The Relationship between an Emerging Grounded Theory and the Existing Literature: Four phases for consideration...

Vivian B. Martin, Ph.D. The relationship between grounded theory researchers and the existing literature has become a red herring that even confuses some grounded theorists who have completed a study. Antoinette McCallin’s essay does a commendable job outlining the realities of the research terrain that make proceeding without some exposure to the literature unlikely and ill-advised in most situations. When embarking on my dissertation, I needed to know enough about the literature, both substantive and methodological, to argue for the use of classic grounded theory as opposed to many other choices within my field; yet my study benefited from the necessary tensions between the emerging grounded theory and the existing literature. In this brief essay I propose that the relationship between the existing literature and a developing grounded theory project goes through four discernible phases: noncommittal, comparative, integrative, and, if the analyst can push, a transcendent phase in which the theory is not simply one of a number of theories of a kind within the discipline’s literature. I explain the phases to make more explicit the under-recognized subversive potential of grounded theory to push pass disciplinary boundaries by broadening the ‘relevant’ literature. Barney Glaser has often admonished grounded theory researchers to put off the literature to avoid wasting time and energy with literature that may prove irrelevant. I have not found such literature to be irrelevant as much as limited, and in some cases restricted by what a particular discipline defines as the appropriate literature. Therefore, the question of what literature offers possibilities for literature review and comparisons that would allow for richer knowledge generation. I return to this matter toward the end of the essay. Four Phases of Relating Although many experienced grounded theorists explain the read-or-not-to-read quandary in grounded theory methodology as one of pacing, thinking of the initial phase as “noncommittal” helps focus on the principle Glaser wants to convey: a distancing from the predefined problems and concerns. Since some knowledge of the literature is presumed – one could not write or defend a dissertation proposal or grant application otherwise – a researcher needs to take explicit steps to refrain from committing to questions and concepts privileged in the literature. Writing memos of one’s preconceptions to make them more explicit, something Glaser recommends in his troubleshooting seminars, is one way. And I would humbly argue that viewing the necessary initial relationship as noncommittal would help novice researchers come up with other strategies that allow for them to graze the literature or know enough to fulfill certain requirements while making a conscious shift of mind to maintain openness to the field. Although I was familiar with the literature on news consumption in my field, I was aware of enough of the limitations to remain noncommittal. But when certain patterns from the literature started to show up in the field, albeit sometimes with a twist, I knew it was time to move back into the literature to start making the kind of comparisons that allowed me to get more selective with concepts. As part of selective coding, I applied some of my concepts to the existing literature, including some large surveys and industry reports. The integrative phase was a little trickier, perhaps reflecting the tensions between discovery of theory and the need to fulfill requirements within the discipline. The short explanation of what happened to me in this phase, at least initially, is that my pacing went awry when I let the literature get away from me. I...

Methodological Issues: Have we forgotten the place of thinking here?...

Antoinette M. McCallin, Ph.D., RN The article “grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study” (McCallin, 2003) has stimulated a lively discussion in the international grounded theory research community. In this paper, I reply generally to my colleagues’ responses and raise some further issues that I do not believe have been addressed to date. In particular, I question if current discussions about the place of literature review are incomplete if methodological matters are debated in isolation from issues of thinking. The purpose of this paper is to argue that although literature review is preferably minimised initially, simply focusing a study, in reality timing does not matter, as long as the analyst is critically analytical of literature at all times, and does not allow existing knowledge to pre-empt identification of the research problem or formation of the emergent theory. In a less than perfect world, some researchers who do not have the luxury of grounded theory supervision will review literature in advance, and others will include a review as per the methodological ideals. What is important however, is how literature is managed and how the researcher thinks about the material he or she is exposed to. In other words, is literature integrated theoretically into a study or simply regarded as the received view of science and material to be accepted without question? The intent of the paper is not to remodel classical grounded theory but more to bring into the open some hitherto unexplained aspects of grounded theory thinking, which also affect what happens methodologically and ultimately, the rigor of the finished product. These issues are explored briefly. Background Originally, “grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study” (McCallin, 2003) was written as a teaching tool for masters’ students beginning grounded theory research projects. In one of my roles as a teacher I had noticed in grounded theory research supervisions that many students always asked the same questions. “Where should I begin? What should I read? What do I do about literature?” While the answers to those questions were available in the literature, ease of access to material was variable. In New Zealand most masters’ students work fulltime and study as well; time is precious. Some students were looking for shortcuts that could have saved them time as they organised study with hectic professional lives. Others, studying in distance learning situations, usually had immediate access to electronic databases, although library books had to be inter-loaned from various universities throughout the country, sometimes overseas. Coupled with this was a situation whereby the luxury of being a full-time scholar with unlimited time to review literature on methodology, seemed to be something of the past. In addition, there were, and still are few classical grounded theory researchers in New Zealand, so students studied with supervisors who did not understand the methodology and certainly few had the luxury of working through apprenticeship-style supervision in their research work. Therefore, the intent of the original paper was to provide a quick overview of significant issues and to highlight the practical problems that influenced research design. The paper has been well received by students and stimulated a lively discussion with more experienced grounded theorists, many of whom will be involved in supervisions as well. Responses Most of my colleagues are in agreement that a grounded theory researcher will look at some literature prior to a study. Vivian Martin’s notion of “phasing” is especially useful, reflecting the tensions between emergence and “the subversive potential of grounded...

Revisiting Caresharing in the Context of Changes in a Florida Retirement Community...

Eleanor Krassen Covan, Ph.D. Abstract In this paper I revisit the basic social process of caresharing whereby people engage in personal and communal strategies to maximize their pleasure and minimize their losses. I originally discovered caresharing in the context of Hollywood Falls, a Florida retirement community that provided no formal supportive services for its aging residents (Covan, 1998). There, hiding frailty was the most obvious caresharing strategy. In this community which has since become more diverse in terms of ethnicity and age, hiding frailty is no longer practical among the oldest residents. It has been surpassed by bolstering strength, a process which involves exposing need, expanding the caresharing network, stifling crises, and staking competence claims. In consequence of bolstering strength, the oldest residents are able to diminish the costs of help while augmenting opportunities for personal autonomy, thereby extending their period of residence within their ‘independent’ living community. Introduction Caresharing is a basic social process, originally discovered in the context of Hollywood Falls, a Florida retirement community (Covan, 1998). The process involves a combination of personal and communal strategies employed by residents of the community in order to maximize their pleasure and minimize their losses. Caresharing is no doubt an enduring universal social process, occurring in many contexts in which people decide to help one another in order to improve their lives. Caresharing is initiated from the ‘ground-up’by the people who themselves need some assistance and by the people who feel they can provide it, as opposed to services that are imposed by some larger more formal system of care, governed by codified regulations. The gerontological literature is replete with articles on “informal caregiving networks,” that could more appropriately be described in terms of their caresharing properties if researchers were to analyze the conditions in which caresharing alliances developed. Rousseau (1762) believed that citizens exchange natural liberty for something better, such as moral liberty. He posited that individuals would subject themselves to the moral order of formal communities for the common good of citizenry. In contrast, caresharing develops as a much looser network of voluntary exchanges such that surrender is inherently revocable, negotiable, and dependent on fluctuations in individual, communal, and environmental resources. Caresharing arrangements are selfserving, expandable, yet retractable social alliances, generated by functional needs as recognized by individuals. People elect to help one another because life is easier and thus ‘better’ this way. To the extent that caresharers perceive ‘surrender,’ it is surrender in the face of needs which they cannot meet on their own. They also understand that surrender may require reciprocating when others need help and that the help they receive may be provided by others who are reciprocating for services received in the past. When surrender occurs, it may be revocable when the need is no longer present or when the costs of providing or of receiving help are too great. Thus, caresharing alliances may involve individual considerations that social economists would recognize in terms of cost/benefit analyses. Of course, we are social beings and thus the endurance of caresharing alliances is dependent to some extent on the emotional and social bonds of kinship and or friendship. Within Hollywood Falls, such alliances in the past have been fostered by neighborliness, involving mutual respect for autonomy, reciprocity, and desperate personal struggles to remain in an independent living community. That caresharing benefited the Hollywood Falls community as a whole occurred in consequence rather than in motivation. As the residential population of Hollywood Falls has been changing,...

Caresharlng: Hiding frailty in a Florida retirement community...

[This paper was originally published in Health Care for Women International, 19:423439, 1998 and is reprinted here with the kind permission of the publisher, Taylor & Francis.] Eleanor Krassen Covan, PhD Abstract This paper presents research findings generated from a study of the structure of a caresharing system for the elderly who reside in a Florida retirement community during the last decade of the twentieth century. A caresharing system is a combination of strategies employed in order to maximize pleasure and minimize losses that might otherwise be associated with communal and individual aging processes. In this instance, the caresharing system entailed a series of conscious efforts to hide frailty in the community. Consequences of such caresharing systems and implications for future retirement communities are discussed. Introduction Many Americans have begun to take notice of increased life expectancy, but as yet behavioral expectations for those who survive their seventh decade are quite varied. They are growing old without models from previous generations to teach them how to spend their time. The demographic shift raises sociological questions both for the aged and the rest of us. What should we do during this additional life stage? The current cohort of aging septuagenarians has several choices to make not the least of which is where to spend this period of their lives. The gerontological literature reports that most of the current group of older people has chosen to “ageinplace”, to live in the communities where they spent most of their working lives. This paper, however, is about a community of elders who have opted to change their location by moving to the sun belt, a region where most people in this study had vacationed years ago. In their judgment, the area offers them the greatest probability of a rewarding golden age, i.e., the opportunity to live life to the fullest. A Note on Methods I am a sociologist as well as the daughter of a resident of Hollywood Fall 2 , Florida. During the past 15 years I have made several trips to the community as a visiting participant observer. A few years ago, funding was available for a more formal field work experience with residents of Hollywood Falls. During the summer of 1992, face-to-face interviews were conducted with residents of Hollywood Falls, followed up by hundreds of brief conversations and telephone calls to others who were involved in their caresharing networks. Since that time I have continued to visit the community in the dual roles of daughter and research professor. Grounded theory data analysis reveals caresharing as a core variable explaining most community interaction. Caresharing is a combination of personal and communal strategies employed by residents of Hollywood Falls in order to maximize their pleasure and minimize their losses as they continue the aging process together. I planned to interview women to learn of their social networks, but theoretical sampling led me to interview men as well. I conducted extensive face-to-face interviews with more than fifty residents, in particular those in leadership positions. In addition, interviews were conducted with nonresident local politicians, attorneys, and professional service providers including those paid by Hollywood Falls Retirement Community and those paid for by individual residents. Family members of Hollywood Falls residents including spouses, siblings, and adult children were added to the theoretical sample when their input seemed necessary. A few interviews were also conducted with older people similar to the Florida population with the exception of having chosen to age in place. Historical Setting Like...

Staying Open: The use of theoretical codes in grounded theory...

By Barney G. Glaser, PhD., Hon. PhD. with the assistance of Judith A. Holton Abstract Theoretical codes (TCs) are abstract models that emerge during the sorting and memoing stages of grounded theory (GT) analysis. They conceptualize the integration of substantive codes as hypotheses of a theory. In this article, I explore the importance of their emergence in the development of a grounded theory and I discuss the challenge of the researcher in staying open to their emergence and earned relevance rather than their preconceived forcing on the theory under development. I emphasize the importance of GT researchers developing theoretical sensitivity to a wide range of theoretical perspectives and their associated codes. It is a skill that all GT researchers can and should develop. Introduction The full power of grounded theory comes with staying open to the emergent and to earned relevance when doing grounded theory (GT). This is especially so with regard to writing up a GT with emergent theoretical codes (TCs). Researchers seem to have the most trouble at this stage of the generating Process – sorting memos and writing up the theory with emergent TCs. Substantive coding comes comparatively easily and is exciting, giving the researcher the exhilarating feeling of discovery. Theoretical coding does not come easily as an emergent and has a beguiling mystique. As one PhD student emailed me: “theoretical codes and interchangeability of indicators were the two aspects of GT that I found the most difficult to comprehend.” (Holton email January 26, 2004). Another GT researcher writes, “The author of this current paper suggests that theoretical coding perhaps places the most demand upon the grounded theorist’s creativity” (Cutcliffe, 2000). Theoretical codes are frequently left out of otherwise quite good GT papers, monographs, and dissertations. The novice GT researcher finds them hard to understand. This article begins the process of trouble shooting this problem by dealing with many facets of theoretical coding and will consider several sources of difficulty in using TCs. The goal is to help the GT researcher stay open to the nonforced, non-preconceived discovery of emergent TCs. The reader may consider this article hard to understand unless he/she has read and studied my several former books. There will be some repetition of the ideas I have already written, but they will be in the service of offering new insights regarding TCs. Readers who are challenged in staying on a substantively abstract level of conceptualization may find this article even harder. Keeping researchers on an abstract or conceptual level is hard – especially for those in nursing, medicine, business and social work – since they are trained at the accurate description level. They tend to slip easily into a theoretical descriptive level as the trained style and practical considerations of their professional field take other. Staying open to TCs will help maintain the substantively conceptual level required by GT and will increase its power. This article is grounded in my origination of GT, in supervising many, many GT researches and dissertations, in reading many dissertations and GT monographs and in intense study of noted QDA methodology books. It is grounded in the hard study of the above caches. It is NOT a “think up” article. It is grounded in what is going on in GT research. The focus of this article, as is my many books, is to help researchers get GT research done – achieve GT products that receive the rewards of PhD degree and career moves. It is not an epistemological...