Issue no.1, November 2006

Volume 6, Issue no. 1, November 2006

                             Volume 6, Issue no. 1, November 2006 – PDF Editorial Judith A. Holton, Ph.D. Generalizing: The descriptive struggle Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D; Hon Ph.D. Moral Positioning: A formal theory Thomas Aström, Ph.D. Growing Open: The transition from QDA to Grounded Theory   Astrid Gynnild, Ph.D. From Pathological Dependence to Healthy Independence: An emergent grounded theory of facilitating independent living  Liz Jamieson, Ph.D.; Pamela J. Taylor, F Med Sci; Barry Gibson, Ph.D.   Opportunizing: A classic grounded theory study on business and management  Ólavur...

Generalizing: The descriptive struggle

Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D.; Hon Ph.D. The literature is not kind to the use of descriptive generalizations. Authors struggle and struggle to find and rationalize a way to use them and then fail in spite of trying a myriad of work-arounds. And then we have Lincoln and Guba’s famous statement: “The only generalization is: there is no generalization” in referring to qualitative research. (op cit, p. 110) They are referring to routine QDA yielding extensive descriptions, but which tacitly include conceptual generalizations without any real thought of knowledge about them. In this chapter I wish to explore this struggle for the purpose of explaining that the various contra arguments to using descriptive generalizations DO NOT apply to the ease of using conceptual generalizations yielded in SGT and especially FGT. I will not argue for the use of descriptive generalization. I agree with Lincoln and Guba with respect to QDA, “the only generalization is: there is no generalization.” It is up to the QDA methodologists, of whom there are many; to continue the struggle and I wish them well. The Descriptive Generalization Struggle Most, if not all, qualitative research method writers talk of the near impossibility to generalize as they struggle to make descriptive generalizations realistic. Most fail. There are several dimensions to this struggle which help explain the struggle and then the failure. Their principal concerns of descriptive generalization are worrisome accuracy of descriptions which soon become stale dated, transferability, internal vs. external validity, unit comparisons to determine similarity and differences (not for concepts), unit comparability for transferability, volume solutions (the more units the better), downing abstract leveling of SGT to a local description, and can a descriptive generalization become a scientific law. The reader may think of more, but considering these dimensions will give the idea that the descriptive generalization struggle is never solved and it does not apply to conceptual generalization. Indeed, focusing on descriptive generalization in the struggle has two negative consequences: 1. conceptual generalizations are missed or passed over and 2. They leave the substantive fields involved open to speculative theory. I will consider these dimensions in linear fashion keeping in mind they are highly interrelated. The writers I refer to are Lincoln and Guba (op cit, chapter 5), Ian Dey (op cit, chapter 11), Janet Ward Schofield, “Increasing the Generalizability of Qualitative Research” in Miles and Huberman, The Qualitative Researchers Companion, (op cit, chapter 8), Margaret Kearny, “New Directions in Grounded Formal Theory” in Using GT in Nursing,) op cit, chapter 12), and Glaser, “Conceptual Generalizing” in the GT Perspective I, chapter 7, and Joy L. Johnson, “Generalizability in Qualitative Research,” Chapter 10. The many other writers such as Creswell, Silverman, Walcott, Morse, Schutt, etc, on qualitative methodology deal with the struggle to generalize but in less than a chapter focused way. See bibliography for this book. Missing conceptual generalization: One major source of the descriptive generalization struggle is the down leveling of SGT by the remodeling impact of QDA on GT. (See GT Perspective II: Description Remodeling of GT). What occurs is that QDA forces a description out of GT and/or GT is taken as description, not as theory. It becomes local to the area of research. Descriptive generalization becomes the problem. The quest is to see if the description applies to another area, if the area is comparable on enough dimensions. The pressure to generalize releases a fearful caution of generalizing descriptions as the research seems particularistic, not general. The fear is...

From Pathological Dependence to Healthy Independence: An emergent grounded theory of facilitatingindependent living...

Liz Jamieson, Ph.D; Pamela J. Taylor, F Med Sc; Barry Gibson, Ph.D. Abstract People with mental disorder are admitted to high security hospitals because of perceived risk of serious harm to others. Outcome studies generally focus on adverse events, especially reoffending, reflecting public and government anxieties. There is no theoretical model to provide a better basis for measurement. There have been no studies examining discharge from the perspectives of those involved in the process. This paper begins to fill this gap by generating a grounded theory of the main concerns of those involved in decisions to discharge from such hospitals. Data were collected by semi-structured interviews with staff of various clinical and non-clinical disciplines, some with a primary duty of care to the patient, while mindful of public safety, and some with a primary duty to the public, while mindful of patients’ rights. The data were analysed using a grounded theory approach. Their main concern was ‘pathological dependence’ and that was resolved through the process of ‘facilitating independent living’. Clinicians and non-clinicians alike managed this by ‘paving the way’ and ‘testing out’. The former begins on hospital admission, intensifies during residency, and lessens after discharge. Testing out overlaps, but happens to a greater extent outside high security. Factors within the patient and/or within the external environment could be enhancers or barriers to movement along a dependence-independence continuum. A barrier appearing after some progress along the continuum and ending independence gained was called a ‘terminator’. Bad outcomes were continuing or resumed dependency, with ‘terminators’, such as death, re-offending or readmission, modelled as explanations rather than outcomes per se. Good outcomes were attainment and maintenance of community living with unconstrained choice of professional and/or social supports. Although this work was done in relation to high security hospital patients, it is likely that the findings will be relevant to decision making about departure from other closed clinical settings. KEYWORDS: pathological dependence, independent living, grounded theory, mentally disordered offenders, high security (special) hospitals Background Most countries have special secure healthcare facilities for people with a major mental disorder thought to pose a serious threat of harm to others, generally after at least one serious criminal conviction. It is difficult, however, to compare outcome studies between different countries because laws, policies, social structures and service availability may each vary widely. Facilities may be entirely within the health services, entirely within prisons, or a mixture of the two. Not all countries provide every level of security, and there may be international differences in definitions of ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ security. There is, though, common ground in being held in such a secure institution – in constraints to freedom and autonomy within and outside the unit and long enforced proximity to others with grave health and behavioural problems. In England and Wales, people with a major mental disorder, detainable under mental health legislation and thought to pose a high risk of serious and imminent harm to the public, may be admitted to a high security, or ‘special’ hospital. Median length of stay there is over six years (Butwell, Jamieson, Leese & Taylor, 2000). Perhaps the most common ground to date between studies internationally and over time is in choice of outcome measures. Studies in both the United Kingdom and North America, for example, have focused almost exclusively on re-offending (Jamieson & Taylor, 2004; Steadman & Keveles, 1972; Steadman & Cocozza, 1974; Thornberry & Jacoby, 1979; Pruesse & Quinsey, 1977). There is less common ground between nations,...

Moral Positioning: A formal theory

Thomas Aström, Ph.D. Abstract This article presents the main outlines of a theory of moral positioning, contributing to the analysis of moralizing as a social phenomenon. It is a formal theory in several of its aspects. The discovered patterns help to explain social interaction in conflicts and how ordinary people use these patterns in relation to others. Moral positioning is frequently occurring in social situations were imbalances and conflicts arise among individuals and groups. Moral positioning is here theorized concurrently with a supporting conceptualization of social positioning. The model here presented can be used to explain the positioning process and is possible to use in order to become aware of, and in a better way, manage a conflict. The core variable in moral positioning theory has the form of a triadic pattern, built on the moral positions Good, Evil and Victim (GEV-pattern). The moralizing process is easily understood as socially and dynamically constructed patterns of positions. Those identities are related in three basic and complementary dimensions of meaning; Existence, Interest and Moral dimensions (EIM-pattern), each one with its own conflict pattern. The classic grounded theory method was used and the results were first presented in my dissertation in 2003. KEY WORDS: Conflict, Moral, Positioning, Identity, Interaction, Grounded theory. Introduction Originally the purpose of this project was to find out why there are so many complicated relations in a disabled person’s life. In my first attempts to research the psychosocial aspects of being disabled and belonging to a family with a disabled child, I met a barrier that prevented me from entering that field and getting access to field data. The strong gate-keeping from officials in bureaucracy that protected persons living their lives with or near disabilities also “protected” them from researchers, without even giving them the option to take a standpoint of their own. Being an experienced therapist, I was well aware of the field’s debates and controversies, and I was also aware of some tabooed areas where the dialogue on psychosocial matters was restricted even among professionals. Some of the professionals I interviewed felt uneasy answering this type of questions. The resistance among professionals to open insight was surprisingly strong. Why is that? Wouldn’t a search for knowledge about these problematic issues benefit the clients? Why were the obstructions to openness so strong and feelings of conflict so tense? Why were well informed and experienced professionals afraid of such issues? But on the other hand, parents and persons with disability were often ready and sometimes anxious to give their version. An example referred to by a researcher from an interview with a grown man with disabilities: “One day one of the participants asked me how far I dared to go in my report. He was worried that I in overdone consideration to parents and staff, or because of my personal fear and cowardice, didn’t dare tell about all the hard stuff that had happened in his and the others … life.” An urge for plain speaking. In contrast I met the hesitant attitude in the claims of professionals I interviewed on anonymous cases of psychosocial problems: “Can you assure me you will burn these tapes afterwards?” and another: “I don’t want to be quoted!” or a third: “I feel nasty telling you about this”. Information control seemed to be central in the interaction on such intricate matters. I could later use bureaucrats’ and other professionals’ reactions on the subject as useful data. They indirectly told me what I...

Growing Open: The transition from QDA to Grounded Theory

Astrid Gynnild, Ph.D. Abstract Doing a PhD can principally be carried out in three ways; firstly by applying existing theories on new data, secondly by theoretically comparing existing theories and thirdly by generating a new theory. Choice of approach of course depends on awareness and accessibility of alternatives. In essence, most PhD studies are exploratory journeys in a jungle of descriptive methodologies based on very uniform data. In this paper, the author elaborates the exploratory research process that subconsciously, and later consciously, required a shift from the initial QDA approach to grounded theory. The cutting point was discovering the multifaceted implications of the all-is-data dictum in GT. Introduction Data collection and data analysis is crucial for the way research is conducted. It concerns research methods, research settings, data sources, amounts of data collection and what to look for in the data. The implications of ”all is data”, as conceptualized by Barney Glaser, can therefore not be overestimated. In practice, the ”all is data” statement brings us right to the core of grounded theory methodology. Its power in capturing change-in-process, which probably is the only steady aspect of modern work life, is immense and incompatible with any other methodology. Like many other PhD candidates, I started out with a qualitative approach intended to result in applying existing theories on new data – and ended up with a grounded theory. The area of study was news professionals in multimedia and crossmedia companies in Norway, and how they coped with rapidly changing conditions for work. Reflecting back on the exploratory processing that lead to the sudden and definite switch in methodology, it appears that the transition from QDA to a grounded theory approach required a parallel process of growing open. After several months of concentrated qualitative efforts, I had come to a point where I was unconsciously searching for a methodology that could include a more diverse range of data sources than the typical quantitative or qualitative approaches. It was a troublesome period during which a main concern was loss of time and lack of meaningful, productive progress in the study. By the time, I did not know grounded theory. Consequently, options for theory generation instead of descriptive verification of existing theory were out of sight. In the ensuing paragraphs, I will provide some of the reflections and questions that lead to the transition from QDA to a grounded theory approach, followed by a further elaboration of some all-is-data implications. By the time of methodological shift, the data already collected included hundreds of pages of statements illuminating more facts and details than could possibly be handled in a highly detailed, descriptive dissertation. My initial aim had been to study the development of multimedia journalists in three large Norwegian multimedia houses, descriptively comparing similarities and differences. So far, all the data stemmed from qualitative interviewing of news reporters in these news corporations. The in-depth, semi-open interviews, as the genre is called in qualitative research, were taped and transcribed verbatim. Some of the interviews had been factor analyzed according to q-methodological principles, a branch within phenomenology. Two typologies had come out of analyzing the six first interviews. Now the question was whether to continue on the same track with the 14 next interviews. Incubating At this point, I had been through the preparing and concentrating stages of exploratory processing, which is a basic process in any kind of knowledge work. Now incubating was reached, or rather, the chaos stage. I was in a state...

Opportunizing: A classic grounded theory study on business and management...

Ólavur Christiansen Abstract Opportunizing emerged as the core variable of this classic GT study on business and management. Opportunizing is the recurrent main concern that businesses have to continually resolve, and it explains how companies recurrently create, identify, seize or exploit situations to maintain their growth or survival. Opportunizing is the recurrent creation and re-creation of opportunities in business. Opportunizing is basically what business managers do and do all the time. The problematic nature of opportunizing is resolved by a core social process of opportunizing and its attached sub-processes that account for change over time and for the variations of the problematic nature of its resolution. Opportunizing has five main facets. These are conditional befriending (confidence building & modifying behavior), prospecting (e.g. information gaining), weighing up (information appraisal & decision-making), moment capturing (quick intervention for seizing strategic opportunities), and configuration matching (adjusting the business organization to abet the other activities of opportunizing). On a more abstract level, opportunizing has three more organizational facets: the physically boundary-less, the valuehierarchical, and the physically bounded. The first of these called perpetual opportunizing. This emerges from the conjunction of conditional befriending and prospecting. The second facet is called triggering opportunizing. It arises from the coming together of weighing up and moment capturing. The final facet is called spasmodic opportunizing. This happens when moment capturing and configuration matching unite. Thus, the tree facets of opportunizing are sub-core variables, while the five facets of opportunizing are sub-sub-core variables. The five facets can also be seen as stages of the core process of opportunizing. Yet, they are more than stages, because weighing up is involved throughout. Each of the five facets of opportunizing also attach to subprocesses that account for the resolving of still more tangible dimensions of opportunizing. For example, confidence building and modifying behavior are two categories of conditional befriending. It is not possible to create opportunities in business without modifying people’s behavior, but this latter is impossible or difficult without confidence building. The model of opportunizing will assist managers in focusing on the most important and problematic. Practitioners will be able to adopt and adapt the theory according to the variation in the data that their individual contexts manifest. Introduction The methodology used in this research is the set of “classic” GT procedures that Dr. Barney Glaser originated in the beginning of the 1960s and has maintained since (Glaser, 1978; 1992; 1998; 2001; 2003; 2005). It will be assumed that the reader is familiar with this methodology and its terminology (i.e. conceptual levels, substantive concepts and theoretical codes, types of theoretical codes such as basic social process, basic social condition, amplified causal looping, bias random walk, etc; the distinction between a basic social structural and basic social psychological process, and so forth). A few data incidences will be used as examples to illustrate some of the building blocks of the emergent theory. Literature comparisons will be delimited to just a few. The empirical data for this research were collected from a theoretical sample of twelve small and middle-sized companies in the Faroe Islands. Most of the data were qualitative and collected by interviews with company managers, owners, board members and employees. The research was sponsored by BP Amoco Exploration LTD (Faroes). Dr. Andy Lowe was the author’s methodological coach during the critical phases of the research. The Core Variable of Opportunizing The core variable that sums up the most important and the most problematic for those being studied and explains most of the...