Moving On

Lisa Goldberg, Saybrook University, USA Kara Vander Linden, Saybrook University, USA Abstract Moving on explains a five-stage process of making voluntary change. The first stage begins with a realization that a person is moving toward or away from something and faces a decision to do nothing, perch, or continue on. In the second stage, seeking a right fit, a person explores vehicles for change and uses value-based decision-making to seek a right fit. Acting upon that right fit does not happen until a tipping point is reached, the third stage. Deciding to move toward action or not is a decision made when a person either impromptus, comes to know, or deliberates over information. The fourth stage explains the journey, decisions made and factors that affect decision making, and coping strategies. The fifth stage explains how moving on concludes by evaluating the success, or lack thereof, of moving on. Keywords: voluntary change process, values, decision-making, coping strategies, classic grounded theory Introduction Change is a constant part of life and with change comes many decisions. This study began with an interest in what leads certain individuals to select a specific institution of higher education. However, as I began collecting data and following the grounded theory method, I soon became aware that although grounded theory may start in one substantive area it often leads to the emergence of a broader social process (Glaser, 1998). According to Glaser (1992), Grounded theory often starts off with a study located within a structural unit, such as in a particular business, hospital or school. The conceptualization going on in grounded theory automatically leaves the time and place of this unit. The theory is no longer generalized to a unit, but to a process which goes on in many other similar units. (p. 137) Indeed, this is exactly what happened. The study went from a study about people’s choice of higher education institutions to how people move through a process of voluntary change. Thus, the resulting theory is about how people make voluntary change. Methodology This classic grounded theory (CGT) study was completed as part of a doctoral degree from Fielding Graduate University where I completed a specialization in classic grounded theory. A grounded theory is useful in identifying people’s main concern (or problem) and how they go about resolving (or solving) that concern (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). A grounded theory is often identified by its core variable, the one idea (also known as concept or variable) that explains how people resolve (or solve) their main concern (or problem) (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In my theory, moving on is the core variable that explains how people solve their main problem which is how to deal with making voluntary change in their lives. To start this CGT study, I made every effort to acknowledge and limit any preconceptions concerning the area under study. This was done in an effort to keep an open mind and be able to listen to what others were saying, and read what people in the action scene may be writing as opposed to allowing my own ideas to cloud what the data was showing. If a researcher is unable to set aside preconceived notions, then the researcher risks adding information into the study that has not earned its way in and therefore may unground and invalidate the study (Glaser, 1998). Similarly, prior to data collection and analysis, I did not read literature about the topic of the study. If this were done the...

How Do Waste-Picker Families Endure? Resolving Pains and Managing Support Systems as Close Relationship “Resourcing:” A CGT with Readily Available Data...

Diego Mauricio Paucar Villacorta, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos Abstract Public waste-management systems in Latin American cities are defective. However, waste-pickers take advantage of this situation and create small family-based waste-processing units. However, little is known about how these families constantly meet their needs, manage suffering or even overcome poverty. How do they get to survive in such a context? This paper presents the classic grounded theory of resourcing from close relationships, based on a secondary analysis of data produced during 2009-2011 by a grass-roots NGO. The core category of managing support systems explains how a family constantly approaches or wards off towards an ideal work system through anchoring motivations and system adjusting. The resulting actual system, however, creates pains. They have to be resolved through tolerating dependency and negotiating against deviance, which is what finally allows the family to adapt or thrive to changing economic environments. Keywords: Waste-pickers, Peru, family economy, child labor, informal economy, classic grounded theory Introduction Urban waste-pickers (also known as scavengers or recyclers) are at the background of everyday life. However, they are always at the forefront of Latin American waste-management issues (Dias & Samson, 2016; Velis, 2017). Not even Peru’s national census of 2007 speaks clearly about their characteristics, roles, or concerns. When a grass-roots advocacy project in Peru triggered executive changes over waste-picking regulations, the interests of the city government and even the country’s president about them were ignited for the first time in decades. A research team and a non-governmental organization supported recyclers during this time. They used a wide array of research designs to inform the interdisciplinary objectives of the project. The gathered data described recyclers’ work, epidemiology, and lifestyles in the oldest district of Lima. Nowadays, the recyclers’ barrio in which research was done has disappeared because of the building of a new highway. I accessed the data produced during the period and performed a re-analysis over a set of qualitative transcripts. My research project focused on open coding some of the said data. I found three different main concerns: reproducing family economy at home, avoiding the municipality’s law enforcement in the streets, and participating in unions to respond to marginalization. However, the main concerns were later specified. This article describes the grounded theory of resourcing from close relationships as a way of constantly resolve the main concern of managing survival in families of recyclers. Methodology This paper uses CGT research design for discovering how participants continually solve their main concern. As said by Giske and Artinian (2007), after finding a main concern, the researcher then focuses on one relevant core category to explain how participants solve it. But the theory is not ready yet. Following Glaser and Holton (2005), the use of theoretical codes integrates sub-categories and properties with the core category. CGT is characterized by a two-step coding process: substantive coding and theoretical coding. The first step comprises open and selective coding (Holton, 2007). This process is powered by the ability to conceptualize with fit, theoretical sampling and the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1965), which allows to discover major categories, including a core category. After choosing (and not forcing) a core category, the researcher works selectively, collecting and analyzing data only related to the first and other categories related to it. The sorting of memos and theoretical sensitivity by reflecting on the fit of theoretical codes to the substantive patters found in the data makes a CGT a well-grounded explanation. On using secondary data...

About the Authors

Barry Chametzky, Ph.D. American College of Education, City University of Seattle. Dr. Chametzky holds graduate degrees in Music (Conservatory of Music at Brooklyn College, City University of New York), French (Middlebury College), and Foreign Language education (University of Pittsburgh).  Dr. Chametzky is an active researcher in the fields of andragogy, e-learning, anxiety and online foreign language acquisition, and classic grounded theory with numerous peer-reviewed publications and book chapters to his credit.  He is also one of the reviewers and the copyeditor for the Grounded Theory Review.  He facilitates online learning with master’s and doctoral students in the fields of educational technology and leadership, and serves as a dissertation chairperson to a number of candidates. Email: barry@bluevine.net Mark Crowder, PhD. Manchester Metropolitan University. Dr. Mark Crowder is Education Lead for the Department of Strategy, Enterprise and Sustainability at Manchester Metropolitan University in the UK.  He is also a senior lecturer in Strategy and Business Psychology.  He studied at Liverpool John Moores University and the University of Liverpool before gaining his PhD in cognitive psychology at the University of Chester.  He is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute. Mark’s research interests are split between educational management and cognitive psychology. As a career educator, Dr. Lisa Goldberg has taught for over 30 years in both the public school and as adjunct professor.  She graduated from Fielding Graduate School in 2010 with a doctorate in Educational Leadership.  Using Classic Grounded Theory as her research methodology, Dr. Goldberg discovered that value-based decision-making is one of the key concepts in moving on and making voluntary change in one’s life.  Her contribution to the field has led others to use concepts from her dissertation.  Currently, Dr. Goldberg works as adjunct professor at Saybrook University where she guides and teaches dissertation students.  Email: lisakanga1@gmail.com. Maria Mouratidou, PhD. University of Cumbria. Dr. Maria Mouratidou is a lecturer at the University of Cumbria. Her research interests are within HRM, OB and career management.  She has a wealth of HR experience, gained in an international context.  She studied at the University of Macedonia and the University of Sunderland before gaining her PhD in Human Resource Management at Manchester Metropolitan University. She is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, and is currently studying for an MA in Education. Dr. Vander Linden received her doctorate in education from Fielding Graduate University with specializations in classic grounded theory and higher education. She has a master’s in special education from the University of North Carolina and a BA in mathematics from Queens University.  She also has special training in working with children with dyslexia and reading disabilities. Dr. Kara Vander Linden has been a classic grounded theory (GT) researcher and educator for over 15 years.  She currently teaches research and supervises classic GT dissertations at Saybrook University.  She is a peer reviewer for the Grounded Theory Review and is the founder of the Institute for the Advancement of Classic Grounded Theory (https://classicgroundedtheory.org/). Diego Mauricia Paucar Villacorta, BSSc. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Mr. Paucar Villacorta is a young Peruvian Sociologist born in Lima with a five-year professional experience in social innovation for development. Academically, in one way or another, all his contributions explore the methodology of sociological research. At school, he has been invited by students to teach various open courses about qualitative data analysis, theorizing and quantitative data collection techniques. Right now, he is the leader of two independent teams of un-affiliated researchers...

From the Editor’s Desk

As with many aspects of life during the age of covid-19, the summer issue of the Grounded Theory Review has been delayed.  We are pleased to publish, however late, this issue.  The Grounded Theory Review is dedicated to supporting researchers who conduct classic grounded theory research.  Classic grounded theory is a unique method of discovering never before recognized processes and patterns of human behavior, a method well-suited to studying current issues and processes. These are troubling days of pandemic illness, cultural upheaval, racial animus, international disruption, and political turmoil.  Although politicians and opinion journalists predict the future, the coming months are uncertain.  We are in uncharted territory.  In response, particularly to covid-19, structural and psychological social processes are changing.  Education, family life, health care, work life, business, consumerism, sports, trade, entertainment, government institutions, and travel are all changing.  People are assuming new roles or are adjusting their roles to fit new life circumstances.  This is a time of great upheaval—a time particularly ripe for grounded theory research. The beauty and value of classic grounded theory is the nature of honest, unbiased discovery of social processes.  Proper classic grounded theories cannot be preconceived or conjectured.  Unlike verification research, grounded theories provide insightful, enlightening, and often surprising revelations—discoveries.  As data is gathered, conceptualized, and organized by the investigator, concepts and processes emerge. Emergence is the key to the discovery of grounded theories.  Researchers who use other, usually deductive, methods are sometimes confused by the idea of emergence, which is mostly inductive.  We can compare the concept of emergence in grounded theory with how we have learned about covid-19.  Since it was a newly discovered virus, there were no textbooks to guide health professionals as they tried to combat the virus early on.  Facts have emerged from data as a cascade of covid-19 patients has appeared in hospital emergency rooms in the intervening months.  Although it was thought at first that serious cases of covid-19 generally presented as pneumonia for a relatively short duration, we now know that the virus can affect many different parts of the body in unusual ways for an unknown duration.  Months later, facts and patterns are still emerging.  The process of learning about the disease can be compared to the use of grounded data to discover conceptual theories.  In the same way that physicians with open minds collected, organized, and examined medical data to guide their diagnosis and treatment of covid-19, grounded theorists can gather, organize, and interpret data that will help us to understand and navigate the many social changes that are occurring. Explaining grounded theory, Glaser tells us to ask “what is going on” in a substantive area.  Today, we have few referents to help us understand what is going on.  As a family member who suddenly took on the role of home schoolteacher, I know that traditional ideas about family and school have been turned on their heads and I wonder about other changing social processes.  Thinking about grounded theory research projects in the age of covid-19, researchers whose curiosity is sparked might ask questions such as, “What is going on in a given population when suddenly: teachers who are accustomed to classroom teaching are thrust into distance learning modalities? breadwinners lose jobs due to covid? farmers cannot find a way to gather or move their produce to markets? parents work from home while caring for children? physicians must ration care because of high demand and a scarcity of equipment or supplies? business owners...

Getting Started

Barney G. Glaser Editor’s note:  Especially helpful for those thinking of beginning new research projects, this paper addresses common questions about the particular way in which grounded theorists identify a research problem and craft a research question appropriate for classic grounded theory.  Getting Started was first published by Sociology Press in Glaser’s Emergence vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis (1992).  This important chapter has been excerpted and lightly edited for clarity and context. It may sometimes be said that one of the most difficult parts of doing research is to get started.  The making of choices and commitments to a research problem seem less secured and structured when doing descriptive research in quantitative or qualitative research.  This occurs because the research problem is chosen beforehand and therefore forces the data, thus the yield may be small or nothing since the problem, in fact, may not be relevant.  A “thought up” problem may sound juicy, but the preconception leads nowhere. The underlying principal in grounded theory, which leads to a researchable problem with high yield and relevance, is that the research problem and its delimitation are discovered or emergent as the open coding begins on the first interviews and observations.  They soon become quite clear and structured as coding, collection, and analyzing begin and a core variable emerges, and saturation starts to occur.  In short, getting started in grounded theory research and analysis is as much a part of the methodological process as are the ensuing phases of the research. The researcher should not worry.  The problem will emerge as well as the manner by which the subjects involved continually process it.  As a matter of fact, it emerges too fast most of the time and the researcher must restrain herself until sure if it is core and will account for most of the variation in the action in the substantive area under study.  As categories emerge in open coding, they all sound like juicy problems to research, but all are not core relevant.  Only one or at most two.  Remember and trust that the research problem is as much discovered as the process that continues to resolve it, and indeed the resolving process usually indicates the problem.  They are integrated. Area vs Problem There is a significant need to clarify the distinction between being interested in an area compared to a problem.  A researcher can have a sociological interest which yields a research problem and then look for a substantive area of population with which to study it.  But this is not [classic] grounded theory.  It is a preconceived forcing of the data.  It is okay and can produce good sociological description, but it usually misses what subjects in the substantive area under study consider, in their perspective, the true problems they face.  This kind of forcing with the support of advisor and colleagues can often derail the researcher forever from being sensitive to the grounded problems of the area and their resolutions.  A missed problem is a problem whether the researcher discovers and attends to it or not.  It does not go away.  We find, as grounded theorists, so often in preconceived research that the main problem stares us in the face as the researcher just attends elsewhere and misses it completely in an effort to describe what is going on.  Squelching it from focus does not remove its relevance. In vital contrast, the grounded theory researcher whether in qualitative or quantitative data, moves into an area...