Reaching Out: Network building by US non-profit welfare organizations...

Chandrasekhar Commuri Abstract Contemporary non-profit organizations operate in a fast changing and challenging environment. While the challenges at the sector level have been well documented, there is a gap in the literature in examining this issue at the local level. Based on interviews with non-profit executives, and using grounded theory methodology, this paper proposes that non-profits are using a reaching out strategy to deal with their most commonly experienced challenges of overwhelming complexity, distancing, and fragmentation. Reaching out involves different forms and levels of inter-organizational networking. These forms may be characterized as differentiation, symbiotic relations, and advocacy networks. Introduction Even though the idea of a ‘welfare state’ may conjure up images of a monolithic government bureaucracy, the modern welfare state in the United States is a collection of public, nonprofit, and private organizations with cross-cutting funding and program interrelationships. Non-profits have been playing an especially important role in the welfare system since the 1980s (Salamon, 1987; Wolch, 1990; Salamon, 1995; Savas, 2000; Chambre, 1999). Acting as contractors of the state, they are delivering more services, reaching new, especially previously marginalized, clients, and introducing novel solutions to sticky social problems. They do this because they are generally more nimble and efficient than public agencies. To that extent, the welfare state has benefited from its relationship with the nonprofit sector. In return, non-profit organizations have also reaped benefits from this relationship. By some estimates, over a third of the non-profit sector’s revenues come from the government (Independent Sector, 2002). Among other things, this increased funding led to a growth in the number of non-profits over the last forty years. Public policy and administration trends like ‘contracting out’ and ‘New Public Management’ (Osborne & Gaebler, 1993; Frumkin, 2002; Brooks, 2003) facilitated this growth in state support for the non-profit sector. Among other things these trends emphasized cross-sector collaboration, the use of multiple delivery agencies in order to encourage competition and creativity, establishing service delivery close to the clients, and outcomes measurement (Savas 1982, 2000). The operating environment for the non-profit sector changed quantitatively and qualitatively as a result. This environment provided many opportunities for the non-profit sector, but it also brought with it new problems and challenges. Non-profits found themselves in unfamiliar terrain in the legal, collaboration, personnel, and accountability areas. Therefore, along with growth and vibrancy, the sector also experienced voluntary ‘failures’ (Salamon, 1987). Examples of these are an inability to sustain the organization in the long term due to increased competition, shortage of professional managers, lack of accountability, the simultaneous existence of duplication and gaps in services (Chambre, 1999), and the altering of program priorities to follow changes in funding trends. Local level organizations are the primary workhorses of the non-profit sector. They directly deliver more services and reach more clients than national organizations and typically have fewer (financial and human) resources than state or national organizations. Previous research on this topic has focused more on macro level challenges faced by the non-profit sector as a whole rather than on exploring problems and challenges faced by local organizations. The literature has explored such macro level challenges as the sector’s overreliance on government funding, the relative loss of autonomy of the sector due to such reliance on government funds, the crowding out of private charity, the lack of investment in capacity building, and the dysfunctional aspects of competition between traditional non-profits on the one hand and faith based organizations and private corporations on the other (Salamon, 2002; Abrams & Schmitz, 1984;...

Doing Quantitative Grounded Theory: A review...

Tina L. Johnson, PhD Whenever I review materials I do so with three eyes. One is as an educator of Ph.D. students who are just beginning their knowledge research methodologies. Another eye is towards the needs of the Ph.D. student in the midst of crafting and defending their dissertation proposal and finished product. Finally I view the book from my own educational needs or does this book provide me as an experienced grounded theorist with needed or new knowledge of my craft? From two of these three perspectives I view Dr. Barney Glaser’s new book Doing Quantitative Grounded Theory as potentially useful and from the third (my own learning) give the book a must own rating. It is well documented that grounded theory attracts Ph.D. students as a methodology to be applied to their dissertation. These students, however, rarely have either solid experience using grounded theory and have little to no training in the method. Most will receive what training they do have from brief exposure during general qualitative research courses. This quantitative grounded theory book might be well applied to growing number of situations where students are introduced to grounded theory methodology as a complete course. In universities, where the focus is on quantitative methods, I can see this book being an asset as an initial introduction to the method. The only caution is that instructors of the course may need to assist students in delving through the occasionally dense vocabulary and writing. An additional need that Ph.D. students encounter occurs as they write and defend their dissertation proposal and finished product to committees who very often have little knowledge of the method themselves. This book’s rich inclusion of historical documentation can, in part, provide resources for the student being pushed for background knowledge and methodological defense. Dr. Glaser provides a rich discussion of his early graduate work with Lazarsfeld as well as his first stab at grounded theory (quantitative theory) while completing his dissertation. Although I have read some of the included historical information in other resources (Glaser, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 1999; Thulesius, 2003); This background information is more expansive as it is the focus of the first chapter and woven throughout the discussion about and examples from his initial study provided in the latter chapters (Glaser, 1964). The main purpose of this book and the perspective that is of most interest to the experienced grounded theory user is providing assistance in conducting quantitative grounded theory analysis. This instruction is not always an easy read especially for the researcher who is not well versed in quantitative methods. The book is vocabulary rich but also rich in content that if carefully examined coupled with (at least in this author’s case) some remediation of general multivariate statistics can provide clear guidelines to follow in developing a grounded theory using quantitative data. Three broad topics stood out as vitally important both in the clarification of grounded theories in general and specific ideals associated with branching out into the use of quantitative, especially secondary quantitative data. These include the idea of data fishing to establish theoretical hypothesis. That it is important to select data that has been collected using instruments created by some sort of grounding process. Finally that it is important to select data that can be tracked over time and/or across specific grouping subcategories (Glaser, 2008). Both qualitative and quantitative grounded theory employs the use of ‘data fishing’ (Johnston 2006). This process, held in taboo by quantitative researchers,...

Doing Quantitative Grounded Theory: A theory of trapped travel consumption...

Mark S. Rosenbaum, Ph.D. All is data. Grounded theorists employ this sentence in their quest to create original theoretical frameworks. Yet researchers typically interpret the word gdatah to mean qualitative data or, more specifically, interview data collected from respondents. This is not to say that qualitative data is deficient; however, grounded theorists may be missing vast opportunities to create pioneering theories from quantitative data. Indeed, Glaser and Strauss (1967) argued that researchers would use qualitative and/or quantitative data to fashion original frameworks and related hypotheses, and Glaserfs (2008) recently published book, titled Doing Quantitative Grounded Theory, is an attempt to help researchers understand how to use quantitative data for grounded theory (GT). Quantitative Grounded Theory Glaser introduces quantitative grounded theory (QGT) by providing readers with a historical background of the methodology, which has ties to Glaserfs sociological training by Paul Lazarsfeld at Columbia University. Although some readers may question the purpose of this introductory section, they should understand that QGT is willing to forgo some empirical rigor to generate frameworks that can be empirically tested at a future time. This stance contradicts the empirical rigor that Lazarsfeld was requesting and which represents the standard in the United States today. As a result, as social scientists, it is not surprising that we continue to learn increasingly more about increasingly less. Today, we clamor for complex structural equation models that illustrate putative causal relationships between and among exogenous and endogenous variables, which are either observed or latent. These research endeavors are far from inexpensive, as researchers must spend tremendous amounts of money gathering large data sets that are sizable enough to replicate an identifiable variance.covariance matrix. I am confident that contemporary social scientists who publish in leading journals can relate to the pressures involved in collecting data and to waiting for a gGod-likeh approval through an RMSEA or a CFI indicator. Glaser is not denigrating empirical rigor; however, he makes readers question whether they can learn as much about the world by relying on relatively simple chi-square tests. He questions whether social scientists are wasting data, which many may perceive as meaningless based on an interpretation of model fit indexes. Then, QGT sets out to fashion creative models based on extant data sets and to do so in a way that assumes the data is nonparametric, but rich enough to capture a social phenomenon. Glaser spends the next major portion of the book providing novices with a thorough methodological instruction of QGT. One of the greatest challenges to accomplishing a QGT study may be obtaining a data set. The data set must contain variables that evaluate a socially relevant and interesting condition. In essence, a core category must arise from quantitative data; thus, irrelevant empirical data can never lead to a core category. Although Glaser suggests that researchers can talk to fellow researchers to obtain raw data sets, I encourage researchers to explore Internet sites such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Roper Center for Public Research, Pew Research Center, and the U.S. Census for data sets that capture real social phenomenon. As a way to discuss QGT, I provide an actual example from one of my data sets. The data set I selected for QGT was based on an actual project that I conducted for a 400-square-foot retail store aboard a ferry that transports people between Oahu and Maui. The trip lasts for three hours. The ferryfs management sought input regarding product assortment. On a broader level, many...

Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Originally published as Chapter 7 in Glaser (2003). The Grounded Theory Perspective II: Description’s remodeling of grounded theory methodology, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press, pp. 99-113. Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. The main point in the next two chapters is that the methodological literature is filled with references to the quantitative-qualitative conflict or opposition. Qualitative data is credited with providing the meaning and factual interpretation that quantitative data does not, thus it is more accurate in findings, interpretation and theory as opposed to the conjectures that explain fabricated quantitative findings. Qualitative data is real life collection of data that avoids the quantitative distorting difficulties in collecting data by preformed questionnaires and overly simple analytic techniques. The arguments go on and on as to which is objective and which subjective, which is harder science and which is softer. Among some groups of researchers and some fields, qualitative data research wins this continuous opposition. With this QDA power GT is drawn in as a QDA research method, since most GT is done with qualitative data which is relatively easy and inexpensive. GT becomes eroded, and default remodelled by QDA in the process, hence blocked, simply because most GT research to date is done with qualitative data. Its fundamental theoretical orientation is seen by consequence of this remodelling as symbolic interaction. But this is not correct, since it can be used with any theoretical codes, from any theoretical orientation. Most GT uses structural functionalism — theoretical codes actually — such as conditions, contexts and consequences or scaling codes, such as degrees, dimensions, cutting points, ranges, zones or typologies. GT is a general methodology that can be used with any data, I have said time and again. It is an inductive methodology. Qualitative data does not define GT; GT just uses qualitative data mostly — but among many possible data. “All is data” for GT, since all data has latent patterns. It can use any data and any data in any way and in any combination: it can use qualitative data and quantitative data solely or in any combination. It is paradoxical that so often qualitative researchers denigrate quantitative work as work with no symbolic meaning interpretation. Yet they laude it as science and try to make QDA look like science with quantitative trappings. Whatever the solution to this paradox in any researcher’s position, GT is abstract of it. GT just inducts abstractions or concepts from what ever data is being used. This paradox of a qualitative research making puts a reverse block on GT. GT is blocked by QDA erosion in many ways and a further consequence is that this cooptation totally blocks GT from being used with quantitative data. But, to repeat, GT is a general inductive methodology that can be used, with excitement, with quantitative data. My dissertation, which was published immediately as a book (Organizational Scientists: Their Professional Careers Bobbs-Merrill, 1964), used quantitative data exclusively. It was an inductive core variable analysis of scientific recognition. It was modelled after Lazarsfeld’s The Academic Mind the Free Press, which was an inductive core variable analysis of apprehension in academic life during the McCarthy era. There were many monographs coming out of the Columbia University Sociology Department at that time that were pure inductive discovery using quantitative data. It was what was done as a norm. In chapter 8 of the Discovery of Grounded Theory, “The Theoretical Elaboration of Quantitative Data” I wrote at length on the use of quantitative data...

Grounded Theory as a General Research Methodology...

Judith A. Holton, Ph.D. Abstract Since its inception over forty years ago, grounded theory has achieved canonical status in the research world (Locke, 2001, p.1). Qualitative researchers, in particular, have embraced grounded theory although often without sufficient scholarship in the methodology (Partington, 2000, p.93; 2002, p.136). The embrace renders many researchers unable to perceive grounded theory as a general methodology and an alternative to the dominant qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. The result is methodological confusion and an often unconscious remodelling of the original methodology (Glaser, 2003). Given the various interpretations and approaches that have been popularised under the rubric of grounded theory, this paper addresses the important distinction between grounded theory as a general methodology and its popularisation as a qualitative research method. The paper begins with a brief overview of grounded theory’s origins and its philosophical foundations then continues by addressing the basic distinction between abstract conceptualisation as employed in classic grounded theory and the conceptual description approach as adopted by many qualitative researchers. The paper continues with a brief overview of the criteria for judging the quality of classic grounded theory and concludes by detailing its methodological principles. Origins of the Methodology Grounded theory originated in the mid-1960s with the groundbreaking work in medical sociology of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (Glaser & Strauss, 1965, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1975) and the subsequent publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory, (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). While the book is generally acknowledged as the seminal work on grounded theory, Glaser (1998) reveals that he was actually developing the method in his doctoral work at Columbia University and that he authored the first draft of Discovery, later sharing it with Strauss who added comments and wrote an additional three chapters (pp.22-27). While Glaser and Strauss were later to disagree about the precise nature of the methodology and discontinue their professional collaboration, Glaser is generally recognised as having retained both the spirit and the substance of the original work (Locke, 2001, p.64). His subsequent publications, together with Discovery, provide detailed accounts of the fundamental principles of the method (Glaser, 1978, 1992, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007). His most recent methodological guide (2008), in particular, distinguishes grounded theory as a general research methodology. The well documented schism in the collaboration between Glaser and Strauss occurred with the publication of Basics of Qualitative Research (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Glaser’s (1992) response was Basics of Grounded Theory: Emergence vs. Forcing in which he set out to distinguish the original methodology from Strauss and Corbin’s work which he clearly regarded as a remodelled method that he has termed “full conceptual description” (p.123). His continuing concern with the eroding impact of various subsequent “remodelings” of the original methodology has motivated him to produce several additional publications in which he endeavours to clarify the purpose, principles and procedures that together constitute classic, or Glaserian, grounded theory (Glaser, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008; Glaser & Holton, 2004). This collection of works, a result of his dedication to advancing the original methodology, offers researchers a solid base for its study and application. The Qualitative Embrace of Grounded Theory Qualitative methods facilitate the study of issues in depth and detail (Patton, 2002, p.14). Denzin and Lincoln (1994) describe qualitative research as a complex, interconnected family of terms, concepts and assumptions that cuts across disciplines, fields and subject matter (p.3). Marshall and Rossman (1999) refer to a broad approach to the study of social phenomena that is pragmatic, interpretative and...