Keeping My Ways of Being: Middleaged women dealing with the passage through menopause...

By Helene Ekström, Johanna Esseveld and Birgitta Hovelius Abstract The meanings given to menopause by women themselves are often left aside. In this grounded theory study, based on interviews and on open-ended questions in questionnaires answered by middle-aged women, the authors found that not being able to know what would happen and what influence menopause would have were sources of uncertainty for the women. The process, Keeping My Ways of Being, emerged in the analysis as the pattern of behavior through which the women endeavored to resolve their uncertainty. The intensity of the process and the use of its three different stages, those of Preserving present ways of being, Limiting changes and Reappraising, were considered to be dependent upon the central Personal Calculation Process, in which the women used their individual explanatory beliefs and evaluations of need. The theory, used as a model of thinking in consultations with middle-aged women, might show a high degree of workability in explaining what is going on. Key words: Grounded theory, menopause, hormone therapy, ways of being, personal calculation Background Midlife is not a clearly demarcated period and it was the last segment of the life-span to be discovered (Lock, 1998). It tends to be characterized more by key events than by a particular age period, although this depends on what cohort, culture or context is of primary concern (Lachman & James, 1997). In Sweden, the terms “climacteric” or “transition-age” are commonly used for the years before and after the final menstrual period. In common parlance the terms are used for a wide range of symptoms and circumstances during these years, and thus similar to the content often given to the term “menopause” (Ballard, Kuh, & Wadsworth, 2001). Menopause is a physiological event occurring universally in women who reach midlife. In the medical literature, midlife or middle-age is often redefined for women in terms of menopause (Esseveld & Eldén, 2002). This redefinition implies an emphasis on the loss of fertility and on estrogen deficiency, followed by a focus on problems, symptoms and risks of various diseases (Esseveld & Eldén, 2002; Lock, 2002; Murtagh & Hepworth, 2003). Menopause has been promoted as a critical point of choice in women’s lives. The choices they then make influence their lives and health into old age (Murtagh & Hepworth, 2003). This approach to menopause and the promotion of hormone therapy (HT) have been the subject of intense debate among social scientists, feminists and medical professionals (Guillemin, 1999; Hemminki, 2004; Lock, 1998; Murtagh & Hepworth, 2003). Medical practice in the form of HT has been widely advocated as a remedy for relieving such symptoms as hot flushes, cold sweats and vaginal dryness as well as for the prevention of public health problems such as heart disease and osteoporosis (Hemminki, 2004; Murtagh & Hepworth, 2003). However, in the late 1990s and in the early years of the 21 st century, results from randomized controlled studies such as the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study (HERS) and Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), has turned medical counseling on HT upside down. Today, HT is recommended for the treatment of menopausal symptoms only (EMEA, 2003). In Sweden, general practitioners as well as gynecologists prescribe HT. In general, no referrals are needed and women’s choice of physician does not carry with it a major difference in costs for them. In contrast to the bio-medical conception of menopause, social scientists and feminists but also some medical professionals have emphasized its social construction and have promoted an...

Weathering Change: Coping in a context of pervasive organizational change...

By Michael A. Raffanti, Ed.D., J.D. Abstract This study of organizational change was conducted using classic grounded theory methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Most of the relevant data came from open-ended intensive interviews with educators—classroom teachers, professional developers, learning specialists, administrators, and student teachers. Theoretical sampling was also done in organizational settings such as businesses, nonprofits, and religious institutions. The theory of weathering accounts for how organizational members continually resolve their main concern of survival in the face of pervasive change. Weathering is a basic social-psychological process that enables individuals to endure changes in a manner consistent with their personal and professional needs, goals, and values. In the sizing-up phase, an individual initially confronts an impending organizational change. In the filtering phase, one decides how to cope with the change by processing the information through personal and professional filters. The outcome of filtering determines the behaviors exhibited in the coping stage. Coping is a set of behaviors that are best characterized as resisting and acquiescing. The study suggests that leaders consider the complexities of weathering behaviors as they seek to implement organizational changes. Introduction Relentless calls for reform are etched in the consciousness of American public educators. As debate continues to rage among policy-makers and scholars over high-stakes testing, accountability, and educating an increasingly diverse society, administrators and classroom teachers face the grassroots pressures of improving test scores and student learning. Despite a wealth of theoretical and practical writings on school reform, implementing change remains as challenging as ever. As Evans (2000) observed, “Organizational change—not just in schools, but in institutions of all kinds—is riddled with a paradox. We study it in ever greater depth, but we practice it with continuing clumsiness” (p.4). By examining the “human side” of school reform, Evans sought to illuminate the psychosocial factors of organizational change that rational-scientific approaches do not fully consider. Contemporary scholars of the change process recognize that complex organizational processes are best understood through systems thinking. As Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1998) noted, “Since human organizations are filled with living beings…this process can’t be described in neat increments. It occurs in the tangled webs of relationships—the networks—that characterize all living systems”. (p. 1) With its focus on discovering patterns of behavior, classic grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978) is an ideal, and underutilized, methodology for understanding, explaining, and predicting the patterns of social behavior that occur in complex organizational contexts. A theory that is grounded in the psychosocial behaviors of actual participants in change contexts affords researchers and leaders a “controllable theoretical foothold” through which to implement sustainable change. A grounded theory truly addresses the complex, human side of change. Methodology Grounded theory is a systematic, empirical, and primarily inductive research methodology. The purpose of the methodology is to generate theories directly from data to explain social behavior. The theory that emerges from analysis of the data accounts for how participants in an action context continually resolve their relevant issues and problems (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The grounded theorist enters a substantive area of study and begins to collect data, usually through open-ended intensive interviews or participant-observation. Rather than pre-establishing interview subjects or generating a list of questions at the outset, the researcher follows the data where it leads through theoretical sampling, the continuous collection and comparative analysis of data. (Glaser, 1978) In constant comparative analysis the researcher open codes the data. That is, one compares incidents, freely and abundantly generating codes in the margins of the notes, transcripts,...

Achieving Rigour and Relevance in Information Systems Studies: Using grounded theory to investigate organizational cases...

By Walter D Fernández, Ph.D. and Hans Lehmann, Ph.D. Abstract This paper builds on the belief that rigorous Information Systems (IS) research can help practitioners to better understand and to adapt to emerging situations. Contrary to the view seeing rigour and relevance as a dichotomy, it is maintained that IS researchers have a third choice; namely, to be both relevant and rigorous. The paper proposes ways in which IS research can contribute to easing the practitioners’ burden of adapting to changes by providing timely, relevant, and rigorous research. It is argued that synergy between relevance and rigour is possible and that classic grounded theory methodology in combination with case-based data provides a good framework for rigorous and relevant research of emerging phenomena in information systems. Introduction Information technology (IT) practitioners work in a frantic business world, facing new and complex socio- technical arrangements. New technologies enable companies and people to interact in ways which were simply nonexistent just a few years ago. Practitioners’ knowledge, mainly gained through previous experiences, is often an imperfect tool as the changing environment challenges previous assumptions or common wisdom. These practitioners need relevant IS research that can guide their sense making and their actions. In this context, Information Systems(IS) research has been accused, rightly or wrongly, of being irrelevant to practitioners. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that the topic of rigour and relevance is an ongoing concern in the IS research community (Benbasat & Zmud, 1999; Fernández, Lehmann, & Underwood, 2002; Gray, 2001; Lee, 1999; Nissen, Klein, & Hirschheim, 1991; Robey & Markus, 1998; Senn, 1998). Recent evidence of this concern include the March 2001 edition of the Communications of the Association for Information Systems, dealing with IS research relevance in response to a very “hot” discussion between members of the ISWorld community (Kock et al., 2001), and the full-house attendance at a panel debate on this topic during the premier conference in the information systems field, ICIS 2001 (2001). While many researchers perceive rigour and relevance as opposite paradigms, Stokes (1997) argued that the quest for fundamental understanding and the considerations for practical use can be attained simultaneously. To achieve this dual and simultaneous goal, Robey and Markus (1998) proposed the adoption of three research models: (a) applied theory, where existing theoretical models are used to study real and relevant problems from the practitioners’ world; (b) evaluation research, where researchers evaluate a particular intervention against a set criteria based on objectives and consequences; and (c), policy research, where alternative solutions are evaluated against a set of criteria usually including cost, efficacy, or practicability; where the main objective of policy research is to understand the policy- making process. While these three research models are suitable for rigorous and relevant studies, an important research model has been neglected, as we argue next. Adding to Robey and Markus’ work, we propose a fourth methodological alternative: grounded theory building research, where the emerging theory helps explain, in conceptual terms, what is going on in the substantive field of research. As mentioned earlier, this alternative is of particular importance when the focus is on emerging socio- technical IS phenomena because it avoids the risk of transferring incorrect theoretical assumptions to emerging phenomena. When dealing with emergent sociotechnical organisations, it could be argued that by adopting Robey and Markus’ model of applied theory we could be forcing preconception into the emerging phenomena, this preconception could potentially render the study irrelevant to the practitioner as it may fail...

Basic Social Processes

By Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon.Ph.D. with the assistance of Judith Holton Abstract The goal of grounded theory is to generate a theory that accounts for a pattern of behavior that is relevant and problematic for those involved. The goal is not voluminous description, nor clever verification. As with all grounded theory, the generation of a basic social process (BSP) theory occurs around a core category. While a core category is always present in a grounded research study, a BSP may not be. BSPs are ideally suited to generation by grounded theory from qualitative research because qualitative research can pick up process through fieldwork that continues over a period of time. BSPs are a delight to discover and formulate since they give so much movement and scope to the analyst’s perception of the data. BSPs such as cultivating, defaulting, centering, highlighting or becoming, give the feeling of process, change and movement over time. They also have clear, amazing general implications; so much so, that it is hard to contain them within the confines of a single substantive study. The tendency is to refer to them as a formal theory without the necessary comparative development of formal theory. They are labeled by a “gerund”(“ing”) which both stimulates their generation and the tendency to over-generalize them. In this paper, we shall first discuss the search for, and criteria of, core variables (categories) and how they relate to BSPs. Then we go on to a section on several central characteristics of basic social processes. Lastly, we discuss the relative merits of unit vs. process sociology. Core Category and Basic Social Process (BSP) While grounded theory can use any theoretical codes, the basic social process (BSP) is a popular one. As with all grounded theory, the generation of a BSP theory occurs around a core category. While a core category is always present in a grounded research study, a BSP may not be. BSPs are just one type of core category—thus all BSPs are core variables (categories), but not all core variables are BSPs. The primary distinction between the two is that BSPs are processural or, as we say, they “process out.” They have two or more clear emergent stages. Other core categories may not have stages, but can use other theoretical codes. Without a core category, an effort at grounded theory will drift in relevancy and workability. Since a core category accounts for most of the variation in a pattern of behavior, it has several important functions for generating theory. It is relevant and works. Most other categories and their properties are related to it, rendering the core category subject to much qualification and modification because it is so dependent on what is going on in the action. In addition, through these relations between categories and their properties, the core has the prime function of integrating the theory and rendering the theory dense and saturated as the relationships increase. These functions then lead to theoretical completeness—accounting for as much variation in a pattern of behavior with as few concepts as possible, thereby maximizing parsimony and scope. Clearly integrating a theory around a core variable delimits the theory and thereby the research project. Upon choosing a core category, the first delimiting analytic rule of grounded theory comes into play. Only variables that are related to the core will be included in the theory. Another delimiting function of the core category occurs in its necessary relation to resolving the problematic nature of the pattern...

Adventuring: A grounded theory discovered through the analysis of science teaching and learning...

By Katrina M. Maloney, M.Sc., Ed.D. Abstract The grounded theory of adventuring, derived from the substantive area of science teaching and learning, explains both why scientific thinking is an evolutionarily important trait and illustrates a common thread throughout a variety of teaching and learning behaviors. The core concept of adventuring incorporates the categories of exploring, mavericking, and acquiring and applying skills that are the hallmarks of positive science education. Learning science is difficult due to the higher order cognitive skills required. This study explains how we could be teaching and learning science in a way for which our brains are best suited, and in ways that reach all learners, and encourages the use of adventuring in all classrooms. Introduction The grounded theory of adventuring explains behaviors of teachers and learners. This study discusses the psychology/sociology of teachers teaching science and students learning science through a grounded theory analysis of behaviors, and elucidates the biological process of thinking by discussing changes over time to the human brain’s physiology and chemistry. In connecting the behaviors of science thinkers to the biology of the brain’s hardware, this work explains how we could be teaching and learning science in a way for which our brains are best suited. Adventuring, as a core concept, contains the three categories of exploring, mavericking and acquiring and applying skills. Ten dimensions of adventuring are also discussed in this study, identiftying conditions, strategies, types and consequences of adventuring. Although the theory of adventuring was discovered through an exploration of the substantive area of science teaching and learning, as soon as the theory was shared with others, it became apparent that adventuring happens in a wide variety of situations and conceptualizes latent patterns of behavior found in many learning scenarios. Rationale: Why is Learning Science Difficult? Studies summarized in Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1991) and Shaping our Future (National Science Foundation, 1996) state unequivocally that there is a need to teach science well to promote the type of scientific literacy necessary in a complex and increasingly global society. Science is in our everyday space. The imperative to be active decision makers in our country is a right and, as such, carries responsibility. If we forfeit that right and deny the importance of science education for all learners, we do a grave disservice to our communities, to our country, and to our planet. The higher level cognitive demands of science courses are very difficult for a developing mind. Specifically, science courses blend math skills and linguistic skills, higher order cognition skills of hypothesis generation, analysis and modification. Science courses require rote memorization, sequential organization, and sustained attention to detail. Understanding science texts and participating in class discussion require sophisticated receptive and expressive language abilities (Levine, 1987). Troublesome issues for students identified in college science classrooms by professors include: use of scientific tools (hardware such as microscopes, centrifuges, incubators, balances, pipettes, measuring instruments); science literature (dichotomous keys, graphs/tables/charts, textbooks, journal articles, popular press items); and the cognitive skills of analytical thinking such as basic questioning, prediction, the hypothetical- deductive process itself (proceeding from general concepts to specific events, or, in other words, identifying the causes of results), organization of data and concepts, creating and/or reading graphs and charts, the recursive nature of science inquiry, and the possibility of change in facts/theories/hypotheses. Students bring various strengths to their work in the cognitive realm of science, but severe deficits in background understanding of basic scientific processes...