Selection of Grounded Theory as an Appropriate Research Methodology for a Dissertation: One Student’s Perspective...

James W. Jones, Ed.D. Abstract Doctoral students wanting to use grounded theory as a methodological approach for their dissertation often face multiple challenges gaining acceptance of their approach by their committee. This paper presents the case that the author used to overcome these challenges through the process of eliminating other methodologies, leaving grounded theory as the preferred method for the desired research issue. Through examining the approach used successfully by the author, other doctoral students will be able to frame similar arguments justifying the use of grounded theory in their dissertations and seeing the use of the method continue to spread into new fields and applications. This paper examines the case built for selecting grounded theory as a defensible dissertation approach. The basic research issue that I wanted to investigate was how practitioners in an applied field sought information in their work; in other words, how they researched. I further narrowed the investigation down to a more specific field, but the paper presented here is left in broader form so that other students can see the approach in more general terms. Introduction “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” … Sherlock Holmes to Watson in The Sign of the Four (Doyle, 1950, p. 163) Like many other doctoral students aspiring to use grounded theory for their dissertations, I had a graduate committee comprised of members who had never supervised a dissertation that used grounded theory and whose members had never done grounded theory themselves. As there were no other faculty members on campus who were experts in the approach, and because a dissertation exclusively using grounded theory had never been done on that campus, I had to fill the role of both educator and sales representative for the approach. For me, the key to being successful in this approach was to show how grounded theory was not just one possible approach for the desired purpose of the study, but in fact the only appropriate methodology. I moved from broad research issues down to more focused examples, eliminating all the “impossible” (as Holmes put it), eventually leaving grounded theory as the only acceptable choice for the study. I deliberately selected texts and references that had been used in previous courses with the committee members as it was felt that they would make relevant exemplars. The intent was to use resources that the committee members were familiar with and already trusted in order to make the case, so that the argument could be kept focused on the methodology rather than the references. Other references that were similar in research intent were also used to illustrate the acceptability in the academic community of the approach, albeit in other disciplines. This resulted in a more limited but focused literature review than might be used in other instances, but one that was intended to be more persuasive. Research Approach and Intent Research has been defined as “the formal, systematic application of the scientific and disciplined inquiry approach to the study of problems” (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p.3). Just as there are many different types of problems, there are consequently many different types of research methodologies used to investigate them. Glatthorn and Joyner (2005) see the research problem and how to investigate it as intimately intertwined, “The identification of the problem and the choice of methodology may be seen as an interactive process, with each influencing the other” (p. 46)....

Striking a Balance between Program Requirements and GT Principles: Writing a compromised GT proposal...

Sherry L. Xie, Ph.D. Candidate Abstract Glaser’s term “compromised GT proposal” (2001, p.114) refers to the type of Grounded Theory (GT) proposal that is written in order to conform to the requirements of a standardized qualitative research proposal. A GT proposal needs only to supply information on the area of interest, the data source and a statement of method to the effect that the researcher begin to collect, code and analyse the data and let the theory emerge. Thus, the proposal may only occupy “a page or two” (Glaser, 2001, p. 111). Whilst being consistent with the methodology, a GT proposal sometimes has to give way to the format specified by a PhD program or committee even though the format was not defined for a GT proposal and in some areas, conflicts with GT principles; for example, the format may require a literature review. This short paper reports on my experience of writing a compromised GT proposal as a first-time GT researcher. It describes how both Glaser’s advice on writing compromised GT research proposals and the characteristics of the substantive area of the proposed research were used to satisfy program requirements while still maintaining GT fundamentals. The Program Requirements for Research Proposal As a PhD student at the School of Library, Archives, and Information Studies (SLAIS), my area of research is archival and information studies, which traditionally does not have disciplinespecific or preferred research methodologies. Students may select any of the social science research methodologies as long as they justify the selection for their dissertation projects. My selection of GT is based on three grounds: first, it is evident that there are no theories existing in the substantive area which I am interested in; second, I have been conducting deductive (i.e., theory-testing) research for all my research projects and I consider my dissertation project a good opportunity to practice inductive research; third, based on my past research experiences, I trust that I am theoretically sensitive and capable of generating concepts and hypotheses. The requirements of writing a research proposal in my school are contained in the PhD Handbook of Policies and Procedures, which explains the purpose of defending the research proposal (Table 1), lists the required contents of the proposal (Table 2), and explains that: “A well-designed proposal should provide the basis for the first two or three chapters of the final dissertation. In most cases, the proposal should be at least 30 pages long” (SLAIS, 2005). Table 1: Purposes of the Defence – to ensure that the student has a clear understanding of the research he/she proposes to conduct, – to ensure that all Committee members have a clear conception of the research proposed, – to reach agreement on the methodology to be followed for the dissertation research, and – to ensure that all Committee members formally approve of the student’s topic and research plan. Table 2: The Contents of a Proposal – Title page, with student’s name, working title, and names of Committee members – Table of contents – Introduction, including an explanation of the Research Question – Literature review – Methodology – Information on issues relating to ethical review and their resolution, if applicable – Planning information – Timeline, itemized budget, if applicable, any other appropriate planning information – Reference list While not as constraining as some proposal formats, students are required to demonstrate to the committee the breadth and depth of their knowledge about the research subject (i.e., literature review, research questions), the suitability of...

Data Analysis: Getting conceptual

Helen Scott, Ph.D. Abstract This paper will track my battle to ‘get conceptual’ in the production of a Grounded Theory. It will discuss early attempts at creating substantive codes through the process of open coding which, despite my best efforts, merely produced descriptive codes. It will illustrate the process by which these descriptive codes became more conceptual, earning the title of substantive code and how their presentation in essay form produced a perfect example of ‘conceptual description’. It will then describe the slow dawning of the purpose of ‘theoretical codes’ as organisers of substantive codes and the emergence of a Grounded Theory. Open Coding: The mechanics The substantive population1 of my study is adult online distance learners whose main concern (in descriptive terms) is finding the time to study. The process which addresses this concern is the ‘temporal integration of connected study into a structured life’ (Scott, 2007 a, b). An overview of the theory and its structure is offered in the Appendix to this paper. Participants were located all over the world, therefore most of the data for the study was collected online using email or chat2. Typically, the first emailed response from each person was the most detailed response with perhaps one or two emails received in reply to follow up questions. I would print and read the email or chat transcript for an overview. If I felt that I could understand what the participant was telling me, I started coding, otherwise I waited until subsequent emails or chat sessions improved my understanding. When open coding I had a piece of paper in front of me which asked: • What category does this incident indicate? • What property of what category does this incident indicate? • What is the participant’s main concern? (Glaser, 1998, p. 140) I asked these questions of every incident that I perceived and I wrote the codes in the margin. In addition, I used coding cards and wrote the indicators3 in full on the appropriate coding card(s) and referenced the indicator both on the printed, coded document and on the coding card. As a reference number, I used the initial of the person plus the incident number e.g. J-10. Coding to cards was cumbersome and time consuming but it helped me to get a feel for the process and to feel in control of my data. Actually I had too much control of my data; since I could record each and every code, the number of codes soon spiralled out of control. Thus the rhythms built into the method could not operate allowing the undesirable state of ‘full coverage’ over parsimony. Had I only coded in the margins, the relevant might have emerged more quickly, by the process of forgetting that which did not pattern out. Not yet understanding this, I would write the name of the code at the top of the card and in the body of the card write the reference number and the indicator. This was reassuring; as the cards became fuller, I could compare incident to incident easily. I could see how codes grew and became saturated. I could compare codes with codes and indicators between codes. I could see codes metamorphose into other codes and see the dimensions of codes emerge either across cards or within a card. For example, the coding card ‘Compliance’ listed indicators of ‘high compliance’ and ‘minimal compliance’. Indicators of ‘reducing compliance’ emerged, then ‘non compliance’ and then there were degrees of ‘non...

Demystifying Theoretical Sampling in Grounded Theory Research

Jenna Breckenridge BSc(Hons),Ph.D.Candidate and Derek Jones, PhD, BA (Hons), Dip COT Abstract Theoretical sampling is a central tenet of classic grounded theory and is essential to the development and refinement of a theory that is ‘grounded’ in data. While many authors appear to share concurrent definitions of theoretical sampling, the ways in which the process is actually executed remain largely elusive and inconsistent. As such, employing and describing the theoretical sampling process can present a particular challenge to novice researchers embarking upon their first grounded theory study. This article has been written in response to the challenges faced by the first author whilst writing a grounded theory proposal. It is intended to clarify theoretical sampling for new grounded theory researchers, offering some insight into the practicalities of selecting and employing a theoretical sampling strategy. It demonstrates that the credibility of a theory cannot be dissociated from the process by which it has been generated and seeks to encourage and challenge researchers to approach theoretical sampling in a way that is apposite to the core principles of the classic grounded theory methodology. Introduction With the introduction of grounded theory, Glaser and Strauss (1967) challenged the prevailing hypothetico-deductive method of theory verification, questioning the gulf that existed between abstract theory and empirical research. They advocated that a theory developed in direct response to immediate problems under investigation would ultimately be more relevant to the studied area than any pre-existing theory. Thus proffered as a potential means of bridging the theory-practice divide, it is perhaps of little surprise that the grounded theory method has been embraced widely by the health professions. Grounded theory offers healthcare researchers a systematic and interpretive means of generating a theory from data that has the potential to explain, interpret and guide practice. However, a review of healthcare literature would suggest that while many authors profess to using grounded theory, they may only appear to have ‘borrowed’ a particular aspect of the method, most commonly the constant comparative approach to data analysis (Draucker et al 2007). Furthermore, ‘grounded theory’ studies have been criticised for possessing a somewhat “mystical” (Melia 1997 p.33) quality whereby: a sleight of hand produces a list of ‘themes’, and we are invited to take it on trust that theory somehow emerges from the data without being offered a step by step explanation of how theoretical insights have been built up (Barbour 2001 p.1116). Ultimately, this inconsistent application of grounded theory and the ambiguous way in which grounded theory studies are often presented within healthcare literature can pose several challenges to novice researchers. Without being able to refer to useful exemplars of grounded theory studies it is difficult to understand and prepare for the practicalities of carrying out one’s own grounded theory research. Similarly, when using grounded theory studies as evidence in practice or as part of a literature review it is difficult to ascertain the credibility of the research if the product cannot be linked explicitly with the process. This article has been written in response to the challenges faced by the first author whilst writing a classic grounded theory proposal, particularly in relation to theoretical sampling. As an active and ongoing process that controls and directs data collection and analysis, theoretical sampling is pivotal in ‘building up theoretical insights’. However, while many authors appear to share concurrent definitions of theoretical sampling, the ways in which the process is actually executed remain largely elusive and inconsistent. The purpose of this article is thus to...

Jargonizing: The use of the grounded theory vocabulary

This paper is Chapter 1 of Dr. Glaser’s forthcoming book, Jargoning: The use of the grounded theory vocabulary (Sociology Press, 2009) Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. When in doubt, jargonize. When you wish to belong, network, be collegial or be ‘a part of’, jargonize. When you want to sound knowledgeable, jargonize. When you wish to sound experienced, jargonize. Jargonizing is normal. All people, all human kind, jargonize in their lives to some degree or other. We use the vocabulary (jargon) of the area in which we act and talk. Jargon is a vocabulary of action by which to talk about what is going on. Most fields have their jargon. Few do not. Jargonizing cannot be stopped. It is needed. It can be very meaningful, properly so, for a field. In this book, however, I am writing about jargoning as just words with little or no real meaning, but sounding good and knowledgeable when talking about an area that one knows little or nothing about. In this way, jargonizing continually regenerates the GT (grounded theory) vocabulary wrongly as it is being applied to QDA (qualitative data analysis) concerns. Grounded theory is the buzzword in academic circles doing QDA research. Even though jargonizing cannot be stopped, it can be explained and seen for what it is and its consequences in eroding and remodeling GT as originated. I hope to mute the remodeling of GT to a significant degree. Paradoxically, jargonizing continually sells GT to the unknowing with the consequence they are buying into QDA as if it was classical GT. The resulting favorable attitude toward GT is therefore not really GT, but QDA. In this book, I shall deal with the jargonizing of qualitative data analysis (QDA) with the powerful grab of GT vocabulary in which jargonizing has lost the GT meanings behind the vocabulary. For most of the jargonizers, the true GT meanings of its vocabulary were probably never there to begin with. For an extreme jargonizing example, see The Sage Handbook (p.510)2: “Grounded theory has proven useful in orienting and sensitizing several generations of ethnographers.” Jargonizing seems to hide from the jargonizer as well as the listener, the fact that very often they simply do not know what they are talking about; especially when it is accompanied by a high degree of (unjustifiable) certainty. Furthermore, GT jargonizing is very much needed by QDA methodologists, as they have no vocabulary by which to talk about their methodology, I, Barney Glaser, have become known for a QDA methodology view that I did not discover or generate. How paradoxical. The vocabulary contribution of classical GT clearly goes far beyond the contributions of method and of its substantive products. Does jargonizing change GT as it remodels it? Absolutely No. It just remodels it for the people who jargonize QDA and do not know any better. The classical GT method may appear lost when talking about – jargonizing – QDA, but the classical GT method remains virtually the same and unchanged for its 40 years of existence. The remodeling of GT is actually a different, QDA method. Olavur Christiansen wants to stop the jargonizing but its grab will not let it happen, especially when it fills a vacuum (Christensen, 2007). Dropping original GT by QDA remodeling does not drop the classical method. Jargonizers do not realize this. Whoever might believe the jargonizing QDA as the “now” GT, does not know classical GT. Furthermore, jargonizing itself is accused as a jargon of “methodological rhetoric”...

Grounding the Translation: Intertwining analysis and translation in cross-language grounded theory research...

Svetlana Shklarov, MD, RSW, PhD Candidate Abstract Grounded theory research in cross-language, cross-cultural context is associated with the challenges of linguistic sensitivity of conceptualization. The author, a bilingual researcher, offers reflection on her experience of doing grounded theory research, assuming a dual role of a theorist and a translator. The reflection is based on self-observations. Grounding the translation is shown to be acheived through the strategy of intertwining the activities of translation and conceptual analysis, performed by one person. The two activities are inseparable in time and take place along with constant comparison across language boundaries. Intertwining requires that theoretical sensitivity of the researcher be enriched with the sensitivity to linguistic and cultural meanings. Intertwining, through revealing differences between linguistic meanings or language structures, facilitates the emergence of concepts and theoretical categories from the very act of translation. Combining the functions of translation and analysis and using the strategy of intertwining worked effectively for this researcher. Introduction Translation has been so much a part of qualitative research in multicultural settings that we rarely give heed to the depth of processes involved in cross-language data collection and analysis. Certain aspects are better understood than others. The most common, traditional concern is the accuracy and equivalency of information transferred from one language to another – the quality and ethics of translation (e.g., Houbert, 1998; Hunt & Bhopal, 2004). More recently researchers began to analyze the challenges of representation across languages, multiple interpretations, reflexivity, and the integral role of the translator (e.g., Friedrich, 1992; Mc Laughlin & Sall, 2001; Muula, 2005; Temple & Edwards, 2002). In this article I present a reflection on my experience of conducting grounded theory research, as a sole bilingual researcher with monolingual participants. Through analyzing my self-observations in this project, which I was conducting for my PhD, I examined the aspects of translation in cross-language grounded theory study. In this study I explored life stories narrated by Russian-speaking Holocaust survivors, recent émigrés from the Former Soviet Union. My research design involved a full combination of translation and analysis, in which I assumed the position of a bilingual investigator who performed both functions. In such setting, a theory emerges from the data written (or spoken) in the language of monolingual participants that is unknown to the audience (the source language). Research results are presented in the language of the audience (the target language). There are no specific prescribed procedures for translation in the context of grounded theory research. Therefore, I experimented in my study with some patterns of working in cross-language area, using my previous experiences in translation. I applied more systematically those patterns that worked for me, and observed how these patterns fit into the analysis. In my research, I have found that doing cross-language grounded theory involves strategies that differ from those involved in traditionally understood translation. My experimenting led me to the discovery of a strategy that emerged naturally in my work, namely, the intertwining of the activities of translation and conceptual analysis. Both translation and conceptual analysis were activities, or acts, which I performed as a bilingual person (in that, these were both my functions). Intertwining these activities was the strategy that I used to achieve better grounding of my translation in cross-language data, while discovering a grounded theory. In this article I analyze some properties of the strategy of intertwining, and reflect on the relevant features of language translation in this context. In my attempts to reflect on my experiences doing this research,...