Grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study...

[This paper was originally published in Contemporary Nurse (www.contemporarynurse.com) and is reprinted here with the kind permission of the publisher. Reference: McCallin, A. M. (2003). Grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study. Contemporary Nurse, 15(12), 6169.] Antoinette McCallin, Ph.D., RN Abstract Student researchers often struggle to understand how to use literature in a grounded theory study where timing and knowing what to read are critical. Despite substantive theoretical documentation on this topic the reality of working through abstract ideas is more challenging. There is a fine line between not doing a literature review in the area of study and being informed so that a study is focused. In this paper a practical example will be presented illustrating how the student can integrate literature yet stay away from preconceived notions. The topic is interprofessional practice. Key Words Grounded theory, Interprofessional practice, Qualitative literature integration Introduction Over and over again student researchers grapple to understand the place of the literature review in a grounded theory study. While the theoretical ideas are well documented in texts on research methodology (Chenitz, 1986; Glaser, 1978, 1992, 1998; Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) integrating abstract concepts in practice is sometimes more challenging. Glaser (1998) recognises that reading the literature is problematic while Strauss and Corbin (1998) expect most professionals are familiar with the literature in the field. Misunderstandings arise from the tendency for novice researchers to take a purist stance whereby they accept the general advice to stay away from the literature literally. While the beginner researcher receives that interpretation happily, supervisors and institutional review committees are rather more nervous of such a simplistic approach. Those responsible for student researchers seek some reassurance that the student knows what they are doing, has a general focus, and is at least safe to enter the field. Preparation for any research study is always essential and some pre-research literature reading is still necessary to “frame the problem in the introduction to a study” (Creswell, 1994, p. 23). At the very least, a literature review is needed to find out if the proposed study or something similar has been done before. In addition, this early literature review may be used to prepare a research proposal for an ethics committee, so sound preliminary work goes some way to demonstrate that the researcher knows exactly what she is doing even if she does not know what she is looking for. Thus the mental wrestle quickens with the need to be general but focused, yes, to look at some literature but no, stay away from the main area of interest. Not surprisingly, student researchers may feel baffled with instructions that are apparently contradictory. This is complicated further, as many qualitative researchers work in an environment where clinicians are increasingly asked to justify decisions with the best evidence (Street, 2001). Such issues serve to emphasise that part of being a qualitative researcher is learning to move beyond the either-or way of thinking, in order to embrace bothand thinking that recognises complex possibilities, many truths and viewpoints, and different ways of experiencing reality (Zohar & Marshall, 1994). In this paper the issues and strategies for grounded theory literature integration will be discussed and illustrated with a practical example. What are the Issues? Clearly literature review in a grounded theory study must include literature on both the topic and the grounded theory method. For example, student researchers grappling with the literature will quickly find the debate about emergence versus sensitisation that arose...

The Literature Review in Grounded Theory: A response to McCallin (2003)...

Tom Andrew, RN, B.Sc.(Hons), M.Sc., Ph.D. Abstract The paper by McCallin (2003) is a useful contribution to the debate surrounding the role of the literature in Grounded Theory (GT). For the purpose of this paper and with reference to McCallin (2003) the issue will be discussed in relation to the purpose of a review within GT. It will be argued that the misunderstanding about the function of the literature within a GT study arises partly as a result of the confusion caused by the continual rewriting of the method. Further it will be argued that a preliminary reading of the literature is entirely consistent with the principals of GT. Finally some practical suggestions will be made as to how the issue could be dealt with in a way that is unproblematic for GT. How to deal with the literature in GT has clearly been an issue from its inception because its role is different within this methodology. This is likely to be as a result of misunderstanding the role of the literature in GT, confusing it with its traditional role in research. However this leads to tensions between the requirements of those supervising the research project and those of GT (McCallin 2003). Conventionally the purpose of a literature review in research is to identify a research problem, refine a research question or hypothesis, determine gaps or inconsistencies in the body of research as well as identifying suitable designs and data collection methods for a study (Polit and Beck 2006). Within GT the literature is viewed simply as more data to be synthesised and integrated into the emerging theory (Glaser 1998). The researcher using GT is mandated to stay open to the concepts being generated from the data and not from the literature so as not to preconceive or be derailed (Glaser 1978; Glaser 1998). Central to GT is the idea is that the literature is not used as a source of concepts. Therefore it is very important for those new to GT to realise this through a meticulous reading of the original GT literature, coupled with high quality teaching in research methods classes. However, thinking of GT as just another qualitative methodology is problematic for those trying to understand the role of the literature. Its continual rewriting confuses those new to it (Glaser 2003). Not only are those trying to understand and use GT confronted by what appears to be two versions of the method, but the different perspectives also, such as constructivist (Mills et al. 2006), feminist and critical theory (Charmaz 2000). While these different perspectives discuss the literature as data, they do not emphasise its full conceptual integration into the emerging theory, leading to a misunderstanding as to the role of the literature in GT. No wonder that those new to GT end up so confused. It is a common misconception to think that GT advocates no reading of the literature. While Glaser (1978) advises the researcher to enter the field with as few predetermined ideas as possible; that “sensitivity is increased by being steeped in the literature that deals with both kinds of variables and their associated general ideas that will be used” (p2); this does not mean no reading of the literature. McCallin (2003) is right when maintaining that usually funding committees, research supervisors and dissertation committees demand that the student includes a literature review in any research proposal and this is acknowledged by Glaser (1998). At a minimum those conducting research need to demonstrate...

Thoughts on the Literature Review and GT

Alvita Nathaniel, DSN Thinking about epistemic questions always reminds me of Socrates’ cave allegory. In Plato’s most famous book, The Republic, Socrates talks to a young follower named Glaucon. I would like to include here a short excerpt of their conversation and discuss how this relates to my thoughts about preceding a classic GT study with a thorough literature review. [Socrates] Imagine human beings living in a underground, cave like dwelling, with an entrance a long way up, which is both open to the light and as wide as the cave itself. They’ve been there since childhood, fixed in the same place, with their necks and legs fettered, able to see only in front of them, because their bonds prevent them from turning their heads around. Light is provided by a fire burning far above and behind them. Also behind them, but on higher ground, there is a path stretching between them and the fire. Imagine that along this path a low wall has been built, like the screen in front of puppeteers above which they show their puppets [Glaucon] I’m imagining it. [Socrates] Then also imagine that there are people along the wall, carrying all kinds of artifacts that project above it—statues of people and other animals, made out of stone, wood, and every material. And, as you’d expect, some of the carriers are talking, and some are silent. [Glaucon] It’s a strange image you’re describing, and strange prisoners. [Socrates] They’re like us. Do you suppose, first of all, that these prisoners see anything of themselves and one another besides the shadows that the fire casts on the wall in front of them? [Glaucon] How could they, if they have to keep their heads motionless throughout life? [Socrates] What about the things being carried along the wall? Isn’t the same true of them? [Glaucon] Of course. [Socrates] And if they could talk to one another, don’t you think they’d suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them? [Glaucon] They’d have to. [Socrates] And what if their prison also had an echo from the wall facing them? Don’t you think they’d believe that the shadows passing in front of them were talking whenever one of the carriers passing along the wall was doing so? [Glaucon] I certainly do. [Socrates] Then the prisoners would in every way believe that the truth is nothing other than the shadows of those artifacts. [Glaucon] They must surely believe that. [Socrates] Consider, then, what being released…. What do you think he’d say, if we told him that what he’d seen before was inconsequential…. …if we pointed to each of the things passing by, asking what each of them is, and compelled him to answer, don’t you think he’d be at a loss and that he’d believe that the [shadows] he saw earlier were truer than the [objects] he was now being shown? (Plato, trans. 1997) There is more to the story, of course. Light at the opening of the cave represents knowledge. The people chained at the bottom of the cave are situated as far from knowledge as they could possibly be. As they sit there, they begin to interpret meaningless clues and to attach meaning to them. Given enough time, they will surely develop theories and then, if released, go off somewhere to teach and write about them—or so I imagine. The other people in the cave are climbing to the opening, moving toward true knowledge....

NEW WAY OF USING LITERATURE IN GT?

Hans Thulesius, GP, Ph.D. After having read Antoinette McCallin’s paper on literature use in GT I find myself asking the following question. Is McCallin’s way of applying the literature letting the research area emerge in a literature search an important modification on how to use the literature in classic GT according to Glaser? McCallin shows how her way to a one core variable grounded theory went over a literature review in the beginning of her research. But this literature review was actually a general literature search for a problem area to explore since McCallin tells us that she did not have a finite area of research before screening the literature. Eventually, through a literature search she decided that she wanted to study interprofessional practice in health care. After having found this problem area McCallin did what is not recommended in classic GT – she began studying the scientific literature on interprofessional practice. However, the area was almost unexplored. In my opinion McCallin did not start her GT until she found the specific research area she wanted to explore. But this area was not found through a specific scientific literature search but by generally exploring what was going on in the health care scene in her part of the world. Then she could have been preconceived by too early reading the scientific literature, but the area was scientifically a virgin land to her luck. Fortunately, the literature revealed that there was little published research on the concept of interprofessional practice (Bishop & Scudder, 1985; Casto & Julia, 1994; Gabe, Kelleher & Williams, 1994; Leathard, 1994; Ovretveit, 1993; Petersen, 1994; Soothill, Mackay, & Webb, 1995). Most readings proved to be anecdotal accounts of interprofessional teamwork. (McCallin, 2003, p.66) McCallin then generated a useful grounded theory explaining how health care professionals through pluralistic dialogue overcome difficulties in working together. So the answer to the above question is no. McCallin just did what Glaser suggests, reading a lot, but not in the area of study. Her general literature search increased her theoretical sensitivity in discovering a relevant research area. As she tells us: “Perhaps long-term study within the discipline of nursing had de-sensitised me to the wider issues common to all health professionals working in the health reform environment?” (McCallin, 2003, p.65) So the recommended use of literature in Grounded Theory research according to Glaser fits with how McCallin used it in her Pluralistic Dialogue study. What may be somewhat new is that McCallin actually found her problem area in the general literature. Author Hans Thulesius, GP, Ph.D. Kronoberg County Research Centre Department of Community Medicine Vaxjo, SE Email:...

Aspects on McCallin’s paper, “Grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study”...

Helene Ekström, MD, Ph.D. I read Antoinette McCallin’s paper with interest and I have learned that there are problems which I have foreseen perhaps because I am, as many medical doctors are, unaware of the many “theories” or different perspectives that one can chose in undertaking a study. Kirsti Malterud, Professor of General Practice in Bergen, Norway, used to say that we are theoretically ignorant and instead focus on the pragmatic issues of how to survive the day and help the “sick” in an appropriate way. However, even if I feel like a real novice, I have some remarks about literature and grounded theory studies. A literature review as part of, for instance, a research proposal and one that is undertaken when actually performing a grounded theory study are two different issues in my opinion. When writing a research proposal or an application for research funding, the issue is (which I personally learned the hard way….) to follow the rules of the committees or funding agencies whether or not the review demanded is appropriate for what you plan to study. Here the discussion in the first part of McCallin’s paper is appropriate because when you write a research proposal or the like perhaps (although not necessarily) a discussion is needed of the different “GT methods”, their requirements, historical development, different opinions among researchers and so on as well as why you have chosen a particular approach. On the other hand, when actually doing a grounded theory study I believe the issue is to follow the rules of the method you have chosen; that is, either classical (Glaserian) GT, the Strauss and Corbin version or any other versions. To read the appropriate method books over and over again while collecting and coding data is the most important part of literature reading. Reading other GT studies done using the same method as you have chosen can also help and is essential for increasing your understanding of “how to do it” as well as in sensitizing your knowledge of theoretical codes that may enable you to reach a high enough level of abstraction in your own analysis. These issues of reading literature I miss completely in McCallin’s paper. In my own experience, just finding good grounded theories through the usual literature search databases is a challenge, certainly for those of us in the medical profession. It would have been helpful to have some guidance about this in the paper. I also miss a clear explanation of the two main aspects of literature review when the theory has evolved; that is, how to search for literature about other research in the same area of interest as well as literature dealing with concepts and theories similar to what has emerged in your grounded theory. In my own doctoral study, this meant looking both for other papers about how women experienced menopause as well as papers about “status passages” as these were my emerging categories and main concern. In summary, I feel that McCallin’s paper could have been improved by offering an outline as to what purpose literature reading serves at different times during a GT study. The example used in the paper did not reveal this to me but had it done so would have been of great value to many researchers new to GT. Author Helene Ekström, MD, Ph.D. Kronoberg County Research Centre Department of Community Medicine Vaxjo, SE Email:...