Blocking Conceptualization

Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. [ This paper is Chapter 10 of Dr. Glaser’s new book, Getting Out of the Data: Grounded Theory Conceptualization, (Sociology Press, 2011)] My purpose in this chapter is to go into some detail on the various blocks to conceptualization that the reader can and should be wary of so he/she can either avoid them, deal with them adequately to do a GT study, or submit to them humbly for greater gains for the moment. They are authoritative blocks, preconceptions, inability to adequately conceptualize, the initial confusion and regression, multiversion view of GT, QDA requirement blocks, data collection overload, data coding overload, peer reviews, dealing with jargonizing GT, and being a novice both in experience and in scholarship with GT. Obviously these are related in many ways and I have dealt with them a bit in above chapters on helping coding. My goal here is to put them into relief for focused attention and thought so they can be avoided or handled. Generating good GT conceptual ideas requires the researcher to be a non citizen for the moments of research so he can come closer to letting the data speak for itself. He/she needs to be free for the research of the normal issue orientations of everyday life so he/she must limit normal citizen bias. Suspending issues of gender, age, color, religion, nationality etc. are important. Therefore to avoid this kind of block the researcher should not get into a study when he/she cannot handle the issue as data impartially; not handle as neither right nor wrong. Gender studies are particularly sensitive and hard to avoid strong bias orientations. Face sheet data has to emerge as relevant, and often none do. They cannot be assumed as in QDA. So many GT studies have nothing to do with face sheet data. Authoritative guidance is a major block to conceptualization. Authoritative guidance comes in all forms — companies, committees, supervisors, senior colleagues, academic department, IRB requirements etc. And if they do not know GT with an adequate level of experience they are likely to block coding in favor of looking for preconceived concepts and problems and demanding conformity to bureaucratic requirements which block emergent coding and herald QDA descriptive requirements. We all know this. Evert Gummeson, a professor of business, writes: “Although most companies confess to the marketing concept claiming they are customer –centered with customer needs and customer satisfaction as their prime goal which is compatible with GT they still want to see research descriptions on preconceived practices of marketing, textbook theory, short term profits or long term goals or quick fixes and demand for facts on preconceived issues.” In sum, in this research situation there is no room for momentarily disregarding existing demands while conceptually coding for the emergent. The business conceptual jargon leaves little room for letting GT tell its theory. This goes on in many academic fields of intense jargon, such as psychology, political science, psychiatry, economics, to name a few that leave little or no room for new concepts in the authorities view. Their jargon is supported by taken for granted assumptions that influence what is attended to by extant theory which blocks attending to coding for what is really going on. Often the local jargon codes are wrong or miss the gist of what is going on, yet are assumed to have validity. So be careful of using in vivo codes that have no grounding, even if they are descriptively...

Forging a Path for Abstinence from Heroin: A grounded theory of detoxification-seeking...

Anne McDonnell, BA, HDip. and Marie Claire Van Hout, BSc., MSc., PhD. Abstract Through a classic grounded theory approach, this study conceptualises that the main concern of heroin users who are seeking detoxification is giving up heroin use; ‘getting clean.’ Forging a path for abstinence explains how people respond to their concern of getting clean from heroin. Three sub- processes make up this response which are; resolution (resolving to stop); navigation (deciding how to stop), and initiation (stopping use). These sub-processes are carried out by heroin users within a context of subjective levels of four significant personal resources; dependence knowledge; treatment awareness; treatment access, and alliance. The nature of the resource context greatly determines whether a heroin user seeks detoxification, or not, is response to getting clean. The substantive theory demonstrates that valuable insights are gained from studying heroin users out of treatment experiences of trying to become drug-free. Keywords: heroin, detoxification, self-detoxification, help- seeking, classic grounded theory Introduction In recent years, the overall number of people using heroin in Ireland has increased, and the geography of heroin use in Ireland has changed. Problem opiate use, mostly heroin, accounts for 63% of those entering drug treatment in Ireland. This compares with a European average of 47% (EMCDDA, 2009, Kelly et al., 2009). In addition, treatment statistics continue to reflect frequent treatment ‘re entry’ together with increased ‘new treatment’ cases (Carew et al., 2009). During the 1980s, heroin use was located primarily within the inner city of the country’s capital, Dublin (Dean et al., 1983). Now, heroin use is regarded as prevalent and increasing in rural areas throughout the country (Lyons et al., 2008, NACD, 2008, Carew et al., 2009, Kelly et al., 2009). Widespread increase of detoxification services is necessary in order to meet the needs of heroin users (Department of Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, 2007, Corrigan & O’Gorman, 2009, Doyle, 2010). This study aimed to develop a greater understanding of heroin users’ experiences of detoxification- seeking by exploring what is the main concern of heroin users when they are seeking detoxification, and how do they respond? Data Collection and Analysis The study analysed data from; one to one interviews with heroin users and service providers; gatekeeper discussions, and field notes. The study interviewed twelve people who had experienced heroin dependence, and nine drug service provider representatives who engage directly with heroin users. A continuum of heroin careers and trajectories in terms of long term dependencies, and more ‘novice’ type users was represented. Service providers provided insight into the aspects of detoxification-seeking which they are part of on a day to day professional basis. Data collection involved one field researcher collecting and analysing data at the same time, from entry into the field, in order to further explore, validate and build emerging categories and theory. This process of constant comparison and theoretical sampling began with a number of discussions with a small group of local drug service providers (gatekeepers), followed by one to one interviews. As concerns of the participants were identified in the data, the indicators were coded. Through coding and memoing, constant comparison and further theoretical sampling, theoretical categories were developed and confirmed, or otherwise, on an on-going basis. Hypotheses were developed based on the relationship between categories, and to the core category. The researcher recruited heroin users and service provider representatives who could potentially provide information to confirm, or disconfirm the emerging hypotheses. The substantive theory encompasses the core category and hypotheses which were validated,...

Reading with Methodological Perspective Bias: A journey into Classic Grounded Theory...

Rick Deady Introduction The following is a naïve narrative of my journey into classic grounded theory (CGT) and the consideration of the possible existence of methodological perspective bias when reviewing literature. Whilst research bias has been viewed from a number of differing perspectives, such as sample bias, interviewer bias, publication bias etc (Sica, 2006), there appears a dearth of discussion within the literature on methodological perspective bias, as well as, a reluctance to publicly acknowledge the existence of such bias. For the purpose of this paper the concept of bias is defined as “a source of systematic error … deriving from a conscious or unconscious tendency on the part of a researcher to produce data, and/or to interpret them, in a way that leans towards erroneous conclusions which are in line with his or her commitments” (Hammersley and Gomm, 1997, p.1). Some time ago I was given a PhD thesis to read, my colleague thought I might be able to offer some useful insights since it was relevant to a study I was engaged in. The methodology used by the PhD candidate was Classic Grounded Theory (CGT), with which I had passing familiarity following the usual methodological investigations and decisions required of an MSc student. Like many MSc students I needed to qualify my research method in terms of its fit with the proposed study under investigation. I was, however, more familiar with positivistic methodologies. Although convention states that the research method should fit the study question, in order to develop my research skills I was keen to experience the use of a qualitative methodology, consequently I targeted the study towards an investigation of psychiatric nurses’ lived experiences (Deady, 2005), a subject area that lent itself to a qualitative methodology. I began to study seminal texts on qualitative research that were available to me at the time (e.g. Banister et al, 1994, Cresswell, 1994, 1998, Denzin and Lincoln, 1998, Moustaka, 1994 Silverman, 2000, Slevin, and Sines, 1999/2000, Strauss, and Corbin, 1990) and became more familiar with different methodologies such as phenomenology, ethnography and grounded theory (2). I concluded that phenomenology was the methodology suited to the study. The methodology had easily identifiable qualitative data analysis (QDA) stages, whereas the general method of Grounded Theory, purporting to handle both qualitative and quantitative data, was to me at the time, more difficult to comprehend. Some of this difficulty related to the unique terminology used, such as emergent fit, substantive coding, theoretical coding and memoing, which appeared different to other methodologies, apparently not an uncommon experience for researchers considering CGT (Roderick, 2009). As a result, given the time constraint of my MSc it was more constructive for me to use what I viewed as a more conventional qualitative research methodology and chose phenomenology. I became familiar with phenomenological methodology; in particular, the discussions on bias, the concept of ‘bracketing’, and epistemological arguments as to whether it was ever fully achievable. There is an abundance of advice about avoiding bias throughout the QDA research process (Silverman, 2000, Moustakas, 1994) and as a novice researcher I accepted them. Current Perspectives on Bias in Qualitative Research The arguments on bias in contemporary qualitative literature have, however, largely centred on bias during the research process, that is, during subject selection, data collection, analysis and publication (Mehra, 2002, Petegrew et al, 2008, Silverman, 2001). In addition, some authors (e.g. Denzin, 1989) comment on the issue of bias that the researcher brings to a study when choosing a...

A Grounded Theory of Liberated Identity: Lesbians transcending oppression...

Amy Russell, Ph.D., LMSW Abstract The purpose of this study was to generate theory that emerged based on the conceptualized data from interviews with lesbian women through Classic Grounded Theory methodology. Theory generation is grounded in the unique perspectives of lesbian women’s experience in cultural contexts. This is a strengths-based process that focuses on how participants meet challenges in culture, rather than how they are consumed by them. From the data, a basic social process emerged that is both complex and paradoxical: transcending oppression through liberating one’s identity. The paradox lies in the aspect that from a lesbian woman’s pain comes her strength. This difference, lesbian identity, is also the source of strength. This paradox is compounded with the awareness that culture negates lesbian loving relationships. There are three stages to lesbian liberated identity: authenticating, reconciling, and integrating. Application to and implications for professionals and academics are presented. Keywords: lesbians, liberated identity, spirituality, political, classic grounded theory Introduction Historically, behavioral science theories and developmental models have focused on the individual outside of culture, hence negating the unique cultural oppression of lesbian women. The few theories that address lesbians are seated in “heterosexist paradigms” that fall outside the lived experience of lesbian women (Brown, 1995, p.18). Subsequently, theory has pathologized lesbian development through the absence of biopsychosocial frameworks (Brown, 1995). Research and psychological interventions have also focused on the internal daily living problems of lesbian women instead of the oppressive cultural experiences that lesbian women encounter (Kitzinger & Perkins, 1993). The absence of political theories that explore lesbian cultural experience have opened the door to pathologizing explanations that blame the victim (Kitzinger & Perkins). Instead of investigating the challenges posed by the system the individual is navigating within, labels of coping are applied to the individual (i.e. internalized homophobia) as opposed to the source (homophobic and heterosexist oppression), thus minimizing external forces and maximizing assumed pathology of the person within the system. Using Classic Grounded Theory, the purpose of this study was to generate theory that emerged from conceptualized data from interviews with lesbian women. Findings revealed that the women in this study created unique social processes to maintain, even edify, their lesbian identity when it was threatened. From conceptualization of the data, theory emerged as a specific process in which strengths were utilized to face challenges when interacting within culture. This process and theory, transcending oppression through liberating one’s identity, is complex and paradoxical because the participants garnered strength from the pain caused by oppression. Although this oppression may lead to suffering, it also created resilience. Since lesbian loving relationships are thus ignored or minimized within culture, this compounded the paradox. Method Participant selection was based on lesbian identity and diverse demographic characteristics because heterogeneous sampling is required to expand and refine the emergent theory (Glaser, 1978). Heterogeneous lesbian subgroups were recruited to enhance non-comparability of groups. Key informants, lesbian women identified as resources with exceptional knowledge of the potential sample, were used for access to lesbian subgroups and later as interview participants for theoretical coding. Using the researcher’s own network, key informants, snowball participants, and lesbian social services, theoretical sampling was conducted. Lesbian Social Services To diversify potential participants, the initial sample was drawn from lesbian social service agencies. Four social service agencies agreed to publicize the study. Theoretical sampling began with a local lesbian social service sponsoring a function for recipients. Interviews were conducted onsite and from this event additional participants were recruited. All agencies and participants...

A grounded Theory of Liberated Identity: Lesbians transcending liberation...

Russell, Amy (2011). A grounded Theory of Liberated Identity: Lesbians transcending liberation. The Grounded Theory Review, vol.10, no.1, pp.59-83. The purpose of this study was to generate theory that emerged based on the conceptualized data from interviews with lesbian women through Classic Grounded Theory methodology. Theory generation is grounded in the unique perspectives of lesbian women’s experience in cultural contexts. This is a strengths-based process that focuses on how participants meet challenges in culture, rather than how they are consumed by them. From the data, a basic social process emerged that is both complex and paradoxical: transcending oppression through liberating one’s identity. The paradox lies in the aspect that from a lesbian woman’s pain comes her strength. This difference, lesbian identity, is also the source of strength. This paradox is compounded with the awareness that culture negates lesbian loving relationships. There are three stages to lesbian liberated identity: authenticating, reconciling, and integrating. Application to and implications for professionals and academics are presented. A Grounded Theory of Liberated Identity: Lesbians transcending oppression Amy Russell, Ph.D., LMSW Abstract The purpose of this study was to generate theory that emerged based on the conceptualized data from interviews with lesbian women through Classic Grounded Theory methodology. Theory generation is grounded in the unique perspectives of lesbian women’s experience in cultural contexts. This is a strengths-based process that focuses on how participants meet challenges in culture, rather than how they are consumed by them. From the data, a basic social process emerged that is both complex and paradoxical: transcending oppression through liberating one’s identity. The paradox lies in the aspect that from a lesbian woman’s pain comes her strength. This difference, lesbian identity, is also the source of strength. This paradox is compounded with the awareness that culture negates lesbian loving relationships. There are three stages to lesbian liberated identity: authenticating, reconciling, and integrating. Application to and implications for professionals and academics are presented. Keywords: lesbians, liberated identity, spirituality, political, classic grounded theory Introduction Historically, behavioral science theories and developmental models have focused on the individual outside of culture, hence negating the unique cultural oppression of lesbian women. The few theories that address lesbians are seated in “heterosexist paradigms” that fall outside the lived experience of lesbian women (Brown, 1995, p.18). Subsequently, theory has pathologized lesbian development through the absence of biopsychosocial frameworks (Brown, 1995). Research and psychological interventions have also focused on the internal daily living problems of lesbian women instead of the oppressive cultural experiences that lesbian women encounter (Kitzinger & Perkins, 1993). The absence of political theories that explore lesbian cultural experience have opened the door to pathologizing explanations that blame the victim (Kitzinger & Perkins). Instead of investigating the challenges posed by the system the individual is navigating within, labels of coping are applied to the individual (i.e. internalized homophobia) as opposed to the source (homophobic and heterosexist oppression), thus minimizing external forces and maximizing assumed pathology of the person within the system. Using Classic Grounded Theory, the purpose of this study was to generate theory that emerged from conceptualized data from interviews with lesbian women. Findings revealed that the women in this study created unique social processes to maintain, even edify, their lesbian identity when it was threatened. From conceptualization of the data, theory emerged as a specific process in which strengths were utilized to face challenges when interacting within culture. This process and theory, transcending oppression through liberating one’s identity, is complex and paradoxical because the participants garnered...

Reading with Methodological Perspective Bias: A journey into Classic Grounded Theory...

Deady, Rick (2011). Reading with Methodological Perspective Bias: A journey into Classic Grounded Theory. The Grounded Theory Review, vol.10, no.1, pp.41-57. The following is a naïve narrative of my journey into classic grounded theory (CGT) and the consideration of the possible existence of methodological perspective bias when reviewing literature. Whilst research bias has been viewed from a number of differing perspectives, such as sample bias, interviewer bias, publication bias etc (Sica, 2006), there appears a dearth of discussion within the literature on methodological perspective bias, as well as, a reluctance to publicly acknowledge the existence of such bias. For the purpose of this paper the concept of bias is defined as “a source of systematic error … deriving from a conscious or unconscious tendency on the part of a researcher to produce data, and/or to interpret them, in a way that leans towards erroneous conclusions which are in line with his or her commitments” (Hammersley and Gomm, 1997, p.1). Article...