is relevant and problematic for those involved. The goal is not voluminous description, nor clever verification. As with all grounded theory, the generation of a basic social process (BSP) theory occurs around a core category. While a core category is always present in a grounded research study, a BSP may not be. BSPs are ideally suited to generation by grounded theory from qualitative research because qualitative research can pick up process through fieldwork that continues over a period of time. BSPs are a delight to discover and formulate since they give so much movement and scope to the analyst’s perception of the data. BSPs such as cultivating, defaulting, centering, highlighting or becoming, give the feeling of process, change and movement over time. They also have clear, amazing general implications; so much so, that it is hard to contain them within the confines of a single substantive study. The tendency is to refer to them as a formal theory without the necessary comparative development of formal theory. They are labeled by a “gerund”(“ing”) which both stimulates their generation and the tendency to over-generalize them. In this paper, we shall first discuss the search for, and criteria of, core variables (categories) and how they relate to BSPs. Then we go on to a section on several central characteristics of basic social processes. Lastly, we discuss the relative merits of unit vs. process sociology. Core Category and Basic Social Process (BSP) While grounded theory can use any theoretical codes, the basic social process (BSP) is a popular one. As with all grounded theory, the generation of a BSP theory occurs around a core category. While a core category is always present in a grounded research study, a BSP may not be. BSPs are just one type of core category—thus all BSPs are core variables (categories), but not all core variables are BSPs. The primary distinction between the two is that BSPs are processural or, as we say, they “process out.” They have two or more clear emergent stages. Other core categories may not have stages, but can use other theoretical codes. Without a core category, an effort at grounded theory will drift in relevancy and workability. Since a core category accounts for most of the variation in a pattern of behavior, it has several important functions for generating theory. It is relevant and works. Most other categories and their properties are related to it, rendering the core category subject to much qualification and modification because it is so dependent on what is going on in the action. In addition, through these relations between categories and their properties, the core has the prime function of integrating the theory and rendering the theory dense and saturated as the relationships increase. These functions then lead to theoretical completeness—accounting for as much variation in a pattern of behavior with as few concepts as possible, thereby maximizing parsimony and scope. Clearly integrating a theory around a core variable delimits the theory and thereby the research project. Upon choosing a core category, the first delimiting analytic rule of grounded theory comes into play. Only variables that are related to the core will be included in the theory. Another delimiting function of the core category occurs in its necessary relation to resolving the problematic nature of the pattern...Adventuring: A grounded theory discovered through the analysis of science teaching and learning...
By Katrina M. Maloney, M.Sc., Ed.D. Abstract The grounded theory of adventuring, derived from the substantive area of science teaching and learning, explains both why scientific thinking is an evolutionarily important trait and illustrates a common thread throughout a variety of teaching and learning behaviors. The core concept of adventuring incorporates the categories of exploring, mavericking, and acquiring and applying skills that are the hallmarks of positive science education. Learning science is difficult due to the higher order cognitive skills required. This study explains how we could be teaching and learning science in a way for which our brains are best suited, and in ways that reach all learners, and encourages the use of adventuring in all classrooms. Introduction The grounded theory of adventuring explains behaviors of teachers and learners. This study discusses the psychology/sociology of teachers teaching science and students learning science through a grounded theory analysis of behaviors, and elucidates the biological process of thinking by discussing changes over time to the human brain’s physiology and chemistry. In connecting the behaviors of science thinkers to the biology of the brain’s hardware, this work explains how we could be teaching and learning science in a way for which our brains are best suited. Adventuring, as a core concept, contains the three categories of exploring, mavericking and acquiring and applying skills. Ten dimensions of adventuring are also discussed in this study, identiftying conditions, strategies, types and consequences of adventuring. Although the theory of adventuring was discovered through an exploration of the substantive area of science teaching and learning, as soon as the theory was shared with others, it became apparent that adventuring happens in a wide variety of situations and conceptualizes latent patterns of behavior found in many learning scenarios. Rationale: Why is Learning Science Difficult? Studies summarized in Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1991) and Shaping our Future (National Science Foundation, 1996) state unequivocally that there is a need to teach science well to promote the type of scientific literacy necessary in a complex and increasingly global society. Science is in our everyday space. The imperative to be active decision makers in our country is a right and, as such, carries responsibility. If we forfeit that right and deny the importance of science education for all learners, we do a grave disservice to our communities, to our country, and to our planet. The higher level cognitive demands of science courses are very difficult for a developing mind. Specifically, science courses blend math skills and linguistic skills, higher order cognition skills of hypothesis generation, analysis and modification. Science courses require rote memorization, sequential organization, and sustained attention to detail. Understanding science texts and participating in class discussion require sophisticated receptive and expressive language abilities (Levine, 1987). Troublesome issues for students identified in college science classrooms by professors include: use of scientific tools (hardware such as microscopes, centrifuges, incubators, balances, pipettes, measuring instruments); science literature (dichotomous keys, graphs/tables/charts, textbooks, journal articles, popular press items); and the cognitive skills of analytical thinking such as basic questioning, prediction, the hypothetical- deductive process itself (proceeding from general concepts to specific events, or, in other words, identifying the causes of results), organization of data and concepts, creating and/or reading graphs and charts, the recursive nature of science inquiry, and the possibility of change in facts/theories/hypotheses. Students bring various strengths to their work in the cognitive realm of science, but severe deficits in background understanding of basic scientific processes...Doing Best for Children: An emerging grounded theory of parents’ policing strategies to regulate between-meal snacking...
By Ruth Freeman, Ph.D.; Richard Ekins, Ph.D. & Michele Oliver, M.Med.Sc. Abstract Changes in children’s lifestyle from structured family meals to unstructured between meal sugar snacking has been recognised as a risk factor in childhood obesity. Parental insights into children’s between meal snacking and their experiences of regulation are important if an understanding of sugar snacking is to be gained in the field of childhood obesity. The aim of this study was to use grounded theory techniques to analyze the qualitative data obtained from participants and to generate an emerging theory of snack regulation. A series of focus groups with parents and their children were conducted. Data were analysed using grounded theory techniques. The core category that emerged from the data was ‘doing best’. Parents used the behavioural strategy of policing as a consequence of doing best. Parents had to balance time availability, disposable income, energy levels, parental working patterns and family life with the child’s food wishes and social needs. Balancing such contextual constraints influenced the style of policing. Introduction The World Health Organization (WHO, 2002) has stated that added and refined sugars should contribute to no more than 10 percent of an individual’s total calorific intake. Recent research has shown that the average teenager obtains 20 percent of their calories from added sugars and consumes on average 50kg of sugar/person/year (Sibbald 2003). The increased sugar consumption has been linked to the steep rise in childhood obesity and particularly in children living in deprivation and poverty (Strauss, 2002; Lobstein and Frelut, 2003; Lobstein et al., 2003). Childhood obesity is associated with increased health risks in childhood, reduced self-esteem (Sarlio-Lahteenkorva et al., 2003, Sahota et al 2001), and quality of life (Friedlander et al., 2003). Childhood obesity acts as an independent risk factor for adult obesity (Tingay et al., 2003) and is linked with adult cardiovascular disease, adult onset diabetes, osteoarthritis and cerebral vascular accident (Parsons et al., 1999) as well as low-income work and poverty (Tingay et al., 2003). Childhood obesity, with its many health, social and life-course consequences, is perceived as a harbinger of adult ills (National Institute for Clinical Excellence [NICE], 2004). Various suggestions have been proposed to explain the increasing prevalence of childhood obesity. These include the food industry flooding the marketplace with cheap high-sugar and high-fat foods (Sibbald, 2003), the absence of readily available low-cost healthy foods (Alderson and Ogden, 1999; Bunting and Freeman, 1999) and shifts in structured family mealtimes to childhood between meal snacking (Feunekes et al., 1999; Strauss, 2002). Reasons given by families for changing from structured to unstructured eating patterns are important in the childhood obesity story (Alderson and Ogden, 1999; Feunekes et al., 1999). Therefore, this research team embarked upon an investigation to increase understanding of this unstructured pattern of sugar intake in children. Qualitative data was collected as part of a larger controlled trial (Oliver et al., 2002), which evaluated the role of school-based snacking policies upon the consumption of snack foods in 9 and 11-year-old children. As it was important to discover if school-based policies affected the children’s out-of-school snacking, parents and children were approached to canvass their views and opinions on regulating snacking between meals. The aim of this study was to use grounded theory techniques to analyze the qualitative data obtained from participants and to generate an emerging theory on snack regulation. The Research Context Participants in this study came from the Southern Health and Social Services Board (SHSSB), located in Northern Ireland (NI). In...Managing Collaborative Synergy in the Crane Industry
By Keith Ng Y. N. (Ng, K.) Ph.D. Abstract This study explores the key factors vital to Principal-Distributor Collaboration (PDC) in the context of the crane industry in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. It explains the social processes that Principals use to address differing interests throughout the course of the PDC. Applying Glaser’s (1978, 1992, 1998, 2001) emergent approach to grounded theory, 150 interviews were conducted with 50 participants from these countries. The main professional concern of participants throughout the course of the PDC was the need to achieve corporate objectives, within a certain time frame, whilst also having to rely on the cooperation of key managers from the partnering firm. Key decision makers continuously resolve their professional concern through the basic social process of Managing Collaborative Synergy (MCS). The theory of MCS suggests that the way in which Principal firms manage the PDC is by giving attention to the three interdependent dimensions of Competitiveness Initiating, Confidence Building and Conformance Setting. Background and Motivation to the Research This study took place during the Asian Financial crisis at a time when the crane industry was undergoing change. Principal firms are manufacturers of cranes or crane components. Distributors are those who resell, construct and service cranes or crane components of those principals that they represent. At the time when this study was conducted, Principals were gaining in their appreciation of the rewards associated with successful collaboration with Distributor firms in the pursuit of their corporate objectives. Similarly, Distributors were more alert to the benefits, in a limited market, of working in conjunction with their foreign counterparts to share risks and meet increasing customer demands. This environment of increasing cooperation between Principal and Distributor firms provided the overall context for this research study. It is a well-recognised fact that effective collaboration with Distributors plays a prominent role in the business-to-business arena (McQuiston, 2001; Mudambi & Aggarwal, 2003), and so collaborating with Distributors has been gaining popularity with Principal firms for two main reasons. First, it allows the Principal firms to focus on larger accounts (Ernst & Young, 1990; Emshweiler, 1991). Second, Distributors with a home territorial advantage often have a better knowledge of their local markets and are able to penetrate these markets with ease and greater success than can Principal firms (Douglas & Craig, 1989; Cavusgil & Zou, 1994). Given the prospects of mutual benefits, working with Distributors provides the possibility of reaching every segment of the business field. Therefore, an astute Principal firm will choose to work closely with their Distributors in order to stay competitive and ensure long-term corporate success (Noordewier, John & Nevin, 1990). Although there are no definitive data to account for the business volume that Distributors are directly responsible for, industry estimates in the United States indicate that there are 400,000 Distributors who make up as much as 50% of the upper-channel sales in business-to- business markets (Dishman, 1996). In the crane industry, 80% of crane firms in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia are Distributors who represent Principal firms that manufacture hoisting equipment. Given the large number of firms using Distributors, successfully managing and improving working relationship with Distributors is of paramount significance to any Principal firm (Merkel, 2001; Ng, 2002). However, despite the large numbers of Principal firms employing Distributors, little appears to be understood about how the Principals have gone about developing and maintaining Principal-Distributor relationships. While there are a number of models of building relationships in the business-to-business arena (such as Anderson & Narus, 1999,...The Grounded Theory Bookshelf
Dr. Alvita Nathaniel, DSN, APRN, BC, West Virginia University The Bookshelf provides critical reviews and perspectives on books on theory and methodology of interest to grounded theory. In this issue, Dr. Alvita Nathaniel offers a review of Barney Glaser’s new book. The Grounded Theory Perspective III: Theoretical Coding, Barney G. Glaser (Sociology Press, 2005). Not intended for a beginner, this book further defi nes, describes, and explicates the classic grounded theory (GT) method. Perspective III lays out various facets of theoretical coding as Glaser meticulously distinguishes classic GT from other subsequent methods. Developed many years after Glaser’s classic GT, these methods, particularly as described by Strauss and Corbin, adopt the grounded theory name and engender ongoing confusion about the very premises of grounded theory. Glaser distinguishes between classic GT and the adscititious methods in his writings, referring to remodeled grounded theory and its offshoots as Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) models. The GT/QDA debate is reminiscent of the schism that developed between the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce and his benefactor, William James at the beginning of the last century. Peirce was a brilliant philosopher and scientist. America’s most prolifi c philosopher, Peirce originated the doctrine of pragmatism. Because Peirce’s writings were a very high level of abstraction and diffi cult to understand, James attempted to make them accessible to the popular academic community through his own, more concrete writings. However, James never got it quite right. Unhappy with James, failing to clarify his ideas about pragmatism, and desiring to distinguish his original ideas from those proffered by the more popular James, Peirce eventually changed the name of his own theory to pragmaticism. Unfortunately, the new name never caught on and the theory of pragmatism continues to be popularly attributed to William James. Like Peirce and his theory of pragmatism, Glaser remains faithful to the original premises of classic GT. He continues the battle to distinguish classic GT from QDA, viewing QDA as a rigid method with a low level of abstraction and tendency toward preconception. He outlines in Perspective III many ways that QDA violates the foundational ideas of GT. In particular, Glaser emphasizes that an understanding of “what is going on” in an area of concern requires openness on the part of the analyst/researcher to the natural emergence of the theoretical code. The theoretical code emerges late in the GT process as the analyst painstakingly hand sorts conceptual memos. This process requires several elements such as the analyst’s proper use of conceptual memos, openness to emergence, perspicacity, and patience. The process is hindered or derailed entirely if the theoretical code is forced through the use of a preconceived theoretical framework, a conditional matrix, discipline specifi c codes, or “pet” codes. Glaser effectively clarifi es his points through critique of various writers and grounded theorists. He sorts through point by point the writings of grounded theory “experts” from a number of disciplines and comments on their level of understanding of the classic GT method. This discussion will be particularly helpful to Ph.D. students who are trying to learn both the fundamentals and the fi ner points of the classic grounded theory method. It will also be helpful as background for the Ph.D. student to use in discussions with dissertation/thesis examiners. Many quotes from what Glaser deems to be good examples of GT are also helpful for clarifi cation purposes. Glaser comments on elements of theories developed within a number of disciplines around the world. The words of the original writers...