About the Authors

Barry Chametzky holds a PhD in education from Northcentral University.  He is a part-time adjunct professor at Ozarks Technical Community College in Missouri where he teaches lower-level online French classes.  His areas of expertise are e-learning, online foreign language learning, andragogy, and classic grounded theory.  He has published several journal articles on e-learning and andragogy.  During his doctoral research using the classic grounded theory method, Dr. Chametzky developed the theory of offsetting the affective filter.  He is also one of the copyeditors for the Grounded Theory Review.  In addition, he offers editing and consulting (on APA and the classic grounded theory method) through EditNow.Org, his editing company. Email: barry@bluevine.net Annemarie Dowling-Castronovo earned her undergraduate degree from the College of Staten Island (CSI), City University of New York, master’s degree from New York University (NYU), and doctorate from the College of Nursing, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. She has practiced as a staff nurse and a gerontologic nurse practitioner in multiple care settings. Prior to her appointment at Wagner College in 2008, she held academic positions at NYU and CSI. Her teaching focuses on undergraduate nursing studies. Her clinical research focuses on urinary incontinence among older adults for which she has several publications. She used grounded theory research methodology for her dissertation study of older adults with new-onset urinary incontinence supported by the Jonas Center for Nursing Excellence and Epsilon Mu Chapter, Sigma Theta Tau International. Email: dowling.castronovo@wagner.edu Gary L. Evans is associate professor at the University of Prince Edward Island. He completed his PhD in the field of corporate governance at Liverpool John Moores University. During Dr. Evans’ 2015/16 sabbatical, he will lead a research team reviewing corporate boards across Europe and the Middle East. Dr. Evans developed the board culture theory using CGT. Prior to embarking on an academic career, Dr. Evans was senior partner and CEO for KPMG Consulting for Central Eastern Europe. Prior to that appointment, he was Partner in Charge of Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Energy for the London, U.K. office of KPMG for tax, audit, and consulting.  As a partner in a professional firm, Dr. Evans spends substantial amount of time with corporate boards and the executive management of major international corporations. Dr. Evans holds dual British/Canadian Citizenship. gevans@upei.ca Barney G. Glaser is the cofounder of grounded theory (1967). He received his PhD from Columbia University in 1961. He then went to University of California San Francisco, where he joined Anselm Strauss in doing the dying in hospitals study and in teaching PhD and DNS students methods and analysis. He published over 20 articles on this research and the dying research. Since then, Glaser has written 14 more books using and about grounded theory and countless articles. In 1998 he received an honorary doctorate from Stockholm University. Email: bglaser@speakeasy.net Katja Hakel is an assistant professor at the Educational Development Unit at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim, Norway. She completed both her graduate studies in foreign languages and mathematics and her postgraduate teaching qualification at NTNU. She is currently working as an assistant professor at the same university. The grounded theory study that she presents in this article is part of her qualification towards a permanent position as associate professor. Her research interests include the use of educational technology for learning, teaching and assessment, but she also works with mentoring staff and training teaching assistants at her institution. Email: katja.hakel@plu.ntnu.no...

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...