Issue 1, March 2010
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...Commodifying Self: A Grounded Theory Study
Carol Roderick, M.Ed., Ph.D. Abstract Classic grounded theory was used to identify the main concern of students in their senior year of undergraduate study. This concern was conceptualized as responding to the pressure to commodify self. The pressure to commodify self refers to pressure to turn oneself into a valuable product for the knowledge-based economy. There are three responses to this pressure: complying with commodification, resisting commodification, and humanizing commodification. Seven interrelated factors influence the response employed. The theory of commodifying self integrates much existing research on university students and demonstrates that important insights can be gained from alternative approaches to studying students’ experiences. The theory provides a direct examination of the consequences of macro level social and economic pressure on students and their learning and can be used to understand and enhance campus environments, curricula, and student services. Key words: classic grounded theory, senior year experience, post-secondary education, graduating students, commodification. Introduction Decreased government spending, high tuition fees, demands for accountability and workforce-relevant education are some of the many forces characterizing the contemporary post-secondary education context in Canada. Since the 1980s, government funding for Canadian universities has decreased by thirty percent (Junor & Usher, 2002). This shift in funding has resulted in a downloading of university education costs to institutions and in particular to individuals. In the last decade, on average, tuition fees in Canadian undergraduate programs have almost doubled (McMullen, 2006). Having to shoulder more of the financial burden for a university education, students and their parents are demanding accountability and programs that lead directly to employment upon graduation. Government and the private sector, facing the increasing pressures of the global economy, demand that university graduates be workforce-ready. Universities have responded to these forces by paying increasing attention to the quality and workforce relevance of student experiences and learning outcomes. Dissatisfied with the information gleaned through media rankings such as MacLean’s Guide to Canadian Universities and The Globe & Mail’s University Report Card, many universities have started participating in the Canadian Undergraduate Survey Consortium [CUSC] (Pedro & Belcastro, 2006) and the National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE] (Tamburri, 2003) to understand and improve student satisfaction, student engagement, and student learning outcomes. There are also a growing number of qualitative research studies that focus on students’ experiences in post-secondary education (i.e. Andres and Finlay, 2004; Gardner, Van der Veer & Associates, 1998; Perrone & Vickers, 2003). Despite increasing interest in students’ experiences, actual understanding remains limited. While the Maclean’s, Globe & Mail, CUSC, and NSSE surveys highlight general trends, they yield predominantly quantitative data and the questions asked may not reflect the concerns of students themselves. Researchers, assuming that they know what needs to be asked, often come to data collection with fixed questions and therefore omit alternative questions that they might have selected (Benjamin, 1994). Measures within these surveys may also miss the more complex and meaningful aspects of students’ experiences that explain how students reflect, integrate, and apply what they learn (Brown & Greene, 2006). Furthermore, the qualitative studies have centered primarily on the transition and retention of first-year students. The experiences of graduating students have rarely been examined directly or in depth (Magolda, 2003). Ideally, the graduating year should be a time of integration and reflection on the undergraduate experience, as well as preparing for life after graduation (Gardner et al., 1998). The limited research focused on the senior year, however, suggests that the transition out of university is stressful and anxiety-filled (Gardner et al.,...The Modifiability of Grounded Theory
Alvita K. Nathaniel, Ph.D., RN and Tom Andrews, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D., RN Abstract Grounded theories are powerful tools that fit empirical situations and provide “relevant predictions, explanations, interpretations, and applications” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.1). Because of their real-world orientation, grounded theories are particularly appropriate for health care research. They can help professionals understand that certain patterns always seem to emerge, that particular people respond in predictable ways, and that actions produce predictable results (Nathaniel & Andrews, 2007). When physicians and nurses better understand patterns that affect patients, they can work towards altering harmful patterns to improve the quality of patient care. As time passes, one may ask, when do grounded theories become obsolete? When are they no longer useful? The purpose of this paper is to revisit the seminal grounded theory, Awareness of Dying, and compare it to contemporary conceptual and descriptive research on end-of-life care, asking the question, is the theory in need of modification? Introduction Modifiability is basic to grounded theory. Because they are generated through inductive logic, grounded theories are naturally modifiable. With induction, the analyst generalizes from a number of cases in which something is true and infers that the same thing is true of a whole class. In grounded theory, these inferences take the form of tentative hypotheses (Glaser, 1978). Hypotheses and the theories that they comprise demonstrate predictable patterns that can be observed. Glaser writes, “In GT, a concept is the naming of an emergent social pattern grounded in research data. For GT, a concept (category) denotes a pattern that is carefully discovered by constantly comparing theoretically sampled data until conceptual saturation of interchangeable indices. It is discovered by comparing many incidents, and incidents to generated concepts, which shows the pattern ….” (Glaser, 2002, p.4). The grounded theory method corrects for error or bias through constant comparison and abstraction, which further clarifies the underlying latent patterns (Glaser, 2002, rev.2007). After a theory is developed and published, time passes and new evidence becomes available. A basic strategy to ensure rigor, modifiability allows openness to correction and change as new evidence emerges, ensuring against “pet” hypotheses (Glaser, 1978). With that in mind, this paper revisits the original grounded theory, Awareness of Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1965), compares it to contemporary research findings, and finds it to be in no need of modification. Awareness of Dying Revisited Awareness of Dying is a historical grounded theory—the first ever published. Today, a great deal of research focuses on death and dying, but in 1965, Awareness of Dying presented eye-opening revelations about how an awareness of the time and mode of death affects patient attitudes and the care delivered by nurses and physicians. The theory was developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss and was funded by a Public Health Service Research Grant from the Division of Nursing (Glaser & Strauss, 1965a). Glaser and Strauss spearheaded a six-year research program entitled Hospital Personnel, Nursing Care and Dying Patients. This research culminated in a number of publications including Awareness of Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1965a), The Social Loss of Dying Patients (Glaser & Strauss, 1964), Time for Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1968), Temporal Aspects of Dying as a Non-scheduled Status Passage (Glaser & Strauss, 1965b), and The Nurse and the Dying Patient (Quint, 1967). Awareness of Dying is the most well-known theory that emerged from the study. Glaser and Strauss, sociologists, and Jeanne Quint, a nurse, conducted intensive field work at a number of hospitals for six years (Glaser...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. Abstract The aim of this study was to develop a classic grounded theory of palliative cancer patients and their relatives in the context of home care. We analyzed interviews and data related to the behaviour of both patients and relatives. “Living on hold” emerged as the pattern of behaviour through which the patients and relatives deal with their main concern, being put on hold. Living on Hold involves three modes: Fighting, Adjusting and Surrendering. Mode being may change during a trajectory depending on many different factors. There are also different triggers that can start a reconciling process leading to a change of mode. This means that patients and relatives can either be in the same mode or in different modes simultaneously. More or less synchronous modes may lead to problems and conflicts within the family, or with the health professionals. Keywords: adjusting mode, fighting mode, grounded theory, palliative care, surrendering mode Introduction Receiving a cancer diagnosis requires emotional and physical adaptation to a new situation (Flanagan & Holmes, 2000) and when the cancer is incurable, both patients and relatives may confront a life crisis (Kristjanson & White, 2002). Powerlessness and helplessness are common feelings among dying patients (Sand, Strang, & Milberg, 2008), but at the same time they can experience hope and quality of life (Melin-Johansson, Odling, Axelsson, & Danielson, 2008). Patients want to be treated as persons not as diseases (Wenrich, Curtis, Ambrozy, Carline, Shannon, & Ramsey, 2003) and cancer patients want palliative care to be based on safety, participation and trust (Harstade & Andershed, 2004). Adequate information and support in the early phases of treatment is thus important and can better fulfil future needs, render increased trust, and provide confidence throughout the course of the disease (Kristjanson & White, 2002). The patient’s cancer disease also changes the situation of their relatives (Stajduhar, 2003), who may be emotionally overwhelmed by unprocessed emotions (Thomas, Morris, & Harman, 2002). If dying patients are to be cared for at home the well-being of their relatives is crucial (Ramirez, Addington-Hall, & Richards, 1998), and their commitment is often seen as a condition for good home care (Mok, Chan, Chan, & Yeung, 2003). Yet, relatives living nearby are not a necessity for providing quality palliative care (Gyllenhammar, et al., 2003). When patients and relatives are in different phases of their processing of overwhelming emotions, it can be difficult for health professionals to understand their emotional reactions (Fox, 1995). There can also be a mismatch of perceptions as to what is important between patients, relatives and professionals (O’Baugh, Wilkes, Luke, & George, 2003; Widmark-Petersson, von Essen, & Sjoden, 2000). In order to offer support at the right care level, health professionals need a better knowledge of the patients’ and relatives’ situation in palliative cancer care (McIllmurray, et al., 2001). In the last decades there has been a shift in the place of dying and more people die in their own homes (Burge, Lawson, & Johnston, 2003; Socialstyrelsen, 2006), which increases the demand for home care (Fürst, 2000). Studies on patients’ and relatives’ situation in palliative care have mostly been conducted in hospice and advanced palliative care settings, but there is a lack of studies from acute care and basic home care settings, and a considerable lack of explanatory theories of how patients and relatives handle their situation in home care. The aim in the present...The Coding Process and Its Challenges
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. Judith A. Holton, Ph.D. Abstract Coding is the core process in classic grounded theory methodology. It is through coding that the conceptual abstraction of data and its reintegration as theory takes place. There are two types of coding in a classic grounded theory study: substantive coding, which includes both open and selective coding procedures, and theoretical coding. In substantive coding, the researcher works with the data directly, fracturing and analysing it, initially through open coding for the emergence of a core category and related concepts and then subsequently through theoretical sampling and selective coding of data to theoretically saturate the core and related concepts. Theoretical saturation is achieved through constant comparison of incidents (indicators) in the data to elicit the properties and dimensions of each category (code). This constant comparing of incidents continues until the process yields the interchangeability of indicators, meaning that no new properties or dimensions are emerging from continued coding and comparison. At this point, the concepts have achieved theoretical saturation and the theorist shifts attention to exploring the emergent fit of potential theoretical codes that enable the conceptual integration of the core and related concepts to produce hypotheses that account for relationships between the concepts thereby explaining the latent pattern of social behaviour that forms the basis of the emergent theory. The coding of data in grounded theory occurs in conjunction with analysis through a process of conceptual memoing, capturing the theorist’s ideation of the emerging theory. Memoing occurs initially at the substantive coding level and proceeds to higher levels of conceptual abstraction as coding proceeds to theoretical saturation and the theorist begins to explore conceptual reintegration through theoretical coding. Key words: classic grounded theory, coding, conceptualization, memoing, preconception Introduction There are a number of coding challenges that may confront those undertaking a grounded theory study. Among the most common challenges are those of preconceiving the study through the import of some standard qualitative research requirements, raising the focus of coding and analysis from the descriptive to the conceptual level and trusting one’s intuitive sense of the conceptualization process to allow a core category to emerge, then being comfortable to delimit data collection and coding to just the core concept and those concepts that relate to the core. Those inexperienced in grounded theory methodology may worry about missing something when they leave the rest of the data behind but it is important to remember that grounded theory is about concepts that emerge from data, not the data per se. A fourth major challenge for many is the use of theoretical codes. Many who attempt grounded theory are captured by the energy of conceptual emergence at the substantive level and settle for a few good concepts but do not sustain the discipline and patience to systematically integrate those concepts through theoretical coding. This task is made more difficult if they have neglected the important process of memoing in conjunction with coding and analysis. Developing one’s skills as a grounded theorist takes practice; the method is best learned by cycling through the various procedures learning from each attempt and developing clarity and confidence in their application. This paper will explore each of the aspects and challenges of coding as outlined above. I have illustrated various aspects of coding by offering the...