Are There Two Methods of Grounded Theory? Demystifying the Methodological Debate...

Cheri Ann Hernandez, RN, Ph.D., CDE Abstract Grounded theory is an inductive research method for the generation of substantive or formal theory, using qualitative or quantitative data generated from research interviews, observation, or written sources, or some combination thereof (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In recent years there has been much controversy over the etiology of its discovery, as well as, the exact way in which grounded theory research is to be operationalized. Unfortunately, this situation has resulted in much confusion, particularly among novice researchers who wish to utilize this research method. In this article, the historical, methodological and philosophical roots of grounded theory are delineated in a beginning effort to demystify this methodological debate. Grounded theory variants such as feminist grounded theory (Wuest, 1995) or constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 1990) are beyond the scope of this discussion. Development History of Grounded Theory Methodology Most authors situate the beginning of grounded theory methodology with the publication of the 1967 book, Discovery of Grounded Theory. However, the first published account of grounded theory methodology was in 1965 when Barney Glaser published the article, “The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis” (Glaser, 1965). This article contained all the rudimentary elements of grounded theory methodology as published, two years later (See Table 1 for comparison) and, in fact, this article was reprinted verbatim as chapter five of that book, as the major methods component of the book (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Perhaps this is why researchers frequently use the term Constant Comparative Method as a synonym for grounded theory, as did Glaser and Strauss (1967, p. 230). Glaser wrote eight chapters, including all of the methods chapters of The Discovery of Grounded Theory while Strauss was on an extended trip to Europe and then Strauss wrote the remaining three chapters upon his return – introductory chapter (chapter 1), the library as caches of qualitative data (chapter 7), and the final chapter (11) on insight and theory development (Glaser, 1998, p. 22). In 1978, Glaser published Theoretical Sensitivity, considered by many to be the “bible” of grounded theory. In fact, several graduate students studying with Strauss used this as their sole reference for learning GT while doing a post-doctorate in chronic illness in the late 1970s (Barbara Artinian, personal communication, May 2006). In this book, Glaser elaborated on the key procedures of grounded theory which had merely been touched on in Glaser’s 1965 article and the 1967 book; in particular, the aspects of theoretical sampling, substantive and theoretical coding, and grounded theory writing were clarified. Glaser continues to publish books on grounded theory, releasing one new book approximately every two years, as well as publishing the international journal, The Grounded Theory Review. The content, of these more recent books and articles on grounded theory, does not describe a different grounded theory method than that which was as originally published (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) because grounded theory methodology has remained virtually unchanged throughout the past 40 years, as shown by the comparison in Table 1. Rather, Glaser expands on, or more fully delineates particular components of grounded theory. These particular topics are chosen based on questions received by grounded theory researchers or to counteract erroneous assumptions or methodological errors found in recently published articles or dissertations, in which grounded theory has been used. Strauss (1987) wrote a section on grounded theory analysis as the last half of chapter one of his book, Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Strauss stated that the information in this part...

Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Originally published as Chapter 7 in Glaser (2003). The Grounded Theory Perspective II: Description’s remodeling of grounded theory methodology, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press, pp. 99-113. Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. The main point in the next two chapters is that the methodological literature is filled with references to the quantitative-qualitative conflict or opposition. Qualitative data is credited with providing the meaning and factual interpretation that quantitative data does not, thus it is more accurate in findings, interpretation and theory as opposed to the conjectures that explain fabricated quantitative findings. Qualitative data is real life collection of data that avoids the quantitative distorting difficulties in collecting data by preformed questionnaires and overly simple analytic techniques. The arguments go on and on as to which is objective and which subjective, which is harder science and which is softer. Among some groups of researchers and some fields, qualitative data research wins this continuous opposition. With this QDA power GT is drawn in as a QDA research method, since most GT is done with qualitative data which is relatively easy and inexpensive. GT becomes eroded, and default remodelled by QDA in the process, hence blocked, simply because most GT research to date is done with qualitative data. Its fundamental theoretical orientation is seen by consequence of this remodelling as symbolic interaction. But this is not correct, since it can be used with any theoretical codes, from any theoretical orientation. Most GT uses structural functionalism — theoretical codes actually — such as conditions, contexts and consequences or scaling codes, such as degrees, dimensions, cutting points, ranges, zones or typologies. GT is a general methodology that can be used with any data, I have said time and again. It is an inductive methodology. Qualitative data does not define GT; GT just uses qualitative data mostly — but among many possible data. “All is data” for GT, since all data has latent patterns. It can use any data and any data in any way and in any combination: it can use qualitative data and quantitative data solely or in any combination. It is paradoxical that so often qualitative researchers denigrate quantitative work as work with no symbolic meaning interpretation. Yet they laude it as science and try to make QDA look like science with quantitative trappings. Whatever the solution to this paradox in any researcher’s position, GT is abstract of it. GT just inducts abstractions or concepts from what ever data is being used. This paradox of a qualitative research making puts a reverse block on GT. GT is blocked by QDA erosion in many ways and a further consequence is that this cooptation totally blocks GT from being used with quantitative data. But, to repeat, GT is a general inductive methodology that can be used, with excitement, with quantitative data. My dissertation, which was published immediately as a book (Organizational Scientists: Their Professional Careers Bobbs-Merrill, 1964), used quantitative data exclusively. It was an inductive core variable analysis of scientific recognition. It was modelled after Lazarsfeld’s The Academic Mind the Free Press, which was an inductive core variable analysis of apprehension in academic life during the McCarthy era. There were many monographs coming out of the Columbia University Sociology Department at that time that were pure inductive discovery using quantitative data. It was what was done as a norm. In chapter 8 of the Discovery of Grounded Theory, “The Theoretical Elaboration of Quantitative Data” I wrote at length on the use of quantitative data...

Grounded Theory as a General Research Methodology

Judith A. Holton, Ph.D. Abstract Since its inception over forty years ago, grounded theory has achieved canonical status in the research world (Locke, 2001, p.1). Qualitative researchers, in particular, have embraced grounded theory although often without sufficient scholarship in the methodology (Partington, 2000, p.93; 2002, p.136). The embrace renders many researchers unable to perceive grounded theory as a general methodology and an alternative to the dominant qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. The result is methodological confusion and an often unconscious remodelling of the original methodology (Glaser, 2003). Given the various interpretations and approaches that have been popularised under the rubric of grounded theory, this paper addresses the important distinction between grounded theory as a general methodology and its popularisation as a qualitative research method. The paper begins with a brief overview of grounded theory’s origins and its philosophical foundations then continues by addressing the basic distinction between abstract conceptualisation as employed in classic grounded theory and the conceptual description approach as adopted by many qualitative researchers. The paper continues with a brief overview of the criteria for judging the quality of classic grounded theory and concludes by detailing its methodological principles. Origins of the Methodology Grounded theory originated in the mid-1960s with the groundbreaking work in medical sociology of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (Glaser & Strauss, 1965, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1975) and the subsequent publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory, (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). While the book is generally acknowledged as the seminal work on grounded theory, Glaser (1998) reveals that he was actually developing the method in his doctoral work at Columbia University and that he authored the first draft of Discovery, later sharing it with Strauss who added comments and wrote an additional three chapters (pp.22-27). While Glaser and Strauss were later to disagree about the precise nature of the methodology and discontinue their professional collaboration, Glaser is generally recognised as having retained both the spirit and the substance of the original work (Locke, 2001, p.64). His subsequent publications, together with Discovery, provide detailed accounts of the fundamental principles of the method (Glaser, 1978, 1992, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007). His most recent methodological guide (2008), in particular, distinguishes grounded theory as a general research methodology. The well documented schism in the collaboration between Glaser and Strauss occurred with the publication of Basics of Qualitative Research (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Glaser’s (1992) response was Basics of Grounded Theory: Emergence vs. Forcing in which he set out to distinguish the original methodology from Strauss and Corbin’s work which he clearly regarded as a remodelled method that he has termed “full conceptual description” (p.123). His continuing concern with the eroding impact of various subsequent “remodelings” of the original methodology has motivated him to produce several additional publications in which he endeavours to clarify the purpose, principles and procedures that together constitute classic, or Glaserian, grounded theory (Glaser, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008; Glaser & Holton, 2004). This collection of works, a result of his dedication to advancing the original methodology, offers researchers a solid base for its study and application. The Qualitative Embrace of Grounded Theory Qualitative methods facilitate the study of issues in depth and detail (Patton, 2002, p.14). Denzin and Lincoln (1994) describe qualitative research as a complex, interconnected family of terms, concepts and assumptions that cuts across disciplines, fields and subject matter (p.3). Marshall and Rossman (1999) refer to a broad approach to the study of social phenomena that is pragmatic, interpretative and...

The Rationale for the Use of Classic GT

Ólavur Christiansen, Ph.D. Abstract Two “hallmarks” explain why and how Glaser’s GT method is one of a kind and meaningless for research that is conventionally pre-framed: (I) The finding of the core variable is the first stage of the research and it is accomplished by the systematic treatment of the data. The core variable sums up and explains the main concern (and its recurrent solution) of those being studied, and most of the variation in the data. The study is then delimited to concepts related to the core variable. This is equivalent to the finding of the research problem. (II) During the data work, the researcher suspends his/her preconceptions and prior knowledge about the area of research, and trusts in emergence of concepts from the data. Its purpose is avoidance of preconceived academic interest concerns with, instead, sole focus on the participant’s substantive interest concerns and their solutions, and the triggering of intuitive insights during states of not knowing. One way to transcend preconceptions is to study unrelated literature in order to identify latent behavior patterns and to increase the researcher’s familiarity with the full range of possible theoretical codes. Introduction There is a general and increasing bewilderment in the literature regarding the concept of “grounded theory”, sometimes abridged as “GT” (Bryant & Charmaz 2007, Kelle 2007, Strubing 2007, Alvesson & Karreman 2007, Charmaz 2006, Douglas 2006, Clarke 2005, Suddaby 2005, Gephard & Rynes 2004, Alvesson & Skoldberg 2000:12-36, Moustakas 1994:4-7). This confusion also impinges on the understanding of other theory generating methodologies. (Alvesson op.cit., Moustakas op.cit.). There seems to be blindness to the fact that the grounded theory term is seriously misleading, because GT has become a name, not for one method, but for an array of very different research approaches, among which Glaser’s “orthodox” or “classic” GT is fundamentally different from the rest. Yet, with a few exceptions (Holton 2007, Hartman 2001, Glaser 1998:5), authors have failed to explain the original raison d’être for the emergence of GT as a predominantly inductive (yet, also deductive and intuitive) theory generating method. To understand this original raison d’être is of course important, as well as the fact that Glaser, on this basis, is the originator of GT as a theory discovery method (Glaser 2006:3, 1998:21-34). To misrepresent a methodology because it is “very different” is inappropriate; neither is it useful. Most likely, we need methodological diversity to achieve theoretical and applied advancements in complex fields of enquiry, e.g., business and management. This article is based on the assumption that different research methods are just different. This means that the question about better or worse regarding methods in general, or regarding ontological and epistemological positions per se, is assumed pointless. It is assumed that this question only gains relevance when specific research purposes and frameworks are taken into account. While considering these contexts, openness and tolerance with regard to methodological diversity may provide better opportunities than forced restriction into methodological uniformity. The purpose of this article is to try to clarify why it may be justified to chose other methods or GT-versions than Glaser’s, when the choice of Glaser’s GT would be meaningless. I will try to achieve this purpose mainly by highlighting a few characteristics of Glaser’s GT. I have tried to select those characteristics that seem to be mostly misunderstood or ignored in literature that explains and compares different GT-versions. GT is not easy (Suddaby 2005). Before use, Glaser’s prescribed research procedures should be studied in Glaser’s own...

Management Research and Grounded Theory: A review of grounded theorybuilding approach in organisational and management research....

Graham J.J. Kenealy, Ph.D. Abstract Grounded theory is a systematic methodology for the collection and analysis of data which was discovered by Glaser and Strauss in the 1960’s. The discovery of this method was first presented to the academic community in their book ‘The Discovery of Grounded Theory’ (1967) which still remains a primary point of reference for those undertaking qualitative research and grounded theory in particular. This powerful research method has become very popular in some research domains; whilst increasing in popularity it is still less prevalent in the field of organisational and management research particularly in its original form. This self reflexive paper sets out to explore the possibilities for this imbalance which takes the discussion onto the areas of methodological adaptation and training. It also enters the debate about access to research subjects and provides a succinct argument supporting the notion that grounded theory should simply be viewed as a method that develops empirically grounded conceptual theory. Key Words: Grounded Theory Approach, Inductive Research, Research Methods. Introduction By examining the dominant research paradigms in the organisational and management research field, linked with a review of grounded theory origins, this desk study serves to understand how and why organisational and management researchers contextualise and locate the methodology within contemporary qualitative research. It then allows the authors to build on this platform to show how grounded theory is viewed in the organisational and management research field, particularly from a novice researcher’s perspective. Paradigms and Perspectives Review the literature and it’s not difficult to find the common threads by which researchers classify research methods. The most common distinction is to classify research as either qualitative or quantitative. Denzin and Lincoln’s work (2005) provides a valuable comparison of the two methods; “qualitative verses quantitative research”. Quantitative research methods, originally developed and used in the natural sciences, formed the basis and accepted methodology that has become the norm in social science research and subsequently organisational and management research. Encompassing such techniques as surveys and laboratory experiments, it generally leads to numerical data collection facilitating mathematical and statistical modelling. Qualitative research, on the other hand, was specifically developed in the field of social sciences to enable researchers to study socially derived phenomena and once again adopted by organisational and management researchers. Huberman and Miles (2002) in the introduction to their text “The Qualitative Researchers Companion” explained how they witnessed the explosive growth of qualitative research methods between the 1980’s and the 1990’s. This increase manifested itself in increased publications of qualitative based research material in professional journals, taking on various forms ranging from case study research, ethnography and discourse analysis to narratives and symbolic interaction studies using techniques such as observations, interviews and questionnaires to collect data. Each method has its own traditions governed by its own genres with its own preferred forms of presentation, interpretation, trustworthiness and textual evaluation (Becker, 1986). Qualitative research methods are designed to help researchers understand people, the psychological effects and the social and cultural contexts within which they live. Glaser (1998) as did Miles and Huberman (1994) argue the advantages of understanding a phenomenon from the participants perspective, pointing out that particular social and institutional context is largely lost when textual data are quantified. Further distinctions adopted by researchers are to classify research methods as objective (e.g. positivist, empiricist) or subjective (e.g. anti-positivist, idealist) (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). The major alternative to positivism in management science is that of the interpretive (and the closely related constructive)...