Qualitative Tussles in Undertaking a Grounded Theory Study

Judith A. Holton, Ph.D. 1 Much of this paper is extracted from Holton, J. A. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. (pp. 265-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Abstract Those who’ve been trained to regard grounded theory as a qualitative research method frequently struggle to ‘unlearn’ qualitative data analysis dicta when undertaking a classic grounded theory study. A plethora of research methods texts that support this notion of grounded theory as a qualitative method are primarily responsible for the ensuing confusion. Further supporting this popular misconception are many papers published in leading academic journals and all too often the pressuring advice of thesis supervisors. This paper addresses specifically two issues that can create frustrating tussles for novice grounded theorists, especially in challenging such ‘authoritative’ perspectives: avoiding preconception and transcending descriptive detail. In addressing these persistent tussles, the reader is reminded of the fundamental distinction of grounded theory as a methodology for the emergent discovery of conceptually abstract theory from empirical data. Preconception To remain truly open to the emergence of theory is among the most challenging issues confronting those new to grounded theory. As a generative and emergent methodology, grounded theory requires the researcher to enter the research field with no preconceived problem statement, interview protocols, or extensive review of literature. Instead, the researcher remains open to exploring a substantive area and allowing the concerns of those actively engaged therein to guide the emergence of a core issue. The conceptualization of this main concern and the multivariate responses to its continual resolution emerge as a latent pattern of social behaviour that forms the basis for the articulation of a grounded theory. Remaining open to discovering what is really going on in the field of inquiry is often blocked, however, by what Glaser (1998) refers to as the forcing of preconceived notions resident within the researcher’s worldview, an initial professional problem or an extant theory and framework; all of which pre-empt the researcher’s ability to suspend preconception and allow for what will emerge conceptually by constant comparative analysis. One of the dominant preconceptions regarding grounded theory is the frequent attribution of its ‘roots’ to symbolic interactionism (Clarke, 2005; Goulding, 2002; Locke, 2001). Glaser (2005) has written at length on the impact of this ‘takeover’ (p. 141). While not discounting the influence of symbolic interactionism in the contribution of Anselm Strauss as co-originator of the methodology, to attribute grounded theory’s origins thereto ignores the fundamental influence of Barney Glaser’s training in quantitative methodology at Columbia University. As Martin (2006) suggests, ‘It is really the analytic techniques out of Columbia, through Glaser, that gave qualitative researchers tools for systematic analysis’ (p. 122). Pre-framing grounded theory through the theoretical lens of symbolic interactionism precludes other perspectives, pre-determines what data are used and how these should be collected, and limits the analyst’s creativity in the analysis and conceptual abstraction of the data under study. This is not to suggest that classic grounded theory is free of any theoretical lens but rather that it should not be confined to any one lens; that as a general methodology, classic grounded theory can adopt any epistemological perspective appropriate to the data and the ontological stance of the researcher (Holton, 2008). Concerns that arise through the researcher’s professional training and experience often stimulate the initial research interest and can provide the motivation for pursuing a study. However, when the practitioner turns researcher, she carries into...

Theoretical Coding in Grounded Theory Methodology

Cheri Ann Hernandez, RN, Ph.D., CDE Abstract When doing classic grounded theory research, one of the most problematic areas, particularly for novice researchers, is the theoretical coding process. The identification of theoretical codes is essential to development of an integrated and explanatory substantive theory when a researcher is using classic grounded theory research methodology, but it is not a part of Straussian qualitative data analysis as described by Strauss and Corbin. A theoretical code is the relational model through which all substantive codes/categories are related to the core category. Like substantive codes, theoretical codes emerge through the data analysis process, rather than being overlaid on the data through the use of conjecture or ‘pet’ codes. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the theoretical coding process and to review the theoretical coding families and individual theoretical codes that have been identified previously by Glaser. Introduction Grounded theory (GT) is a research methodology for discovering theory in a substantive area. In many of his publications, Glaser (1978, 1992, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005) has carefully delineated the various aspects of GT research methodology, and has consistently elucidated areas that have been difficult for published GT researchers, often illustrating the erroneous assumptions or methodological errors found in such research (Hernandez, 2008). One of the most problematic areas, particularly for novice researchers, is the theoretical coding process which includes finding the theoretical code that will integrate the emerging substantive theory. Perhaps one of the reasons for this confusion is that many researchers have not understood that classic (also known as Glaserian) GT and Straussian GT are two very different methods (Hernandez, p. 44) and, as a result, many research articles list references from both Glaser and Strauss as the methodological underpinning of their studies. However, theoretical coding as described by Glaser (1978) is not a part of Strauss’ approach to grounded theory data analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The purpose of classic GT research is to uncover the main problem in a substantive area, as well as the resolution to this problem. The resolution is known as the core category. The final theoretical code is the one that emerges, through the coding process, and serves to integrate all of the substantive categories with the core category. The approach to data in classic GT methodology consists of two main processes. First, during the open coding process, the data are broken down into substantive codes (either in vivo codes or sociological constructs) as interview, field notes and/or other written data are coded in a line by line manner and incidents are compared with one another, for similarities and differences (Glaser, 1978) until the core category is found. Then, as selective coding results in the saturation of all of the categories through theoretical sampling, these substantive codes are built up into a substantive theory as they are integrated into a cohesive structure by the emergent theoretical code. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the theoretical coding process and review the theoretical coding families and individual theoretical codes that have been identified previously by Glaser (1978, 1998, 2005) as being relevant for grounded theory research. Understanding Theoretical Codes in Classic GT In any GT study, several theoretical codes may emerge but eventually, through ongoing coding and memoing, one theoretical code is chosen as the theoretical code for the study. A GT study’s theoretical code is the relational model through which all substantive codes/categories are related to the core...

The Novice GT Researcher

Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. Make no mistake, as I said in my article, “The Future of Grounded Theory” (Qualitative Health Research, Nov, 1999) is in the hands of the beginning PhD researcher. I said “Unformed researchers embrace grounded theory for dissertation or master’s theses when, in their view, the more preconceived methods do not give relevant answers. Unformed researchers who can choose their own methods do so at the discretion of their advisers. The principal GT users today, mostly students who are doing MA and PhD theses or dissertations, are well into their academic careers and looking for methodologies that will result in data and theories relevant to what is going on in their research area of interest. This makes grounded theory very appealing on that one point alone — relevance.” GT is done best in the hands of the novice PhD and MA candidates because not only of their quest for relevancy, in the face of extant literature that does not fit, work or is not relevant, they are still open to “whatever”, still enthusiastically learning, still unformed in other QDA methods, lack QDA method identity protection, and their skill development fledgling status is uniquely suited to skill development required in the GT process. Also they have big stakes in doing original research — hence high motivation — and have the modest amounts of time and money to finish in a timely way. Also the novice is more likely to see fresh new patterns in the face of experienced forcing of professional interest patterns. Thus the category build-up in memos seems very original as they fit and are relevant — sensitive and intelligent. Also the novice is not shy of the preconscious processing of the input-depression-output procedurally produced by following grounded theory procedures. In spite of the confusion and depression, they tend to tolerate, understand and trust to the soon to come creativity and originality that comes with the memoing output. It may take time, but never as much as it feels it will and it always works. With novices it usually comes too fast and they have to be slowed a bit to be sure of grounding and ward off impressionism. This essential tolerance and trust to emergence tends to be skeptical and doubtful among the formed in favor of forcing. (See: John Lofland, “Student’s Case Studies of Social Movements: Experiences with an Undergraduate Seminar” Teaching Sociology, 1996 vol 24, page 389–394). I know and work with many, many of these beginners, quite often as their external examiner for the dissertation. They are all over the world in many diverse departments, but usually business, nursing, education, social work and sociology. Make no mistake about it, the best GT is done in the hands of beginners. GT was written for beginners as it emerged FROM beginners’ research, myself included, when we did Awareness of Dying, a resounding success. GT was not thought up based on research maxims from positivism or symbolic interaction. IT WAS WRITTEN FROM METHODOLOGICAL NOTES I did during the research for Awareness of Dying and the methodological notes taken during several years of my analysis seminar at Univ of Calif, San Francisco. During each seminar, each week, a student was assigned the task of doing methodological notes on what was going on. Thus, GT is itself a grounded theory of methodology of what went on in my seminars as we all painstakingly did our GT of GT while doing GT, fitting names to...

Methodological Learning-by-doing: Challenges, lessons learned and rewards...

Pernilla Pergert, RN, Ph.D. Abstract The experience of minus mentoring in learning classic grounded theory (CGT) is shared by many people over the world. The aim of this article is to share experiences of learning and using CGT. Data for the article included methodological discussions in the author’s thesis and articles, as well as memos. Consequences of learning grounded theory by doing are presented in the form of challenges and lessons learned but also some rewards. Challenges and lessons learned include sampling-confusion, delimiting-disregarding, judging saturation and conceptual language-struggling. Rewards include trusting the method, insider-researcher and expert-resourcing. Presented rewards could be seen as advice and inspiration for novice GT researchers. Introduction Grounded theory (GT) is an inductive method, useful and suitable for qualitative data. It is highly appropriate for nursing research (Nathaniel & Andrews, 2007; Schreiber & Stern, 2001) and aims to discover a main concern of participants and how they manage and resolve such concern (Glaser, 1978). GT was formulated by Glaser & Strauss (1967) and elaborated by Glaser (1978, 1998), Strauss and Corbin (1998), and others. The method elaborated by Glaser is often called classic grounded theory (CGT). Researchers need to choose not only what method to use but also what approach (Heath & Cowley, 2004), remodeling (Glaser & Holton, 2004) or even synthesis of approaches (Chen & Boore, 2009). The aim of postgraduate studies is to get a deeper understanding of both the subject and scientific methodology (Karolinska Institutet, 2007). A situation in which no expert is present to teach and guide in GT methodology is known as minus mentoring (Glaser, 1998, p. 5; Stern, 1994). Experience of such a situation is shared by many people over the world. One challenge with minus mentoring is that informed formative feedback, given during the process in order to enhance learning (Biggs & Tang, 2007), may be lacking. When my research education started, I did not know much about CGT. One of my supervisors had supervised an earlier thesis using a “grounded theory approach” (Baarnhielm, 2003, p. 47 ); the other two supervisors had no experience in using GT, though their attitude to the method was positive. In choosing the CGT method, my main concern was to perform good research while learning-by-doing. The aim of this article is to share experiences of learning and using CGT. Memos as well as methodological discussions in my thesis and articles have been used as the basis for this discussion. The various categories, presented in the text below, are further illustrated with examples from my experience. The examples are taken from the my thesis (Pergert, 2008) and the four studies included there, referred to throughout this article by their Roman numerals I – IV. Methodological Learning-by-Doing This refers to the capability to acquire methodological skills and understanding while using the method and doing research. Consequences of learning grounded theory by doing include challenges and lessons learned but also rewards. Challenges and lessons learned In this section, some challenges and lessons learned, from my experience in using GT and learning-by-doing, will be presented, including sampling-confusion, delimiting-disregarding, judging saturation and conceptual language-struggling. Sampling-confusion The initial decisions for sampling in GT are based on the general subject area (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 45). This is similar to purposive sampling in the sense that it aims to include people who are knowledgeable about the subject being studied (Polit & Hungler, 1999). In GT, this initial sampling should be followed by theoretical sampling of comparative groups and literature....

Learning Classic Grounded Theory: An Account of the Journey and Advice for New Researchers...

Carol Roderick, Ph.D. Abstract Graduate students who employ CGT for their theses or dissertations predominantly learn the methodology on their own. As a distinct methodology, CGT is challenging to employ. This challenge increases further when graduate students encounter poor advice from dissertation supervisors who are unfamiliar with the methodology, or attempt to incorporate elements from the many alternative and modified versions of grounded theory presented in the literature. This article provides an account of one student’s experience learning CGT to complete her doctoral dissertation. It is hoped that this article will assist other new researchers to anticipate some of the confusion, challenges, and insights, and growth that they may encounter in their first CGT study. The article concludes with advice for new researchers including: seek expertise, engage in community, just do it, know self, and balance challenge and support. Introduction Classic grounded theory [CGT] is a fundamentally distinct methodology. It does not fit within the established qualitative or quantitative paradigms. Instead, it stands on its own and can use all as data (Holton, 2007). While there is a growing body of literature focusing on the experiences of learning to do qualitative research (Drago-Severson, Asghar, Gaylor, 2003; Gale, 1990; Hein, 2004, Hughes, & Berry, 2000), little has been written about the experience of learning classic grounded theory from the novice’s perspective. Graduate students who aspire to employ CGT for their theses or dissertations predominantly learn the methodology on their own as ‘minus mentorees’ (Glaser, 1998). Few individuals have access to relevant graduate level courses or a dissertation supervisor experienced in CGT. In fact, because of the many ways CGT has been altered and modified since Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was first published, many individuals who supervise CGT dissertations may have misunderstandings of the methodology. This article provides an account of my experience learning CGT to complete my doctoral dissertation. I hope that my account will assist other researchers, new to classic grounded theory, to anticipate some of the confusion, challenges, insights and growth that they may encounter in their first CGT study. I hope that elements of my journey resonate with other researchers, and provide them with company in what can be a long and lonely dissertation journey. In the process of completing my dissertation, I learned many valuable lessons. These lessons serve as advice that should interest doctoral students engaged in CGT and may help them to avoid pitfalls along the dissertation path. This article also provides insight into the process of learning CGT that can inform the design and teaching of CGT in various contexts, and the mentoring of students employing the methodology. Account of the Journey My journey began with an initial resistance to all things grounded theory, followed by gradually understanding the methodology and some of the ways it has been modified, to actually conducting and completing my dissertation. This journey explicates some of the challenges and highlights that I encountered as I tried it out, made mistakes, got stuck, read, felt frustrated, had ‘Aha!’ moments, revised previous work, and took incremental steps forward before getting stuck again. Getting Acquainted with Grounded Theory I was first introduced to grounded theory as one of a smorgasbord of methodologies in a graduate level introductory qualitative research course. At the time grounded theory was a mystery to me. I was initially turned away from grounded theory by what seemed to be inflexible and rigid procedures and confusing terminology. Two years into my doctoral studies, however,...

A Grounded Theory Approach in a Branding Context: Challenges and lessons learnt during the research process...

Anne Rindell, PhD. Abstract The purpose of this paper is to discuss challenges and lessons learnt when conducting a classic grounded theory study in a marketing context. The paper focuses on two specific challenges that were met during a specific research process. The first challenge related to positioning the study, namely, specifying “what the study is a study of”. The second challenge concerned the choice between formal or substantive theory. Both challenges were accentuated as the emerged core category concerned a phenomenon that has caught less attention in marketing, that is, the temporal dimension in corporate images. By the temporal dimension in corporate images we mean that corporate images often have roots in earlier times through consumer memories. In other words, consumers are not tabula rasa, that is, blank sheets of paper on which communication messages can be printed. Rather, consumers have a pre-understanding of the company that works as an interpretation framework for company actions in the present. The lessons learnt from this research process can be summarized as “stay faithful to the data”, “write memos on issues you reflect upon although they might be in another substantial field” as they might become useful later, and, “look into thinking in other disciplines” as disciplines do not develop equally. Introduction Classic grounded theory is not a mainstream methodology in marketing, especially not in branding and image research. This is surprising, as the original perspective marketing adopted was that of the consumer, and therefore classic grounded theory studies could provide important new insights into consumers, given that the aim is to develop fresh insights and new theories (Goulding, 1998). As Payne et al. state, although consumer understanding expresses the initial perspective marketing adopted, the mainstream marketing literature is largely organization-focused in its nature (Payne, Storbacka, Frow, & Knox, 2009). However, especially within marketing communications and branding, leading scholars now urge for genuine consumer understanding in a branding context (Schultz, 2006). This may enhance the interest for classic grounded theory among branding and marketing communication scholars as this area might benefit from the development of explanatory theory. Nevertheless, from my own experience, there are only a few academic articles that have a methodological approach and can provide explicit guidance for novel researchers in using classic grounded theory in a marketing context (see e.g. Goulding, 1998). Practical advice from experienced CGT scholars in marketing can also be hard to find in one’s home country. Moreover, differences in methodological approaches concerning GT and especially misconceptions among scholars (Goulding, 1998) made the present research process challenging. However, my supervisor’s full support was valuable here. In sum, this paper examines a research process with a classic grounded theory approach in a branding context. The purpose of this paper is to discuss especially two challenges met and lessons learnt during the research process. The first issue concerns the challenge of positioning the study within an area in marketing and the second challenge concerns the choice between formal or substantive theory. In the paper, some reflections are also made in relation to researcher experiences in doing the research. The paper is organized as follows: first, a short overview of the conducted study is provided in order to give a context for the discussion. Then, the first challenge, positioning the study within marketing research, will be discussed together with some lessons learnt from the journey. Then, the second challenge, to choose between generating formal or substantive theory, is discussed. Finally, concluding reflections, implications and contributions of the paper...