The Strength of a Solution Seeking Approach | Editorial

Astrid Gynnild, University of Bergen Why do PhD candidates choose grounded theory as their methodological approach? Many novice grounded theorists obviously grapple with this question while working on their dissertations. The Grounded Theory Review constantly receives papers from novice GT researchers that discuss and share experiences when following the tenets of the methodology. In this issue, we are happy to present the first chapter of an upcoming reader by Barney G. Glaser on choosing GT for their dissertation work. As dr. Glaser points out, we know much about the many variables that influence a GT trajectory, but less about the initial drive to choose the GT method. Even though choosing a grounded theory approach may seem like an immediate firm decision, dr. Glaser emphasizes that its firmness varies with the learning curve of the researcher. Usually, the firmness increases with productive, conceptual GT training. This observation is surely supported by two short format papers in this issue. A great advantage of the grounded theory approach is the fact that grounded theories are solution-oriented rather than problem-focused. I believe this solution-seeking speaks convincingly to a main concern of contemporary society, in which new forms of digital communication constantly change the ways that individuals and large groups of people relate to each other. Even if most of us are increasingly computerized in thinking and doing, our apparently rational clear cut goals are still coupled with values, affections, and traditions, as once pointed out by the influential sociologist Max Weber. Grounded theories are outstandingly good at conceptualizing main concerns of the few on behalf of the many, therein lies their explanatory strength and firm support of productive change. Following Dr. Glaser’s chapter of choosing grounded theory, we are happy to present two full format grounded theories: Annabel-Mauve Adjognon’s theory of political intelligentizing explains widespread strategies of political games in business administration. Her study, originating from France, provides new insights in ways that top-level corporate managers aim at becoming more politically successful. Politicial intelligentizing implies acquiring, developing, and combining six specific skills: time matching, rhetorical fitting, silence juggling, strategic forward thinking, strategic interacting, and relationing. Political intelligentizing is a good example of a substantive theory with great general explanatory power. The next theory, safeguarding self-governance, explains older patients’ patterns of behavior in relation to their relatives in a very special situation. Danish researchers Connie B. Berthelsen, Kirsten Frederiksen, and Tove Lindhardt propose that older patients turn to safeguarding self-governance when faced with the challenge of recovering from total joint replacement in fast-track programs. Older patients’ need for maintaining autonomy is resolved through strategies of embracing, shielding, distancing, and masking. This theory of heterogenous patterns of behavior to maintain autonomy emphasizes the need for health care professionals to apply an individualized approach to the involvement of relatives of older patients. A novice grounded theorist, Amy Russell from Texas, USA, presents a methodological article where she discusses the development of self-trust and self-pacing during the GT research process. In her short format comment on gerunds, Amy explains how questioning and testing her own conceptualizations ensured that she would follow the tenets of grounded theory data analysis. Amy explains how transposing stages of self-pacing onto researcher gerunds made her identify phases of questioning and doubting, waiting and trusting, and ruminating and obsessing. She also suggests that saturation is similar to reflexing and owning. Another novice grounded theorist, Leslie Piko from Australia, contributes with two short format papers in this issue. Just like Amy Russell, Leslie is...

Choosing Grounded Theory

Barney G. Glaser, PhD, Hon. PhD This book deals simply with choosing classic grounded theory (CGT) as the methodology to use mainly for doing the dissertation. CGT stands alone as a separate method, not as a competitive method in conflict and controversy with all the QDA (qualitative data analysis) methods jargonized as a type of GT. The PhD candidate (herein called novice) simply chooses the method that he/she wants as best fit for him. This reader provides a myriad of CGT properties to consider in choosing it as the method to use. There will be no competitive arguments with other methods offered here. It is designed to have CGT chosen on its merits for the user, not better or worse. Other GT methods are just different, not better or worse. So to competitively compare them violates the Glaser purpose here to no advantage. Privately many novices may choose CGT over other methods for personal reasons, such as preferring emergence, autonomy, coding and no preconceptions, etc. but the choice is private, not better or worse. Also CGT is not to be mixed with other methods. The choice of CGT is solo pure. This reader focuses on choosing, not doing, CGT. There are many articles, readers and books on “how to” do CGT, but only a few articles on why choose CGT before doing. Only a few articles exist that help the novice formulate his decision to use the CGT version for his dissertation. The novice will have to formulate his decision on which version of QDA or GT to use, usually to a degree that will convince a committee of his choice. This reader will help this decision formulation in many ways I will discuss below. The large volume of GT readers and articles publishing generated grounded theories support the choosing of CGT for the dissertation. In comparing methodologies this reader is not designed by conflict to discredit or malign other methodologies, it is designed to show how CGT stands on its own as a very legitimate methodology to use. Thus CGT is a no better or worse than other methodologies. CGT is just worthy of use as designed and not to be changed by misunderstandings of its procedures or by imposing other method procedures on it. Nor do the CGT procedures have to be argued for, especially by a novice. It should be simply chosen for how it is applied and its resultant worthy product as shown throughout the work in journals and books. Thus novices can “just do it”; that is do CGT without being questioned on its procedures or the worthiness of its generated theory. This reader answers for the novice the typical committee question — “Why choose CGT?” — by reference to the appropriate chapter(s) herein and shows the chapter to the committee and or his supervisor. This reader prints several articles available on choosing CGT. There are many GT/QDA versions of qualitative methods, and the novice will have to form a personal decision on which to use and then will have to usually convince a committee of his choice. If his choice is CGT over the other versions, it is usually necessary to argue this choice to his committee. Which committee is usually as yet QDA oriented among senior faculty. And the committee has the social structural strength to put strong pressure on the novice to use a QDA approach and to not use CGT. This problem is increasing given the worldwide spread of CGT...

A Grounded Theory of Political Intelligentizing in Business Administration...

Annabel-Mauve Adjognon, NEOMA Business School Abstract This study focuses on the substantive area of business administration using the classic grounded theory method. Business administration is mostly driven by political games between top-level corporate managers. The main concern of the managers I met was that they wanted to be more politically successful. For them, success meant being able to change regularly the course of decisions and action within their firm. The study led to the emergence of a core variable called political intelligentizing. Political intelligentizing explains the recurrent main concern that these managers have to resolve, and it explains the competences managers have to combine to succeed regularly in organisational politics. They resolve their main problem through political intelligentizing which consists in acquiring, developing and combining six specific skills: time matching, rhetorical fitting, silence juggling, strategic forward-thinking, strategic interacting and relationing. Keywords: organizational politics; political games; political behavior. Introduction I have taught leadership and management in Executive Education for 10 years. My “students” are mostly 40 year-old managers who hope to improve their business management skills. They come with many concerns linked to their own management problems. However, most of them have a recurrent concern, which was clearly expressed by a businesswoman in the Class of 2012: “I am no good at managing political situations. How can I get better?” Since I could not answer this concern directly, it became the starting point for a new research project. For the study, the main concern was framed as follows: “Is there such a thing as a consistently successful political behaviour pattern?” The political dimension of business administration has been highlighted for decades (Long, 1962). A firm can be considered as a political system (Morgan, 1998) in which actors strategically defend their own goals (Crozier & Friedberg, 1977). Beyond this statement, the question was to know whether some managers are regularly successful in political games and, if so, whether a specific behavioural pattern can be discovered among them. The goal of this research was to produce relevant, useful theory to help new managers to resolve their main concern. Data Collection and Analysis When beginning research using classic grounded theory, it is crucial to avoid preconceptions (Glaser, 2014). This research posture was facilitated by the fact that my knowledge of the literature on this subject was close to zero. Thus, I fortunately did not have any preconceived concepts in mind when starting the fieldwork. I collected a first set of data through three face-to-face interviews. These three interviews were carried out on the same day and I started analysing the data right away. The interviewees were managers randomly selected among my list of one thousand former Executive MBA students. At the beginning of my research, I asked one grand tour question: “Do you have the impression that some people manage better than others to navigate their way through political games?” The discussion with interviewees regarding this question led them to describe their own political behaviour, which they considered more or less successful, and the behaviour of the people they judged to be better than they were. I used several follow-up questions that came to me as the interview progressed, to ensure I understood what they were saying and to discuss in more detail points that seemed crucial or problematic to them. I began to write memos after the first interview. My comparison of the memos written after each interview, revealed a wide range of ideas, actions, and behaviours related to organizational politics. I...

Safeguarding Self-Governance: A Grounded Theory of Older Patients’ Pattern of Behavior in Relation to their Relatives in Fast-track Programs...

Connie B. Berthelsen, Copenhagen University Hospital Kirsten Frederiksen, University of Aarhus, Tove Lindhardt, Copenhagen University Hospital Abstract The aim of this study was to generate a grounded theory of older patients’ pattern of behavior in relation to their relatives’ involvement in fast-track programs during total joint replacement. Sixteen patients were recruited in orthopedic wards. Data collection included 11 interviews with patients and 15 non-participant observations of interactions between patients, relatives, and health professionals during scheduled meetings throughout the fast-track program. The constant comparative method was used for simultaneous data collection, data analysis, and coding. Safeguarding self-governance emerged in the analysis as the core category of our theory and pattern of behavior of the older patients in relation to their relatives. The older patients’ main concern was to complete the fast-track program while maintaining autonomy, which they resolved through four strategies of actions: embracing, shielding, distancing, and masking. Keywords: Fast-track program, grounded theory, older patients, relatives, total joint replacement. Introduction Relatives often support their older family members through fast-track programs by sharing concerns, making decisions, and supporting with both emotional and practical issues (Berthelsen, Lindhardt, & Frederiksen, 2014). Although the support of relatives might increase the patients’ abilities to recover, knowledge is needed about how older patients’ actually relate to the involvement of relatives and how their pattern of behavior is displayed through social interactions with relatives. Total hip or knee replacements are invasive surgical procedures performed in fast-track programs. Indications for replacements are often osteoarthritis accompanied by excessive pain and loss of mobility (Kehlet & Søballe, 2010). The orthopedic fast-track program begins with an initial pre-assessment visit at the outpatient facilities, and continues through admission to discharge 1-2 days after the surgery (Kehlet & Søballe, 2010). Fast-track surgery is defined as “the synergistic, beneficent effect on convalescence achieved by adding multimodal evidence-based care principles and combining these with optimized logistics” (Husted, Solgaard, Hansen, Søballe, & Kehlet, 2010, p. 1), which means that the core areas of treatment and care—such as information, surgical stress reduction, pain management, mobilization, and nutrition—have been applied with systematic and evidence-based optimization (Kehlet & Søballe, 2010). Since the mean age of patients undergoing knee or hip replacement is 70 years for women and 68 years for men, consistent from 1995-2012 (The Danish Hip Alloplasty Register, 2013), patients have a higher risk of functional limitation, and are naturally more in need of practical support from relatives. During admission, care is supported by the core areas and administrated following clinical guidelines and the patients are required to participate actively and to adhere to standardized daily regimes. However, older patients might not have the strength and knowledge about this requirement, in which case the support of relatives may be decisive for the patients. A measurable impact on quality, length of stay (Husted et al., 2010), and rehabilitation (Theiss, et al., 2011) was seen when relatives were involved before, during, and after total hip or knee replacement. A study consisting of 1722 observations in four American hospitals revealed a significant effect on the patients’ outcomes regarding social support of the relatives before, during, and after total hip or knee replacement (Theiss et al., 2011). The length of stay was measurably shorter for patients with high or very high levels of relative involvement and the percentage of patients achieving the transfer-out-of-bed-goal was significantly higher for patients with a high level of social support (Theiss et al., 2011). Norlyk and Harder (2011) explored the recovery of 16 patients after elective fast-track...

A Comment on Gerunds: Realizing the Researcher’s Process

Amy Russell, Texas State University Abstract This conceptual discussion briefly presents the unique process that classic grounded theory researchers may encounter when undertaking the analysis and interpretation elements of the research process. Grounded theory researchers may discover their own researcher gerunds, much like the naming of theoretical codes in grounded theory. The author formulates the researcher gerunds she experienced and presents these in the context of her dissertation study. Keywords: conceptual discussion, learning grounded theory, the new grounded theory researcher. Introduction Testing and questioning represent constant comparison in data analysis. The researcher may sometimes have self-doubt and may question his or her abstractions of the data. This self-doubt is better served through testing codes in constant comparison, and allowing said codes to emerge from the data. As I learned to trust myself as a new grounded theory researcher, testing as a learning action became requisite, since this led to revisiting data for constant comparison and checking for substantive coding, fit, and flexibility. Questioning and testing my conceptualizations ensured I would follow the outline for data analysis: (a) comparing incidents applicable to each category, (b) integrating categories with their properties, (c) delimiting the theory, and (d) writing the theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.105). Questioning and testing the fit and flexibility of codes, categories, and properties grounded my process of theory generation. Glaser (1978) believed that the researcher “should not be afraid of his own fear; for that itself may block the creative process” (p. 20). Embracing this fear and using it in the grounded theory process have been invaluable to me as a grounded theory researcher. Self-doubt in this learning process led to a more theoretical sensitivity and testing action, and as such relieved the fear that I would be unable to conceptualize the theoretical codes, which reflects the next section of the researcher gerunds of waiting and trusting. Waiting and Trusting Glaser (1978) stated generating grounded theory “takes time [and is a] delayed action phenomenon” (p. 18). Patience in the process is challenging, especially when excitement builds as codes emerge. The researcher must trust in emergence, whether discovering a category or naming a theoretical code. Trust requires waiting for emergence. There is nothing passive in waiting and trusting because the researcher is constantly thinking about the data. As memoing occurred and links made between codes and basic social processes, three epiphanies would then come that would finally turn the coding toward a more fitting direction. Glaser (1978) stated that this self-pacing recipe forces patience. Waiting and trusting also involve relinquishing control; the researcher has no control over the data or the direction the discovery takes. Reflexing and Owning Reflexing and owning required insight and accountability in my previous practice experiences and studies. For social workers, previous practice experience presents a unique issue when doing grounded theory. Reflexivity, a feminist concept, means that a person must reflect on contexts of past experiences (Hurd, 1998). As a community mental health worker in the field nearly ten years, I pride myself on the ability to assess severe and persistent mental illness, which I found myself doing in one interview. I recovered quickly when I recognized this behavior and returned to the method. It is no accident that classic grounded theory is very forgiving because details are inconsequential. The researcher simply abstracts data to find deeper meaning. This event was a very powerful and liberating realization. The simple awareness of what was occurring helped me redirect my energies back into conceptualizing theory....

Discovering Glaser: My Experience of Doing Grounded Theory

Lesley Margaret Piko, Australian National University Abstract For my investigation into how general practitioners (GPs) experience their medical careers, I used a grounded theory methodology based on the early work of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser’s subsequent work (Glaser, 1978, 1998). Glaser (1998) suggested you need to do grounded theory in order to understand the methodology. I found as I engaged in the process I began to understand the meaning of Glaser’s teachings and to discover Glaser. In this article, I share my experience of discovering my theory of optimising professional life. This theory explains how GPs develop their professional life in response to their need for sustainment—a need that encapsulates self-care to sustain wellbeing, work interest to sustain motivation and income to sustain lifestyle. Keywords: Career development, sustainment, optimising professional life, general practitioners, grounded theory. Introduction Glaser (1998) suggested you need to conduct grounded theory (GT) in order to understand the methodology. I found that as I engaged in the process, I began to understand the meaning of Glaser’s teachings and to discover Glaser. In this article I share my experience of how I discovered a new career development theory, the theory of optimising professional life. This theory explains how general practitioners (GPs) develop their professional life in response to their need for sustainment—need that encapsulates self-care to sustain well-being, work interest to sustain motivation and income to sustain lifestyle. I used GT based on the early work of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser’s subsequent works (Glaser, 1978, 1998). Sampling My early sampling was based on a perspective of GP careers, beginning with young GPs, to hear about the formative years of medical life. I then interviewed experienced and mid-career doctors working in different professional roles and locations. Their need to self-care, be interested in their work, and earn income emerged as catalysts for career events. Guided by Glaser’s writings, I used a sample of GPs for career events that added to the properties and dimensions of these concepts. The sampling continued until similar incidents were repeated and no new concepts were emerging from which I concluded a category was saturated and sampling for that concept could stop. Data Collection Sampling and data collection for this study occurred through interviews with thirty GPs and seven managers of general practice businesses. For each doctor I interviewed, I also explored public information from websites, publications, government registration, biographies, Google searches, and conference proceedings. Any information that supported or contradicted a participant‘s account was noted, for further analysis. Data were collected over several months. Six study participants had second interviews and one GP also has a third interview. Throughout this data collection process, I was concerned with keeping the interview conversation open and guided by the participant (as required by Glaser’s teachings), and wanting to capture depth and consistency in the data. I managed to ease the concern through developing of an interview guide that served as a prompt. I wanted to collect sufficient data to compare what GPs said and to explore new lines of enquiry. This guide was a useful tool that ensured I followed Glaser’s research method appropriately. I would begin each interview with an open question so that issues were allowed to emerge more freely. Subsequent data collection was informed by these issues. Typically, the first question was as follows: Could you tell me about your work history since graduating in medicine? Other open questions I used were as follows: Tell me about your life...