Book Review:Artinian, B. M., Giske, T., & Cone, P. H. (2009). Glaserian grounded theory in nursing research: Trusting emergence...

Reviewed by Antoinette M. McCallin, RN, Ph.D. This new research book focuses on Glaserian grounded theory and has been written specifically for nurse researchers. Although the many examples used to illustrate methodological issues are nursing related, the book will be of interest to grounded theory researchers across disciplines. The lead author, Professor Barbara Artinian, has researched using the method and supervised masters and doctoral students for over twenty years. The insights that come from her experience are combined with a strong commitment to endorsing classic grounded theory. The core category of the book could be identified as, “staying true” as per Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser (1978, 1998). The publication is impressive with multiple examples of grounded theory research that are critiqued rigorously yet sensitively. The end result is a resource that will be welcomed by students and supervisors alike. Differences between classic grounded theory, the axial coding model, and qualitative data analysis are addressed albeit succinctly. While purist Glaserian grounded theorists may be disappointed to see discussions on conceptual mapping, modes of grounded theory, and clinical intervention research, the key message is that researchers should strive to remain true to Glaser’s grounded theory. This book is easy to read. Research issues are presented in a matter-of-fact manner. Rich practical examples and thoughtful responses promoting classic grounded theory abound. The writing is sincere yet unpretentious. The inclusion of wide-ranging research examples is a strength, which will be appreciated by grounded theory researchers keen to learn more about methodology. Practical matters that arise in any research project are considered along with the challenges of methodological application. Any deviation from classic methodology, as occurs in the instance of conceptual mapping, is addressed openly. Cone and Artinian acknowledge that they “differ completely from Glaser” (2009, p. 43) in identifying conceptual maps. These maps are seen as a useful tool for research students who are visual learners. While the conceptual map is possibly similar to Glaser’s diagrams, which may have a place in theory development (Glaser, 1978), it is offered as tool to move researchers from description to conceptualisation. There is a provision though: creating a map steeped in description is definitely not recommended. The purpose of mapping is to raise thinking to clarify the relationships between concepts in the emergent theory. The chapter differentiating classic grounded theory from the Strauss and Corbin version is effective. Artinian (2009) suggests that “the emergent method of coding and writing memos about the emergent process is very different from the axial coding method described by Strauss and Corbin (1990) in which every category is fully dimensionalised” (p. 21). The example of axial coding is particularly interesting, as the frustrations of situational description, the complete missing of participant relevance, are discussed. What is helpful is that the example is taken a step further to show readers how a grounded theory researcher can return to the classic method and “lift” the data to generate a theory that is relevant, fits and works. Artinian confirms her commitment to classic grounded theory, emphasising the importance of putting preconceptions aside, and staying true to the data, so that the participant resolution of the main concern is allowed to emerge. Another chapter, “Bending the directives of Glaserian grounded theory in nursing research” might make the purist classic grounded theorist nervous. You are encouraged to read on, however. In this chapter the common issue of staying true to grounded theory when members of dissertation committees do not understand the methodology, is addressed....

Volume 9, Issue no. 3, December 2010

                     Volume 9, Issue no. 3, December 2010 ← Editorial Judith A. Holton, Ph.D. Organizational Careers: A forward theory Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon.Ph.D. Navigating the process of ethical approval: A methodological note Eileen Carey, RNID, BSc. (hons), MSc.  Institutional Review Boards: Perspectives from  the United States Alvita Nathaniel, Ph.D., FNP-BC, FAANP       International Perspectives of Ethical Approval: The New Zealand scene Antoinette M. McCallin, RN, Ph.D.        A Swedish Perspective on Research Ethics Review Hans Thulesius, M.D., G.P.,Ph.D.        Book Review:  Kaplan, S. (2008).Children in Genocide: Extreme    traumatization and affect regulation, London: International Psychoanalysis Library  Carol Roderick, M.Ed., Ph.D. Book Review: Theory buried under heavy description. Kaplan, S. (2008). Children in   Genocide: extreme traumatization and affect regulation, London: International Psychoanalysis Library   Vivian B. Martin Ph.D. Comments on the reviews of Kaplan, S. (2008).   Children in genocide: Extreme traumatization and affect regulation. London: International   Psychoanalytical Association  Suzanne Kaplan,...

Volume 9, Issue no. 2, June 2010

 Volume 9, Issue no. 2, June 2010 ←  Editorial Judith A. Holton, Ph.D. The Future of Grounded TheoryBarney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. Is That a Real Theory or Did You Just Make It  Up? Teaching Classic Grounded Theory Odis E. Simmons, Ph.D Theories in Progress Series:  Perpetual Identity Constructing Alison Clancy, RGN, M.Sc., HDNS (Diabetes), PGrad Dip(Teaching and Learning), Ph.D.Candidate       Book Review: Glaserian grounded theory in nursing research: Trusting emergence (Artinian, B.M., Giske, T., & Cone, P.H.) Antoinette M. McCallin, RN,...

Volume 9, Issue no. 1, March 2010

Volume 9, Issue no. 1, March 2010 ←    Editorial  Judith A. Holton, Ph.D.  Attraction, Autonomy, and Reciprocity in the Scientist – Supervisor Relationship  Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. The Coding Process and Its Challenges  Judith A. Holton, Ph.D. Commodifying Self: A Grounded Theory Study Carol Roderick, M.Ed., Ph.D. The Modifiability of Grounded Theory  Alvita K. Nathaniel, Ph.D., RN and Tom Andrews, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D., RN Living on Hold in Palliative Cancer Care  Anna Sandgren, RN, M.Sc.N., Ph.D. Student; Hans Thulesius, MD, Ph.D.; Kerstin Petersson, RNT, Ph.D.;   and, Bengt Fridlund, RNT, Ph.D....

Attraction, Autonomy, and Reciprocity in the Scientist – Supervisor Relationship1...

Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. Abstract This paper explores the basis of work integration between the scientist and his supervisor in an organization devoted to basic research. 2 The analysis uses a three-dimensional model of role integration: 1) mutual attractiveness, why they get together; 2) reciprocity; and 3) autonomy, how they stabilize working together. The recognized competence in research of both parties is shown to be a source of mutual attraction, reciprocity in work and maintenance of autonomy. Introduction Shepard (1956) has noted that the “objective evidence” on the scientist-supervisor relationship is “meager.” He suggests three sources of resistance by research laboratories to its study: (1) “The traditions of science organization prescribe formal, impersonal relations but give little direct guidance for close collaborative relations.” (2) “A relatively low value is placed on collaboration in much scientific education: the student is taught to do independent work.” (3) “Personal and group relations are regarded as peripheral considerations in research, so that it is something of an imposition, if not an indignity, to have to be concerned with them.” In sum, “there is no room for the concept of supervision in the traditions of science organization. So little importance is attributed to personal and social matters as factors in scientific work that they are relegated to the category of ethics” (Shepard, 1956). To be sure, this notion was made in 1956; however, while there has been some subsequent research there is still meager objective detailed evidence on this strategic relationship, as a brief study of the comprehensive footnotes of two recent books on scientists will establish. (Kornhauser, 1962; Marcson, 1960). In contrast, the supervisor’s relationship to his subordinates has been the object of much study in other types of organizations. In a recent consolidation of findings on the role of the supervisor in formal organizations, supervision of scientists is not mentioned, indicating again the meager evidence to date (Blau & Scott, 1962). One reason this relationship has been of much interest for research in other organizations is that the supervisor is potentially a “controllable variable.” He can be taught appropriate styles of supervision. This may be another latent reason for resistance to its close study in research, since it conflicts with the value of autonomy in the institution of science. Beyond adding to the evidence on the scientist-supervisor relationship, my intent in this paper is to present a generalized model of the work integration between the scientist and his supervisor. It is my hope that this model will help guide further research and thought on the scientist-supervisor relationship as well as help consolidate what diverse evidence already exists. Just as supervisors of scientists, because of their powers of evaluation, facilities procurement, protection, support, and sponsorship, are very important to their subordinates’ research and careers, scientists, in their research as well as their successes, are important to their supervisors’ research and careers.3  At the core of this interdependence is the work that scientists and supervisors do, both for themselves and for one another. In attempting to formulate a basis of work integration between the scientist and his supervisor, this analysis employs a three-dimensional model: (1) mutual attractiveness, (2) reciprocity in work, and (3) maintenance of autonomy. According to this model, mutual attractiveness accounts for the initial establishment of a work relationship; reciprocity and autonomy explain how that relationship is stabilized to persist for a sufficient time. I shall attempt to show that socially recognized competence in research, particularly for the subordinate, is a...

A Swedish perspective on research ethics review

Hans Thulesius, M.D., G.P., Ph.D. I have participated in writing ethical approval applications for research projects in Sweden a dozen times. I am also since some years a member of the local ethics advisory board in a mostly rural area serving 180.000 people. From that position I advise on what types of local project applications will have to be sent further to the regional ethics committee, REPN in Sweden. With that background I will try to give a brief Swedish perspective on research ethics reviews in general and regarding CGT (classic grounded theory) studies using qualitative data in particular. The most famous Swedish example of unethical research is the 1947-1951 Vipeholm sugar trial (Krasse, 2001). Several hundred intellectually and mentally challenged persons at the Vipeholm institution were for years given an excess amount of sugar, mostly in the shape of candy. This resulted in caries that totally ruined the teeth of 50 persons. Of course participants did not give informed consent. Yet, at the time the research was not considered unethical. At least there was no debate about it. In Sweden there are 6 REPNs each with a population base of around 1.5 million people. Above the REPN is a central research ethics committee – CEPN – to which one can appeal the decisions of the REPNs (http://www.epn.se/start/startpage.aspx). The REPN consists of one judge as a chairman, 5 scientifically competent persons and 5 laymen, all ordained by the Swedish government. In order to get the REPN to even look at an application there is a fee of 5000 SEK (700 USD) to be paid by the applicant; 16000 SEK for collaborative projects involving more than one Swedish region. Yet, student projects below the Ph.D. level are not requested to apply for REPN approval although they can get advisory statements from the REPN that also require a fee. As a consequence local ethics advisory boards have sprung up to supply the need for research ethics advice in a context where the respect for personal autonomy becomes more and more important and research ethics increasingly politically correct. The EPNs are guided by research ethics principles that can be formulated in a number of rules. These research ethics rules deal with four different requirements: information, consent, confidentiality, and use. In brief: 1. The person potentially being researched should receive adequate information from the researcher about the aims, risks, advantages and costs of the research project as well as conditions for participating. 2. The person has the right to self decide about participation or non-participation at any time even after the project has begun. 3. The person should be guaranteed anonymity and that research data is kept safe and secret. 4. The data from the research may not be used outside of the research project. Ethical review boards, both regional and local, deal with research methodology apart from looking at the direct ethical integrity aspects of research. It is often emphasized that research projects with a questionable methodology are unethical since they will eventually fail to produce useful results and thus they represent a waste of, mostly public, resources. This part of the research review can actually be very useful to the researcher in order to refine the study protocol that may prove valuable when applying for grants and for publishing the study. There was a time in Sweden when projects that could be defined as societal/behavioral from a research ethics perspective were treated differently, read less critically, than projects with a more...