Comparative Failure in Science

Barney G. Glaser, PhD This article is reprinted from Glaser, B. (1964). Comparative Failure in Science. /Science, 143/(3610), 1012-1012. A perennial problem for some scientists is their feeling of comparative failure as scientists. This problem becomes clearer if we consider two major sources of this feeling that are inherent in the vary nature of scientific work. (i) In science, strong emphasis is placed on the achievement of recognition; (ii) the typical basic scientist works in a community filled with “great men” who have made important and decisive discoveries in their respective fields; they are the acknowledge guiding lights. These esteemed scientists, who have attained honors beyond the reach of most of their colleagues, tend to become models for those who have been trained by them or who have worked under them. As Eiduson has put it in her recent psychological study of basic research scientists “Scientists: are idols-oriented.” To take these honored men as models is important for training as well as for a life of research. During training, one learns to think creatively. Emulation of these models results on the internalization of values, beliefs, and norms of the highest standard. This emulation of the great continues and guides the scientist in his research work, however individual in style his work may be. But it is precisely here that a feeling of comparative failure may arise. In emulating a great man the scientist tends to compare himself with the model. He estimates how closely he has equaled his model in ability to adhere to high standards of research, to think of relevant problems, to create “elegant” research designs, to devise new methods, to write clearly, to analyze data. In addition, because of the strong emphasis on attaining recognition for research contributions the scientist perhaps will compare his own degree of success with his model’s to gauge how he himself is doing. In using the great man’s achievements and the recognition accorded him as criteria, the scientist may be motivated to strive continually and unremittingly towards greater heights. On the other hand, he may see himself, over time, as a comparative failure for not having attained a comparable amount of recognition. Eiduson brings out the dynamics of this problem for scientists: The model, then, is the ego ideal figure who represents the ultimate position, and in fact, defines what a scientist should do, how he should think, how he should act. By comparison, everything else is inevitably of lesser worth [italics mine]. We have seen the way scientists in this group rebuke themselves as they become old, distracted, sit on committees or government advisory boards, or become administrators- and thus move away from the ideal. From this picture it is obvious that the scientist is hard on himself. He has a built-in, clearly marked scalar system, along which attitudes and kinds of performances are measured. When he moves away and deviates from the pattern, he becomes a maverick, or a person who has tossed aside the flaming torch. Average success With this basic problem in mind, I recently made a study of the organizational careers of basic research scientists, one purpose of which was to ascertain the consequences, for the scientist’s career, of receiving or not receiving an average amount of recognition: At the time of this study, these scientists were employed in a government medical research organization devoted to basic research. This was a high-prestige organization from the standpoint of scientists and was run much as though it were a series of...

Offsetting the Affective Filter

Barry Chametzky,...

Mark Maximising in a Context of Uncertain Contribution: a Grounded Theory in Progress...

Penny Hart and Helen Scott Graduates in the United Kingdom are expected to possess professional skills fitting them for a successful transition to paid work with employers valuing student attributes such as communication skills, initiative and the ability to work well with others. Assessed group work at university has been seen as a way of promoting these skills and qualities, however it is not always popular with students, who can experience problems when working together. This is a practical study intended to better understand ‘what is going on for’ students’ in order to inform practice. The substantive population comprised computing students and the substantive area of interest was assessed group work where marks contribute to the classification of the final higher educational award. The analysis produced the shape of a grounded theory but further work is required to understand more about the students’ behaviours. This is a study in progress. Consistent with the grounded theory method (Glaser, 1978, 1998) a literature review has not yet been conducted. Once we are secure in our updated study, we shall also interact with the literature. We plan to continue the study in October, 2017 to both update and densify the theory. A study about ‘risk to marks’ Glaser states that a grounded theory is a study about a concept (2010): this grounded theory is a study about ‘risk’: structural and procedural ‘risk to marks’. It emerged from analysis that students are mark driven: the higher the value of marks–the greater the contribution these marks make to a student’s final degree class–the greater the student’s propensity to contribute effort to the assessment. Students prioritise work according to its value, where the currency is assessed marks. It further emerged that the main problem facing students undertaking group work is not how hard they work but whether the members of their group will contribute both the time and the mental energy (effort) appropriate to produce the required output. Students are concerned with the uncertainty of contribution and the concomitant risk to their marks and their final degree classification. Our current understanding is that students process this concern using mark maximising behaviours, which mitigate or increase risk, whilst operating in a context of uncertain contribution, under conditions of assessed group work, where there behaviours are contingent upon group composition. Student behaviours covary according to the perceived risk and the consequence of mark maximising behaviours is a student’s final degree classification. These concepts will be explained in turn. When the theory is better developed, we shall be able to structure the explanation such that the focus is on the patterns of behaviour within constraints: the focus will be more on the relationships between the concepts, rather than by individual concept. Uncertain contribution Is this group member going to do the work? On time? To a good standard? If the answer to one or more of these questions is ‘I don’t know’ or ‘maybe’, the context becomes one of uncertainty. Students, however, prefer to work in a context of certainty. At the beginning of a course, reputations are unformed and students are unable to answer the ‘contribution evaluation questions’ above. As the course progresses and reputations are formed, students can be more proactive over achieving a greater certainty of contribution when forming groups and in the performance of the group work. Group composition The risk to marks is contingent upon the group composition: there are groups that perform better and groups that perform worse. What impacts on performance...

Book Review: Replacing The Discovery of Grounded Theory

Olavur Christiansen, University of the Faroe Islands Glaser, B. G. (2016). The Grounded theory perspective: Its origin and growth. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. This book is Glaser’s fourth in Sociology Press’ perspective series. The first book in this series was about “conceptualization contrasted with description”. The second book was about “description’s remodeling of grounded theory methodology”; the third book was about “theoretical coding”. The overriding purpose of all books written by Glaser is to help novice CGT researchers in their dissertation work, often without any mentor involved. In this Glaser’s fourth book in the perspective series, the overriding purpose is the same as in the other three books, but special emphasis is on doing good CGT by learning to do CGT by example. People learn better by example.  The book facilitates learning by example by providing a listing of earlier CGT works. Another emphasis in this fourth book is to draw attention to the historical origin and growth of the classic grounded theory perspective. Consequently, the book sums up and links to all the coherent “constituent parts” of the CGT perspective and it gives an overview of and a linking to Glaser’s work since the 1960s (the preceding 50 years). For example, many grounded theories within medical sociology have been published in many different journals. To obtain a copy of all these works is almost impossible and too time consuming for an individual researcher. However, Glaser has done the work. He can provide his readers with access to 59 published articles within medical sociology. This access will facilitate learning CGT by example. A balanced learning by example takes place as (1) reading and comparing of earlier CGT works, (2) supervised (if possible) practical use of the CGT procedures, and (3) a reading of a prioritized selection of CGT methodology books. The contrast between this fourth book and the first GT book (Discovery of Grounded Theory [Glaser & Strauss, 1967]) is enormous. So much has happened in the advancement of CGT during these last 50 years that the” discovery book” in my view is becoming increasingly antiquated as a pedagogical tool. A replacement by The Grounded Theory Perspective: Its Origin and Growth (Glaser, 2016) can safely take place. We need a book that goes straight to the most important and problematic element. On the website of Sociology Press, the publisher suggests the following prioritized reading list for researchers new to classic grounded theory: Start by reading the foundational works (in this order): a. The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) b. Theoretical Sensitivity (Glaser, 1978) c. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis (Glaser, 1992) d. Doing Grounded Theory (Glaser, 1998) Read examples of grounded theories: a. Try one of the Readers listed in our Index of publications b. Subscribe to The Grounded Theory Review Next, study the Perspectives Series The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with Description (Glaser, 2001) b. The Grounded Theory Perspective II: Description’s Remodeling of Grounded Theory Methodology (Glaser, 2003) c. The Grounded Theory Perspective III: Theoretical Coding (Glaser, 2005) It is remarkable that the “discovery book” is number one on this current list. As mentioned earlier, it could be replaced as number one by The Grounded Theory Perspective: Its Origin and Growth. It follows ordinary logic to replace the oldest by the newest. The understanding of the classic grounded theory (CGT) perspective is, of course, the prerequisite for the use of the CGT methodology. It is also the prerequisite for supervising PhD students in...

Book Review: Grounded Theory in Perspective: A Lifetime’s Work

Helen Scott, PhD, Grounded Theory Online Glaser, B.G., (2016). The grounded theory perspective: Its origin and growth. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. The grounded theory general method of research was Glaser and Strauss’ response to the problem of “superthink”: the generation of hypotheses in the field of sociology without recourse to data. Glaser and Strauss observed that since such hypotheses were of little relevance, pursuing them wasted resources and had fateful impact on young researchers’ careers. Glaser and Strauss preferred to ground their hypotheses in data that was from the field and was of relevance to their participants. The resultant development of the grounded theory method to maturity has taken decades of dedicated, scholarly endeavour. Glaser explains and examples how this has been achieved in his new book: The grounded theory perspective: Its origins and growth. Glaser writes that in the early years, the young method was particularly vulnerable to friendly (and not so friendly) appropriation by researchers eager to conduct qualitative research at a time when “qualitative data analysis” (QDA) (p. 117) was also in its infancy; its perspectives and language undefined. His publication list shows us that the assault of QDA on grounded theory has been prolonged and continuous. Establishing and maintaining the integrity of the grounded theory general research method as conceptual and scientific has therefore been a key concern of Glaser over this period. He has addressed this concern by: realising, explicating, and disseminating the grounded theory perspectives; and, clarifying, elaborating, and differentiating the grounded theory perspectives from other methodological perspectives. Glaser’s tools are his books and papers, his seminars and the growing library of his students’ theories through which he explains and examples the grounded theory method. As he has conducted this effort, the use of the grounded theory method has expanded into many disciplines in many more countries. This book’s proposition is that understanding the GT perspective and its development is needed when doing and explaining GT (p. 1); its aim is to bring “most of the GT perspectives under one cover” (p. 2). In the first chapter, Glaser gives us a fascinating overview of the growth of the grounded theory method organised by idea rather than chronologically. The second chapter intends to show the growth of grounded theory over 40 years citing theories from the field of medicine. It is intended that students read the theories for examples of the conceptual ideas used as well as how the ideas are structured and presented. The theories themselves are not published here but can be obtained directly from Glaser. Chapter 3 introduces the technique of exampling and its usefulness as a way of supporting students’ learning. The chapter also explains some of Glaser’s realisations about the method, which he then codifies as perspectives. The papers referred to but not listed in this chapter example the growth of grounded theory from 1984 to 1994. Chapter 4 lists theories that show successful conceptualisations and demonstrate the use of grounded theory procedures. It also explains further realisations and developments to the grounded theory perspective, some of which are noticed as implications of the selected theories. Chapter 5 lists theories to refocus the grounded theory perspective following the challenges to the grounded method caused by Strauss and Corbin’s 1988 publication and Glaser’s response in 1992. Chapter 6 lists examples of theories of good quality, produced by seminar alumni. Readers are collections of papers brought together for a specific purpose for the convenience of the person reading. This book...

About the authors

Tom Andrews, PhD, is a Lecturer in Nursing at Brookfield Health Science Complex, University of Cork, Ireland, specialising in critical care. Andrews lectures in research methods on post-graduate courses and currently supervise a number of PhD students using classic GT. He has conducted a number of classic grounded theory troubleshooting seminars alone and in collaboration. He is a fellow of the GT Institute and publishes in a number of journals. He is currently involved in two grounded theory projects. His research interests are around worsening progressions whatever the context. Email: t.andrews@ucc.ie Barry Chametzky, PhD, is an active researcher in the fields of andragogy, e-learning, and classic grounded theory with numerous peer-reviewed publications.  He is also one of the reviewers and the copyeditor for the Grounded Theory Review, an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the classic grounded theory research design.  In addition, he offers editing and consulting services through EditNow.Org, his editing company.  He lives in Pennsylvania and teaches as a part-time adjunct instructor at Washington & Jefferson College in Pennsylvania, at Ozarks Technical Community College in Missouri, and at City University of Seattle in Washington. Ólavur Christiansen, PhD, is candidate in economics (cand. polit.) from the University of Copenhagen in 1977, and candidate in sociology (cand. scient. soc.) from the University of Copenhagen in 1983. He received his PhD from Aalborg University in 2007 (a study of “opportunizing” in business). He has mainly had a career within the governmental sector, but also within the private sector (bank auditing, market analysis). He is currently Associate Professor at the University of Faroe Islands, as well as General Secretary of the Economic Council of the Government of Faroe Islands. The latter is a full-time job. Email: OlavurC@setur.fo Gary Evans, PhD, is an Associate Professor in Canada at the University of Prince Edward Island Faculty of Business.  Gary holds five degrees including a PhD in Business from the UK with a focus on Corporate Governance.  His research includes: corporate governance, gender diversity, culture, and disruptive technologies.  Dr. Evans has used classical grounded theory in a number of research areas and continues to learn of its power as a research tool with each experience. Prior to joining the academic world Gary was the CEO and senior partner for KPMG Consulting for Central Eastern Europe.  Previous to this positing he was the managing partner of Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Energy for KPMG UK.  Gary has worked with clients around the globe in over 30 countries.  Email: gevans@upei.ca Bengt Fridlund, PhD, Professor, is the Director at the School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Sweden, and focuses on the care of chronically and critically ill patients and their partners, such as in cardiovascular care, in cancer and palliative care, as well as psychiatric and mental health. The clinical research perspectives can be summarized as epidemiological studies, evaluation studies, gender studies, intervention studies, methodological studies, pedagogical studies, and pair relation/family studies, theoretically grounded in social support and social networks, coping, stress, autogenesis, and QOL. Methodologically he is conversant with quantitative and qualitative analyses. Email: Bengt.Fridlund@ju.se 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...