Volume 15
Understanding Abstract Wonderment: The Reflections of a Novice Researcher...
Damian Stoupe, University of Bristol, United Kingdom Abstract The aim of this paper is to present a novice researcher’s understanding of Glaser’s dictum to approach classical grounded theory studies with a sense of abstract wonderment. In the paper, the argument is made that far from being a preposterous concept, cultivating abstract wonderment as a form of praxis can help liberate the researcher from the bonds of preconceptions and attachments, which impede the emergence of a grounded theory. The paper reflects a personal grounded theory study arising after a crisis of confidence encountered during a formal PhD grounded theory study. It offers considerations on how to cultivate a sense of awe and abstract wonderment. Keywords: abstract wonderment, engagement, cultivating awe, memoing, panic, communicating. Introduction Novice researchers face a plethora of difficulties when setting out on a grounded theory study. Apart from the confusing array of grounded theory research methods, those interested in Classic Grounded Theory (CGT) are challenged to approach the study with an “abstract wonderment of what is going on that is an issue and how it is handled” (Glaser, 1992, p. 22). The meaning of abstract wonderment is left to the individual researcher to explore. Occasional advice is provided as it is a means of differentiating Glaser from Strauss and Corbin in not having preconceived ideas about the research (Jantunen & Gause, 2014), and that it should be replaced with “general wonderment” (Cutcliffe, 2005, p. 422). Within this paper, as a novice researcher, I will provide an interpretation of his understanding of Glaser’s dictum, and argue that any move away from “abstract wonderment” will hinder the process of emergence. I start from an assumption that Glaser is challenging novice and experienced researchers to approach their study much as a young child would approach a new experience, free from the shackles of health and safety. It is a challenge to temporarily suspend the use of those concepts and labels we have collected over our lives, which have made the world familiar and less scary, to move away from a place of safety, where all is known and ordered, into a space of “unknowing”. He is daring us to let go of our desires to join the ranks of the theoretical and methodological capitalists whose only relationship with their research is that of an overly concerned parent with a child or maybe worse, that of the knowledgeable specialist—the technocratic priest (Saul, 2013). Glaser is demanding that novice researchers learn how to let go of damaging attachments and develop a critically conscious relationship with their data and participants—and engage in a genuine dialogue based on trust rather than control. As with many of Glaser’s challenges within CGT, it is a counter-cultural move. Counter-cultural in an age of fragmentation where concepts and labels are required to provide a sense of certainty and security that ensures the desired outcome is achieved. It is a challenge to join the ranks of the “maladjusted” (Freire, 2013, p. 4) who retain their autonomy, view the world through a lens of critical consciousness thereby transforming their research fields and the wider environment. Engaging with Wonderment In “Discovery” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), readers are challenged to let go of the hegemonic instinct to fit the unknown into the already known; they are advised that it is “presumptuous” to identify categories and hypothesis in the early days of a CGT study. A succinct summary of the criticisms of this approach, offered by Thomas (2007), asserts that this dictum “is nothing to the...Ignoring Grounded Description
Barney G. Glaser, PhD, Hon PhD Why is there so much grounded description? The simplest, direct answer is that to many a researcher this is GT. This view is supported by several factors. It is easy and natural to describe accurately. So slipping into grounded description comes naturally and is ok as GT. Also departmental support for description is strongly supported by perspective and academic rewards and history and routine QDA. Also many researchers and readers of research cannot conceptualize very well if at all. They want accurate description about the data in the study. They are not into taking a core category as a general category applicable to general implications applicable to much data elsewhere. Their study is about explaining processes the data, NOT in studying the implications of core and sub-core categories as they are integrated into an explanatory theory. I trust the reader can think of other sources of letting GT research slip into conceptual description. Another major source of ignoring detailing no conceptual description when doing GT is the write up of the methodology for doing GT in the many books now written on doing GT and its procedures. The reader is not warned of the possibility of slipping from the prospect of doing good conceptual GT into the grab of doing extensive conceptual grounded descriptions. Conceptual description is assumed as GT. For example in Holton and Walsh’s new excellent book (Classic GT 2015, Sage) they have a chapter entitled “Discovering New Theory as the End Purpose of Classic GT.” They state immediately that “developing is what we are meant to do” doing GT. They then devote ten pages complete with charts and diagrams explaining different types of theory. It is too complex and abstract to follow for designing a theory for a GT. Not once do they warn the reader about the slipping of conceptual into extensive description of a grounded concept. They talk of grounding concept with no illustration of data source, which is the opposite of giving too much data. Mild illustration dosage stops excessive conceptual description in writing the final product. Having a mild illustration dosage design prevents excessive conceptual description take over. In another chapter on analyzing data (chapter six) they again do not warn of excessive conceptual description. They talk quite correctly that GT depends on the conceptualization of data by coding and memoing. They refer to the several incidents used as interchangeable indicators when using the constant comparative method to generate and discover conceptual codes. But they do not warn of writing about all the interchangeable indicators yielding a concept. This, of course, results in excessive conceptual description to no benefit to generating a conceptual GT. The excessive writing of incidents just describes the grounding of the GT over and over. It slips the theory into description, and loses the conceptual level of a GT, while still calling it a GT. Telling one incident as an illustration of a concept/code is enough. Discovering a latent pattern is exciting and it is hard to not describe it at length and easy to miss not relating it to other concepts to generate a conceptual theory. Holton and Walsh do come close to citing the grounded conceptual description problem when they say “description captures a moment in time. But the essentially limited nature of descriptive writing hinders the theory’s ability to produce a complex yet parsimonious multivariate abstract theory”. Thus hinders theoretical explanations of the latent patterns in the data. Description...Open Coding Descriptions
Barney G. Glaser, PhD, Hon PhD Open coding is a big source of descriptions that must be managed and controlled when doing GT research. The goal of generating a GT is to generate an emergent set of concepts and their properties that fit and work with relevancy to be integrated into a theory. To achieve this goal, the researcher begins his research with open coding, that is coding all his data in every possible way. The consequence of this open coding is a multitude of descriptions for possible concepts that often do not fit in the emerging theory. Thus in this case the researcher ends up with many irrelevant descriptions for concepts that do not apply. To dwell on descriptions for inapplicable concepts ruins the GT theory as it starts. It is hard to stop. Confusion easily sets in. Switching the study to a QDA is a simple rescue. Rigorous focusing on emerging concepts is vital before being lost in open coding descriptions. It is important, no matter how interesting the description may become. Once a core is possible, selective coding can start which will help control against being lost in multiple descriptions. Trying to find an indicator for a preconceived, conjectured concept can lead to excessive descriptions. This occurs because there are no indicators usually for a conjectured concept. The descriptions become the study by default. They honor, if possible, a nonexistent concept with no relevance and fit. But usually they just end up a QDA with no concept. In short it is best to stick to open coding for a core concept and then saturating the concept with a few indicators of its properties. This will control and stop conceptual descriptions. Open coding allows the researcher to see the direction in which to take his research so he can become selective and focused conceptually on a particular social problem. When he does focus his research, the relevancy and fit of his indicators will limit them to brief illustrations of his concepts. Excessive conceptual descriptions will be minimized or stop. The data can, once a core category is discovered, then be handled theoretically with minor need for it to be handled descriptively. The opposite occurs if the core category has no grab and is hard to understand. The reader may request many indicators of it for illustration and understanding purposes. It may take many descriptions to indicate meaning of the core category. The possibility of generating a GT theory is lost. It has not been generated clearly. If many descriptions do not work, a QDA methodology description takes over. Thus it is always best to label a core concept with self-illustrating grab if possible. Getting out of the data is vital for generating a GT. And staying out of the data (staying abstract of time, place and people) is just as important. It is easier to conceptualize if the researcher does not know the field of the data. He can be more objective and focused. Knowing the field can flood the researcher with descriptive data and lots of conjecture. It is easier to code someone else’s data because of the defacto distance from the data and descriptions are less in mind. Open coding is guided by several rules and questions which by their proper use limit descriptions to the emergent problem. The first rule is to constantly ask of the data “what is this a study of?” This question severely limits descriptions by having to have them related...Refuting Denzin’s Claims: Grounded Theory and Indigenous Research
Steve Elers, Massey University, New Zealand Abstract The purpose of this paper is to refute claims made by Denzin (2007, 2010) concerning grounded theory and indigenous research. I will argue that Denzin does not provide anything of substance to support why grounded theory, unless modified, will not work within indigenous settings. I will refer to some examples of indigenous researchers who have used grounded theory for their research within indigenous settings, including my own doctoral research. Further, I will argue that the basis for his claims are dubious as he paraphrased, out of context, the work of a Māori scholar, to justify his argument. Keywords: Indigenous, Māori, kaupapa Māori, Denzin, grounded theory Introduction Glaser (2009) wrote that classic grounded theory “has been virtually high jacked by so many who have not appreciated that classical GT is not a qualitative descriptive method; some simply because they do know better and others because they think they do know – or know better” (p. 13). Examples can be found in The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory including Denzin (2007) who claimed that “. . . critical theory, and grounded theory, without modification, will not work within indigenous settings” (p. 456). Denzin (2010) later repeated this assertion. The purpose of this paper is to refute Denzin’s claim and to argue that it is founded on “tricky ground”. Indigenous Research Indigenous research is becoming more noticeable in the social sciences due to the efforts of indigenous scholars such as Linda Tuhiwai Smith, who wrote the seminal work Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (Smith, 1999), which had a focus on Māori research. Māori are the indigenous people of New Zealand (King, 2003). Other books about indigenous research have recently been published (Brown & Strega, 2005; Chilisa, 2012; Mertens, Cram & Chilisa, 2013; Lambert, 2014; Walter & Andersen, 2013; Wilson, 2008), alongside a plethora of journal papers. Within the Māori scholarship, the philosophical perspective that informs most Māori research is kaupapa Māori. According to Smith (1999), most of the literature pertaining to kaupapa Māori is “located in relation to critical theory, in particular to the notions of critique, resistance, struggle and emancipation” (p. 185). While kaupapa Māori appears to be the dominant philosophical perspective among Māori research, a cursory search of the repository databases of New Zealand’s eight universities shows that grounded theory is frequently used by Māori researchers in order to make sense of their data (Baker, 2008; Pohe, 2012; Stuart, 2009; Wilson, 2004; among others). Kaupapa Māori was the philosophical perspective for my Ph.D research and I used grounded theory as the method of analysis. First, I should point out that kaupapa Māori is political, and as Pihama (2001) asserted, everything associated with the struggle for the position of Māori is political. Classic grounded theorists may argue that this perspective potentially brings preconceived assumptions that could influence how the data is conceptualized. Yes, this perspective is possible but a researcher must work with the data independently of external influences, which is why Glaser and Strauss (1967) wrote that researchers should “ignore the literature of theory and fact on the area under study” (p. 37). However, Glaser (1998) did go on to state that during the sorting and writing up process, “the literature search in the substantive area can be accomplished and woven into the theory as more data for constant comparison” (p. 67). The literature pertaining to Māori is intertwined with kaupapa Māori; there is no way to avoid it if one is...About the Authors
Sajeel Ahmed is a researcher beginning his career at the University of Bedfordshire Business School. His PhD research is on emoji and their influence on communication on Facebook. He holds a BA (Hons) in Business Studies from Cardiff Metropolitan University, an MBA (International Business) from the University of Gloucestershire, as well as an MSc in Marketing and Business Management from the University of Bedfordshire. He has been a visiting lecturer in e-business-related units and supervises undergraduate dissertations. His areas of interest are computer-mediated communication, knowledge management, virtual communities, and gamification in higher education and other contexts. Email: sajeel.ahmed@beds.ac.uk Judith Applegarth is a registered nurse and midwife with extensive clinical and management experience in a range of healthcare disciplines including: emergency department, critical care, and peri-operative services. She holds positions as research assistant and adjunct research fellow at CQ University as well as a management role with the Monash IVF Group. Judith has completed a PhD and her research program involved a qualitative, grounded theory approach. She has presented at national and international conferences and has won several international awards for her work. Her areas of research interest include qualitative research and grounded theory. Berit Støre Brinchmann, RN, MSc, Ph.D. is a professor of nursing at Nord University in Norway. She is also a senior researcher at the Nordland Hospital Trust and an Adjunct Professor at the Arctic University of Norway (Campus Harstad). Her research interests include empirical ethics and the family perspective. Email: Berit.s.brinchmann@nord.no Dr. Ferlis bin Bullare @ Bahari is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Psychology and Education, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, UMS, and is the research supervisor for Alan Kim-Lok Oh. Email: ferlis@ums.edu.my Trudy Dwyer, PhD, Associate Professor, is a nursing research academic at CQ University in Australia. She has extensive experience in teaching and learning with undergraduate and post-graduate research higher degree students. Her research interests include recognition and responding to the deteriorating patient, patient safety and quality, nurse-led models of care, simulation and knowledge translation. She has authored numerous books, book chapters, and peer-reviewed journal articles, and is a principal author of five books in the Student Survival Guide series published by Pearson Education; one has sold over 72,000 copies. Dr. Steve Elers, is a lecturer* at the School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing, Massey Business School, Massey University, New Zealand. In his doctoral research, he examined Māori perspectives of public information advertisements as part of wider social marketing initiatives (e.g., anti-drug driving television advertisement targeted at Māori fathers). Email: S.Elers@massey.ac.nz * Lecturer, New Zealand, is equivalent to Assistant Professor in the United States. Tracy Flenady is a registered nurse, specialising in emergency nursing; she also maintains strong academic links and works predominantly with nursing students. Tracy is the project manager of a grant awarded to improve new nurses’ awareness of patient safety issues through the use of simulation training, and is working towards achieving a PhD. Tracy has a particular interest in sociology, fuelled by her perpetual pursuit to understand human behaviour. Email t.flenady@cqu.edu.au 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 14 more books using and about grounded theory and countless...