Building a Learning Community: The GT Troubleshooting Seminar...

Judith Holton Abstract This paper explores the evolution of Barney Glaser’s troubleshooting seminar approach to which I add my own experiences as both a participant and facilitator of several similar seminars.  The paper begins by situating the seminar approach in Glaser’s early teaching experiences from which his pedagogy would develop. After recounting my own introduction to GT seminars, I then explore their design, structure, and process. I conclude the paper by offering some advice to those who must learn GT on their own. Introduction Barney Glaser has referred to learning grounded theory as “development driven” (Glaser, 1998, pp. 56–60); a “delayed action learning process” (1978, p. 6, 1998, p. 220, 2001, p. 1, 2003, p. 78) where the experiential is essential to truly understanding and effecting the methodology.  Having worked for several years with graduate students at University of California San Francisco (UCSF), he recognized the limitations of Discovery (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) as a methodological guide. Indeed, this was a primary motivation for his authoring of Theoretical Sensitivity (Glaser, 1978), in which he offers guidance in applying the “full package” of classic grounded theory methodology. The guidance offered was grounded in his years of teaching at UCSF, from which he concluded that learning together in a seminar format was the optimum way of teaching and learning grounded theory. Glaser’s early seminars at UCSF adopted what he called a “revolving collaboration” model with “committed full time participants’’ (Glaser, 1978, p. 33). The intention was to encourage openness to ideas, to “de-contain” (p.34) participants’ preconceptions and often strongly defended perspectives, replacing defensiveness with “the right to be wrong” (p. 34), all in aid of advancing the conceptual analysis of the data as presented.  Kathy Charmaz was one of Glaser’s students at UCSF.  She described Glaser’s approach as unconventional at a time when the typical graduate seminar was focused on exploring and critiquing extant literature.  She suggested, “…Barney’s innovative method of engaging students in theory construction in class sessions turned the conventional sociology graduate seminar inside out and, simultaneously, encouraged students’ analytic thinking” (Charmaz, 2011, p. 181).  Over the years, Glaser continued to employ a seminar approach in his teaching and mentoring of grounded theory.  While the intention and focus of his seminars remained consistent, the structure changed to what Gynnild (2011) describes as a “fly-in, fly-out” (p. 38) intensive three-day format that enabled students from all corners of the globe to attend.  Glaser would later extend the reach of his work by effectively embracing both virtual technologies and a growing cadre of experienced classic grounded theorists whom he had mentored through earlier seminars as aids in overcoming the ‘minus mentoring’ challenge (Glaser, 1998), a term Glaser had used to describe those students who do not have access to local expertise in grounded theory, whether through supervisors or collegial networks. Finding Community My own experience of Glaser’s troubleshooting seminars began in 2003. Like many new to GT, I had encountered confusion in working my way through the various GT perspectives offered in texts and journal papers.  The more I read, the more confusing I found the advice being offered.  My wish was to do GT as it was originally presented in Discovery (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).  I had tried using strategies and advice offered in Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) text, but I found the advice took me through repetitive cycles of analysis that resulted in what seemed to me to be rather predictable descriptive outcomes.  Where was the creativity that Discovery...

Reflections on the first Grounded Theory Seminar: A tribute to Dr. Barney, G. Glaser...

Dr. Tom Andrews, Lecturer Emeritus, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College, Cork, Ireland I first met Dr. Barney Glaser in April 2002 in Paris, France the evening before the first CGT seminar.  At that preliminary gathering I met Dr. Barry Gibson for the first time, who knew Barney.  Amongst the PhD students I met was Vivian Martin and Anna Sandgren and we are still in contact.  Given the high cost of hotels in Paris, I had to stay some distance from where the seminar was being held.  I underestimated the time of getting to the Holiday Inn (the venue) and missed the beginning of the seminar.  As a result, I missed Barney’s introduction and was unaware of the format of the seminar.  He did not do then what he did in future seminars and that is what he refers to as atmosphering, which sets the stage for conceptual discovery by creating a safe environment for participants to learn and have their issues dealt with in a non-threatening way (Gynnild 2011).  This became an integral part of all seminars and I use it just the same in seminars that I have been involved in to set the tone.  Almost as soon as I sat down, Barney turned to me and asked me to present where I was up to in my study and what I needed help with.  Without having any idea what he was looking for, I presented what I had ready.  It was enough to get me the help that I needed.  He gave me very positive feedback and helpful tips.  This is a defining feature of the seminars, where the aim is to get students to what Barney often referred to as the next level in their study.  I learned a lot from that seminar because, like so many students, I was a minus mentoree at the time.  I was at the beginning of my second year of a PhD 3-year programme and about to collect data. Over the course of the two days of the seminar, Barney gave a general introduction to classic grounded theory (GT) and what I learned from this seminar is outlined below. Everything is organised in the social world—even disorganisation.  This implies systems of organisation, be they macro or micro.  GT is a methodology for discovering these systems.  Later, Barney was to write briefly about this when he maintained that there is a social reality and that the goal of GT is to enable the natural social organisation of substantive life to emerge (Glaser 1998).  This is entirely consistent with the nature of social reality in social constructionism as discussed by Berger and Luckmann (1966) that everyday life presents itself as a reality interpreted by people and subjectively meaningful to them.  At the seminar Barney said that if anything, GT is based on structural realism, but he did not expand on this. However, this is not to be confused with the view of reality evident within the positivist tradition. In preparation for the seminar, Barney asked us to think about what we needed help with.  For example, if that was coding then bring some data for everyone to code. From the beginning, Barney encouraged us to drop what he termed as citizenship. Of course, this was a new concept to us as were many of the things that he subsequently outlined and discussed.  This meant that we were to suspend who we were socially, such as father, friend, nurse, and become...

Grounded Theory Has the Power to Change Lives: A Tribute to Barney Glaser...

Alvita Nathaniel, PhD In November 2021, I had a very long late-night phone conversation with 91-year-old Barney Glaser. His eyes were failing and his body was weak, but his mind was sharp and clear. I could hear his wife, Carolyn’s, voice in the background as our conversation waxed and waned. He told me about the next book he was planning to write—a theory on aging. He was keen to talk about grounded theory. As we ruminated, he mentioned some of his favorite theories. He remembered the names of the theories, their core categories, and the theorists—most of whom he had mentored. He reminisced about PhD students who had attended his troubleshooting seminars and about grounded theory colleagues we both knew. In his presence, I felt as if I were still his student. As our conversation was ending, he talked about all the people who had contacted him with letters, phone calls, and emails over the years. He asked, “You know what the concept is, don’t you?”  I was silent. “Grounded theory changed my life,” he said. “They all told me that grounded theory changed their lives.” Barney Glaser understood the spread of grounded theory and power of theory to change people’s lives. Glaser and Strauss (1967) changed the research landscape with their seminal work, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, the book that first described the grounded theory method and established its rigorous procedures. The method was revolutionary. It was at the forefront of a qualitative research movement in the mid-20th century because it challenged several dogmatic precepts. Discovery and Glaser’s subsequent works (1978, 1992, 1998, 2007, 2008) defied the inculcated beliefs about research inquiry: (a) that theory and research are separate endeavors, (b) that qualitative research serves primarily as a foundation for quantitative inquiry, (c) that qualitative research lacks rigor, (d) that qualitative methods are biased and unstructured, (e) that data collection and analysis should be separate processes, and (f) that qualitative research could produce only descriptive findings (Charmaz, 2000). As the popularity of grounded theory has spread throughout the world, the flaws in these precepts have been exposed. In the Future of Grounded Theory, reprinted in this issue of The Grounded Theory Review, Glaser recognized the magnitude of change grounded theory had on the research world. He reflected on the worldwide spread of the method. Realizing the popularity of grounded theory, Glaser wrote, “Everywhere I travel, people come to my workshops at some expense and some distance to hear me and to ask questions. People compete for my attention. . . . I embody what they embrace—grounded theory.” Aristotle wrote that change requires the existence of a potentiality which can be actualized (350 B.C.E.). Those clamoring for Glaser’s attention were bursting with potential. In The Future of Grounded Theory, Glaser listed critical characteristics of a grounded theorist including an ability to conceptualize data, an ability to tolerate confusion, and an ability to tolerate confusion’s attendant regressions. Successful grounded theorists have the desire to learn, courage to let go of the familiar, curiosity to understand others, and the patience to allow patterns to emerge—all potentialities waiting to be actualized. As Glaser predicted, grounded theorists’ lives change as they learn and master the method. But even greater change has been effected through application of grounded theories, which teach us about previously unknown psycho-social and social-structural processes. We know so much more about living with illness, being an alcoholic, convincing physicians, succeeding at business, dying in the hospital, and violating moral...

“Stop story talking! What’s the concept?” In Memoriam of Grounded Theory’s Co-Founder, Barney G. Glaser...

Astrid Gynnild, PhD, Professor, and Fellow of the Grounded Theory Institute There are those rare moments in a life that are just meant to be. You might encounter a person, a piece of text or perhaps an idea that hits you in a way that you couldn´t possibly know beforehand. And yet you intuitively know it is a decisive moment. You get a sense of a cutting point, a transition that leads you on to a new path in life. There is a time before and a time after. But there is no way back. I have lived with grounded theory for two decades. I was lucky to be part of many activities within Barney Glaser´s expanding methodological landscape, and I used to meet him in person several times a year. In this very moment I can already hear Glaser´s dark, friendly-teasing voice ring in the back of my mind: “Stop story talking! What´s the concept?” Since Glaser himself often referred to grounded theory as a delayed action phenomenon, I will take this opportunity to put some important concepts on hold for yet a while. I trust in emergence while writing this piece in memoriam of one of the globally most impactful and original sociologists of the two last centuries. Most probably he would qualify for the title unrivalled winner of concept innovation as well; at least the unrivalled contributor of publicly published new concepts over a lifetime. He  didn’t like to compete. But he liked to empower PhD students, who were in their early careers and preparing  for future service to society. His stated aim in later years was two-fold. First, conceptual theory building grounded in data. Second, using grounded theory to help PhD students achieving their degrees. The discovery of the first goal manifested already in his early thirties (Glaser and Strauss 1965, Glaser and Strauss 1967). Throughout the rest of his life he never gave in or compromised on these original ideas. Not even when he formally left academia and developed a successful business career using GT tools. He only further developed them as he collected more data. His passion was to create, and facilitate for, abstract concept development that could help people improving their lives. While Glaser ran his businesses and raised three children as a single parent, academic rivals repeatedly set out to belittle the original grounded theory design. Suddenly, the term grounded theory would take on new meanings that he as a founder did not recognize; “grounded theory” was adopted by concept competitors who deliberately started replacing its built-in tenets as a general method with distracting elements from qualitative data analysis. Glaser stood up for his academic integrity through disputatious writings in books and articles. As always when disagreement is in the air, the international academic crowd loved the spectacle. The rhetorical wrestles at the time drowned out the fact that grounded theory was already an established method and a methodology solidly grounded in empirical data. His further writings were meant to further explain the method and differentiate it from others. But from then on, it became more crowded in the grounded theory space. Glaser´s grounded theory concept was re-labeledlassic grounded theory to keep some conceptual order. Paradoxically enough, or maybe quite logically, Glaser´s most productive academic years started unfolding from the turn of the century on, at a chronological age when most of his peers were retired. When I first met him, he was 72 and stood in a hotel lobby in...

How Barney Glaser and Classic Grounded Theory Have changed and Impacted my Life...

Barry Chametzky, PhD Barry Chametzky, PhD Senior Core Faculty, Dissertation Chair American College of Education USA I could never have imagined, how, in 2011 or so, my life would have been positively affected by one person and a research design in my dissertation. At that time, I was starting to write my dissertation and was planning on using an ethno-phenomeno-case study-ology as my research design. Clearly, I was confused and naive. But I connected with an online cohort where I learned about classic grounded theory. I’d like to share some instances of how Barney Glaser and classic grounded theory as a research design have changed and impacted my life. My first contact with Barney was on the phone ordering one of his books. When I sheepishly asked whether he was Dr. Glaser, he responded yes and I was in shock. I even remember not “getting” his joke about the book costing 100 dollars. Clearly, I was dumbstruck. I had never spoken with a famous person and did not want to come across as a blithering idiot. Well, when I was stammering with Barney, if I came across that way, thankfully, he never let on. Fast forward two or so years to 2013. I earned my PhD. I remember how I sounded at my oral defense. I was able to quote various passages from several of Barney’s books from memory. Since then, I’ve come to learn that, as Barney stated, the beauty of classic grounded theory is that it is all around us. We just need to be open to seeing and experiencing it. The next transformative period happened a few years ago in 2017 when I was part of one of Barney’s seminars and then had the incredible honor to dine with him at his home. At that time, I was extremely fortunate to meet many classic grounded theorists about whom I’ve only read. I remember learning that these people, whom I idolized, were just everyday people and scholars as I was. We were able to have great conversations as friends and peers. At that time, I remember having two short conversations with Barney. The first was about a term used in French literary analysis. But the second was more personal and transformative. As I was leaving for the evening, I thanked Barney and told him that I appreciated him “for being him.” Then, he hugged me. And that was a glorious moment I will never forget. The third and final instance is happening now. Two background points are needed though. First, by training, I am an educator with a specialization in online learning and educational technology. I am not a medical professional (though, to be honest, I wish I could have gone to medical or nursing school). Second, Barney had often explained that a literature review should not be done before collecting data to avoid potentially tainting the information obtained during the data collection process. Preconception could very possibly result in a bastardization of the data. That’s great, but Barney also made it clear that a tabula rasa is not possible (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). So, what could a researcher do? I think I discovered a viable solution. My latest research project is very exciting for me. Not only am I broadening my research horizons but also, I am getting as close to a tabula rasa as possible. For my research study, I am interested in understanding a psychiatric disorder called dissociative identity disorder (DID). Since I am...