Issue 1
The Cry for Help
Barney G. Glaser, PhD, Hon. PhD Classic grounded theory is being chosen as a methodology throughout the world. One result is the cry for help of many individuals with aspects of their getting the research going for their dissertation. The cry is individual, because CGT attracts on the individual level. No department has chosen it for all its candidates as an option. The novice candidate has the task of convincing his supervisor and/or department of his choice. One reason many choose using CGT is that it offers autonomy. By autonomy I mean total freedom to let the participants’ main concern or problem emerge and the conceptual variables emerge that continually resolve the main concern. Most methodologies require that the research problem and its resolving require they be preconceived before research begins. In short, CGT allows a do not know approach to full discovery. Correcting existing research conjecture is not the goal of CGT. This autonomy, which is so attractive to many novices, has many dimensions of problems. Claiming autonomy when researching within a structure of control by superiors is problematic. Success varies from failure to get autonomy to being autonomously alone with no help. Most PhD candidates have been trained in their student careers to seek genuine help and to seek an “ok” as their work proceeds. Though a big draw to using CGT going autonomous can be very frightening? “Am I using the procedures correctly that give autonomy?” is their big question. So they want help. Also many who have chosen CGT do not realize until they start research that they cannot tolerate autonomy. They need a constant “ok” and are almost paralyzed without it. They need a constant mentor to trust. Minus mentorees often have must difficulty. Thus the mixed bag of autonomy offered by CGT procedures’ varies on its proper use and is not the manifest glory it sounds like to many at first glance. CGT, when done correctly with autonomy at all stages, goes fast, less than a year to emerge a conceptual theory, yet I have talked with students who have been waiting up to five years for an “ok” of their work. Especially at the start of their research. “Am I doing it right?” and “will my supervisor approve?” are constant questions. Tolerating the beginning confusion that goes with beginning research not knowing can become intolerable autonomously. The “a-ha” eureka moment will come, but not immediately. Patience with confusion is required so the research does not become forced with existing frameworks and preconceptions. The experiential growth and clarity that come over time in doing CGT requires autonomy from routine help. Only experienced researchers with CGT are suitable to giving moments of brief help to enforce the candidate autonomy with simple realizations. The initial confusion that comes with the constant comparison of indicators before emergent conceptualization, taxes autonomy to the maximum. It is easy to use preconceptions and/or to seek authoritative help to ease the autonomous responsibility. Few can take it, many cry for help to be sure they are “doing it right.” Once concepts emerge, autonomy goes into full force. The autonomous novice researcher with a few good core concept possibilities can be told nothing to threaten his autonomy. So novices should hold on to their autonomy, it will be solidified by emergent concept. Do not out of fear give up their autonomy. Confusion and preconscious processing and constant comparisons are part of the CGT beginning process. Only a well-trained CGT researcher will...Oscillating between Conservation and Investment: A Grounded Theory of Students’ Strategies for Optimizing Personal Resources...
Katja Hakel, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU Abstract Students’ use of time and effort during their studies has been discussed exhaustively in mass media and educational research. In most cases, researchers try to give advice to teachers on how to get their students to become more active and engaged. The grounded theory presented in this article, however, challenges this approach by focusing on the students’ point of view. When interviewing students for this study, I soon realized that students only have a limited amount of time and effort at their disposal. Optimizing these personal resources emerged as their main concern. For the students, investing resources into one study activity always means having to reduce the amount of time and effort they can spend on other activities. They resolve their main concern by oscillating between conservation and investment strategies. Their decision regarding which type of strategy to use depends strongly on the students’ evaluation of their current situation. Keywords: oscillating, optimizing, personal resources, investment strategy, conservation strategy. Introduction The theory presented in this article shows how students oscillate between conservation and investment strategies in order to optimize their personal resources. It differs from previous research in that it focuses strongly on the students’ perspective. A review of this research showed that many educational studies have a teacher-focused approach. In these studies, the researchers often provide recommendations to teachers on how to change their students’ learning approaches (Abouserie, 1995; English, Luckett, & Mladenovic, 2004; Grauerholz, 2001; Smith & Colby, 2007). Teachers must “lead students to deep learning” (Smith & Colby, 2007, p. 206). They must also “improve functioning regardless of the situation through a development of learning skills, and through an encouragement of cognitive and affective development” (Abouserie, 1995, p. 19). Only some researchers acknowledge that the students’ approaches to learning are based on how they evaluate their study situation and the demands of each specific task (English et al., 2004; Ramsden, 1992). This latter perspective is in accordance with the findings of my own study. Using the grounded theory methodology, I interviewed 13 students from language programs at a Norwegian university. I found that students experience different situations differently and that they adjust their learning strategies to each specific situation. The grounded theory presented in this article is based on the patterns that emerged from the students’ data. The theory describes how students resolve their main concern of optimizing their personal resources through oscillating between different types of strategies. Method “Remaining open to what is really going on will soon transform the researcher to going where the data takes him” (Glaser, 2012). This statement could not be any better for expressing exactly what I experienced when I started out on this grounded theory research. Originally, I had been interested in investigating students’ attitude towards the use of technology in university education. The use of grounded theory as a research method seemed to be the most suitable for me then. At that time, my knowledge of how to do research and about educational technology was close to zero. Having almost no previous knowledge meant that I had few preconceptions concerning the substantive area under study. First of all, I obtained ethical approval from the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD). An interview guide that contained only the grand tour question: “Can you tell me about the use of information and communication technology in your daily study life?” was approved after I provided a detailed explanation of the grounded theory...Surviving Situational Suffering: A Classic Grounded Theory Study of Post-Secondary Part-Time Educators in the United States...
Barry Chametzky, PhD Abstract Administrators at post-secondary institutions in the United States hire contingent faculty members to teach a great many classes. It is therefore valuable to understand what the issues are for these on-demand, non-tenured faculty members. The theory of surviving situational suffering explains how part-time adjunct educators in the United States resolve their main concern—maintaining employment—within a context of reduced appreciation, underutilization, and ingratitude. Just as with various historical events now considered discriminatory, the theory explores a form of bias and intolerance in higher education that needs to be openly discussed and addressed. The theory consists of three broad categories: (a) limiting, (b) balancing conflict, and (c) falling short. Though the substantive area is post-secondary educational institutions, the ideas presented in this paper are easily generalizable to other areas in life whenever someone is trying to survive situational anxieties. Introduction As an on-demand faculty member at a post-secondary school, I knew that when I started this research, the topic would hit close to home. I also realized that I had preconceptions and feelings stemming from my educational experiences as a part-time adjunct educator. Yet, by being true to the tenets of classic grounded theory, I treated those positive and negative feelings as additional elements of data (Glaser, 2007). Numerous reasons exist to explain why some people choose to work as contingent adjunct educators. For some people, being an adjunct is convenient, as they need to be able to deal easily with family or personal issues. Because of this flexibility, the idea to keeping a professional foothold in education has value and appeal. Other instructors, including this researcher, enjoy bonding with learners inside and outside of the class environment and feel that they are making an impact. Still other people feel that teaching is more than a job; it is a calling. For many people, being an educator is a privilege of which the students are the most important part. There exists nothing higher than to be able to influence the course learners and how they perceive the subject. While these worthwhile reasons are noble, a darker side exists to being a part-time adjunct educator. The purpose of this classic grounded theory study is to examine what it is like being an on-demand instructor at post-secondary U.S. schools. According to one participant, this research is “a conversation that needs to be had.” Data Gathering and Analysis In order to “instill a spill” (Glaser, 2009, p. 22), I conducted interviews with 11 participants (three male, eight female) and asked the following grand tour question (Spradley, 1979): What is it like being an on-demand adjunct in the US? Through the iterative classic grounded theory process of coding, memoing, sorting, conceptualization, and constant comparison (Glaser, 1965), and with suspended preconception (to the extent possible [Simmons, 2011]), I discovered the theory of surviving situational suffering; it explains how contingent educators resolve their main concern—maintaining employment—within a context of reduced appreciation, underutilization, and ingratitude. No theory exists in isolation. It was important, therefore, to situate it within the context of extant literature. As such, when I explained the theory, I was able to use extant literature to support its key elements. The Theory of Surviving Situational Suffering The theory of surviving situational suffering consists of three categories: limiting, balancing conflict, and falling short. Because of the continual cause-effect and conditional relationship that exists in the theory, the categories have a strong interdependency that permits people to move from the beginning to the end....Theory of Regaining Control: How Older Adults with New-Onset Urinary Incontinence Address Loss of Control...
Annemarie Dowling-Castronovo, The Evelyn L. Spiro School of Nursing, Wagner College, United States Abstract Older adults viewed new episodes of urinary incontinence as a part of a much broader concern during hospitalization: loss of control with physical, spatial-temporal, and social aspects. During hospitalization, a time crisis, patterns of regaining control became evident: transferring control, exercising “wobbly” control, and adjusting to degree of control regained. Three conditions modify this process of regaining control. Findings offer a unique perspective about the relationship of control and patient-centered care that provide a basis for research aimed to improve hospital care for older adults who are likely to experience new-onset urinary incontinence. Keywords: control, grounded theory, incontinence, new-onset urinary incontinence, older adults, patient-centered care, urinary incontinence. Introduction Urinary incontinence (UI) is an involuntary loss of urine sufficient to be characterized as a problem (Fantl, Newman, Colling, 1996; Resnick & Ouslander, 1990) affecting approximately 26 million Americans (National Institutes of Health: NIH, 2008). There are two categories of UI: transient, or acute UI, and chronic or established UI (Fantl et al., 1996). The term new-onset UI, which is classified as acute, was first noted in the literature to describe the finding that 12% older adults, who were continent at time of admission, developed UI during hospitalization (Sier, Ouslander, Orzeck, 1987). Since that time, evidence-based clinical guidelines that guide assessment and treatment of UI (Fantl et al., 1996) have been developed and tested. Nevertheless, these guidelines were developed with evidence from studies that focused on individuals in long-term care settings (LTC), such as nursing homes and residential facilities, or the community. The literature about UI offers little about new-onset UI among older adults in the hospital setting. In the literature, new-onset UI is portrayed as what Glaser (1998) has termed a professional problem. What individuals with new-onset UI view as problematic and how they go about addressing the problem has not yet been discovered. Instead it has been studied more from what professionals perceive as problematic. Incidence reports of new-onset UI among hospitalized older adults range from 12% to 36% (Palmer, Myers, & Fedenko, 1997; Palmer, Baumgarten, Langenberg, & Carson, 2002; Sier et al., 1987; Kresevic, 1997; Zisberg et al., 2011). Depression, malnutrition, and dependency are risk factors (Kresevic, 1997). Male gender and cognitive impairment are significantly associated with new-onset UI patients after hip surgery; and, specific to women with hip fractures, hospital-acquired UI is significantly associated with admission from LTC facilities, confusion, and mobility impairment (Palmer et al., 1997; Palmer et al., 2002). The use of indwelling urinary catheters, adult diapers, and dependency are significantly associated with new-onset UI (Zisberg et al., 2011). New-onset UI has been essentially studied from the perspectives of medical and nursing staff and not clearly delineated from established UI (Connor & Kooker, 1996; Cooper & Watt, 2003; Dingwall & Mclafferty, 2006; Fonda & Nickless, 1987; Hancock, Bender, Dayhoff & Nyhuis, 1996). It has been documented that hospitalized older adults (n=117) differed in their preferred treatments for UI in comparison to hospital staff (Pfister, Johnson, Jenetzky, Hauer, & Oster, 2007). Nevertheless, the preferences and perspectives of older adults with new-onset UI have not been documented. Since there were no identified studies from this perspective, the purpose of this study was to examine the experience of new-onset UI from the perspective of hospitalized older adults. Method Grounded theory (GT) methodology (Glaser, 1978, 1992, 1998, 2002; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used to discover the main concern of older adults with new-onset UI...Book Review: Demystifying Grounded Theory Selection
Gary Evans: University of Prince Edward Island Glaser, B. (2014). Choosing Classic Grounded Theory: A Grounded Theory Reader of Expert Advice. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. How to select a research methodology? What is the difference between CGT and QDA? Does grounded theory work with case studies? Is grounded theory the right selection for a PhD dissertation? These questions and many more are the focus of Dr. Glaser’s new book, which addresses the key issues faced by the novice researcher in selecting classic grounded theory as their research methodology. In this 439 page fifteen-chapter book, Dr. Glaser takes the research reader on a journey reviewing the history, issues, and factors to consider in selecting classic grounded theory and challenges and myths around what is and is not grounded theory. Rightfully, Dr. Glaser identifies other methodologies put forward as grounded theory as variations of QDA and while they may prove beneficial as research tools, they break the rules that govern the original hallmarks of grounded theory. The temptation to blur or slur different methodologies is discussed in detail providing the researcher sound advice on some of the pitfalls of mixing methodologies in the name of grounded theory. The book provides rationale for the selection of CGT and addresses bias that may exist with those whose primary research was based on QDA methodologies. Dr. Glaser provides detail differences between methodologies and five chapters of the book are contributed by four outstanding experts in the field of grounded theory (Dr. Christiansen, Dr. Holton, Dr. Lowe, and Dr. Simmons). Finally the book provides the reader with numerous examples of good CGT research and some of the basic rules to be applied in the application of CGT. With the large volume of research books and articles focused on the novice researcher (novice being Masters or PhD students) claiming to highlight what is and how to implement grounded theory, this book provides clarity in what has become a confusing maze of literature. Chapters one to four provide the researcher some of the basic rules and considerations in selection, and implementation of grounded theory and resolves outstanding myths associated with grounded theory. Grounded theory is often associated with qualitative research but as Dr. Glaser (2014) points out “GT is a general method that can be used with any type of quantitative data or qualitative data or combination thereof” (p. 45). Another myth is that GT is time consuming and should only be attempted with a strong mentor. During my own PhD, I had no mentor and while this book would have saved me substantial time in more effectively understanding different types of methodologies put forward as GT, the actual time necessary for the research was most certainly not greater than any other methodology. Glaser (2014) addresses this myth head-on in this book: “GT takes far less time than QDA and many a GT novice does just fine without a mentor…” (p. 63). In chapter three, Dr. Christiansen highlights the hallmarks of GT and provides sound advice on some of the do’s and don’ts in the application of GT. In chapter four, Dr. Glaser identifies the issue of conceptualization and how this is a core difference of CGT to other methodologies whose focus is on descriptive analysis. Dr. Glaser explains the struggles and dimensions of generalization and how the descriptive value of case studies can be utilized as data within GT. Chapters five to ten are a must read for the novice GT researcher. For those who...