Book Review: Great help for novice GT researchers

Tove Giske, VID Specialized University, Bergen, Norway Holton, J. A & Walsh, I. (2016). Classic grounded theory. Applications with qualitative & quantitative data. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. The authors’ main purpose of the book is to provide practical guidance for novice researchers using classic grounded theory (GT) while remaining as true as possible to Glaser’s and Strauss’ thoughts. In addition, they want to show that GT is much more than a qualitative research methodology; throughout the book, the authors provide examples of how qualitative and quantitative data can be used to develop substantive and formal grounded theory. Holton and Walsh claim that GT is philosophically neutral, and that it can be seen as a meta-theory of inductive research design. However, they argue that there is a common understanding underlying grounded theory research; the social world is organized and there are patterns we can discover when doing GT research. In my interpretation of this statement of the social world, this view carries a philosophical stand about the world in which we live. Nevertheless, the authors argue that different researchers using GT can bring different philosophical stands, epistemological understandings, and apply diverse methodologies as they carry out their GT research. As researchers, we need to come to terms with what philosophical position we hold in our research and thus which ontological and epistemological understanding we bring to our research process. Holton and Walsh take a critical realist stand and outline what that means to them. At the same time, they acknowledge that others can do GT from another philosophical stand and how that has added to the discussion of remodeling GT. In addition to arguing for openness of a philosophical stand in doing GT, the authors claim that different understandings of what researchers mean by using GT adds to the continued discussion of how one understands what GT is. Is GT a method, a technique, a methodology, a framework, a paradigm, a social process, a perspective, or rather a meta-theory of a research design? The authors argue that it is probably all of these things at the same time; when different researchers bring different perspectives into the discussion about classic GT, the reader understands that these arguments related to classic GT will continue long after this book! The book has 10 chapters, and each chapter starts with the learning outcomes and ends with an informative summary and questions with multiple choice answers to test knowledge. The questions are well written as they require the reader to have knowledge and understanding to answer them. Each chapter also has suggestions for further reading and endnotes. There are multiple figures and tables in the book, which explain and exemplify the theme of each chapter. The text has many references to Glaser’s and Strauss’ publications and to other writers who discuss classic grounded theory. One great thing about this book is that most of the references provide information about which pages to go to if we as readers want to study the different parts of the book in more detail. The book is divided into three parts. Chapters 1–4 give an overview of classic GT from the beginning with Glaser and Strauss in the 1960s to today. The presentation of Glaser’s and Strauss’ background is well known from other books. However, the authors’ presentation provides depth into the well-known saying in GT that “all is data;” they give background for why qualitative and quantitative data can be used in GT. In this book, a grounded...

About the Authors

Rosita Brolin, RN, is a PhD student at the Linneaus University in Växjö, Sweden. Her research is focused on housing and housing support for people with psychiatric disabilities. rosita.brolin@lnu.se David Brunt, RN, PhD, is a Professor at the Linneaus University, Sweden. His research is mainly focused on the housing situation for people with psychiatric disabilities and aspects of forensic psychiatric care. Current studies include the satisfaction of the residents in supported housing for people with psychiatric disabilities, quality of psychiatric care in various hospital-based and community-based settings and also the effects of the physical and psychosocial environment in forensic psychiatric care on the patients and staff. david.brunt@lnu.se Tove Giske, RN, Mphil, PhD is a professor and R&D leader at VID Spezialized University in Bergen, Norway. She is an internationally acknowledged GT researcher and  co-author of the book Glasarian Grounded Theory in Nursing Research: Trusting in Emergence (Springer). Her main research areas are patients waiting for a diagnosis and nurses and physicians working with patients in the diagnostic process. She also studies spirituality in health care from patients’, nurses’ and students’ perspectives and collaborates with researchers in Europe and in the US. She is the president of Nurses Christian Fellowship International, an organisation working with nurses worldwide. tove.giske@vid.no Kara Vander Linden, EdD, is the co-director of the Office of Research at Saybrook University.  In this position, she oversees all student research at Saybrook. She earned a doctorate with a specialization in classic grounded theory from Fielding Graduate University.  She has been teaching and overseeing classic grounded theory dissertations for over 10 years.  dr.k.vanderlinden@gmail.com Michal Lysek is an industrial Ph.D. student working in the field of Innovation Sciences at Halmstad University in Sweden. Prior to his research studies, he was employed as a software developer by a company named HMS Industrial Networks AB. Michal’s background is in computer systems engineering and in electrical engineering. Michal started learning classic grounded theory in 2014. First by attending a Ph.D. course held by Professor Romeo V. Turcan and Dr. Andy Lowe, and then by attending a troubleshooting seminar held by Dr. Barney Glaser and the Grounded Theory Institute. michal.lysek@hh.se Mikael Rask, RN, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the Linneaus University, Sweden. His research is mainly focused on the interaction between nurses and patients in different psychiatric contexts such as forensic psychiatric care, general adult psychiatric care and community-based psychiatric care. mikael.rask@lnu.se Susanne Syrén, RN, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at the Linneaus University, Sweden. Her research is mainly focused on long-term severe mental illness from an individual and a family perspective. She is currently working on a study that focuses on the family’s situation when a family member is cared for in forensic psychiatry and is involved in the preparation of a study with the aim of developing knowledge about the life situation for older people with severe mental illness. susanne.syren@lnu.se Anna Sandgren, RN, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at the Linneaus University, Sweden. She is also co-director of the Center for Collaborative Palliative Care at the Linneaus University. Her research involves different research areas and research methodologies, but with a special focus on palliative care and classic grounded theory. anna.sandgren@lnu.se Hans Thulesius, MD, PhD, is associate professor at Lund University, at the department of clinical sciences. He has specialized in family medicine and works as general practitioner. He is also employed at the R&D-unit at the Region of Kronoberg. Additionally, he is a member of the editorial board for The Grounded Theory...

Choosing a Methodological Path: Reflections on the Constructivist Turn...

Jenna P. Breckenridge, Queen Margaret University, Derek Jones, Northumbria University, Ian Elliott, Queen Margaret University, Margaret Nicol, Queen Margaret University Abstract Researchers deciding to use grounded theory are faced with complex decisions regarding which method or version of grounded theory to use: Classic, straussian, feminist or constructivist grounded theory. Particularly for beginning PhD researchers, this can prove challenging given the complexities of the inherent philosophical debates and the ambiguous and conflicting use of grounded theory ‘versions’ within popular literature. The aim of this article is to demystify the differences between classic and constructivist grounded theory, presenting a critique of constructivist grounded theory that is rooted in the learning experiences of the first author as she grappled with differing perspectives during her own PhD research. Introduction Reflecting on the PhD process, it could be said that the decision to use grounded theory is only a starting point. Often armed with only a limited understanding of ‘grounded theory’, new PhD researchers are faced with the challenge of navigating their way through the methodological mire in order to arrive at an informed decision about which ‘version’ of grounded theory to use: Classic (or glaserian) grounded theory, straussian grounded theory, feminist grounded theory or constructivist grounded theory. Cutcliffe (2004) has identified, however, that many researchers appear to have avoided this challenge altogether, opting simply for an ambiguous medley of aspects from each version without regard for their inherent incompatibilities. Ultimately, this ‘pick and mix’ approach to grounded theory poses a significant challenge for novice researchers as, 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 (Breckenridge & Jones 2009). By sharing the methodological reasoning developed by the first author during her own PhD study, the aim of this article is to assist novice researchers in understanding the differences between two of the main grounded theory versions: constructivist grounded theory and classic grounded theory. Writing as a classic grounded theorist, the aim of this article is not to discredit constructivist grounded theory, but is instead to illustrate the incompatibilities between versions in order to share learning and emphasise the importance of using classic grounded theory as a full package methodology. Constructivist grounded theory Constructivist grounded theory was proffered by Charmaz (2003, 2006) as an alternative to classic (Glaser 1978, 1992, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2011) and straussian grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin 1990, 1998). Charmaz (2003) has advocated that her constructivist version of grounded theory “takes a middle ground between postmodernism and positivism, and offers accessible methods for taking qualitative research into the 21st century” (p. 250). Certainly, for the first author choosing between versions, Charmaz’s (2003) attempt at ‘modernising’ (or, indeed, ‘post-modernising’) grounded theory had immediate appeal. Her method appeared to value the inductive creativity of the classic methodology, and also resonated with the current popularity of constructivism within social research. As an epistemological stance, constructivism asserts that reality is constructed by individuals as they assign meaning to the world around them (Appleton & King 2002). From a constructivist perspective, meaning does not lie dormant within objects waiting to be discovered, but is rather created as individuals interact with and interpret these objects (Crotty 1998). Constructivism thus challenges the belief that there is an objective truth that can be measured or captured through research enquiry (Crotty 1998). Charmaz (2003) has therefore proposed a version of grounded theory that: “assumes the relativism of...