Book Review: Ditching Description: From Data to Abstraction...

Susan Stillman, Director of Ed for Six Seconds Barney G. Glaser (2013). Getting Out of the Data: Grounded Theory Conceptualization, Mill Valley: Sociology Press Overview In the first chapter of this book, Glaser explains his purpose to help the researcher use the constant comparative method to discover and name patterns in the data, relate them to each other, generate a “conceptual hypothesis” (p. 2), and allow a multivariate substantive theory to emerge around a core variable. The first sentence demonstrates his intent to help the reader in “getting out of the data” into “conceptualization” (p. 1).  In preparation for writing this review, I showed the book to a friend who has only a passing familiarity with grounded theory (GT). His immediate reaction upon reading the first sentence was to ask me whether the reader was already supposed to know what “getting out of the data” and “emergence of conceptualization” meant.  “All is data” (p. 67) and what good data for me, the reviewer! I had made an assumption that all readers who picked up this book would understand the language used, and my friend’s comment made me realize this might not be the case.  This small volume is probably not the book for a casual reader with some curiosity about GT.  Glaser’s stated audience is the dissertation researcher, whom he believes would have the most energy, interest, and motivation to preserve the fidelity of classic GT (p. 4), and, therefore, would be looking for additional insights and strategies from newer works. This current book is intended as a “synopsis” (p. 1), to be supplemented by reading Glaser’s other works. Glaser’s process, familiar to his readers, is to do GT, not just write about it. Glaser states, “This book will be a GT of GT use, as is my usual style” (p. 2). In Getting Out of the Data, Glaser emphasizes, as he has done since 1965, the importance of constant comparative analysis for getting to conceptualization, and offers “help in getting out of the data” (p. 2).  Help comes in the form of his always evolving thinking on both constant comparative methodological steps such as eliminating preconceptions, collecting data, coding and naming patterns, and in his discussion of the underlying competencies needed for GT method success, such as motivation, patience, and the ability to tolerate ambiguity.  In this regard, Glaser shares his recent thinking on blocks to conceptualization, with specific suggestions and motivational support for getting through these obstacles successfully. In preparing to write this review, rather than employ a linear chapter by chapter approach, I used the “skipping and dipping” (p. 75) method to memo and categorize ideas that caught my attention.  I’ve called the first section Back to Basics, as Glaser deepens aspects of constant comparative analysis familiar to many readers. In the second section, Blocks and Counter Blocks, I focus on these newer valuable additions to Glaser’s established repertoire of directives to researchers. Back to Basics Term clarification:  As an experienced teacher of GT methodology, I have often fielded questions on the meaning of common GT terms. Glaser provides a worthwhile clarification of these terms when he reiterates that code, category, property, and concept are all synonymous names for patterns. I have had students stressed by their attempts at distinguishing between them, and this clarification will help.  Glaser also refutes the use of non-GT terms, such as findings. “Treating a code as a finding is a misnomer “ (p. 61).  Validity is another concept often misunderstood...

Book Review: Stop, Write!

Hans Thulesius, University of Lund Stop, Write: Writing Grounded Theory. Barney G. Glaser (2013). Mill Valley: Sociology Press This book on writing grounded theory is intended for the empirical GT researcher who wants to pursue his/her research until publication. It is the first book devoted entirely to such a crucial issue as writing grounded theory. Thus, Stop, Write: Writing Grounded Theory, is a practical book that fills a gap in GT methodology. In the first chapter of the book, Dr. Glaser says, “Stop unending conceptualization, unending data coverage, and unending listening to others who would egg you on with additional data, ideas and/or requirements or simply wait too long”. The book teaches the reader how to actually write a grounded theory by “simply” writing up the sorted memos. This requires efficient sorting that is dealt with in chapter two on Sorting Memos, which includes precious repetition from Theoretical Sensitivity (1978). How writing can be done effectively is outlined in chapter three, The Working Paper. Then follows chapter four on how to rework the first draft with the different tasks of editing for language and professionalism. Thereafter, Dr. Glaser discusses Writing Problems in chapter five where he gives useful guidance on how to overcome writing blocks and problems with supervisors and dissertation committees. The book also deals with publishing and with collaboration as experienced between Barney Glaser and the cofounder of grounded theory, Anselm Strauss. Another book from Dr Barney G. Glaser. So, why should I read this one when I haven’t read all the others, the reader might ask himself. From my perspective, one should read those books that one’s grounded theory interests require. And if you do grounded theory research or if you teach grounded theory, the requirements may be different. Yet, both doers and teachers should get this book in order to optimize their GT skills. Eventually this book is a necessity for the committed GT scholar. Glaser analyses field notes taken during seminars and in his communication with grounded theorists worldwide. That is why this book eventually was written up from memos generated during years of seminar and mail interactions with grounded theory researchers. Dr. Glaser has apparently, in his data, seen a void that needs to be filled regarding writing GT, instead of just going on collecting data and generating concepts. Many are those PhD students using grounded theory that “outgrow their substantive GTs” (a pattern presented in this book), “grapple with worrisome accuracy,” restraints of dissertation committees and keep collecting data and generating new concepts instead of pursuing the write up in order to get their PhD ready. If it takes too long to reach the stage of writing, the joy of doing research risks getting lost and researchers may tell themselves – never again a research project using GT, which they sense is tedious and hard. Many researchers with grounded theory PhDs later lose the motivation for pursuing another project because it took too long to finish the first one. But since the learning curve of the method is quite long, the best way to get over a post PhD low is to start a new project. This is emphasized in the chapter on writing problems, and is a way to avoid “outgrowing one’s SGT.” The best way to learn grounded theory is to do it. But, doing requires knowledge on how to, and that is where Dr. Glaser’s books come in. Writing grounded theory is different from writing other types of research...

About The Authors

Daniel M. Berry got his PhD in Computer Science from Brown University in 1974. He was in the Computer Science Department at the University of California, Los Angeles, USA from 1972 until 1987. He was in the Computer Science Faculty at the Technion, Israel from 1987 until 1999. From 1990 until 1994, he was half of each year at the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, USA, where he helped build CMU’s Master of Software Engineering program. In 1999, Berry moved to what is now the Cheriton School of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo, Canada. Between 2008 and 2013, Berry held an Industrial Research Chair in Requirements Engineering sponsored by Scotia Bank and the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Berry’s current research interests are software engineering in general, and requirements engineering and electronic publishing in the specific. Email: dberry@uwaterloo.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. His latest book, which deals with the no preconceptions dictum in grounded theory, will soon be published. Email: bglaser@speakeasy.net Michael W. Godfrey is an associate professor in the David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo. After finishing his PhD at the University of Toronto, he spent two years at Cornell University before joining the University of Waterloo in 1998. Between 2000 and 2005, he held an Industrial Research Chair in telecommunications software engineering sponsored by Nortel Networks and the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. His research interests span many areas of software engineering including software evolution, reverse engineering, program comprehension, mining software repositories, and software clone detection and analysis. He contributed a chapter titled “Copy-Paste as a Principled Engineering Tool” to the 2010 O’Reilly book Making Software: What Really Works and Why We Believe It. Email: migod@uwaterloo.ca Gary L. Evans, B.A., Hons. B. Comm, M.B.A., PhD, prior to embarking on an academic career was Senior Partner and CEO for KPMG Consulting for Central Eastern Europe and prior to that appointment 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 Mr. Evans spends substantial amount of time with corporate boards and the executive management of major international corporations. In 2003, after retiring from the professional firm, Mr. Evans dedicated his time to research and teaching at the University of Prince Edward Island and decided to complete a PhD in the field of Corporate Governance at Liverpool John Moores University under the supervision of Dr. Steven Letza, a renown scholar in the field of corporate governance.  The thesis “Culture: A key ingredient to value-added boards” presents the board culture theory developed with classical grounded theory methodology. Email: gevans@upei.ca Colin Griffiths is a lecturer [assistant professor] in the School of Nursing and Midwifery in Trinity College Dublin. Colin has more than 25 years experience working with people with profound and complex disabilities in Ireland. Since 2002 Colin has taught in the...

About the authors

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 Antoinette McCallin works with postgraduate students from many health disciplines in the Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences. She supervises masters and doctoral research projects, and coordinates the research paper in the professional doctoral research programme. Antoinette is a Fellow of the Grounded Theory Institute, and a Peer Review Editor for The Grounded Theory Review. Specialist research interests include collaboration, interprofessional practice, interdisciplinary learning, and interdisciplinary teamwork. Email: amccall@aut.ac.nz Geoff Dickson is the Associate Dean (Research) for the Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences. Geoff is responsible for research development and building research capability and productivity in the Faculty. He co-chairs the Faculty Postgraduate and Research Committee, a key communication, policy and funding committee, and is responsible for maintaining records and reporting on research activity and outcomes.  As a member of the School of Sport and Recreation, Geoff leads the undergraduate and postgraduate programs in sport and recreation management. His research interests focus on interorganisational networks, corporate governance and event tourism. Email: geoff.dickson@aut.ac.nz Paul Dowling is professor of education in the Department of Culture, Communication and Media, Institute of Education, University of London. He is a sociologist and his work involves the development and deployment of an organizational language—social activity method (SAM)—for the sociological description of pedagogic sites, texts and technologies in any context. Email: p.dowling@ioe.ac.uk Naomi Elliott is Assistant Professor in General Nursing in the School of Nursing and Midwifery in Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. She completed her PhD using grounded theory, is supervising PhD students using grounded theory and lectures doctoral students on qualitative research methodology. Email: Naomi.elliott@tcd.ie Agnes Higgins is a Professor in Mental Health Nursing at Midwifery in the School of Nursing and Midwifery in Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. She completed her PhD using grounded theory and is supervising a number of PhD students who are conducting classic grounded theory studies. Email: ahiggins@tcd.ie Kim Kwok’s research of rugby coaching was an outgrowth of more than thirty years of ongoing interest and involvement in New Zealand’s national game. He currently manages an amateur team at his local club, and is attempting a start-up business, which will seek to disseminate and market the findings of his Masters research. Email: kkimbo1@gmail.com Gaëtan Mourmant received his Ph.D. degree in Information Systems from Paris Dauphine University (France) and Georgia State University (USA). He worked four years as a Marketing Database Analyst in a global, financial institution (Canada). As a consultant, he managed more than 50 IT projects (France). Gaëtan’s research interests include turnover and entrepreneurship. He has published papers in the European Journal of Information Systems, the Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on MIS and the International Conference on Information Systems. Email: gmourmant@gmail.com   Anna Sandgren has a PhD in Caring Sciences and works as a senior lecturer at the School of Health Sciences, Jönköping University, Sweden. Her research is mostly...

Seeding Event: Creating and Developing Spaces of Entrepreneurial Freedom...

Gaëtan Mourmant, IESEG School of Management Abstract This paper addresses the question of initiating, fostering and growing a vibrant economy by developing Spaces of Entrepreneurial Freedom (SoEF). Establishing and developing the SoEF is explained by a seeding event which is the core category of this grounded theory. In short, a seeding event leads to the patching of a potential, structural “hole”, which may prove valuable to an entrepreneurial network. Seeding events are started by an initiator who will recognize a network opportunity and exploit it. After event designing, the initiators implement the event through bold experimentation and using an adaptive structure. If the event is considered successful, the next stages are refining, growing, templating and finally replicating; these stages may occur one after the other or simultaneously. Through the development of SoEF, we suggest that entrepreneurs, governments, universities, large companies, and other players in the business world can improve the development of entrepreneurship at their respective levels. Introduction Creating, developing and promoting a vibrant entrepreneurial economy is a key challenge for any economy looking for value and wealth creation, in other words, for economic development and vitality. This challenge is even more important in the current economic crisis. This concern is present for various entities, not only for entrepreneurs or governments, but also for CEOs and managers of large companies who want to promote intrapreneurship (Pinchot, 1985) and innovation in their companies. We introduce the core category of seeding event to resolve the main concern of our interviewees: how to create, develop and promote spaces of entrepreneurial freedom and, ultimately, a vibrant economy. In short, a seeding event leads to the patching of a valuable structural hole (Burt, 2002, 2004; Walker, Kogut, & Shan, 1997) identified in an entrepreneurial network; such patching concurs to the creation and/or development of spaces of entrepreneurial freedom. Seeding events are started by initiators who recognize a network opportunity and exploit it. After event designing, the initiators start the implementation of the initial event through bold experimentation, using an adaptive structure. If the event is evaluated by the initiators and the participants as a success or potential success, the initiators embark in the next stages: refining, growing, templating, and finally replicating. These stages may not occur only one after the other, but also simultaneously and iteratively; for instance, replicating leads to growing. Methodology We follow a qualitative classic grounded theory methodology, (Glaser, 1978, 1998, 2011, 2012; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In particular, we iteratively use the following tools: open, selective and theoretical coding; memoing; memo sorting; constant comparison; writing up; and theoretical sampling in order to reach theoretical saturation. First, spaces of entrepreneurial freedom emerged from the analysis of the first set of interviews with Entrepreneurs, CIOs, and IT employees. The interviews were conducted in France, China (Shanghai), Canada and the United States. Each interview started with an open question related to the intensification of entrepreneurship (N=14). Second, we re-analyzed and selectively recoded previous interviews while conducting and analyzing additional interviews (N=10) around the concept of SoEF. In agreement with “All is data” and theoretical sampling, we also coded and analyzed the book “Startup Community” which analyzed the creation and development of startup communities in the city of Boulder (Feld, 2012). We then proceeded to perform memo sorting (over 60 memos) and writing up, which lead us to a temporary theoretical development around spaces of entrepreneurial freedom. While this development was interesting, the core category seeding event (we are indebted to the first reviewer...