Issue no.3, June 2007
A Simpler Understanding of Classic GT: How it is a fundamentally different methodology...
Ólavur Christiansen Abstract The author reduces the research rationale of classic grounded theory (GT) methodology and the consequential classic GT research procedures and stages down to their essential elements. This reduction makes it possible to compare classic GT to other research methodologies in a manner that is simpler and yet concise. This methodological analysis and synthesis has been conducted while applying and after having applied the classic GT methodology in practice in a major project. The fundamental differences between classic GT versus other adaptations of GT, as well as other qualitative-inductive research approaches, are mainly explained by the very different approaches in solving the problem of many equally justifiable interpretations of the same data, and by the consequential differences in research procedures, and how they are applied. Comprehension of methodological differences in details will always be relevant. However, an uncomplicated and still concise explanation of the differences between these methodologies is necessary. “Grounded theory” (GT) is used as a common label in the literature for very different research approaches. This simpler approach of comparing the methodologies will be helpful for researchers, who might want to consider several options when deciding which research methodology to use, and who need quickly to understand some of the most essential methodological elements. Introduction For prospective researchers, who wish to consider several options when deciding which research methodology to use, it can be bewildering when “grounded theory” is used as a common label in the literature for very different research methodologies. During the research process that led to the theory of “opportunizing” in business (Christiansen, 2005; 2006) the author made some observations and lived through some experiences that could be helpful to others who might want to utilize Glaser’s prescribed set of classic grounded theory (GT) research procedures, or other adapted GT procedures, or other mainly inductive-qualitative research procedures in e.g. economics, business and management research. This article is based on a systematic treatment of these observations and experiences. Glaser’s prescribed set of GT research procedures are definite with regard to their usage and research rationale (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978; 1992; 1998; 2001; 2003; 2005). In this article, these procedures will be referred to as classic grounded theory methodology or classic GT. Strauss and Corbin (1990; 1998) have prescribed a set of research procedures that also are specific, and this set of procedures is also called “grounded theory”. However, the research rationales that are attached to these two different sets of “grounded theory” procedures are clearly different, and consequently, and despite some apparent similarity, these two sets of research procedures are also very different. It is also obvious that there is a much wider diversity regarding applied research procedures in studies labelled as “grounded theory” studies in the literature. It has even been claimed that almost any qualitative research can be labelled as a “grounded theory” (Simmons, 1995). Research methodologies almost by definition are different. They each have a different raison d’être, set of procedures and standards. Methodological diversity has its raison d’être and there is nothing wrong in it. To make judgments regarding general superiority or inferiority of methodologies may be pointless. However, to mix procedures of different researcher methodologies, which have different research rationales, may give a set of research procedures that do not represent a consistent method. A best choice of methodology depends on fit to the individual researcher’s purpose or skills, or the contextual purpose, and any research outcome has to be judged according to the raison d’être,...Mutual Intacting: Keeping the patient-practitioner relationship and patient treatment intact...
Naomi Elliott, MSc., BNS, RGN, RNT, PhD Candidate Abstract The aim of this grounded theory study was to discover the main concerns of clinical practitioners when making clinical judgments in the community care context and to explain the processes they used to resolve practice problems. Interview data from twenty-one advanced practitioners working in various mental healthcare and accident and emergency settings in Ireland was collected. In this paper, the process of clinical judgment is conceptualised as ‘Mutual Intacting’. It proposes that clinical judgment comprises three stages: situated patterning, intacting therapeutic relationship, and intacting therapy. ‘Mutual Intacting’ explains how clinical practitioners make clinical judgments through a process of adapting treatment so that the patient-practitioner relationship is maintained and treatment is delivered in a way that takes account of the patient’s circumstances. Background The importance of understanding how clinical judgments are made is highlighted by the professional and policy literature about advanced practice in nursing (National Council, 2004; Royal College of Nursing, undated). The ability to make clinical judgments is an essential skill required for all areas of professional practice; however, it is the level of clinical judgment which involves initiating and delivering therapeutic interventions that differentiates advanced practitioners from other grades in nursing. From an international perspective, developments in nurse prescribing have resulted in a growing number of nurses who are responsible for prescribing medication and for making clinical judgments affecting direct patient care (International Council of Nurses, 2001). These developments place clinical judgment firmly on the research agenda with questions concerning the relevance of the knowledge base that currently informs clinical practice. Current explanations of clinical judgment in nursing tend to be extrapolated from the knowledge gained from the hypothetico-deductive approach (Elstein, 1978) and the related information processing theory (Simon, 1978; Newell & Simon, 1972), and Benner’s (1984) work on intuition. According to the hypothetico-deductive approach, practitioners work through a process of cue acquisition in order to generate potential hypotheses then further cue and data collection to confirm or negate each hypothesis so that eventually a single outcome or diagnosis is reached. The main contribution of this approach is that it provides a systematic analytical process for clinical practitioners when making a diagnosis. Assumptions within the hypothetico-deductive approach are based on normative cues; that is, the association of clusters of cues with a particular diagnosis is based on knowledge derived from generalisations. This excludes a small, but nevertheless, important part of the patient population. Patients who present with atypical symptoms when compared to the general population or patients who present with an individual set of symptoms unique to them are effectively outside of the ‘norms’ and this limits the usefulness of the hypothetico-deductive approach in clinical practice. Another limitation, noted by Buckingham and Adams (2000a), is that the majority of research studies focus on biomedical signs and symptoms and on how clinical practitioners process these cues. In contrast, there is a paucity of research considering the role of psychosocial factors as cues in clinical judgment. This is an important gap, particularly in view of the evidence on patient behaviour in chronic illness which demonstrates that significant cues may be unrelated to the illness or, alternatively, patients may have learnt to minimise or view persistent symptoms as being ‘normal’ (Paterson et al., 2001). An alternative explanation of clinical judgment, intuition, is said to involve the rapid and unconscious processing of data (Cader et al., 2005; Buckingham & Adams, 2000b, Hammond, 2000). Contrary to the view that intuition does not involve...Book Review: Glaser, B.G. (2007). Doing Formal Grounded Theory: A Proposal...
Alvita K. Nathaniel, PhD, APRN, BC Forty years after developing the classic grounded theory method with Anselm Strauss, Barney Glaser has published the long-anticipated follow-up monograph that details the method for generating formal grounded theory. Through the years, Glaser continued writing about substantive grounded theory, but formal grounded theory remained in the background, lacking a clear definition and distinctive method. Although his previous monographs offer hints about formal grounded theory, this is the first definitive guide for researcher-theorists. It is Glaser’s aim that this monograph will provide the inspiration and direction needed by researcher-theorists who will then generate formal grounded theory. The intended audience for this book is grounded theorists who have previous experience developing substantive grounded theories. In 1971, Glaser and Strauss wrote Status Passage. This was the first formal theory. Through the years, both Glaser and Strauss wrote tidbits about formal grounded theory, but they never clearly explicated the method. As a result, few formal grounded theories exist. Describing and delineating formal grounded theory in a variety of ways, scholars in many disciplines attempted to fill in the gaps left by Glaser and Strauss. In this book, Glaser systematically, thoroughly, and meticulously answers those scholars, refuting some and validating others. Yet, he recognizes that since there are few published formal grounded theories, the method cannot be totally explicated. Nevertheless, enough formal grounded theories do exist for this first attempt at method clarification and procedure formulation. Glaser points to common impediments that derail many researcher-theorists. These impediments include lack of support from PhD committees, regression into conceptually barren qualitative research, logical-deductive speculation (rather than grounding), and “super think” divorced from reality. He clearly identifies these derailments as he lays out procedures for generating formal theory. Glaser explains that the generation of formal grounded theory pursues the general implications of a core variable. Using constant comparison, the researcher expands the general implications by generating grounded conceptual categories about it from many different areas and by expanding abstract conceptual generalizations. The researcher uses constant comparison to generate further concepts related to the core category. Grounded formal theory is not an explication of descriptive differences and similarities in a substantive area. Rather it is conceptualizations about the core category, abstracted from the particulars of time, place, and persons. Because it is empirically rooted, conceptualized, generalized, and free of particulars, it potentially applies to many substantive areas. Except for theoretical sampling, the procedures for formal grounded theory are the same as those for generating substantive grounded theory. Glaser suggests that the researcher samples widely in other substantive areas and populations. Data comes from “wherever” and may include newly generated empirical data from other substantive areas, extant literature focusing on the core category or its general implications, or data generated from previous qualitative descriptions. Glaser writes, “theoretical sampling swings wide.” Much like with substantive grounded theory, the researchertheorist constantly codes the data for categories and their properties, analyzes each day by constant conceptual comparisons and successive delimiting based on the general implications of the core category. Glaser is careful to point out that newly identified categories do not change meanings of the theory. They merely extend and modify the core category and give it broader generalization. The researcher writes conceptual memos and seeks saturation of new indicators that vary the original categories and their properties. Glaser suggests that as saturation occurs and contexts change, the researcher can more clearly see the abstract application to many new areas. Glaser identifies many uses of formal...Doing Formal Grounded Theory: A review
Tom Andrews PhD This is the latest in a family of Grounded Theory books by Glaser that continue to build on previous work and make the methodology much more explicit. Its purpose is quite simply to provide Grounded Theory researchers with a set of procedures that can be followed to generate a Formal Grounded Theory (FGT). Despite several chapters in previous books that deal with generating formal grounded theory it has been given scant attention by researchers and this book aims to reverse this. It brings together and synthesises these previous writings in one book and seeks to specify much more clearly what is meant by a formal grounded theory. As with other more recent books by Glaser, this one is based on data in that the procedures outlined are come from previously generated formal grounded theories. However, Glaser cautions that this is based on limited data since not many FGTs exist yet and as more are generated, the method will become more explicit. The book has been eagerly anticipated by grounded theorists and it does not disappoint. From the beginning, Glaser emphasises that such theory is not “grand theory” about a theoretical code but a conceptual extension of a substantive grounded theory core category using GT generating procedures. There is a natural tendency to see the applicability of core categories everywhere, beyond the data that generated them. There is a very useful and thought provoking differentiation between descriptive and conceptual generalisation that anyone interested in trying to understand the difference between qualitative methodology and GT would benefit from reading. The discussion of the struggle of qualitative research in dealing with issues of generalisability and transferability is based on extensive reading of the qualitative methodological literature. This struggle is essentially about the near impossibility of making generalisations based on descriptive, unit based findings. There is clear differentiation made between the conceptual nature of GT and routine qualitative data analysis (QDA). However despite this when it comes to generalisation, there is a tendency in QDA writings to reduce GT to another descriptive methodology with near total miss of its conceptual nature. This is another example of default remodelling which serves to block GT at every turn and is dealt with extensively by Glaser in other writings (see Glaser, 2003). Ultimately the discussion furthers the argument that the end product of a GT study is very different compared to that of a qualitative studyconceptualisation as opposed to description. In discussing the general implications of the core category, this book will be invaluable to PhD students since most theses are expected to discuss this issue. It will guide and encourage them to think and write about the conceptual generalisation of a core category and would have been invaluable to me when asked about the general implications of my core category at my PhD Viva Voce. It encourages researchers to think carefully about the issue but not to engage in speculation. Also, students are often expected to make an appeal to or suggest future research. This book will enable them to do this in ways that are consistent with GT. For example, they could suggest how their core category could be developed further from a SGT to a FGT. Glaser emphasises that there are many substantive grounded theories just waiting to be extended to a FGT and the encouragement for experienced Grounded Theorists is that a little data goes a long way in generating one. The procedures used are the same as for...