From the Editor’s Desk: Remembering Barney Glaser

It is hard to believe that nearly a year has passed since the loss of Dr. Barney G. Glaser, our dear teacher, mentor, friend, and colleague. As co-originator and constant champion of the original classic theory method, Glaser focused much of his life on teaching grounded theory and mentoring novice and experienced grounded theorists. He founded the Grounded Theory Institute, Sociology Press, and this journal, the Grounded Theory Review. He wrote or co-wrote more than 30 books and papers focused on grounded theory. He hosted innovative grounded theory seminars in the US, Europe, and Asia and mentored hundreds of PhD candidates and novice researchers through the years. In this issue, we re-publish the Glaser’s Origins and Growth of Grounded Theory, which was originally published as the first chapter in his 2016 book, Grounded Theory Perspectives: Its Origin and Growth. This chapter described Glaser’s perspective on the original method and how it was first discovered.  He also discussed how remodeling of the original method was produced by people who did not understand the basic assumptions of the method and how the method’s procedures flowed logically from these assumptions. Glaser aimed to clarify misinterpretations of the method in the many subsequent books and papers that he published. The Grounded Theory Review will remain as originally intended by Glaser—a repository of original research and other works that adhere to the classic grounded theory method. The current issue has four basic foci: an editorial on theory in general, an essay tribute to Glaser, methodological papers, original research, and a book review. In the form of a guest editorial, Kara Vander Linden tackles the question, What is ‘Theory’ in Grounded Theory.  Although theory is often discussed in relation to research, Vander Linden proposes that there is a lack of consensus on what theory is. The author briefly discusses some views of theory within sociology and the lack of consensus over what constitutes theory. This lack of consensus makes it important that grounded theorists not only explain what is meant by a theory being grounded in data but also what is meant by theory in grounded theory. Glaser was active with grounded theorists in China. In their paper, Becoming Independent: The Life-Changing Experiences of GT Researchers in China, Fei, Chen, Feng, and Wang pay tribute to Glaser. The paper lays out some life-changing experiences of these GT researchers, which ultimately led toward their academic independence. They identify three intertwining aspects of their experience with grounded theory: inspiration and empowerment of Glaser and his methodology, developing a critical mind, and growth in personal character. This issue also has two classic grounded theory methodology papers, both of which are republished with permission.  In his paper, Coding in Classic Grounded Theory, Chametzky gives novice researchers interested in the classic grounded theory design a foothold in how to do one aspect of classic grounded theory analysis: coding.  The explanation offered in this paper is based in theory and supported with practical examples. In the paper, When and How to Use Extant Literature in Classic Grounded Theory, Nathaniel weaves together Glaser’s recommendations on how, why, and when to review the literature and which literature to review. The paper includes a section debunking the no literature myth followed by descriptions of the three phases of the classic grounded theory literature review. There are four original research papers in this issue. In the paper, Transcending Inequality: A Classic Grounded Theory of Filipino Factory Workers in Taiwan, Peter Sun presents a theory that...

Origins and Growth of Grounded Theory

Barney G. Glaser PhD, Hon PhD Editor’s Note: As we continue celebrate Barney Glaser’s life, we re-publish[1] this gently edited paper about the origin and growth of grounded theory. Through the years as he noticed trends surrounding the method, Glaser codified the different elements and procedures of grounded theory and compared/contrasted them with remodeled versions.  This paper was first published as chapter 1 in Grounded Theory Perspectives: Its Origin and Growth (2016). All books mentioned in this paper can be purchased via Sociology Press at http://sociologypress.com/book.htm.   [This paper] is about the origins and growth of grounded theory (GT) as developed and written by Barney G. Glaser. It is not written to compete or compare with other QDA [qualitative data analysis] methods. The competition with other perspectives is up to the reader to write up if he so desires. My goal in this paper is to write up the GT perspective clearly and historically to date so it can be used by others in research and the rhetorical wrestle between different perspectives. As GT spreads throughout the world, a clear view of the GT perspective is constantly needed and requested from me by researchers for doing GT and for trying to explain the method to others, particularly supervisors and peer reviewers. There is an immense amount of writing on aspects of the GT perspective, often mixed with other perspectives, thus confusing its use. I trust this paper will help clarify GT with no remodeling. I am not saying that GT is better than other methodologies. I am just saying that the GT method stands on its own and produces excellent conceptual theory. Let other QDA methodologies stand on their own as they wish. This paper will just show differences in methodologies, as the reader may see. It is not written to correct other methodologies. I have written many books on the GT perspective. I trust this book will bring most of the GT perspectives under one cover. GT emerged as a fledgling methodology when analyzing the data on dying in hospitals in the book Awareness of Dying (1965). Awareness context theory took the world of research by storm. We were constantly asked how we did it. In 1967 we published our beginning formulations of GT in The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research by Glaser and Strauss. It was our first attempt to write a method that closed the gap between theory and method. We focused on procedures for grounding theory not on verification of theory. We called the methodology Grounded Theory. We put to rest the 100% focus on the verifying of grand theory that was all conjectured. We discovered that GT provided us with relevant predictions, explanations, interpretations, and applications that fit. It was our explanations that were the beginning of codifying GT as a methodology. The key elements of the theory were that the concepts in the theory should have fit and relevance. So many concepts in the world of social research were conjectural, that is reified and not relevant to the area and the participants. To gain fit and be relevant the concepts had to be based on data from in the field of inquiry and be relevant to the participants. In short, they had to be grounded. They also had to be conceptual so they could be integrated by a theoretical code into a conceptual theory. What theoretical code that seemed to fit the dying data was context theory. The total product...

What is ‘Theory’ in Grounded Theory?

Kara L. Vander Linden, Institute for Research and Theory Methodologies Abstract Theory is often discussed in relation to research. However, despite its frequent reference, there is a lack of consensus on what theory is. This article briefly discusses some views of theory within sociology and the lack of consensus over what constitutes theory. This lack of consensus makes it important that grounded theorists not only explain what is meant by a theory being grounded in data but also what is meant by theory in grounded theory. Keywords: theory, grounded theory, definitions, debate Introduction As a grounded theorist, I have often explained the “grounded” aspect of grounded theory, that the theory developed is grounded in data. However, more recently I have found myself exploring and explaining “what is theory?” as I have interacted with students and other faculty. As a research instructor, I teach about the role of theory in research, discussing the use of theory as a theoretical framework in qualitative studies, as the source of hypotheses to test in quantitative studies, and as the product of research when using the grounded theory method. However, Sandberg and Alvesson (2021) noted, “Although the word ‘theory’ is omnipresent in research texts, it is rarely defined precisely and systematically” (p. 488). As I have talked with other faculty, I have realized that we are not always talking about the same thing when we discuss theory. Similarly, many journals require researchers to connect their research to theory, and this requirement frequently appears in peer reviewers’ feedback. These comments assume that there is a universally agreed-upon understanding of what theory is. However, as this article will demonstrate, there is not one universally agreed-upon understanding of what theory is; thus, it is important to also explain what we mean by theory as grounded theorists. What is “Theory”? Within academic and scholarly literature, there are often many different perspectives and opinions, and such is the case with the term “theory.” The question “what is theory?” may seem simple at first, especially if you turn to dictionary definitions. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines theory as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.” In their brief literature review on how theory literature defines theory, Sandberg and Alvesson (2021) found that the most common and critical element discussed within the literature is that theory explains, which aligns with the dictionary definitions. Despite this common and critical element of theory, there is still much debate about what theory is within and across academic fields and disciplines. Authors in various fields have written articles to tackle this question and discovered that the meaning of theory varies depending on the context in which it is used and how it is used (Abend, 2008; Gelso, 2006; Gregor, 2006; Sandberg & Alvesson, 2021; Thomas, 1997). While some scholars claimed the definition of theory is ambiguous, others believed it is too narrowly conceived. Even within a single academic field, there is often a lack of consensus about what theory is. Since grounded theory emerged from the field of sociology, a need exists to look at what theory is according to scholars from within sociology. Turner (1991) explained what theory is and some different perspectives on theory as follows: Theory is a ‘story’ about how and why events in the universe occur. Sociological theory thus seeks to explain how and why humans behave,...

Becoming Independent: The Life-Changing Experiences of GT Researchers in China...

Y. Chen, Nanjing Normal University Y. Feng, China University of Political Science and Law Y. Wang, Fujian Medical University F. Fei, Grounded Theory Institute Abstract The popularisation of Glaser’s grounded theory (GT) methodology in China over the past two decades or so has seen some faithful use of classic (Glaserian) GT in several areas (i.e. psychology, culture of rule of law, and nursing) amid the overall misuse and abuse of the methodology.   And arising from these endeavours are some life-changing experiences of GT researchers leading towards their academic independence. These individual experiences cover three intertwining aspects, namely inspiration and empowerment of Glaser and his methodology, developing a critical mind, and growth in personal character. Keywords: grounded theory, Glaser, China Introduction Over the past two decades or so, Glaser’s grounded theory (GT) methodology has been hugely popularised in China. Glaser’s books are now available in the National Library of China. And Glaser’s virtual participation in seminars and other types of events that took place  in China helped the GT researchers better appreciate the methodology and Glaser’s own perspective on any derailment of the methodology originated by himself. Having said that, the overall GT research landscape in China is not vastly different from elsewhere in the world. It is observed that the term “grounded theory” has been generally misused. The study of the original texts of the GT methodology (Glaser &  Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978) is, to a great extent, disregarded. And ironically, what has emerged from China are some self-proclaimed “innovations” including the localisation of GT; thus, the extreme distortion of the original GT methodology (e.g., Chen, 2015; Chen & Wang, 2020; Jia & Heng, 2016, 2020), let alone widespread plagiarism and academic misconduct (e.g., Chen & Wang, 2020; Jia & Heng, 2016, 2020; Wu & Li, 2020) as we have discovered here. This essay outlines the life-changing experiences of some Chinese GT researchers and the journey towards academic independence. In particular, it highlights the following three intertwining aspects of the experiences arising from our own GT research endeavours: inspiration and empowerment of Glaser and his methodology, developing a critical mind, and growth in personal character. Inspiration and Empowerment of Glaser and His Methodology Glaser’s methodology, per se, has been an immense source of inspiration for those who have been minus-mentored (Glaser, 1998) at their own research institutions. Chen (2020), once a minus-mentored doctoral candidate thinking of quitting her           doctoral programme, stated that Glaser himself, his methodological ideas and experiences are highly critical to the most challenging part of her life, i.e., her doctoral study (personal communications, 18 January, 2022). Fei (2008) shared this view when reflecting upon his experience of being seriously challenged by not having a clearly-defined research problem at the outset of his doctoral project. Similarly, Feng (2022) appreciated Glaser’s life-long work in bringing us such a unique methodology…[and] unceasing academic efforts on GT . . . The words you have written for GT n[ovice] researchers deeply inspired me and helped me complete my paper in two years, which I would never forget in my life.(personal communications，18 January, 2022) One of the common challenges that classic (Glaserian) GT researchers often have to address is convincing others that Glaser’s GT is perfectly do-able, despite the fact that their colleagues may  have a preference towards other methods with the label “GT” on them. In order to overcome this particular challenge that some of us have encountered, Glaser has kindly supported the novice researchers by producing letters of endorsement to,...

Coding in Classic Grounded Theory: I’ve Done an Interview; Now What?...

Barry Chametzky, USA Abstract Without a doubt, many graduate students—especially those who are do not have a mentor skilled in the classic grounded theory design—are concerned about doing studies or dissertations using the classic grounded theory design for fear of doing it incorrectly.  While there is extant literature in the field of classic grounded theory, a clear and simple how-to does not exist.  The purpose of this paper is to give novice researchers interested in the classic grounded theory design a foothold in how to do one aspect of classic grounded theory analysis: coding.  The explanation offered in this paper is based in theory and supported with practical examples. Keywords: classic grounded theory, coding Introduction Congratulations on conducting your first interview for your dissertation using classic grounded theory.  Now the fun and, no doubt, confusion truly begin.  As you know, several theorists (Glaser, 1978; Mezirow, 1978) spoke about the educational power and importance of confusion.  Now is the time when you get to experience this “epistemological anarchy” (Glaser, 2005, p. 43).  Despite what Glaser (1998) said, classic grounded theory is complicated for novice researchers.  Yet, in order to ease possible frustrations, I will discuss what codes are and are not, different types of codes, and the overall process coding from a theoretical and practical perspective.  In this manner, the reader will be able to see how theory and practice come together. Significance of this research Without a doubt, many graduate (masters and doctoral) students—especially those who do not have a mentor skilled in the classic grounded theory design (Glaser, 1998)—are concerned about doing studies or dissertations using the classic grounded theory design for fear of doing them incorrectly.  While there is extant literature in the field of classic grounded theory, a clear and simple how-to does not exist.  Because the process of acculturation, so to speak, into the classic grounded theory realm takes time and requires novice researchers to ask numerous questions, this paper will be extremely valuable to them as it allows any minus mentored (Glaser, 1998) researcher to understand the research design more easily.  Tangentially, this research will help allay some fears of novice researchers; with lowered fears and lowered affective filters (Chametzky, 2014), these researchers would be able to conduct their research more expeditiously. What is classic grounded theory? According to one of the founders of classic grounded theory, Glaser (2009), this research design is a “simple procedural method formulated to generate substantive, conceptual theory” (p. 72).  While no person would ever doubt Glaser, it might be more useful to novice researchers to elaborate on (and clarify) what he said.  Grounded theory is a research design in which a researcher explains the behaviors of participants vis-à-vis their main concern.  The explanation, derived solely and exclusively from the (qualitative or quantitative) data, takes the ultimate form of a theory that explains the behaviors.  While the theory may be unique to the particular group of people, called the substantive area, because the concepts are abstract of “time, place, and people” ” (Glaser, 2001, p. 10), a highly developed, conceptualized theory is created. The term “classic” comes from the fact that Glaser and Strauss (1967) were the first two theorists to develop this research design.  Subsequent to Glaser and Strauss in 1967, numerous other researchers have developed what they described as other types of grounded theory designs.  In this paper, however, the researcher is discussing solely the (pure) classic grounded theory design. What are codes? Let us begin this...

When and How to Use Extant Literature in Classic Grounded Theory

Alvita K. Nathaniel, PhD, APRN, BC, FAANP Professor Emerita, West Virginia University Abstract Glaser and Strauss (1967) sprinkled suggestions about the use of the literature throughout their seminal work as did Glaser in subsequent years. They, however, did not lay out a clear and structured overview of how to use the literature. The aim of this paper is to weave together the recommendations from classic grounded theory originators and to describe how, why, and when to review the literature and which literature to review. The paper includes a section debunking the no literature myth followed by descriptions of the three phases of the classic grounded theory literature review—the introduction phase, the integration phase, and the disposition phase. The three phases work together to substantiate, confirm, and enhance an emerging grounded theory and situate it within the existing body of knowledge. Keywords: literature review, extant literature, grounded theory, classic grounded theory. Introduction This paper lays out a systematic approach to the literature review that is consistent with the classic grounded theory method as established by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and further by Glaser in subsequent publications. Their ideas about the pre-investigation literature review adhere to the foundational assumptions of the classic grounded theory method including discovery, emergence, and a foundation based upon participants’ perspectives. Through sentences and short paragraphs, Glaser and Strauss sprinkled suggestions about the use of the literature throughout their seminal work, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967), as did Glaser in subsequent years. They, however, did not articulate a complete and structured overview of how to use the literature. Much has been written in intervening years, mostly focusing on misunderstandings. Few have attempted to piece together Glaser and Strauss’ advice into a cohesive whole. Even the most adamant proponents of classic grounded theory have struggled to rectify Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) suggestions about the literature review with the exigencies of authoritarian social structures that have strict rules for reviewing the literature. This paper explains how a classic grounded theory literature review can be accomplished, even within strict institutional standards. The aim of this paper is to weave together the classic grounded theory originators’ advice and describe what, how, why, and when to review the literature. Recommendations in this paper derive from original sources of classic grounded theory and other proponents of the method but also interweave complementary, sometimes surprising, views expressed by authors of remodeled versions of grounded theory and also advice from general research methods literature. The grounded theory literature review is defined for this paper as the systematic selection, interpretation, and review of published and unpublished material on a particular topic. The literature may include empirical data, research findings, ideas, theories, recordings, and other collections and may include the work of researchers, scholars, and theorists along with other historic and current grounded sources. A literature review can also include conceptual and opinion pieces that provide insight into others’ thinking about a topic (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As you read further, you will see that the appropriate grounded theory literature review is intended to be focused, deliberate, and useful. The preliminary grounded theory literature review does not focus on concepts from a fixed research question, as is customary in quantitative research, because grounded theory research questions begin very broad and evolve as data are collected and analyzed. As Creswell and Creswell (2018) suggest, this can be uncomfortable for researchers since it challenges the accepted approaches of some faculty, ethics committees, and funding sources...