Volume 13
Marshaling Resources: A Classic Grounded Theory Study of Online Learners...
Barbara Yalof, American College of Education and Harcum College Abstract Classic grounded theory (CGT) was used to identify a main concern of online students in higher education. One of the main impediments to studying online is a sense of isolation and lack of access to support systems as students navigate through complex requirements of their online programs. Hypothetical probability statements illustrate the imbalance between heightened needs of virtual learners and perceived inadequate support provided by educational institutions. The core variable, marshaling resources, explains how peer supports sustain motivation toward successful program completion. Understanding the critical contribution virtual interpersonal networks make towards maximizing resources by group problem solving is a significant aspect of this theory. Keywords: Online learning, e-learning, personal learning networks, peer networks Background Online programs present a particularly appealing alternative to face-to-face programs in higher education as economic realities force more students to retain employment to pay for spiraling costs of education. The economic potential of the growing online market has not been lost on institutions of higher learning. Traditional programs have struggled to sustain a viable student base, but they can increase their numbers through the addition of national and international online students (Appana, 2008). In 2012, enrollment in online courses grew 9%, with the proportion of students enrolled in online courses at 32%, an all-time high (Allen & Seaman, 2013). In light of the continual growth of online courses it is particularly alarming that attrition in online programs can exceed that of traditional programs by 10-20% (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Not only do students who leave an online program forfeit learning opportunities, but the institution also suffers lower enrollment, thereby imposing financial strain and reducing the vibrancy of the student body. Sustainability of programs in higher education relies heavily on recruitment of student populations who complete their programs and conclude that their academic experience has been a worthwhile investment (Gittings, 2010). Empirical studies have not explained sufficiently how institutions can reduce online attrition (Kember & Leung, 2009; Tinto, 2012). Kember (1989) recognized the need to generate theories that explain attrition from online programs. He maintained that it is difficult to draw conclusions because the number of constructs in this substantive area is “unwieldy if not unmanageable” (p. 279). The use of CGT provides the writer a greater understanding of the “motivational drivers” (Glaser, 1998, p. 32) of a particular group of participants. Discovering the main concern of online students through the systematic application of GT methodology draws into focus the dominant psychological coping mechanisms of online students. The Theory of Marshaling Resources The main concern for online learners distilled from this study is a feeling of disconnect or isolation, which may manifest itself as panic or anger, when confronted with a barrier to success. Because studying online is accomplished in a solitary virtual environment, students interact with the computer and must be able to navigate the learning management system and engage with the material in the absence of peer support. As learners progress through their programs, they find inconsistencies between their own expectations and needs and their online educational environment (Kiliç-Çakmak, Karatas, & Ocak, 2009). Glaser (1978) discusses how people position themselves (in this case, for success) by purposefully managing others. Students learn how to maximize resources and reduce frustration by building peer connections. As groups progress from mutual dependency to reciprocity, trust builds, and relationships deepen. Harnessing the power of this safe haven they have created online, students vent and reinvigorate. Marshaling resources illuminates how...Trenchant Remedying: Directional Disturbing of Organizational Change Effort...
Jan Green and Ben Binsardi, Glyndŵr University Abstract Organisational change theory has a historic bias towards personal resistance and individuals adopting a passive or negative perspective to change initiatives. Perpetuating this view change literature presents management approaches to assist in overcoming resistance, which have shown negligible evolution beyond the view that individual involvement and participation, together with effective communication, provide assistance. This paper challenges this assumption by providing inspiration via a contrary conceptual approach to organisational change; proposing an antithesis to traditional change management solutions and contributes to the role of communication within the process of change management. Grounded theory is the methodology used, which enables the data to provide the concepts and connections required in the construction of the theory. This requires a no preconceptions dictum to enable the generation of theory, not verification of a previous theory or hypothesis. Trenchant remedying is the grounded theory generated from data and conceptualises the concern resolving behaviours undertaken during the change receptivity process. During analysis it became evident that vigour and effort were expended and a solution sought as a remedy, hence the naming of the core category. Keywords: change receptivity, change initiation, alertness, disruption, effort Introduction In order to illustrate the on-going request for inspiration regarding change, it should not be unexpected when a practitioner comments about the complexity of issues that arise during the process. Actions taken in attempting to reach solutions that can subsequently be implemented are sought. It is timely that change, as an organisational issue, is still subject to extensive debate and question. The decision to undertake organisational change is usually arrived at in order to make a difference in an area of the business, typically because established measures demonstrate a variance on past performance against predictions. The most frequent change catalysts focus on performance measures such as profit margins, sales values, return on investment, increased overheads, wastage, complaints and quality, amongst others. Seeking inspiration to tackle the hidden assumptions of change is refreshing; this paper strives to conceptualise the concern resolving behaviours that are practised and communicated when a change situation is required. This is done in the absence of reference to previously developed change theories to comply with the grounded theory methodology, an inductive approach with no predicted outcome in the form of a hypothesis. Previous work is drawn on to strengthen the empirical findings through the provision of a conceptual framework, however it and is delimited to include only literature with conceptual relatedness to the emerging concepts of the generated theory. Structure This paper is structured into sections, beginning with a brief commentary related to the methodological approach followed by the grounded theory of trenchant remedying. The next section draws conclusions and refers to conceptions drawn from the literature and then presenting directions for future research. The unit of analysis is the individual to identify behaviours of relevance to the area of concern. The source of influence is a response to a “call for greater academic and management attention to volition as the vital source of individual action and, therefore, of corporate performance” (Bruch & Ghoshal 2004, p. 82). Change initiatives frequently originate as a result of performance changes so it is a logical step to establish whether volition supports the management of change receptivity in efforts to redress the identified change. The objectives of the study are to identify effective change concern resolving behaviours practised by individuals in private-sector businesses. These are achieved by presenting a grounded theory of successful change...Applying Grounded Theory
Barney G. Glaser, PhD, Hon. PhD Application of grounded theory (GT) is a relatively neglected topic by my colleagues. I have written several chapters in my books on applying GT. Two colleagues, Odis Simmons and Barbara Artinian (2009), as well as Dirks and Mills (2011), and Walsh (2014), have also written about applying GT. In the first two chapters of this book I discuss at length properties of generally applying GT and then professional issues and personal matters when applying of GT. There follows in this book nine chapters, four by me and one by Simmons and one by Artinian and one by Dirks and Mills, that are already published in books on GT, and one by Walsh. Thus, this book ends like a reader which publishes in one place already written work. The reader of this book may experience some redundancy in these chapters, but that is the nature of reader texts as different authors discuss the same ideas and topics. General Properties of Applying GT this book I am writing about only the application of classic GT as I originated it in 1967 in which the concepts of a GT theory are abstract of time, place, and people. Thus, I am NOT referring to any of the multi versions of so-called GT. The multi versions are just different and, to some degree, just jargonized with GT vocabulary. The application of GT has been almost totally neglected in the literature on GT. Yet, it is a vital topic for our profession and ourselves. Thus, I will be writing about the application of abstract concepts whether embedded in a theory or just singular. I will be writing about applications to profession, literature, in service to clients, and for personal use. Anselm and I saw clearly when writing “Awareness of Dying” in 1965 the general implications of our awareness context theory for application as it gave many control and access concepts. As a consequence, I wrote the chapter on the practical uses of awareness theory (see chapter 3 herewith). In this chapter I detailed at length, in a very formal manner, the requirements for applying awareness theory. I asserted that to be applied a GT must fit the area to be applied, must be relevant to the people applied to, must be understandable to the people in the area applied, must be sufficiently general, and must give the applier some control. This formatting was especially to compete with clinical practice conjecture. Today, 50 years later, these requirements are true enough for applying a whole GT, but they are only a small part of applying GT during these preceding 50 years. Most application in recent years is applying an abstract GT concept, which has grab and general implications, and thereby helps explain what behavior is going on. This can improve clinical practice or other behavioral patterns with intervention when one is allowed to enter and improve the environment. Applying a whole theory in a formal way is possible but is not necessary. In recent years among the few who apply GT, we just purposely intervene for improvement in behavior with conceptual explanatory power from one imageric concept–usually, which is usually a core category, not a whole theory. Today we also apply GT, non-purposely, almost automatically as an informal conceptual explanation as it may occur in casual conversation or a happening. It is the way people knowing grounded theory think. Grounded theory concepts have abstract power and grab for people. Informally applying...Using Grounded Theory to Avoid Research Misconduct in Management Science...
Isabelle Walsh, Neoma Business School Abstract In this article, I show that several of the most common forms of research misconduct in quantitative research in management science could be avoided if researchers made open, comprehensive use of the well-established Grounded Theory paradigm when using quantitative data. Investigating various mainstream management research outlets, I found that this is scarcely ever the case. I propose some viable alternatives for the design of quantitative and mixed studies in management science. If these alternatives are used, researchers could follow the main basic assumptions that lie at the roots of Grounded Theory, and make sure these assumptions are clearly stated in order to avoid being pushed toward episodes of misconduct that have become common in the field of management science. Keywords: research misconduct; quantitative and mixed studies; GT paradigm Introduction In 2010, Bedeian, Taylor, and Miller investigated questionable research conduct through a survey of 448 faculty respondents. They grouped possible forms of research misconduct into three broad categories, the first being considered the most serious. These were: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism; questionable research practices; and other misconduct. Within the first category, I am specifically concerned in the present article with those studies that withhold methodological details/results, and those that select only those data that support a hypothesis while withholding the rest. Bedeian et al. (2010) described this practice as “cooking data” (p. 718). Within the second category, of research misconduct, I focus on those studies that develop hypotheses after results are known; this practice is known as “HARKing” (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known: Kerr, 1998; Garst, Kerr, Harris, & Sheppard, 2002). This article argues that one way to help solve important research misconduct issues in quantitative management research might be to revisit grounded theory (GT: Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This could be as a research paradigm applied in mixed-method studies; thus may avoid making claims and conjectures after quantitative data yield surprising results. This article is organized as follows: I first summarize some common forms of research misconduct in this field, which leads to an established type of design for quantitative research published in mainstream journals. I then propose some alternative designs for quantitative studies in management science. I investigate the literature for published studies that included quantitative and qualitative data and methods in a GT approach, and show that mixed-method GT research is scarcely present in top-tier research outlets in management science. I conclude by encouraging management researchers to apply what is already “ancient history” in other fields of research. Cooking Data and HARKing: Two Important Issues in Quantitative Studies in Management Science 80 percent of Bedeian et al.’s (2010) respondents reported witnessing “cooking data” (p. 718) and 90 percent “HARKing” (Garst et al., 2002; Kerr, 1998). The article reported that hypothesizing after the results are known was often expected, with junior researchers being instructed to “comb through correlation matrices and circle the significant ones” and to examine “all possible interactions or moderators” (p. 719). This is not reprehensible in itself, if it were openly reported as such. However, it is scarcely the case, as most quantitative research takes a hypothetical deductive stance. Presentations of most so-called quantitative positivist studies published in the mainstream management literature start with a literature review that leads to hypotheses, which are subsequently tested. Unexpected results are explained by “conjectures” (Glaser, 2008). This linear design is quite acceptable if it relates an empirical research study accurately and truthfully, to the way it actually happened. However, Bedeian et...Book Review: Memoing – a GT Essential
Naomi Elliott, Trinity College Dublin Memoing: A Vital Grounded Theory Procedure, Barney G. Glaser (2014) Mill Valley: Sociology Press This book, on memoing, is intended to support grounded theory researchers and scholars who want to deepen their understanding of what the procedure of memoing is about. For doctoral candidates, who are learning the craft of doing GT, it provides an academic reassurance that memoing is free-style and there is no one “correct” way of memoing. For researchers who are supervising or teaching others the craft of doing GT, it is a practical resource and provides a springboard for scholarly discussions about memoing and how it can be used in the development of grounded theory. Having reviewed the use of grounded theory over the years, Barney G. Glaser identifies the problem that memoing is being neglected as a GT procedure, hence the reason for dedicating this book to memoing. He also identifies a problem of uncertainty – which many GT researchers experience about whether they are memoing “correctly”. As an experienced teacher, Dr Glaser dispels these uncertainties with the notion of free-style memoing and gives permission for researchers to tap into their own creativity and problem-solving ability by developing their own style of memoing. In this he motivates researchers to DO memoing and to avoid getting hung up on following a pre-set or someone else’s style of memoing. The book title Memoing in itself is important as it is a gerund, an action verb, which conveys the importance of doing. Glaser’s invaluable teaching point that should not be missed here: it is that the process of doing memoing that is essential to the work of the GT researcher. Through the doing of memoing, the researcher captures ideas which seed the meaning analysis, and as Glaser explains, these become a “constant source of stimulation for meaning growth of emergent analysis” (p. 49). As the researcher works through the GT methodological procedures of constant comparison, theoretical sampling, and theoretical coding, the memos capture the ideas that emerge from this work. Memos, therefore are tracking the analysis and also sensitising the researcher to ideas that can eventually mature as the grounded theory research progresses. A key to understanding how memoing works is found on page 39: “To repeat, memos are the latent thought that collects concepts and puts substantive theory together as a vital ongoing procedure”. Memoing is a welcome addition to the current list of GT publications. Since 1998, Glaser’s book Doing Grounded Theory has been one of the go to books for many researchers looking for practical advice on memoing. Although Chapter 12 of Doing Grounded Theory (Glaser, 1998) explains memoing concisely within the ten pages, Glaser’s 160 page book Memoing (2014) provides an expanded explanation of the original work including a scholarly discussion of the contemporary literature on memoing. This is particularly useful to GT researchers and scholars who need to discuss their research either at viva voce examination or at conference presentations. In Memoing, Glaser’s thoughts on the procedure are gathered together into one book. The advice is practical and grounded in actual queries that GT researchers have asked Glaser at his workshops and seminars over the years. He covers the challenging aspects of memoing such as sorting memos and provides 11 analytic rules to help guide researchers. There is always a risk that GT researchers can get lost in following such analytic rules, which is why Glaser’s advice is to remember that: …the world is empirically integrated, not...