Book Review: Memoing – a GT Essential

Naomi Elliott, Trinity College Dublin Memoing: A Vital Grounded Theory Procedure, Barney G. Glaser (2014) Mill Valley: Sociology Press This book, on memoing, is intended to support grounded theory researchers and scholars who want to deepen their understanding of what the procedure of memoing is about. For doctoral candidates, who are learning the craft of doing GT, it provides an academic reassurance that memoing is free-style and there is no one “correct” way of memoing. For researchers who are supervising or teaching others the craft of doing GT, it is a practical resource and provides a springboard for scholarly discussions about memoing and how it can be used in the development of grounded theory. Having reviewed the use of grounded theory over the years, Barney G. Glaser identifies the problem that memoing is being neglected as a GT procedure, hence the reason for dedicating this book to memoing. He also identifies a problem of uncertainty – which many GT researchers experience about whether they are memoing “correctly”. As an experienced teacher, Dr Glaser dispels these uncertainties with the notion of free-style memoing and gives permission for researchers to tap into their own creativity and problem-solving ability by developing their own style of memoing. In this he motivates researchers to DO memoing and to avoid getting hung up on following a pre-set or someone else’s style of memoing. The book title Memoing in itself is important as it is a gerund, an action verb, which conveys the importance of doing. Glaser’s invaluable teaching point that should not be missed here: it is that the process of doing memoing that is essential to the work of the GT researcher. Through the doing of memoing, the researcher captures ideas which seed the meaning analysis, and as Glaser explains, these become a “constant source of stimulation for meaning growth of emergent analysis” (p. 49). As the researcher works through the GT methodological procedures of constant comparison, theoretical sampling, and theoretical coding, the memos capture the ideas that emerge from this work. Memos, therefore are tracking the analysis and also sensitising the researcher to ideas that can eventually mature as the grounded theory research progresses. A key to understanding how memoing works is found on page 39: “To repeat, memos are the latent thought that collects concepts and puts substantive theory together as a vital ongoing procedure”. Memoing is a welcome addition to the current list of GT publications. Since 1998, Glaser’s book Doing Grounded Theory has been one of the go to books for many researchers looking for practical advice on memoing. Although Chapter 12 of Doing Grounded Theory (Glaser, 1998) explains memoing concisely within the ten pages, Glaser’s 160 page book Memoing (2014) provides an expanded explanation of the original work including a scholarly discussion of the contemporary literature on memoing. This is particularly useful to GT researchers and scholars who need to discuss their research either at viva voce examination or at conference presentations. In Memoing, Glaser’s thoughts on the procedure are gathered together into one book. The advice is practical and grounded in actual queries that GT researchers have asked Glaser at his workshops and seminars over the years. He covers the challenging aspects of memoing such as sorting memos and provides 11 analytic rules to help guide researchers. There is always a risk that GT researchers can get lost in following such analytic rules, which is why Glaser’s advice is to remember that: …the world is empirically integrated, not...

Book Review: Leaving Rules that Enforce Preconception

Pernilla Pergert, Karolinska Institutet Barney Glaser (2013) No preconceptions – The grounded theory dictum. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press Given that the dictum of no preconception is not new in GT, why did Glaser focus his attention so much on it to write a whole book on this topic? The dictum has been declared over and over again, for example in the chapter on Generating Theory in the seminal work of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and the chapters on Reading the Literature and Forcing the Data in Glaser’s (1998) book entitled “Doing grounded theory.” It might be reasonable, then, for a reader to ask why this book is needed and whether the dictum should not just be followed. The answer is that not allowing preconceptions to influence research is one of the greatest challenges and maybe even “the most difficult procedure of all” (Glaser, 2013, p. 133). Therefore, it is important to take it seriously; expanding on the issue is commendable and a welcomed contribution to the literature on classic GT. In the first chapter of this book by Glaser (2013), the question why “no preconception” is a dictum in grounded theory (GT) methodology is answered. GT was discovered in a research field heavily focusing on testing hypotheses and verifying theories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and emerged as a complement through the conscious focusing on limiting preconception and discovering theory from the data. While both academic rules and the methodology of GT are there to facilitate excellent research, academic rules require the researcher to focus on learning from previous research and theories while GT procedures are used to handle previous research as possible preconceptions. The aim of the book was to minimize preconception and Glaser (2013) wrote about “the importance of this book to try to stem the flow of preconceptions intruding in GT and affecting GT research” (p. 95). Thus, the dictum is no preconception and this is done, as repeatedly emphasized in the book, by applying “the rigorous steps” (Glaser, 2013, p. 2) of GT. Preconception rules the world and is explained as an important aspect of everyday life and in every step of the research process including the formulation of a problem area, the substantive coding, the theoretical coding integrating the concepts, and the impact on the entire GT process (Glaser, 2013). The method for the book is presented in chapter 7 together with some of the memos Dr. Glaser received from colleagues on preconception. In the last chapter, the reader finds a theory by Kwok, McCallin & Dickson entitled “Working through preconception: Moving from forcing to emergence.” This theory highlights the difficulties in staying open and is followed by an appendix written by Dr. Thulesius on his experiences derived from being a GT mentor. To minimize the preconceptions, Dr. Glaser is incentivizing the no preconception and equipping for emergence. Incentivizing no Preconception In the book, Glaser (2013) encouraged researchers to stay open and endure the initial and fundamental confusion in the research process while using the comparative method; he promises that it will be rewarding. The presented incentives—motivating for staying open and suspending preconception—are attached to positive emotions and values including: freedom from deduction, energy by autonomy, joy of discovery, and motivation from generating theory free of preconception. Equipping for Emergence Glaser (2013) equipped the reader for emergence by encouraging us to trust in the constant comparative method and in emergence. Emergence may sound as if it is something for which we need to wait,...

Book Review: Remodeling GT once again

Alvita Nathaniel, West Virginia University Barry Gibson and Jan Hartman (2014): Rediscovering Grounded Theory London: Sage In their book entitled Rediscovering Grounded Theory, Barry Gibson and Jan Hartman (2014) aim to present grounded theory in a new way with the intention of “forward looking preservation” (p. 237). They claim that Rediscovery is an outcome of many conversations in a London pub over the last eight years. The authors tackle both method and methodology as they meticulously describe the context of The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and take an authoritative stand on many of the controversies surrounding remodeling of the method in recent years. Rediscovering also includes substantial how-to sections corresponding to chapters in Glaser’s Theoretical Sensitivity (1978). Rediscovery adds explanatory depth in its discussion of the context of grounded theory, but fails to keep many of its promises. Rediscovery is far reaching. Included in the first part are chapters entitled, What Kind of Theory is Grounded Theory, Constructivism in Grounded Theory, Disentangling Concepts and Categories in Grounded Theory, and Coding in Grounded Theory. These chapters describe the context of the method, discuss the controversies, and present Gibson and Hardman’s positions on contentious issues. The second part of the book consists of chapters that aim to help grounded theorists with procedures such as developing theoretical sensitivity, theoretical sampling, coding, memoing, and writing theory. To their credit, the authors continually acknowledge the originators of the method. From the outset, Gibson and Hartman give credit to Glaser and Strauss. Reinventing acknowledges that grounded theory opened exciting opportunities for a new generation of researchers and perhaps even opened doors into new areas of inquiry (p. 29). As a new method, grounded theory‘s emphasis was on inductively generating theory from data, rather than deductively verifying hypotheses. I agree with Gibson and Hartman that knowledge of the origin of a method and its terminology is imperative to rigorous research. Rediscovering acknowledges that Glaser and Strauss “discovered” grounded theory. Rediscovery also places classic grounded theory firmly within the zeitgeist of discipline of sociology at the time and describes its roots in the Departments of Sociology at Columbia University and the University of Chicago. As Gibson and Hartman meticulously describe the history of the method, they also discuss changes from the original (classic) method that were developed by others in subsequent years. This “evolution” of grounded theory has been embroiled in controversy over what Glaser describes as “remodeling” of the method. Remodeling was begun by Strauss and Corbin and later by Charmaz and many others. Rediscovering clearly focuses on the original method as described in Discovery. Yet in an effort reminiscent of Rodney King’s famous plea, “can’t we all just get along,” Gibson and Hartman suggest that newer versions of the method, particularly Chamaz’s constructivist version, depict a positive evolution. They go so far as to encourage alternative versions of grounded theory, stating that “methodological pluralism in grounded theory is something that should be welcomed” (p. 237). Paradoxically, the authors mention a more recent move toward the blending of grounded theory with other traditions, acknowledging that there is a risk that too many modifications will threaten to make the method “incoherent and contradictory” (p. 98). Gibson and Hartman move beyond the discussion of the professors and universities that inspired Glaser and Strauss to delve into the modern etymology of the terms used in grounded theory. They closely examine common terms in grounded theory such as concept, category, and indicator. Rediscovery looks to Strauss...

About the Authors

Ben Binsardi is a reader in the Business and Management department at Glyndwr University. He completed his undergraduate and postgraduate studies at Texas Tech and Wichita State Universities. He then obtained a PhD from Loughborough, studying econometrics and undertook a Research Fellowship at the University of Oxford. Ben has published several textbooks and research journals in the areas of research methodology, marketing and finance. He is chairing a track at the Academy of Marketing Conference in July 2014. Ben teaches research methodology in conjunction with Jan Green. As a member of Grounded Theory Institute, Ben has been working with Jan Green and professor Andy Lowe to host a number of classic GT workshops at Glyndwr University which have attracted a pan-European attendance. Email: A.binsardi@glyndwr.ac.uk Berit Støre Brinchmann, PhD, is a professor in nursing at University of Nordland and University of Stavanger in Norway. She is also a member of the clinical ethics committee at Nordland Regional Hospital in Bodø, Norway. Her research interests include health care ethics, medical ethics, research on next of kin and qualitative research methodology. Her PhD, from University of Oslo, Norway was a grounded theory study on proximity ethics in neonatal care. Email: berit.store.brinchmann@uin.no Naomi Elliott was awarded her PhD degree from Queen’s University Belfast and holds professional awards of Registered General Nurse and Registered Nurse Tutor from the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland. Her integrated clinical and research expertise draws from her experience at the different levels of healthcare: from policy–making whilst working in the Irish Nursing and Midwifery Board, and with the Department of Health and Children, to the design of professional education programmes, to clinical practice in Ireland, Scotland and New Zealand, as well as a diverse range of research methods across numerous healthcare related projects. She first met Dr. Glaser in 2002 during her PhD studies and now has several publications and research presentations on grounded theory. Naomi’s current research interest is the development of new models of care delivery and quality in healthcare for major conditions such as epilepsy. Email: naomi.elliott@tcd.ie Barney G. Glaser is the cofounder of grounded theory (1967). He received his PhD from Columbia University in 1961. He then went to University of California San Francisco, where he joined Anselm Strauss in doing the dying in hospitals study and in teaching PhD and DNS students methods and analysis. He published over 20 articles on this research and the dying research. Since then, Glaser has written close to 20 more books using and about grounded theory and countless articles. In 1998 he received an honorary doctorate from Stockholm University. Email: bglaser@speakeasy.net Jan Green: During a successful corporate career involved with mergers and acquisitions, Jan Green acquired extensive change management experience in the capacity as a practitioner and developed a deep insight into the diverse issues arising during change processes which were of value in her Masters study. A career move to academia resulted in Jan undertaking a classic grounded theory study into accomplished business performance. To support her thesis Jan attended two grounded theory troubleshooting seminars and she is a member of the grounded theory institute. More recently Jan has written and presented papers utilising classic grounded theory which conceptualise concerns related to business competitiveness, the projectification of the workplace and manoeuvres which successfully support the impact of sudden change. She is the co-author, with Ben Binsardi, of Research Methods for Management, published in 2012. Email: jan.green@glyndwr.ac.uk Alvita Nathaniel is a nurse, educator, and ethicist. She is...