Book Review: Grounded Theory: A practical guide (Birks & Mills, 2011)...

[Birks, M. & Mills, J. (2011). Grounded Theory: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.] Astrid Gynnild, Ph.D. What is grounded theory and how is a grounded theory study carried out? Several recent publications have been trying to answer these questions, building on a literature list on the topic that covers more than 40 years of research and scholarship. According to the authors, this book is aimed at beginner researchers, research students and experienced researchers from a variety of disciplines who are unfamiliar with grounded theory. The first three chapters of the book deal with essentials, planning and quality processes of grounded theory research. Three later chapters deal with data collection, analysis and “theoretical integration”, and in the last three chapters the authors provide tips about presenting a grounded theory, evaluation and application of it and how it might be further contextualized. The book aims to be an easy-to-read volume with learning objectives on top of each chapter, suggested reader activities, examples of memoing, and many figures and tables. So far, so good. The authors have obviously put much work into the overall design of the book to make it as reader-friendly and easily accessible as possible. As experienced teachers in nursing they seem to be aware that providing an introduction to a new field is a challenging task, no matter the topic. However, as a “Practical Guide” in grounded theory, this book does not resolve any of the hitherto unresolved issues in the split grounded theory domain; rather, the book contributes to even more confusion. In their foreword the authors state that they “hope to demystify some of the complexities associated with grounded theory”. Their intent is to provide a balance between engaging in what they call the internal intellectual dialogue that is required and “meeting the practical requirements of undertaking research at a graduate level”. Their ultimate goal appears to be of a bridge building character; they want “to provide a balanced view of grounded theory methods, without adopting a dichotomous position”, and they add that there is much to be learned “from all antecedent grounded theorists” (p. 3). Signalling a stance as pragmatic bridge-builders of a scholarly method that has taken off in different directions might initially sound like a good idea, and it might work well with other methods. But it is inherently problematic in a book meant as an introduction to a methodological approach that is based on a thorough grounding of data. To the extent that there might be any propositions presented in this book, they are evidently not the result of a systematic analysis of data. Rather, the stated philosophy of apparent fairness, in this case, seems to be resolved by non-systematic switching between references to Strauss/Corbin, Glaser and Charmaz respectively, and next to a dozen other writers mostly from the Strauss/Corbin and Charmaz section. It appears that the authors have relied heavily on a rather diffuse method of skip-and-dip when collecting data for this book; they have picked a little bit here and a little bit there and created yet another mix which they call essentials of grounded theory methods. At the same time as they recognize that they are talking about different methods, the differences in methodological approaches between these methods are not explicated. As a consequence, concepts like abstraction and conceptualization, which at least in classic grounded theory are fundamental for the generation of new theory, are hardly mentioned. Theoretical sensitivity is devoted one and a half pages, but without...

Book Review: Essentials of Accessible Grounded Theory (Stern & Porr, 2011)...

[Stern, P.N. & Porr, C.J. (2011). Essentials of Accessible Grounded Theory. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.] Reviewed by Odis E. Simmons, Ph.D. Although Porr is a relative newcomer to grounded theory, Stern has been at it for many years (she received her PhD under Glaser and Strauss in 1977). She has been instrumental in introducing many students to grounded theory, particularly in the nursing field, as well as making notable contributions to grounded theory literature. As Stern’s (1994) observations and insights suggested, constructivist versions of grounded theory emerged and spread in part because grounded theory was often being taught by teachers who themselves had a superficial, distorted understanding of the methodology, because they had learned it “minus mentor.” Given her observations, insights, and writings, when I began reading Essentials, my expectations were high. But, after reading it, I concluded that, in some important ways, it falls short. Given Stern’s considerable experience and previous contributions to grounded theory, it is ironic that Essentials contains more confusing and subtly inaccurate content than a book written for neophyte grounded theorists should. Although I think it is a noble effort with useful information, it contains material that is at variance with classic grounded theory, yet this isn’t made clear to the reader. Because Stern and Porr failed to make a clear distinction between classic and other forms of grounded theory, many readers, particularly neophytes, will of course expect that what they present in this book accurately represents essential canons of all types of grounded theory, including classic. Readers will carry the understandings and misunderstandings gained from the book into their research and discussions with other neophytes and individuals who express interest in grounded theory. As Stern (1994) herself pointed out, grounded theory has been “eroded” over the years. This erosion has led to the distinction pointed out by Charmaz (2000, 2006) between “classic” or “Glaserian” grounded theory versus “constructivist” grounded theory. Any book about grounded theory, particularly an introductory book that purports to be about the essentials of grounded theory, should begin by clarifying this important distinction, lest it not contribute to more erosion of the methodology. Stern and Porr neglected to make this distinction clear, which begets potential misconceptions throughout the book. In Chapter 1, they use the general term “grounded theory” without clarifying whether they intended for the book to be about classic or other versions of grounded theory. The following quote suggests that they maybe meant for the book to be an introduction to classic grounded theory, because it is in these two books that the fundamentals of what eventually came to be termed “classic” or “Glaserian” grounded theory, are laid out. In this book we drawn primarily from Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) and Theoretical Sensitivity (Glaser, 1978) to lay out, as accurately as possible, essential groundwork and procedures for formulating explanatory theory (p.37) However, in other locations in the book they legitimize and even encourage actions that are clearly outside the boundaries of classic grounded theory. For example, in Chapter Two, “Brief History of the World (of Science),” in their section titled, “Your Theoretical Lens” (pp. 30-33), they discuss, legitimize and encourage importing “theoretical lenses” and “explicit interpretive frameworks.” They provide examples, such as Wuest’s (1995) proposal that grounded theorists “can attach a feminist epistemological framework to grounded theory in an effort to privilege the voices of women,” Kushner and Morrow’s (2003) recommendation for constructing a framework consisting of feminist teachings combined with critical...

From the Editor

In this issue, we present one of Barney Glaser’s classic papers, The Local-Cosmopolitan Scientist, originally published in 1963. In this paper, we see how he used secondary analysis of survey data to conceptualize and propose a theory of local and cosmopolitan as a dual orientation rather than the perspective of the time which presented them as dichotomous. In his concise explanation of his methodological approach, we see the early emergence of classic grounded theory methodology and its power to use any data. Here he has worked quantitative data to generate concepts, sorting and organizing his ideas into a concise theoretical explanation that proposed new insights into previously accepted ideas. Glaser’s early papers should serve as food for thought for those who continue to advocate that grounded theory is a qualitative method rooted in symbolic interactionism. As the book reviews and commentaries in this issue suggest, however, the methodological muddle of approaches that now seek to occupy the grounded theory landscape suggest otherwise. Ekins (this issue) offers us a theory under development using a “grounded theory approach” in a discipline that is not well known for grounded theories. He writes beautifully and honestly, offering some interesting emergent concepts but as both Thulesius and Martin suggest in their commentaries on his paper, falls short of a full grounded theory. Their suggestions as to how he might proceed and possibly rescue his theory are valuable advice for many who find themselves conflicted in how to reconcile the myriad ‘versions’ labelled grounded theory and the advice of experienced qualitative researchers who espouse grounded theory from outside the classic methodology. Rescuing the novice from methodological confusion appears to be the goal of two recent books on grounded theory methodology. From the perspective of the experienced classic grounded theorists who have reviewed the books for this issue, there is still some way to go in the rescue attempt. While Glaser has often commented that grounded theory is a simple methodology for developing conceptual theory, empirically grounded yet abstract of the descriptive detail of people, time and place, he has also been known to suggest that it is an elite methodology requiring maturity on the part of the researcher in the ability to stay open to emergence, to tolerate regression in the analytical phase and to resist the perhaps well-intended but fatal efforts of more experienced – but not classic grounded theory experienced – supervisors and collaborators. It takes confidence, creativity, tolerance and intention to stay the course when so many are bent on rescuing through “practical” and “accessible” guides that seek to simplify a cognitively elegant methodology. Good advice from those who know and practice classic grounded theory can make all the difference in distinguishing classic grounded theory from the many remodelled versions and in clarifying novice confusion. Christensen’s methodological note on the literature review in classic grounded theory studies is a welcome response to the many questions on how to deal with the literature. This issue is also my last as Editor of the Review. Beginning with my first issue in November 2004, I have had the privilege of seeing 21 issues come to life. This, of course, is only possible through the efforts of many individuals – authors, reviewers, and associate editors. To the many individuals who have been part of my learning journey in this role, I wish to offer my sincere thanks. I wish to offer a very special thanks to Barney Glaser for having the confidence in me to take...

Book Review: Essentials of Accessible Grounded Theory (Stern & Porr, 2011)...

[Stern, P.N. & Porr, C.J. (2011). Essentials of Accessible Grounded Theory. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.] Reviewed by Tom Andrews, RN, B.Sc.(Hons), M.Sc., Ph.D. Grounded Theory (GT) has been subjected to continual modification to fit various ontological and epistemological positions. Although not an explicitly stated purpose, it is nonetheless encouraging that a book has been published to counter its continual misinterpretation and adaptation. This book by Stern and Porr (2011) is a very welcome addition to the GT literature. It is aimed clearly at under-graduate and post-graduate students as well as novice researchers. It is explicitly aimed at explaining classical GT rather than “other versions” and so draws on the numerous writings of Dr. Glaser for its source material. GT can be difficult to understand because it is an advanced methodology but made more complex by the fact that its study requires students to read several different textbooks. Also, GT is written about in ways that make it hard to understand. While there will always be a need to read original sources, at last here is a book outlining the principals and practices in just one volume. The book is very well written in a style that is easily understood and comprehended by its target audience. The concepts and procedures are clearly discussed while being faithful in the main to GT as originated by Glaser and Strauss. The premise of the book is that GT is a way of thinking and not just a way of doing (p.27). This emphasises from the start that GT is not simply a series of procedures to be applied. Post-graduate students, particularly those doing advanced degrees through research are expected to engage in philosophical issues surrounding research. The section on philosophical and theoretical underpinnings is therefore to be welcomed and is discussed in a way that is easily understandable. This will form a good basis for further reading on ontological and epistemological issues. However the conclusion that GT is based on symbolic interactionism (SI) is not supported in recent assertions by Dr. Glaser that this is simply another theoretical code that is used if relevant. The tables provide a very useful summary of terms, which can be accessed quickly. There are numerous examples provided of coding and theoretical coding. These work well and provide effective illustrations of how these are operationalized. Initially I wondered if Appendix A was necessary, but it is effective at providing examples of theoretical coding. In books discussing GT the constant comparison method is either not discussed or only very briefly, but not so here. It is emphasised and explained well. Following discussion of interpretative frameworks, students may well wonder if they should be using one in order to “direct the researcher’s gaze to where to look and think about data”. Although to be used as a sensitizing tool rather than an interpretative one, nonetheless it has the potential to lead to preconception, something that Dr. Glaser cautions against, particularly since it is prefaced by the word “interpretative”. Students may well form the impression that an interpretative framework is needed prior to data collection based on the discussion on pp.31-32. Also in this section the suggestion is that SI may be used as a framework together with “… any number of interpretative frameworks”. Readers may be left wondering when SI should be used as a framework and when as a theoretical code. Dr. Glaser insists that this should emerge from the data just as the theory does. Emphasising...

Stern & Porr (2011) Response to Reviewers

Phyllis Noranger Stern,DNS, LLD (hon.), FAAN To Dr. Simmons At the outset we want to thank Dr. Simmons for his review of Essentials of Accessible Grounded Theory. Our goal with Essentials was to demystify grounded theory to afford the reader a solid grasp of traditional grounded theory. Dr. Simmons is notably a grounded theory expert and scholar, and we are pleased that he took the time to review our monograph. While there are supportive insights shared in Dr. Simmons’ review, we should address those claims that do not resonate with our intentions. Response to Claim #1 Dr. Simmons remarked: As Stern’s (1994) observations and insights suggested, constructivist versions of grounded theory emerged and spread in part because grounded theory was often being taught by teachers who themselves had a superficial, distorted understanding of the methodology . . . . We do not use the term “constructivist versions of grounded theory” within our monograph. We believe constructivist epistemology bears little application and would only serve as a source of confusion to someone brand new to grounded theory methodology. Grounded theory emerged and spread not “because of distortion by teachers” as Dr. Simmons claims, but because methodology evolves, and as co-developer, Glaser, often stated, grounded theory is meant to be modified, adopted and adapted by researchers representing diverse disciplinary traditions. Response to Claim #2 Dr. Simmons remarked: Essentials contains more confusing and subtly inaccurate content than a book written for neophyte grounded theorists should. Although I think it is a noble effort with useful information, it contains material that is at variance with classic grounded theory . . . . Our work is substantiated by Glaser’s writings, the work of Strauss and their mentees/protégés. We endeavored to ensure that the monograph’s content would not in any way contradict the seminal works. The canons of Glaserian grounded theory were introduced and explicated with due diligence. We presented, for example, four fundamental principles (discovery never verification, explanation never description, emergence never forcing and the matrix operation) that Glaser (1994) asserts are key to every successful grounded theory project. Response to Claim #3 Dr. Simmons remarked: In Chapter 1, they use the general term “grounded theory” without clarifying whether they intended for the book to be about classic or other versions of grounded theory. We chose to incrementally introduce esoteric terms as needed in keeping with a simple and accessible format. Early on, though, we mention “traditional” grounded theory. And as Dr. Simmons had stated, we made it clear, when it was appropriate (on page 37) that we had drawn “primarily from Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and Theoretical Sensitivity (Glaser, 1978) to lay out, as accurately as possible, essential groundwork and procedures for formulating explanatory theory.” We also use the label “Glaserian” in Footnote 2 wherein we state, “In this book we have chosen to stay close to the classic work (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978) as much as possible, or what Stern has coined Glaserian grounded theory, the Julliard of solid qualitative research.” Admittedly, we wondered how useful this would be to the neophyte. Would one expect that the neophyte is familiar with the terms classic, classical, Glasserian, or Strausserian? Response to Claim #4 Dr. Simmons remarked: However, in other locations in the book they legitimize and even encourage actions that are clearly outside the boundaries of classic grounded theory. For example, in Chapter Two, “Brief History of the World (of Science),” in their section titled, “Your Theoretical...

The Local-Cosmoploitan Scientist. The Grounded Theory Review

Glaser, Barney G. (2011) In contrast to previous discussions in the literature treating cosmopolitan and local as two distinct groups of scientists, this paper demonstrates the notion of cosmopolitan and local as a dual orientation of highly motivated scientists. This dual orientation is derived from institutional motivation, which is a determinant of both high quality basic research and accomplishment of non-research organizational activities. The dual orientation arises in a context of similarity of the institutional goal of science with the goal of the organization; the distinction between groups of locals and cosmopolitans derives from a conflict between two goals. full article...