The Grounded Theory Family Tree: A Living, Growing Testament to the Life and Work of Barney Glaser...

Kara Lynette Vander Linden   Abstract Grounded theory has a rich history which starts with its co-developers Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, each of whom had an impressive research pedigree. Their famous study on death and dying led to the publication of the seminal book Discovery of Grounded Theory. For years they taught cohorts of students grounded theory. These students contributed to the growth of the grounded theory family tree. Glaser started Sociology Press to publish his numerous books on grounded theory. He also founded the Grounded Theory Institute and the Grounded Theory Review, which facilitated the growth of grounded theory, as did his troubleshooting seminars. The Grounded Theory Institute Fellows and the editors and peer reviewers of the Grounded Theory Review have each contributed to the growth of grounded theory. Keywords: Glaser, grounded theory, family tree, growth A book called A Stranger in a Strange Land (1993) by Leonora R Scholte tells the story of my ancestors’ journey from their motherland to a new land. As I look at the life and work of Dr. Barney Glaser, I see a similar journey, a similar story, at least on a conceptual level. While Glaser co-developed grounded theory within the field of sociology in the United States, his story and work extended beyond sociology and spread to other fields and around the globe. Just as A Stranger in a Strange Land tells the story of my ancestors’ journey, this article depicts some points and figures in the historical lineage of grounded theory that have impacted my life and work. Glaser and Strauss Anselm Strauss and Barney Glaser each had an impressive research pedigree. Anslem Strauss had a qualitative background influenced by pragmatism (see James, Dewey, Cooley, and Mead) and ethnographic traditions at the University of Chicago, where he studied (Heath & Cowley, 2004). However, symbolic interactionism and the work of Blumer were the most influential on Strauss. According to Simmons (personal communication, April 1, 2022), “Anselm was more of a symbolic interactionist than a grounded theorist, in my experience and view.” Glaser had a quantitative background and was influenced by the work of his dissertation committee members, Paul Lazarsfeld, Robert K. Merton, and his dissertation chair Hans Zetterberg at Columbia University (Holton, 2011). Glaser credited Lazarsfeld’s work with inspiring the development of four important methodological components within grounded theory: index formation, interchangeability of indicators, constant comparative analysis, and core variable analysis (Holton, 2011, p. 207-208). Lazarsfeld’s work on research methodology was also a significant influence.  From Merton, Glaser (1998) learned theory construction (produced based on logic, not data) and theoretical coding. What he learned from Merton built upon the l’explication de text (line by line analysis of text) that he learned at the Sorbonne University of Paris, France (Holton & Walsh, 2017). Zetterberg’s “focus on the practical value of social theory and the importance of empirical research as the basis for theory development” (Holton, 2011, p. 210) also shaped the future development of grounded theory. From these mentors, Glaser merged the ideas of theory development and research methodology to make a unique contribution to the research world. When Strauss recruited Glaser to work on a funded research study on death and dying at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), they married the strengths of each of their backgrounds. The research study moved beyond the limitations of the research approaches that dominated sociology in the 1960s. At that time, theory verification dominated research. In their now-famous study of death and...

A Tribute to Barney Glaser (1930-2022): A Trial to Rethink Economics by Classic Grounded Theory Methodology...

Ólavur Christiansen, PhD, Associate Professor Emeritus, University of the Faroe Islands Abstract The inductive methodology of classic grounded theory (CGT) is extremely different from the logical-deductive methodology of mainstream economics – as well as the inductive econometrics approach. Consequently, it becomes a pressing issue how Barney Glaser’s work can be used in the contexts of economic. To use CGT on an abstract concept like “mainstream economics” would be an impossibility. A CGT is about the behaviour of some specific individuals – as for example groups of economic practitioners. These practitioners should be a fairly homogenous group of people – a collective of university economists and business professionals might be too heterogeneous. Thus, it is suggested that a CGT is carried out for each homogenous group of economic practitioners, and that an attempt subsequently is made to generate a formal (higher-level) CGT that covers all these groups. The main principles of CGT are briefly explained with the purpose of demonstrating the generation of a CGT in microeconomics, and how the core variable of a CGT of macroeconomics can be allowed to emerge. Keywords: Rethinking economics; classic grounded theory; core variables; methodology. Practicing New Methodological Departures The title of this article contains two connected issues: (1) Barney Glaser’s classic grounded theory (CGT) methodology and (2) its possible use in a “rethinking” (reorientation) of economics. Some important properties of the CGT methodology and of the “rethinking” are as follows:   First, classic grounded theory methodology is about the discovery of concepts – or conceptualizing. This means the discovery and the naming of latent patterns of behavior (substantive concepts) in the collected and treated data, and the discovery of relationships between these latent patterns (theoretical concepts or codes). The methodology is not based on any particular ontological or epistemological assumptions except the pragmatic assumption that social life is patterned and empirically integrated by a core variable (not logically modelled), and that it is only question of applying a rigorous and systematic methodology for discovering and explaining these patterns. (Christiansen, 2012). It is not about obtaining precise measurements or findings, but about obtaining credibility by grounded inductions and indications. Second, the theme is “rethinking” economics; it means a “reorientation” of economics by departing from old paradigms. In CGT, the units of data collection and data analysis are behavior incidents. What matters is what the studied participants, as economic actors, actually do – not what they think. What people or economic actors think or rethink about economics only becomes relevant as far as it provides a better insight into the behavior of the studied participants. Economic topics have so far not been analyzed or synthesized by the use of Glaser’s classic grounded theory methodology. Yet, Frederic S. Lee (2005) has published an article with the title Grounded Theory and Heterodox Economics. However, in his article Lee ignores the use of the core variable, and the fact that classic grounded theory is a research methodology that is fundamentally different from what is commonly referred to as “grounded theory.” From the viewpoints of CGT, this means that Lee’s article becomes irrelevant.   Classic grounded theory methodology (i.e., methodology for generating grounded theory) is itself a classic grounded theory, and this theory (as a methodology) obviously has the core variable of conceptualizing.  According to English dictionaries, to conceptualize means imaging. However, in the context of CGT, conceptualizing means the discovery and the naming of latent patterns or latent relationships in the data. These data can be qualitative or...

Discovering and Uncovering: A new Perspective on Dissociative Identity Disorder...

Barry Chametzky, PhD Abstract Dissociative identity disorder is not new. Yet, there exists a paucity of emic research on the topic due to its covert nature. In this research, the disorder is presented and understood from the perspective of the person who must live with it on a daily basis. Through the newly discovered theory of discovering and uncovering, the reader will gain a more nuanced perspective of the disorder. Keywords: dissociative disorder, classic grounded theory, neurodiverse, traumagenic, multiplicity, post-traumatic stress disorder, ketamine In life, the idea of an elevator speech is extremely important. Consider a job interview where the interviewer states, “Tell me about yourself.” In approximately one minute or less, an interviewee needs to present a comprehensive picture of who he or she is. This situation seems innocuous enough to a neurotypical person. But, for someone with a dissociative disorder, a question like “Who are you?” or a request to talk about oneself can potentially be stress-provoking and confusing. Additionally, there is a famous line from an old song “I hear singing and there’s no one there” (Richard D., 2022). With respect to the lyricist Irvin Berlin who wrote the words to the song, people who suffer with a dissociative disorder can legitimately say “I hear voices and there’s no one there.” People suffering from a dissociative disorder such as dissociative identity disorder (DID) or otherwise specified dissociative disorder (OSDD) may indeed hear internal voices and have internal conversations; they believe that nothing unusual is going on (Anonymous, 2018). As one participant remarked, after all, don’t we all talk to ourselves at times? The foundation for a discussion about dissociative identity disorder is evident in these two seemingly different examples. The idea of one’s identity–whether it is an elevator speech for a job interview or hearing internal voices–becomes a crucial and fundamental component for a person who experiences dissociative identity disorder. Because of a paucity of scholarly research presenting and explaining DID from the perspective of the patient, the goal of this research is to understand more clearly and comprehensively what it is like to live with the dissociative disorder. To achieve this emic objective, a discussion about the disorder with a common language is needed. Methodology The research design used in this study is classic grounded theory. One benefit of this design is to understand in a more nuanced manner the main concerns of participants as they address their main concern: living with a dissociative disorder. The author adhered to the principles of classic grounded theory (Glaser, 1965, 1967, 1998). Procedurally, gerund codes were created from the data collected during the data gathering process. Through constant comparison (Glaser, 1965), memos were written to discover and explain connections that were not previously evident. Further comparisons were made among the codes to generate broader categories. Memos were constantly compared one with another as the data were conceptualized ultimately to develop a theory which explains how people deal with their dissociative identity disorder. Instrument As a research design, classic grounded theory is a bit unusual when compared with other (qualitative) research designs. With classic grounded theory, the objective is to “instill a spill” (Glaser, 2009, p. 22): a manner in which participants can talk openly and freely about whatever issues they might have regarding their main concern (Spradley, 1979). The beauty of classic grounded theory is that a single instrument is used instead of a semi-structured interview with a list of questions to be validated. In classic grounded theory,...

The Importance of Epistemology When Defending a Doctoral Thesis: The Research Philosophical Nature of Classic Grounded Theory...

Daniel P. Ash, University of Gloucestershire Abstract This article sets out a conceptual discussion based on a lively epistemological debate that took place during a doctoral viva voce examination for a classic grounded theory (GT) study (an exploration of police behaviour during domestic abuse incidents). The discussion uncovered conflicts regarding how methodology is viewed from different research traditions, and the potential impact of this problem on how research (like classic GT) is received and understood by scholars from different research philosophical perspectives, such as positivism. It also revealed how challenging it is, for a novice researcher, to adequately convince others of the rigorous nature of classic GT without reference and comparison to the research philosophical ideas that underpin other research traditions, more broadly. I claim that research philosophy must be addressed more fully by classic GT scholars if they are to encourage the uptake of classic GT by more doctoral candidates. Keywords: Classic grounded theory, epistemology, research philosophy, police research, positivism, abductive research Introduction This article explores a lively methodological debate that took place during a doctoral viva voce examination for a classic grounded theory (GT) study. The discussion uncovered problems with how classic GT is understood by scholars from different research philosophical traditions, and how challenging it is, as a novice researcher, to adequately convince others of the rigorous nature of classic GT without reference to research philosophical ideas. I argue that there are fundamental research-philosophical differences under consideration during the development and deployment of classic GTs, as compared with natural scientific theories. Recognising these differences is the key to understanding the contribution to knowledge being claimed within a classic GT study, and a reason why classic GT studies do not routinely include tests of reliability or validity using the natural scientific method. However, arguing these points to a doctoral committee or examiner can be problematic because there is a general lack of development or agreement in the academy relating to the research philosophical positioning of classic GT. This makes it challenging for other scholars to situate classic GT among their understanding of research philosophical approaches, which is problematic because situating a method within a philosophical position is often how the academy evaluates the appropriateness and effectiveness of the approach being taken within a doctoral study. In this paper, I claim that research philosophy must be addressed more fully by classic GT scholars if we are to encourage the uptake of classic GT by doctoral candidates. The classic GT thesis that underpins the discussion in this paper was an exploration of police behaviour during domestic abuse incidents (Ash, 2021). The external examiner, a positivist and police forensic psychologist, challenged the reliability of the classic grounded theory method as an explanation for social behaviour because the thesis did not discuss nor demonstrate how the theory could be falsified using natural scientific techniques. They argued that without using natural scientific validation approaches, the thesis was not rigorous enough viz. the work did not adhere to natural scientific principles. At the core of the scientific method, and this discussion was the positivist concept of falsifiability, which according to Popper (1968) means that before any theory can be considered scientific (and therefore, according to the positivistic perspective, be reliable as a source of explanatory value) (Mingers, 2004), it must be testable using scientific techniques by way of experimentation. Defending the use of classic grounded theory Such natural scientific tests are not needed for a classic GT to be of value to practitioners...

Grounded Leadership, Emergence Coaching, & Classic Grounded Theory: An Action Research Study...

Robert Wright, Wright Graduate University for the Realization of Human Potential, USA Judith Wright, Wright Graduate University for the Realization of Human Potential, USA Gordon Medlock, Wright Graduate University for the Realization of Human Potential, USA Mike Zwell, Wright Graduate University for the Realization of Human Potential, USA Abstract This study describes the iterative development of a Grounded Leadership (GL) and Emergence Coaching (EC) model based on classic grounded theory (CGT), designed to foster the emergence and realization of human potential. It traces five cycles of action research to transform the leadership, coaching practices, and culture of a learning organization. The model describes a co-creative process of facilitating human emergence that includes phases of engaging, discovering, core concepting, visioning, and “so-whating,” i.e. taking concrete steps toward realizing the vision. Emergence is the core concept that best explains the GL & EC process. This study extends the insight of an earlier study of GL to the domains of coaching and Being-Based Leadership (BBL). This includes development of a graduate level degree program and International Coaching Federation (ICF) accredited coach certification program designed within an EC framework. All five cycles demonstrate how CGT informs these leadership and coaching models, including the foundational processes of critical thinking, inferential reasoning, and the facilitation of human emergence.  Key Words: Grounded Leadership, Action Research, Classic Grounded Theory, Emergence Coaching, International Coaching Federation (ICF), Transformational Coaching & Leadership, Human Emergence Introduction This action research study represents an ongoing exploration of the principles and methods of classic grounded theory (CGT) applied to the practices of leadership and coaching. In the first three study cycles we describe Grounded Leadership (GL) and our initial attempts to apply principles of CGT to existing leadership programs. This study highlights the synergies between CGT and the process of non-directive leadership (Wright, R. J., 2008) and later Emergence Coaching (EC), all of which focus on the emergence of explanatory core concepts that characterize what is happening in the data field of practice. Our study focuses on how key principles of CGT research design, including discovery of core variables (i.e. core concepting) and emergence, inform new theories of GL and EC. Our interest in the process of emergence related to leadership and coaching began long before we learned about CGT. The principal researcher for this study was trained in a broad spectrum of individual and group process methodologies, including psychodrama in the French school of Sauvage (Blatner, 2000), contemporary Adlerian group process focusing on challenging limiting beliefs (Mosak & Maniacci, 1999; Wright et al., 2021), and encounter group approaches (Rogers, 1970; Schutz, 1973). He viewed leadership, coaching, and learning through an Adlerian-existential-developmental lens as a process of facilitating the emergence of individuals’ unique potential for becoming their best, most authentic selves (Carkhuff, 2000; Jackins, 1975; Rogers, 1977, 1996; Wright & Medlock, 1995; Wright & Wright, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2013). The role of the leader, coach, and educator was to draw out this unique potential in those they lead and coach. As we were introduced to CGT in our doctoral studies, we were struck by how the principle of emergence was central to the research design. It was the first time that we had seen a pragmatic and user-friendly way to bridge the domains of inquiry relating to content/data, theory building, and the process of facilitating human emergence at the level of being and becoming. Phenomenology includes a methodology of bracketing preconceptions to heighten awareness of what is unique in each present experience (Giorgi,...