Becoming Selfless: A Grounded Theory of Commitment to Service...

Roland Nino L. Agoncillo, De La Salle University, Philippines Roberto T. Borromeo, De La Salle University, Philippines Abstract This study focuses on the substantive area of commitment to service in the community of educational partners in the Philippines. Educational partners are lay people who assist religious organizations in the field of education, and in the Philippines, about 96 percent of educational partners are in Lasallian schools and organizations. Educational partners are young professionals, volunteers between the ages of 24-39 who strive to live the teachings of St. John Baptist De La Salle. The volunteers aim to generate a spirit of service, a sense of mission to the youth. By using a classic Grounded Theory approach, the theory of becoming selfless was generated. The theory explains the stages educational partners undergo when resolving their organizational commitment to service. Organizational commitment is the psychological attachment, involvement and identification of the individual to the organization. Becoming selfless provides a theoretical focal point to better understand the complexity of commitment. Introduction In a predominantly Catholic country like the Philippines, the role of educational partners is very important. But in spite of their importance, the role might be somewhat unclear even to the educational partners themselves. The initial research question of this study was prompted by a comment by a lay teacher from one of the De La Salle Schools who said, “Why not explore the area of being an educational partner, since even after many years of being an educational partner, I still do not really know what it is to be one.” Educational partners’ commitment to service are crucial especially in unpredictable times like in the aftermath of the catastrophe that hit the country because of the super typhoon in the fall of 2013. How might educational partners in affected areas manage, or even understand, their commitment to service when schools are destroyed and some of their students’ families are possibly wiped out? Even though this study was conducted before the catastrophe, the question of what it is to be an educational partner transcends the tragedy that we have right now. Data was collected through face-to-face interviews, and classic grounded theory was used for data abstraction and conceptualization that is vital, relevant, and yields high-impact concerns (Glaser and Strauss 1967, Glaser 1978, 1992). Stakeholders such as graduate students, administration, faculty, and academic service staff comprise the participants in this study. Consistent with Glaser’s (1998, 2001) recommendations, interviews of the participants were not tape-recorded. The researcher listened intently to the sharing of the participant after posing an initial question, then from time to time, in between questions, the researcher jotted down notes that were substantial. Theoretical sampling and incidents articulated in the data were analyzed and coded, using the constant comparative method, to generate initially substantive and later theoretical categories (Holton, 2010). It is by constantly comparing the meaning of indicators that concepts and their properties are slowly built. Like a “pendulum” that swings back and forth from one indicator to the next the data was compared and analyzed. The emerging categories were theoretically coded by naming the particular relationship that exists between them a process (Glaser, 1978). At successive stages of the study, themes moved from low levels of abstraction to overarching themes. These overarching themes served as the foundational pillars of theoretical saturation when the additional data for such themes failed to uncover any new ideas about the developing theory (Bowen, 2006). The Theory Becoming selfless emerged as a theory about...

Secondary Analysis: A Strategy for the Use of Knowledge from Research...

Barney G. Glaser, University of California Medical Center, San Francisco Reprinted from Social Problems, Summer 1962, 10(1) In recent years there has been a «rapidly expanding demand for sociologists services by organizations and groups for aid in solving their operating problems (Parsons, 1959). When a prospective client approaches the social scientist with a problem and asks what research can do to help solve it, he will generally focus this question in one or two ways: 1) what research already exists that may help and/or 2) what research can be done directly in the present situation? (Likert & Lippitt, 1953). This paper will discuss on strategy for applying existing research in the hope that it may help social scientist cope more effectively with the expanding demand for applied social research. In the application of scientific knowledge ‘discovered elsewhere’ to the solution of an operating problem, the social scientist must face certain important questions of comparibility between the past research and the present operating situation. They are comparability of: 1) populations, 2) situational dynamics, 3) problems under study, 4) variables or concepts, and 5) past findings with prestent hypotheses. If these questions are ignored, the social scientist may err in two ways. He may either prematurely reject important prior research because of glaring manifest differences or he may accept uncritically all findings and insights as relevant to the present situation. In discussing ways of handling these questions of comparability, Likert and Lippitt (1953) focus only on strategies for obtaining data on the present situation. These are “budding of” conferences, research conferences and research application conferences, focusing on a specific operating problem, direct social scientist consultation on a solution of an operating problem, in-service seminars, and a technique for quick analysis of the present situation. Obtaining data from past research for comparisons may equally be a problem. The social scientist may find, in returning to the original publication, that concepts are not clear; populations are not specified; situational dynamics has not been dealt with; the right variables have not been taken up or, if they were, relevant interrelations have not been done; and the analysis of problems has taken too dissimilar a track. He may ask, “What would have happened if the author had done this or that with his data? If the social scientist is able to apply the strategy of secondary analysis, inability to make comparisons or apparent noncomparability with the present situation may not be sufficient cause for discarding potentially applicable past research. On the contrary, past research is just the beginning to be tapped for its relevance to solving present problems. With this strategy one does not have to depend solely on the previous analyst’s approach and bent of mind. Lipset and Bendix (1959) have defined secondary analysis as the study of specific problems through analysis of existing data which were originally collected for other purposes. I suggest that through the use of secondary analysis the social scientist may be better enabled to serve his client. First, it widens the potential applicability of a past research by changing its limits from data presented to data collected. Second, with this strategy the social scientist can turn from printed to vast reservoirs of existing data (published and unpublished) that sit in the basements and files of institutes, bureaus and centers throughout the country. Thus he increases the amount of past research that can be brought to bear on the operating problem. Comparability The first phase of secondary analysis is to...

Generalizability and the Theory of Offsetting the Affective Filter...

Barry Chametzky, Washington & Jefferson College Abstract When online, post-secondary foreign language learners wrestle with the course material and environment because of their inexperience or misguided expectations, frustration and anxiety often ensue.  The resulting imbalance often hinders satisfactory progress in the course.  Classic grounded theory was used to develop the substantive theory of offsetting the affective filter, which explains the behaviors of learners in the substantive area of online, post-secondary foreign language classes.  With the grab and conceptual generalities of this substantive theory, it is valuable for novice researchers to understand that the possibility is strong to continue the research and develop a formal theory.  In this paper, the author examines the aforementioned theory in light of possibly developing a formal grounded theory. Introduction An important element involving the classic grounded theory method (CGT) proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and subsequently by Glaser (1978) is the idea of generalizability.  Generalizability, along with the other components—“fit, work, relevance, and modifiability” (Glaser, 1992, p. 15)—allows the researcher to “broaden the theory so that it is more generally applicable and has greater explanatory and predictive power” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 24).  In grounded theory terms, the newly discovered endogenous (1967) theory must apply to a variety of situations and environments within and outside of the substantive area not just one situation (Glaser, 1996).  The idea of generalizability—especially for doctoral candidates—has important ramifications for researchers inside and outside of the initial substantive area.  In this article, I will present (a) the five pillars of grounded theory, (b) a brief discussion of generalizability, (c) an overview of the grounded theory process vis-à-vis generalizability, (d) a theory—Offsetting the Affective Filter—developed using CGT, and finally, (e) a brief analysis of generalizability vis-à-vis the aforementioned theory.  By illuminating the importance of the substantive theory (Glaser, 1978) outside the field of online foreign language education, I hope to present a potentially bigger picture of the theory thereby demonstrating generalizability and to show that generalizing “a core category is strong . . . [and] hard to resist” (Glaser, 2007, p. 14). The five pillars When a novice researcher uses CGT as a design—perhaps for a doctoral dissertation—he or she quickly learns about its five pillars necessary for developing a satisfactory theory:  fit, grab, work, relevance, and modifiability (Glaser, 1978, 1992, 1998).  To negate or minimize one of them is to create a unbalanced and inadequate theory.  Because these terms are vital to grounded theory, each is discussed briefly in this research. In the world of classic grounded theory, in order to have fit, researchers must ask whether a “concept adequately [expresses] the pattern in the data which it purports to conceptualize” (Glaser, 1998, p. 18).  If such a connection exists between the concept and the data, fit exists.  With theories discovered using grounded theory, it is vital that the researcher not force the data into preconceived patterns.  If the theory is indeed developed through detailed analysis of the data according to the precepts of CGT (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1965, 1992), the theory is said to have fit (Glaser, 2002a).  On the other hand, if an idea is forced and therefore not directly and solely derived from the original data, the theory has validity issues and does not fit the data (Chametzky, 2013a). Grab is the ability of an idea to snag the attention of a person quickly (Glaser, 1978).  When a reader senses that he or she understands the idea and what is going on...

About the Authors

Roland Nino L. Agoncillo, PhD, is the Chair of the Educational Leadership and Management Department of the Br. Andrew Gonzales College of Education of De La Salle University, Manila Philippines. He received special training and coursework at a grounded theory troubleshooting seminar in New York under a special grant from Dr. Barney G. Glaser and the Grounded Theory Institute of California USA. He serves as a consultant to different educational institutions in the Philippines. roland.agoncillo@dlsu.edu.ph Roberto T. Borromeo, PhD, is an Associate Professor in Educational Leadership and Management and former Dean of the College of Education at De La Salle University, Manila. He is a Research Fellow of the SEAMEO-INNOTECH and his research interests are in spirituality in the workplace, strategic management in education, and program evaluation. He serves as Management Consultant to educational institutions in the Philippines and other Asian countries. roberto.borromeo@dlsu.edu.ph Barry Chametzky holds a Ph.D. in education from Northcentral University.  He is an adjunct professor at Washington & Jefferson College in Pennsylvania where he teaches lower-level French classes.  He is also an 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 post-secondary foreign language learning.  During his doctoral research using the classic grounded theory method, Dr. Chametzky developed the theory of Offsetting the Affective Filter.  A peer-reviewed article based on his theory of Offsetting the Affective Filter has been published in IGI-Global.  He is also mentoring several doctoral students in the classic grounded theory method. barry@bluevine.net Olavur Christiansen gained his PhD from Aalborg University in Denmark, in which he used classic grounded theory to generate a theory of business and management behavior. Emergent core categories were opportunising, weighing-up, moment capturing and especially conditional befriending and confidence building in steering behavior.  He is associate professor at the University of Faroe Islands and leader of the office of the Economic Council of the Government of the Faroe Islands. In his latter full-time assignment, he is open to the discovery of core variables and theoretical codes within the field of macroeconomics. olavurc@setur.fo 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. His latest book, which deals with the no preconceptions dictum in grounded theory, will soon be published. Email: bglaser@speakeasy.net Helen Scott supports grounded theory researchers via www.groundedtheoryonline.com and works as a consulting web developer, information architect and web editor, satisfying both her love of the grounded theory research method and information systems. Helen studied Business Studies in 1985, Information Systems in 2000 and completed her PhD (examined by Dr. Barney Glaser) in the School of Computing, University of Portsmouth in 2007. She is a Fellow of the Grounded Theory Institute and a member of the peer review team of this journal. Svend Erik Sørensen is a development economist/sociologist and research consultant (http://www.ascap.dk/), with long experience in development cooperation, project design, implementation and evaluation from more than 45 countries in Asia,...

Editorial

Astrid Gynnild, Editor GT constantly challenges grounded theorists to expand their skills and competencies in areas where they know little. Many researchers experience that theoretical coding is possibly the most difficult task of doing grounded theory.  One of the many myths is that most, or all, grounded theories are basic processes, or that they should be. As documented in Theoretical Sensitivity (Glaser, 1978) and Theoretical Coding (Glaser, 2005), there are dozens of theoretical codes and coding families available for grounded theorists to pick and choose from, depending on best fit for their particular theory. In this issue of the Grounded Theory Review, I am delighted to publish a new research by Barney Glaser. “Staying Open: The Use of Theoretical Codes in GT,” is soon to be published as chapter two in Dr. Glaser’s new book No Preconceptions: The Grounded Theory Dictum. In this chapter, Dr. Glaser discusses consequences of theoretical preconceptions and the importance of actively studying theoretical codes to expand one’s repertoire of TCs. His message is that by constantly comparing theoretical codes also beyond one’s field, the growing mastery of TCs will help researchers open up, let go of personal and professional preconceptions, and become more sensitive to the data. Following Barney Glaser’s often cited advice of using and exploring the constant comparative method beyond one’s field, Glen Gatin from Burdon University in Canada has generated a beginning formal theory of Keeping Your Distance. His starting point was the changing notions of distance prompted by ICT learning and social networking online. Dr. Gatin’s theory helps explain many apparent paradoxes related to extended openness of our time. Strategies for regulating distance are manifest in interactions between individuals and in the interactions between individuals and institutions. When we are accessible to “the whole world” wherever we are via new technologies, strategies for keeping your distance seems to be particularly important for identity formation. Colin Griffiths from Ireland has studied verbal and non-verbal interactions of people with severe and complex disabilities. After collecting visual micro-data using video, Griffiths spent months analyzing the videos, frame by frame, according to the GT protocol. He points out that baseline data, the fourth layer of data in grounded theory, is defined as the best description a participant can offer. In his study, baseline data constituted micro and macro behaviors such as vocalization, facial expressions and body activity gestures. Griffiths discusses the strengths and challenges of collecting data from raw footage following GT procedures. He concludes that visual micro-data are well suited for uncovering and explaining patterns of non-verbal behavior. In the next article, Gary Evans from the United Kingdom provides a ”Rationale for selection of classical grounded theory methodology” based on an examination of classic grounded theory, straussian grounded theory, constructivist grounded theory, and feminist theory respectively. Evans argues that the answer is in the data, but in order to find out which GT approach will be a good fit for you, one need to understand GT philosophy and decide which of them that best match your philosophy of research. Insights into the differences in coding procedures in particular, help identify personal preferences.  Writes Evans, ”Learning the different methodologies is a difficult journey as terminology often sounds similar to the novice researcher, but only by exploring the differences can the researcher rationalize their own choice.” Daniel Berry, Canada, and four colleagues have written an interesting methodological essay which demonstrates the power of a classic GT to identify what is happening in a practical situation...