Grounded Theory Has the Power to Change Lives: A Tribute to Barney Glaser...

Alvita Nathaniel, PhD In November 2021, I had a very long late-night phone conversation with 91-year-old Barney Glaser. His eyes were failing and his body was weak, but his mind was sharp and clear. I could hear his wife, Carolyn’s, voice in the background as our conversation waxed and waned. He told me about the next book he was planning to write—a theory on aging. He was keen to talk about grounded theory. As we ruminated, he mentioned some of his favorite theories. He remembered the names of the theories, their core categories, and the theorists—most of whom he had mentored. He reminisced about PhD students who had attended his troubleshooting seminars and about grounded theory colleagues we both knew. In his presence, I felt as if I were still his student. As our conversation was ending, he talked about all the people who had contacted him with letters, phone calls, and emails over the years. He asked, “You know what the concept is, don’t you?”  I was silent. “Grounded theory changed my life,” he said. “They all told me that grounded theory changed their lives.” Barney Glaser understood the spread of grounded theory and power of theory to change people’s lives. Glaser and Strauss (1967) changed the research landscape with their seminal work, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, the book that first described the grounded theory method and established its rigorous procedures. The method was revolutionary. It was at the forefront of a qualitative research movement in the mid-20th century because it challenged several dogmatic precepts. Discovery and Glaser’s subsequent works (1978, 1992, 1998, 2007, 2008) defied the inculcated beliefs about research inquiry: (a) that theory and research are separate endeavors, (b) that qualitative research serves primarily as a foundation for quantitative inquiry, (c) that qualitative research lacks rigor, (d) that qualitative methods are biased and unstructured, (e) that data collection and analysis should be separate processes, and (f) that qualitative research could produce only descriptive findings (Charmaz, 2000). As the popularity of grounded theory has spread throughout the world, the flaws in these precepts have been exposed. In the Future of Grounded Theory, reprinted in this issue of The Grounded Theory Review, Glaser recognized the magnitude of change grounded theory had on the research world. He reflected on the worldwide spread of the method. Realizing the popularity of grounded theory, Glaser wrote, “Everywhere I travel, people come to my workshops at some expense and some distance to hear me and to ask questions. People compete for my attention. . . . I embody what they embrace—grounded theory.” Aristotle wrote that change requires the existence of a potentiality which can be actualized (350 B.C.E.). Those clamoring for Glaser’s attention were bursting with potential. In The Future of Grounded Theory, Glaser listed critical characteristics of a grounded theorist including an ability to conceptualize data, an ability to tolerate confusion, and an ability to tolerate confusion’s attendant regressions. Successful grounded theorists have the desire to learn, courage to let go of the familiar, curiosity to understand others, and the patience to allow patterns to emerge—all potentialities waiting to be actualized. As Glaser predicted, grounded theorists’ lives change as they learn and master the method. But even greater change has been effected through application of grounded theories, which teach us about previously unknown psycho-social and social-structural processes. We know so much more about living with illness, being an alcoholic, convincing physicians, succeeding at business, dying in the hospital, and violating moral...

“Stop story talking! What’s the concept?” In Memoriam of Grounded Theory’s Co-Founder, Barney G. Glaser...

Astrid Gynnild, PhD, Professor, and Fellow of the Grounded Theory Institute There are those rare moments in a life that are just meant to be. You might encounter a person, a piece of text or perhaps an idea that hits you in a way that you couldn´t possibly know beforehand. And yet you intuitively know it is a decisive moment. You get a sense of a cutting point, a transition that leads you on to a new path in life. There is a time before and a time after. But there is no way back. I have lived with grounded theory for two decades. I was lucky to be part of many activities within Barney Glaser´s expanding methodological landscape, and I used to meet him in person several times a year. In this very moment I can already hear Glaser´s dark, friendly-teasing voice ring in the back of my mind: “Stop story talking! What´s the concept?” Since Glaser himself often referred to grounded theory as a delayed action phenomenon, I will take this opportunity to put some important concepts on hold for yet a while. I trust in emergence while writing this piece in memoriam of one of the globally most impactful and original sociologists of the two last centuries. Most probably he would qualify for the title unrivalled winner of concept innovation as well; at least the unrivalled contributor of publicly published new concepts over a lifetime. He  didn’t like to compete. But he liked to empower PhD students, who were in their early careers and preparing  for future service to society. His stated aim in later years was two-fold. First, conceptual theory building grounded in data. Second, using grounded theory to help PhD students achieving their degrees. The discovery of the first goal manifested already in his early thirties (Glaser and Strauss 1965, Glaser and Strauss 1967). Throughout the rest of his life he never gave in or compromised on these original ideas. Not even when he formally left academia and developed a successful business career using GT tools. He only further developed them as he collected more data. His passion was to create, and facilitate for, abstract concept development that could help people improving their lives. While Glaser ran his businesses and raised three children as a single parent, academic rivals repeatedly set out to belittle the original grounded theory design. Suddenly, the term grounded theory would take on new meanings that he as a founder did not recognize; “grounded theory” was adopted by concept competitors who deliberately started replacing its built-in tenets as a general method with distracting elements from qualitative data analysis. Glaser stood up for his academic integrity through disputatious writings in books and articles. As always when disagreement is in the air, the international academic crowd loved the spectacle. The rhetorical wrestles at the time drowned out the fact that grounded theory was already an established method and a methodology solidly grounded in empirical data. His further writings were meant to further explain the method and differentiate it from others. But from then on, it became more crowded in the grounded theory space. Glaser´s grounded theory concept was re-labeledlassic grounded theory to keep some conceptual order. Paradoxically enough, or maybe quite logically, Glaser´s most productive academic years started unfolding from the turn of the century on, at a chronological age when most of his peers were retired. When I first met him, he was 72 and stood in a hotel lobby in...

How Barney Glaser and Classic Grounded Theory Have changed and Impacted my Life...

Barry Chametzky, PhD Barry Chametzky, PhD Senior Core Faculty, Dissertation Chair American College of Education USA I could never have imagined, how, in 2011 or so, my life would have been positively affected by one person and a research design in my dissertation. At that time, I was starting to write my dissertation and was planning on using an ethno-phenomeno-case study-ology as my research design. Clearly, I was confused and naive. But I connected with an online cohort where I learned about classic grounded theory. I’d like to share some instances of how Barney Glaser and classic grounded theory as a research design have changed and impacted my life. My first contact with Barney was on the phone ordering one of his books. When I sheepishly asked whether he was Dr. Glaser, he responded yes and I was in shock. I even remember not “getting” his joke about the book costing 100 dollars. Clearly, I was dumbstruck. I had never spoken with a famous person and did not want to come across as a blithering idiot. Well, when I was stammering with Barney, if I came across that way, thankfully, he never let on. Fast forward two or so years to 2013. I earned my PhD. I remember how I sounded at my oral defense. I was able to quote various passages from several of Barney’s books from memory. Since then, I’ve come to learn that, as Barney stated, the beauty of classic grounded theory is that it is all around us. We just need to be open to seeing and experiencing it. The next transformative period happened a few years ago in 2017 when I was part of one of Barney’s seminars and then had the incredible honor to dine with him at his home. At that time, I was extremely fortunate to meet many classic grounded theorists about whom I’ve only read. I remember learning that these people, whom I idolized, were just everyday people and scholars as I was. We were able to have great conversations as friends and peers. At that time, I remember having two short conversations with Barney. The first was about a term used in French literary analysis. But the second was more personal and transformative. As I was leaving for the evening, I thanked Barney and told him that I appreciated him “for being him.” Then, he hugged me. And that was a glorious moment I will never forget. The third and final instance is happening now. Two background points are needed though. First, by training, I am an educator with a specialization in online learning and educational technology. I am not a medical professional (though, to be honest, I wish I could have gone to medical or nursing school). Second, Barney had often explained that a literature review should not be done before collecting data to avoid potentially tainting the information obtained during the data collection process. Preconception could very possibly result in a bastardization of the data. That’s great, but Barney also made it clear that a tabula rasa is not possible (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). So, what could a researcher do? I think I discovered a viable solution. My latest research project is very exciting for me. Not only am I broadening my research horizons but also, I am getting as close to a tabula rasa as possible. For my research study, I am interested in understanding a psychiatric disorder called dissociative identity disorder (DID). Since I am...

The Grounded Theory Family Tree: A Living, Growing Testament to the Life and Work of Barney Glaser...

Kara Lynette Vander Linden   Abstract Grounded theory has a rich history which starts with its co-developers Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, each of whom had an impressive research pedigree. Their famous study on death and dying led to the publication of the seminal book Discovery of Grounded Theory. For years they taught cohorts of students grounded theory. These students contributed to the growth of the grounded theory family tree. Glaser started Sociology Press to publish his numerous books on grounded theory. He also founded the Grounded Theory Institute and the Grounded Theory Review, which facilitated the growth of grounded theory, as did his troubleshooting seminars. The Grounded Theory Institute Fellows and the editors and peer reviewers of the Grounded Theory Review have each contributed to the growth of grounded theory. Keywords: Glaser, grounded theory, family tree, growth A book called A Stranger in a Strange Land (1993) by Leonora R Scholte tells the story of my ancestors’ journey from their motherland to a new land. As I look at the life and work of Dr. Barney Glaser, I see a similar journey, a similar story, at least on a conceptual level. While Glaser co-developed grounded theory within the field of sociology in the United States, his story and work extended beyond sociology and spread to other fields and around the globe. Just as A Stranger in a Strange Land tells the story of my ancestors’ journey, this article depicts some points and figures in the historical lineage of grounded theory that have impacted my life and work. Glaser and Strauss Anselm Strauss and Barney Glaser each had an impressive research pedigree. Anslem Strauss had a qualitative background influenced by pragmatism (see James, Dewey, Cooley, and Mead) and ethnographic traditions at the University of Chicago, where he studied (Heath & Cowley, 2004). However, symbolic interactionism and the work of Blumer were the most influential on Strauss. According to Simmons (personal communication, April 1, 2022), “Anselm was more of a symbolic interactionist than a grounded theorist, in my experience and view.” Glaser had a quantitative background and was influenced by the work of his dissertation committee members, Paul Lazarsfeld, Robert K. Merton, and his dissertation chair Hans Zetterberg at Columbia University (Holton, 2011). Glaser credited Lazarsfeld’s work with inspiring the development of four important methodological components within grounded theory: index formation, interchangeability of indicators, constant comparative analysis, and core variable analysis (Holton, 2011, p. 207-208). Lazarsfeld’s work on research methodology was also a significant influence.  From Merton, Glaser (1998) learned theory construction (produced based on logic, not data) and theoretical coding. What he learned from Merton built upon the l’explication de text (line by line analysis of text) that he learned at the Sorbonne University of Paris, France (Holton & Walsh, 2017). Zetterberg’s “focus on the practical value of social theory and the importance of empirical research as the basis for theory development” (Holton, 2011, p. 210) also shaped the future development of grounded theory. From these mentors, Glaser merged the ideas of theory development and research methodology to make a unique contribution to the research world. When Strauss recruited Glaser to work on a funded research study on death and dying at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), they married the strengths of each of their backgrounds. The research study moved beyond the limitations of the research approaches that dominated sociology in the 1960s. At that time, theory verification dominated research. In their now-famous study of death and...

A Tribute to Barney Glaser (1930-2022): A Trial to Rethink Economics by Classic Grounded Theory Methodology...

Ólavur Christiansen, PhD, Associate Professor Emeritus, University of the Faroe Islands Abstract The inductive methodology of classic grounded theory (CGT) is extremely different from the logical-deductive methodology of mainstream economics – as well as the inductive econometrics approach. Consequently, it becomes a pressing issue how Barney Glaser’s work can be used in the contexts of economic. To use CGT on an abstract concept like “mainstream economics” would be an impossibility. A CGT is about the behaviour of some specific individuals – as for example groups of economic practitioners. These practitioners should be a fairly homogenous group of people – a collective of university economists and business professionals might be too heterogeneous. Thus, it is suggested that a CGT is carried out for each homogenous group of economic practitioners, and that an attempt subsequently is made to generate a formal (higher-level) CGT that covers all these groups. The main principles of CGT are briefly explained with the purpose of demonstrating the generation of a CGT in microeconomics, and how the core variable of a CGT of macroeconomics can be allowed to emerge. Keywords: Rethinking economics; classic grounded theory; core variables; methodology. Practicing New Methodological Departures The title of this article contains two connected issues: (1) Barney Glaser’s classic grounded theory (CGT) methodology and (2) its possible use in a “rethinking” (reorientation) of economics. Some important properties of the CGT methodology and of the “rethinking” are as follows:   First, classic grounded theory methodology is about the discovery of concepts – or conceptualizing. This means the discovery and the naming of latent patterns of behavior (substantive concepts) in the collected and treated data, and the discovery of relationships between these latent patterns (theoretical concepts or codes). The methodology is not based on any particular ontological or epistemological assumptions except the pragmatic assumption that social life is patterned and empirically integrated by a core variable (not logically modelled), and that it is only question of applying a rigorous and systematic methodology for discovering and explaining these patterns. (Christiansen, 2012). It is not about obtaining precise measurements or findings, but about obtaining credibility by grounded inductions and indications. Second, the theme is “rethinking” economics; it means a “reorientation” of economics by departing from old paradigms. In CGT, the units of data collection and data analysis are behavior incidents. What matters is what the studied participants, as economic actors, actually do – not what they think. What people or economic actors think or rethink about economics only becomes relevant as far as it provides a better insight into the behavior of the studied participants. Economic topics have so far not been analyzed or synthesized by the use of Glaser’s classic grounded theory methodology. Yet, Frederic S. Lee (2005) has published an article with the title Grounded Theory and Heterodox Economics. However, in his article Lee ignores the use of the core variable, and the fact that classic grounded theory is a research methodology that is fundamentally different from what is commonly referred to as “grounded theory.” From the viewpoints of CGT, this means that Lee’s article becomes irrelevant.   Classic grounded theory methodology (i.e., methodology for generating grounded theory) is itself a classic grounded theory, and this theory (as a methodology) obviously has the core variable of conceptualizing.  According to English dictionaries, to conceptualize means imaging. However, in the context of CGT, conceptualizing means the discovery and the naming of latent patterns or latent relationships in the data. These data can be qualitative or...

Discovering and Uncovering: A new Perspective on Dissociative Identity Disorder...

Barry Chametzky, PhD Abstract Dissociative identity disorder is not new. Yet, there exists a paucity of emic research on the topic due to its covert nature. In this research, the disorder is presented and understood from the perspective of the person who must live with it on a daily basis. Through the newly discovered theory of discovering and uncovering, the reader will gain a more nuanced perspective of the disorder. Keywords: dissociative disorder, classic grounded theory, neurodiverse, traumagenic, multiplicity, post-traumatic stress disorder, ketamine In life, the idea of an elevator speech is extremely important. Consider a job interview where the interviewer states, “Tell me about yourself.” In approximately one minute or less, an interviewee needs to present a comprehensive picture of who he or she is. This situation seems innocuous enough to a neurotypical person. But, for someone with a dissociative disorder, a question like “Who are you?” or a request to talk about oneself can potentially be stress-provoking and confusing. Additionally, there is a famous line from an old song “I hear singing and there’s no one there” (Richard D., 2022). With respect to the lyricist Irvin Berlin who wrote the words to the song, people who suffer with a dissociative disorder can legitimately say “I hear voices and there’s no one there.” People suffering from a dissociative disorder such as dissociative identity disorder (DID) or otherwise specified dissociative disorder (OSDD) may indeed hear internal voices and have internal conversations; they believe that nothing unusual is going on (Anonymous, 2018). As one participant remarked, after all, don’t we all talk to ourselves at times? The foundation for a discussion about dissociative identity disorder is evident in these two seemingly different examples. The idea of one’s identity–whether it is an elevator speech for a job interview or hearing internal voices–becomes a crucial and fundamental component for a person who experiences dissociative identity disorder. Because of a paucity of scholarly research presenting and explaining DID from the perspective of the patient, the goal of this research is to understand more clearly and comprehensively what it is like to live with the dissociative disorder. To achieve this emic objective, a discussion about the disorder with a common language is needed. Methodology The research design used in this study is classic grounded theory. One benefit of this design is to understand in a more nuanced manner the main concerns of participants as they address their main concern: living with a dissociative disorder. The author adhered to the principles of classic grounded theory (Glaser, 1965, 1967, 1998). Procedurally, gerund codes were created from the data collected during the data gathering process. Through constant comparison (Glaser, 1965), memos were written to discover and explain connections that were not previously evident. Further comparisons were made among the codes to generate broader categories. Memos were constantly compared one with another as the data were conceptualized ultimately to develop a theory which explains how people deal with their dissociative identity disorder. Instrument As a research design, classic grounded theory is a bit unusual when compared with other (qualitative) research designs. With classic grounded theory, the objective is to “instill a spill” (Glaser, 2009, p. 22): a manner in which participants can talk openly and freely about whatever issues they might have regarding their main concern (Spradley, 1979). The beauty of classic grounded theory is that a single instrument is used instead of a semi-structured interview with a list of questions to be validated. In classic grounded theory,...