The Rationale for the Use of Classic GT

Ólavur Christiansen, Ph.D. Abstract Two “hallmarks” explain why and how Glaser’s GT method is one of a kind and meaningless for research that is conventionally pre-framed: (I) The finding of the core variable is the first stage of the research and it is accomplished by the systematic treatment of the data. The core variable sums up and explains the main concern (and its recurrent solution) of those being studied, and most of the variation in the data. The study is then delimited to concepts related to the core variable. This is equivalent to the finding of the research problem. (II) During the data work, the researcher suspends his/her preconceptions and prior knowledge about the area of research, and trusts in emergence of concepts from the data. Its purpose is avoidance of preconceived academic interest concerns with, instead, sole focus on the participant’s substantive interest concerns and their solutions, and the triggering of intuitive insights during states of not knowing. One way to transcend preconceptions is to study unrelated literature in order to identify latent behavior patterns and to increase the researcher’s familiarity with the full range of possible theoretical codes. Introduction There is a general and increasing bewilderment in the literature regarding the concept of “grounded theory”, sometimes abridged as “GT” (Bryant & Charmaz 2007, Kelle 2007, Strubing 2007, Alvesson & Karreman 2007, Charmaz 2006, Douglas 2006, Clarke 2005, Suddaby 2005, Gephard & Rynes 2004, Alvesson & Skoldberg 2000:12-36, Moustakas 1994:4-7). This confusion also impinges on the understanding of other theory generating methodologies. (Alvesson op.cit., Moustakas op.cit.). There seems to be blindness to the fact that the grounded theory term is seriously misleading, because GT has become a name, not for one method, but for an array of very different research approaches, among which Glaser’s “orthodox” or “classic” GT is fundamentally different from the rest. Yet, with a few exceptions (Holton 2007, Hartman 2001, Glaser 1998:5), authors have failed to explain the original raison d’être for the emergence of GT as a predominantly inductive (yet, also deductive and intuitive) theory generating method. To understand this original raison d’être is of course important, as well as the fact that Glaser, on this basis, is the originator of GT as a theory discovery method (Glaser 2006:3, 1998:21-34). To misrepresent a methodology because it is “very different” is inappropriate; neither is it useful. Most likely, we need methodological diversity to achieve theoretical and applied advancements in complex fields of enquiry, e.g., business and management. This article is based on the assumption that different research methods are just different. This means that the question about better or worse regarding methods in general, or regarding ontological and epistemological positions per se, is assumed pointless. It is assumed that this question only gains relevance when specific research purposes and frameworks are taken into account. While considering these contexts, openness and tolerance with regard to methodological diversity may provide better opportunities than forced restriction into methodological uniformity. The purpose of this article is to try to clarify why it may be justified to chose other methods or GT-versions than Glaser’s, when the choice of Glaser’s GT would be meaningless. I will try to achieve this purpose mainly by highlighting a few characteristics of Glaser’s GT. I have tried to select those characteristics that seem to be mostly misunderstood or ignored in literature that explains and compares different GT-versions. GT is not easy (Suddaby 2005). Before use, Glaser’s prescribed research procedures should be studied in Glaser’s own...

Management Research and Grounded Theory: A review of grounded theorybuilding approach in organisational and management research....

Graham J.J. Kenealy, Ph.D. Abstract Grounded theory is a systematic methodology for the collection and analysis of data which was discovered by Glaser and Strauss in the 1960’s. The discovery of this method was first presented to the academic community in their book ‘The Discovery of Grounded Theory’ (1967) which still remains a primary point of reference for those undertaking qualitative research and grounded theory in particular. This powerful research method has become very popular in some research domains; whilst increasing in popularity it is still less prevalent in the field of organisational and management research particularly in its original form. This self reflexive paper sets out to explore the possibilities for this imbalance which takes the discussion onto the areas of methodological adaptation and training. It also enters the debate about access to research subjects and provides a succinct argument supporting the notion that grounded theory should simply be viewed as a method that develops empirically grounded conceptual theory. Key Words: Grounded Theory Approach, Inductive Research, Research Methods. Introduction By examining the dominant research paradigms in the organisational and management research field, linked with a review of grounded theory origins, this desk study serves to understand how and why organisational and management researchers contextualise and locate the methodology within contemporary qualitative research. It then allows the authors to build on this platform to show how grounded theory is viewed in the organisational and management research field, particularly from a novice researcher’s perspective. Paradigms and Perspectives Review the literature and it’s not difficult to find the common threads by which researchers classify research methods. The most common distinction is to classify research as either qualitative or quantitative. Denzin and Lincoln’s work (2005) provides a valuable comparison of the two methods; “qualitative verses quantitative research”. Quantitative research methods, originally developed and used in the natural sciences, formed the basis and accepted methodology that has become the norm in social science research and subsequently organisational and management research. Encompassing such techniques as surveys and laboratory experiments, it generally leads to numerical data collection facilitating mathematical and statistical modelling. Qualitative research, on the other hand, was specifically developed in the field of social sciences to enable researchers to study socially derived phenomena and once again adopted by organisational and management researchers. Huberman and Miles (2002) in the introduction to their text “The Qualitative Researchers Companion” explained how they witnessed the explosive growth of qualitative research methods between the 1980’s and the 1990’s. This increase manifested itself in increased publications of qualitative based research material in professional journals, taking on various forms ranging from case study research, ethnography and discourse analysis to narratives and symbolic interaction studies using techniques such as observations, interviews and questionnaires to collect data. Each method has its own traditions governed by its own genres with its own preferred forms of presentation, interpretation, trustworthiness and textual evaluation (Becker, 1986). Qualitative research methods are designed to help researchers understand people, the psychological effects and the social and cultural contexts within which they live. Glaser (1998) as did Miles and Huberman (1994) argue the advantages of understanding a phenomenon from the participants perspective, pointing out that particular social and institutional context is largely lost when textual data are quantified. Further distinctions adopted by researchers are to classify research methods as objective (e.g. positivist, empiricist) or subjective (e.g. anti-positivist, idealist) (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). The major alternative to positivism in management science is that of the interpretive (and the closely related constructive)...

Comparative Failure in Science

Originally published in Science, 143(3610) (March 6, 1964): 1012-14 Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. Besides degree of clarity, another aspect of a demotion is the relative failure which it indicates. The clearer the forms of comparative failure, the more painful they are likely to be. However, a certain degree of failure may indicate nothing more than the lack of outstanding success, while indicating moderate success. A perennial problem for some scientists is their feeling of comparative failure as scientists. This problem becomes clearer if we consider two major sources of this feeling that are inherent in the vary nature of scientific work. (i) In science, strong emphasis is placed on the achievement of recognition; (ii) the typical basic scientist works in a community filled with “great men” who have made important and decisive discoveries in their respective fields; they are the acknowledge guiding lights. These esteemed scientists, who have attained honors beyond the reach of most of their colleagues, tend to become models for those who have been trained by them or who have worked under them. As Eiduson has put it in her recent psychological study of basic research scientists “Scientists: are idols-oriented.” To take these honored men as models is important for training as well as for a life of research. During training, one learns to think creatively. Emulation of these models results on the internalization of values, beliefs, and norms of the highest standard. This emulation of the great continues and guides the scientist in his research work, however individual in style his work may be. But it is precisely here that a feeling of comparative failure may arise. In emulating a great man the scientist tends to compare himself with the model. He estimates how closely he has equaled his model in ability to adhere to high standards of research, to think of relevant problems, to create “elegant” research designs, to devise new methods, to write clearly, to analyze data. In addition, because of the strong emphasis on attaining recognition for research contributions the scientist perhaps will compare his own degree of success with his model’s to gauge how he himself is doing. In using the great man’s achievements and the recognition accorded him as criteria, the scientist may be motivated to strive continually and unremittingly towards greater heights. On the other hand, he may see himself, over time, as a comparative failure for not having attained a comparable amount of recognition. Eiduson brings out the dynamics of this problem for scientists: The model, then, is the ego ideal figure who represents the ultimate position, and in fact, defines what a scientist should do, how he should think, how he should act. By comparison, everything else is inevitably of lesser worth [italics mine]. We have seen the way scientists in this group rebuke themselves as they become old, distracted, sit on committees or government advisory boards, or become administrators- and thus move away from the ideal. From this picture it is obvious that the scientist is hard on himself. He has a built-in, clearly marked scalar system, along which attitudes and kinds of performances are measured. When he moves away and deviates from the pattern, he becomes a maverick, or a person who has tossed aside the flaming torch. Average Success With this basic problem in mind, I recently made a study of the organizational careers of basic research scientists, one purpose of which was to ascertain the consequences, for the scientist’s career, of...

Overcoming Obstacles: Opportunities of academically talented women in Iran...

Shahla Alborzi, Ph.D.; Mohammad Khayyer, Ph.D. with the assistance of Tina L. Johnston, Ph.D. Abstract The aim of the present research was to study the lifetime obstacles and opportunities of academically successful women working at Iran universities. Successful female academics in Iran are concerned about the social and personal barriers to pursuing successful careers in academia. These women continually work to overcome these barriers in an ongoing process called overcoming obstacles. This basic social process has five stages: perceiving inequality, conflicting, dissolving, empowering and acting purposefully. Throughout the process, these women have first become aware of gender inequities and then worked towards overcoming them using self-motivation properties and support from external sources such as family, mentors and colleagues. This substantive theory, though rooted in a specific country with a strong male dominated social structure, is applicable to all societies as they continue to work towards equitable access to high-level career opportunities. Introduction For many years, researchers have studied the life and contributions to society of academically talented persons around the world. These studies have tried to increase knowledge about their features, interests, motives and also, their success and failures (Hulbert & Schuster, 1993). Many societies view the support of talent development as critical to their nation progress. Sociologists have noted that the progress and development of each nation depends on the development of its gifted and talented individuals (Kitano & Perkins, 1996). Usually, giftedness in childhood is determined on the basis of specific intelligence testing or performance criteria; however, the process of identification of giftedness in childhood does not accurately predict giftedness in adulthood, specifically in women (Kerr, 1997). Fahlman (2004) describes the characteristics of giftedness in adulthood suggesting that these gifted characteristics are affected by social supports and interpersonal relationships. Reis (1991) stated that human societies have interpreted the characteristics of adult giftedness according to individual performances and contributions to society. The subjects of this study will be termed gifted or talented interchangeably as each of them exhibits high levels of performance and contributions to their families, university positions and Iranian society. From another point of view, throughout history, powerless individuals and groups without voices have been recognized as minority populations. These numbers include individuals with low social and economic status. Women, because of their social position relative to men, have been the focus of research (Bizzari, 1998). These researchers have studied and reported on such problems as accessibility to jobs, wage comparisons between males and females, the structure of family, demands of nurturing children and educational access (Garrison, 1993; Hulbert & Schuster, 1993). Despite the broad range of studies of women’s issues, few studies have been carried out that focus on academically talented women, particularly studies that have shown the impact of socio-individual factors on the lives of these women in Iran. Furthermore, the few studies that have been carried out in Iran are highly quantitative in nature and, therefore, have not examined the deeper cultural meaning of the ongoing obstacles and opportunities of gifted women in Iran (Alborzi, 1998). The lack of research on this topic in general, and specifically in Iran, provided a catalyst to conduct the present study. The authors sought to better understand the obstacles, challenges and also opportunities that academically gifted women have experienced in Iran. A good understanding of life obstacles and opportunities of academically gifted women must involve an appreciation of the cultural context within which these events and actions take place as well as an evaluation of their significance...

Stabilising of Life: A substantive theory...

Aino-Liisa Jussila, Ph.D. Abstract The purpose of this grounded theory study was to explore how families live after one parent has been diagnosed with cancer and to develop a substantive theory to explain how families solve the main concern in their lives. The study design was prospective using 32 joint couple conversations with parents of 13 families (N=26) during different stages of the cancer trajectory as well as 26 hours of observations of five families, including ten parents and nine children (N=19), collected during a boarding course on psychosocial rehabilitation. The data consisted of 2377 incidents and a memo fund of 97 pages. The main concern of families was how to respond to the shock of a parent falling ill with cancer. The core category was stabilising of life through facing of hardships and assuming an attitude towards the future which patterned out as detaching, fighting, adjusting and submitting. Introduction Cancer as a disease influences not just one person in the family; instead, it can be perceived as a family disease since the falling ill of one family member affects the entire family and its well-being (Anderson and Tomlinson 1992, Åstedt-Kurki et al. 1999, Anderson 2000). Therefore, when one of the parents falls ill with cancer, it impacts the everyday life of the diagnosed person and their family members. In addition, the cancer patient’s relatives or significant others find that the disease is a part of their lives (Eriksson 1996, Kuuppelomäki 2000, Eriksson and Lauri 2000a, 2000b, Eriksson 2001, Lindholm et al. 2002). It is essential to include the family in caring for the patient and to treat the entire family as a patient, since the family has a great importance to the cancer patient. According to earlier research, however, the family may even be ignored and misunderstood by health care professionals, although the family with cancer has many issues to be addressed in order to be able to decrease anxiety and to be able to offer the emotional support that the patient requires. Thus, family life with cancer should be studied to improve health care of the cancer patients and their families. The Discovery Process The purpose of this grounded theory study was to explore how families live after one parent has been diagnosed with cancer and to develop a substantive theory to explain how families solve the main concern in their lives. The study design was prospective using 32 joint couple conversations with the parents of 13 families (N=26) at different stages of the cancer trajectory as well as 26 hours of observations with five families, including in total ten parents and nine children (N=19), collected during a boarding course on psychosocial rehabilitation. The data consisted of 2377 incidents and the memo fund of 97 pages. The data was collected and analysed according to the classic grounded theory methodology (Glaser, 1978, 1998, 2001). A Grounded Theory of Family Survivorship through Stabilising of Life The substantive theory of family survivorship and its core category of stabilising of life provide a typology of strategies for families living with a parent diagnosed with cancer. According to this typology, families can remain in one type of behaviour or move from one to another. The properties of stabilising of life are facing of hardships and assuming an attitude towards the future. They are related to the feelings and actions prevailing in the family and, in turn, indicate that the family’s stabilising of life, as regards facing of hardships and assuming an attitude...