Issue no.3, November 2009
Theoretical Writing1
Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. Theoretical sorting has brought the analyst to the point of pent-up pressure to write: to see the months of work actualized in a “piece.” But this is only a personal pressure. The goal of grounded theory methodology, above all is to offer the results to the public, usually through one or more publications. We will focus on writing for publication, which is the most frequent way that the analyst can tell how people are “buying” what really matters in sociology, or in other fields. Both feedback on and use of publications will be the best evaluation of the analyst’s grounded theory. It will be his main source or criticism, constructive critique, and frequently of career rewards. In any case, he has to write to expand his audience beyond the limited number of close colleagues and students. Unless there is a publication, his work will be relegated to limited discussion, classroom presentation, or even private fantasy. The rigor and value of grounded theory work deserves publication. And many analysts have a stake in effecting wider publics, which makes their substantive grounded theory count. The best form to publish in sociology is through a monograph. The highest rewards, in general, go for writing books, for they probably reach the most diverse publics with the maximum amount of material. Journal articles, of course, run a close second. One solution which many analysts take is to write chapters into articles, while fewer combine chapters into books. We shall mainly focus here on chapter form, which is similar to the article form with minor adjustments. In this is the final stage of grounded theory methodology, writing is a “write up” of piles of ideas from theoretical sorting. Writing techniques are, perhaps, not as crucial as the techniques characteristic of the previous stages, but they still crucial. Since writing sums up the preceding work, it cannot be left uncontrolled, perhaps to scuttle it. Rather, writing must capture it. It must put into relief the conceptual work and its integration into a theoretical explanation. So very often in qualitative research, the theory is left implicit in the write-up as the analyst gets caught up in the richness of the data. Below we shall discuss the logic of construction, of shape and of conceptual style of a monograph and a chapter. Then we discuss the reworking of initial drafts, in order to sharpen the shape and style. We briefly indicate our view of uses of the literature, and close with recommendations for the analyst’s theoretical pacing. It must be underlined that the write-up of sorts is a theory of a core variable which freezes the on-going for the moment. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that writing has this “slice of reality” character. We have covered this problem as best as possible by using concepts and processes that have duration and are independent of time and place. We also construct a theory that is readily modifiable. The analyst should underscore these points in his writing, because his writing probably will be read mainly as a fixed conceptual description, not explanation, by most readers. We are in essence stuck with this paradox. Logic of Construction Typically sociological monographs are constructed on the basis of a “little logic.” It is the main building idea of the book, hence the ensuing chapters. The little logic usually consists of no more than a paragraph or two, and often just one long sentence. In monographs it may be...Marketing for Acceptance
Tina L. Johnston, Ph.D. Abstract Becoming a researcher comes with the credentializing pressure to publish articles in peer-reviewed journals (Glaser, 1992; Glaser, 2007; Glaser, 2008). The work intensive process is exacerbated when the author’s research method is grounded theory. This study investigated the concerns of early and experienced grounded theorists to discover how they worked towards publishing research projects that applied grounded theory as a methodology. The result was a grounded theory of marketing for acceptance that provides the reader with insight into ways that classic grounded theorists have published their works. This is followed by a discussion of ideas for normalizing classic grounded theory research methods in our substantive fields. Introduction Publish or perish is an often quoted phrase in academia aptly describing the pressure put on scholars to produce and get research articles through the journal review process and into content area publications so that new knowledge can be shared throughout the reading populous in their field of study (Vernier, 1994). Submission processes are much the same (although blinding policies may differ). An author writes an article, finds an appropriate journal in which to submit the article for peer- review and then waits for a response from a few volunteering reviewers who will choose to accept, ask for revisions or reject the article for publication (Groves, 2006; O’Gorman, 2008). Regardless of the debate as to the general efficacy of this method, it is the one in place (Groves, 2005; Winkler, 2009; Lee, 2006). Like any researcher, the Grounded Theory author must pursue publication in this way. There are complications that arise when writing and submitting classic grounded theory (hereafter CGT) articles for publication. CGT research methods and articles have different structures than others (Glaser, 1978; 2006). In addition, there are many derivatives of grounded theory methodologies (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Glaser, 1992b; Chen & Boore, 2009). When reviewers volunteer at various journals they are asked to provide topical and methodological expertise by filling out surveys where they check of boxes in which they feel they have expertise. In these lists, very often grounded theory is one of those choices, however, what kind of grounded theory the reviewer is familiar with or even whether that reviewer has a real understanding of the method is not insured. To further complicate matters these journals may publish standard formatting requirements that do not match the standard format of CGT papers. The Problem The problem then is two-fold; users of CGT are under the same pressures as their colleagues to publish studies, yet the journals and reviewers in their field are often inhospitable or ignorant of the intricacies of papers written using the CGT method. Additionally, the ‘Grounded Theory’ articles that do get through to publication in many content area journals have either used some other form of grounded theory (i.e., Qualitative Grounded Theory, or the Strauss and Corbin method) or are claiming to use the method but instead have applied certain aspects or jargon from the method (Glaser, 2009) in combination with other often qualitative research methods such as case study or ethnography. The prevalence of these ‘other’ grounded theory articles set reviewers expectations of what the grounded theory methodology is and what studies that use grounded theory should look like. These expectations cast a shadow on CGT article submissions. Methodology This research study employed the use of classic grounded theory (Strauss and Glaser, 1968; Glaser, 1978, 1992, 1992b). Using data in the form of reviewers’ comments to CGT authors who...The Hook: Getting your grounded theory research published1
Phyllis Noerager Stern, DNS, LLD (hon.), FAAN 1This article in an expanded and modified form will appear in the forthcoming book, Accessible grounded theory: A beginner’s handbook. Authors, Phyllis Stern and Caroline Porr I learned about the hook as a fledgling writer back in the late 70’s, and early 80s. I wrote about stepfamilies when almost nobody else did (Stern, 1978, 1982a, 1982b). My big break came when I published an English-language version on how to do grounded theory. In my field, nursing, grounded theory was the buzz word of the day, but few nurses had a sociological background, and thus the vocabulary to be able to understand the Glaser and Straus description (Stern, 1980). That article kick started my career as a writer and researcher. There was a time when it was required reading for graduate students in nursing around the world. Twenty-nine years after its publication, I got a request for a reprint from a doctoral student in New Zealand. What the hook consists of then is timing, a subject that has impact, and a title that sparks the interest of a potential reader. A classic example of all three is The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Straus, 1967), a then new approach to sociological research. Sociologists were interested, but as the authors were based at the University of California, San Francisco School of Nursing, they had an eager audience in the nursing community who were looking for a research method to formalize what they did as nurses. From the point of view of a writer of articles and an editor, (19 years as Editor in Chief of the interdisciplinary journal, Health Care for Women International), I have a seasoned eye for what editors and reviewers are looking for: good science, of course, fluid writing, no doubt about it, a fresh look at a familiar problem, you bet, but there’s something else they want—the hook. They want articles that make their journals the go-to for the new black. What follows pertains to articles in refereed journals. Selecting the Right Journal Most scientific journals have an on-line version which you can access through a university library. Get familiar with a variety of journals, and see where your work might fit. If the editors have just published a special issue on Asian dating patterns, likely they’re full up with that subject. Some editors like to work with new authors to get them up to speed. As an editor I was fond of helping the next generation launch their careers. Other editors have other goals, but being an editor allows one to form intimate relationships with authors. The Title The title needs to be worded in a way that other researchers doing a computer search will relate to, but that’s no reason it can’t be catchy too. As an example, “Discovery of nursing gestalt in critical care nursing: The importance of the gray gorilla syndrome”, (Pyles and Stern, 1983) got a fair amount of attention, as did “The troubleshooter’s guide to media” (Harris, Stern & Paris, 1986). “Method slurring: the grounded theory/ phenomenology example” crossed discipline lines, (Baker, Wuest and Stern, 1992) as did the book chapter, “Eroding Grounded Theory” (Stern, 1994). In 1972, at the suggestion of the professor, June Abby, I submitted a physiology term paper to The American Journal of Nursing, and it was accepted. I consider the title I chose, “APA: Insidious foe of an aging Swede.” to be clever, but unclear (Stern, 1972). It...Qualitative Tussles in Undertaking a Grounded Theory Study
Judith A. Holton, Ph.D. 1 Much of this paper is extracted from Holton, J. A. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. (pp. 265-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Abstract Those who’ve been trained to regard grounded theory as a qualitative research method frequently struggle to ‘unlearn’ qualitative data analysis dicta when undertaking a classic grounded theory study. A plethora of research methods texts that support this notion of grounded theory as a qualitative method are primarily responsible for the ensuing confusion. Further supporting this popular misconception are many papers published in leading academic journals and all too often the pressuring advice of thesis supervisors. This paper addresses specifically two issues that can create frustrating tussles for novice grounded theorists, especially in challenging such ‘authoritative’ perspectives: avoiding preconception and transcending descriptive detail. In addressing these persistent tussles, the reader is reminded of the fundamental distinction of grounded theory as a methodology for the emergent discovery of conceptually abstract theory from empirical data. Preconception To remain truly open to the emergence of theory is among the most challenging issues confronting those new to grounded theory. As a generative and emergent methodology, grounded theory requires the researcher to enter the research field with no preconceived problem statement, interview protocols, or extensive review of literature. Instead, the researcher remains open to exploring a substantive area and allowing the concerns of those actively engaged therein to guide the emergence of a core issue. The conceptualization of this main concern and the multivariate responses to its continual resolution emerge as a latent pattern of social behaviour that forms the basis for the articulation of a grounded theory. Remaining open to discovering what is really going on in the field of inquiry is often blocked, however, by what Glaser (1998) refers to as the forcing of preconceived notions resident within the researcher’s worldview, an initial professional problem or an extant theory and framework; all of which pre-empt the researcher’s ability to suspend preconception and allow for what will emerge conceptually by constant comparative analysis. One of the dominant preconceptions regarding grounded theory is the frequent attribution of its ‘roots’ to symbolic interactionism (Clarke, 2005; Goulding, 2002; Locke, 2001). Glaser (2005) has written at length on the impact of this ‘takeover’ (p. 141). While not discounting the influence of symbolic interactionism in the contribution of Anselm Strauss as co-originator of the methodology, to attribute grounded theory’s origins thereto ignores the fundamental influence of Barney Glaser’s training in quantitative methodology at Columbia University. As Martin (2006) suggests, ‘It is really the analytic techniques out of Columbia, through Glaser, that gave qualitative researchers tools for systematic analysis’ (p. 122). Pre-framing grounded theory through the theoretical lens of symbolic interactionism precludes other perspectives, pre-determines what data are used and how these should be collected, and limits the analyst’s creativity in the analysis and conceptual abstraction of the data under study. This is not to suggest that classic grounded theory is free of any theoretical lens but rather that it should not be confined to any one lens; that as a general methodology, classic grounded theory can adopt any epistemological perspective appropriate to the data and the ontological stance of the researcher (Holton, 2008). Concerns that arise through the researcher’s professional training and experience often stimulate the initial research interest and can provide the motivation for pursuing a study. However, when the practitioner turns researcher, she carries into...Theoretical Coding in Grounded Theory Methodology
Cheri Ann Hernandez, RN, Ph.D., CDE Abstract When doing classic grounded theory research, one of the most problematic areas, particularly for novice researchers, is the theoretical coding process. The identification of theoretical codes is essential to development of an integrated and explanatory substantive theory when a researcher is using classic grounded theory research methodology, but it is not a part of Straussian qualitative data analysis as described by Strauss and Corbin. A theoretical code is the relational model through which all substantive codes/categories are related to the core category. Like substantive codes, theoretical codes emerge through the data analysis process, rather than being overlaid on the data through the use of conjecture or ‘pet’ codes. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the theoretical coding process and to review the theoretical coding families and individual theoretical codes that have been identified previously by Glaser. Introduction Grounded theory (GT) is a research methodology for discovering theory in a substantive area. In many of his publications, Glaser (1978, 1992, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005) has carefully delineated the various aspects of GT research methodology, and has consistently elucidated areas that have been difficult for published GT researchers, often illustrating the erroneous assumptions or methodological errors found in such research (Hernandez, 2008). One of the most problematic areas, particularly for novice researchers, is the theoretical coding process which includes finding the theoretical code that will integrate the emerging substantive theory. Perhaps one of the reasons for this confusion is that many researchers have not understood that classic (also known as Glaserian) GT and Straussian GT are two very different methods (Hernandez, p. 44) and, as a result, many research articles list references from both Glaser and Strauss as the methodological underpinning of their studies. However, theoretical coding as described by Glaser (1978) is not a part of Strauss’ approach to grounded theory data analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The purpose of classic GT research is to uncover the main problem in a substantive area, as well as the resolution to this problem. The resolution is known as the core category. The final theoretical code is the one that emerges, through the coding process, and serves to integrate all of the substantive categories with the core category. The approach to data in classic GT methodology consists of two main processes. First, during the open coding process, the data are broken down into substantive codes (either in vivo codes or sociological constructs) as interview, field notes and/or other written data are coded in a line by line manner and incidents are compared with one another, for similarities and differences (Glaser, 1978) until the core category is found. Then, as selective coding results in the saturation of all of the categories through theoretical sampling, these substantive codes are built up into a substantive theory as they are integrated into a cohesive structure by the emergent theoretical code. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the theoretical coding process and review the theoretical coding families and individual theoretical codes that have been identified previously by Glaser (1978, 1998, 2005) as being relevant for grounded theory research. Understanding Theoretical Codes in Classic GT In any GT study, several theoretical codes may emerge but eventually, through ongoing coding and memoing, one theoretical code is chosen as the theoretical code for the study. A GT study’s theoretical code is the relational model through which all substantive codes/categories are related to the core...