The Importance of Epistemology When Defending a Doctoral Thesis: The Research Philosophical Nature of Classic Grounded Theory...

Daniel P. Ash, University of Gloucestershire Abstract This article sets out a conceptual discussion based on a lively epistemological debate that took place during a doctoral viva voce examination for a classic grounded theory (GT) study (an exploration of police behaviour during domestic abuse incidents). The discussion uncovered conflicts regarding how methodology is viewed from different research traditions, and the potential impact of this problem on how research (like classic GT) is received and understood by scholars from different research philosophical perspectives, such as positivism. It also revealed how challenging it is, for a novice researcher, to adequately convince others of the rigorous nature of classic GT without reference and comparison to the research philosophical ideas that underpin other research traditions, more broadly. I claim that research philosophy must be addressed more fully by classic GT scholars if they are to encourage the uptake of classic GT by more doctoral candidates. Keywords: Classic grounded theory, epistemology, research philosophy, police research, positivism, abductive research Introduction This article explores a lively methodological debate that took place during a doctoral viva voce examination for a classic grounded theory (GT) study. The discussion uncovered problems with how classic GT is understood by scholars from different research philosophical traditions, and how challenging it is, as a novice researcher, to adequately convince others of the rigorous nature of classic GT without reference to research philosophical ideas. I argue that there are fundamental research-philosophical differences under consideration during the development and deployment of classic GTs, as compared with natural scientific theories. Recognising these differences is the key to understanding the contribution to knowledge being claimed within a classic GT study, and a reason why classic GT studies do not routinely include tests of reliability or validity using the natural scientific method. However, arguing these points to a doctoral committee or examiner can be problematic because there is a general lack of development or agreement in the academy relating to the research philosophical positioning of classic GT. This makes it challenging for other scholars to situate classic GT among their understanding of research philosophical approaches, which is problematic because situating a method within a philosophical position is often how the academy evaluates the appropriateness and effectiveness of the approach being taken within a doctoral study. In this paper, I claim that research philosophy must be addressed more fully by classic GT scholars if we are to encourage the uptake of classic GT by doctoral candidates. The classic GT thesis that underpins the discussion in this paper was an exploration of police behaviour during domestic abuse incidents (Ash, 2021). The external examiner, a positivist and police forensic psychologist, challenged the reliability of the classic grounded theory method as an explanation for social behaviour because the thesis did not discuss nor demonstrate how the theory could be falsified using natural scientific techniques. They argued that without using natural scientific validation approaches, the thesis was not rigorous enough viz. the work did not adhere to natural scientific principles. At the core of the scientific method, and this discussion was the positivist concept of falsifiability, which according to Popper (1968) means that before any theory can be considered scientific (and therefore, according to the positivistic perspective, be reliable as a source of explanatory value) (Mingers, 2004), it must be testable using scientific techniques by way of experimentation. Defending the use of classic grounded theory Such natural scientific tests are not needed for a classic GT to be of value to practitioners...

Grounded Leadership, Emergence Coaching, & Classic Grounded Theory: An Action Research Study...

Robert Wright, Wright Graduate University for the Realization of Human Potential, USA Judith Wright, Wright Graduate University for the Realization of Human Potential, USA Gordon Medlock, Wright Graduate University for the Realization of Human Potential, USA Mike Zwell, Wright Graduate University for the Realization of Human Potential, USA Abstract This study describes the iterative development of a Grounded Leadership (GL) and Emergence Coaching (EC) model based on classic grounded theory (CGT), designed to foster the emergence and realization of human potential. It traces five cycles of action research to transform the leadership, coaching practices, and culture of a learning organization. The model describes a co-creative process of facilitating human emergence that includes phases of engaging, discovering, core concepting, visioning, and “so-whating,” i.e. taking concrete steps toward realizing the vision. Emergence is the core concept that best explains the GL & EC process. This study extends the insight of an earlier study of GL to the domains of coaching and Being-Based Leadership (BBL). This includes development of a graduate level degree program and International Coaching Federation (ICF) accredited coach certification program designed within an EC framework. All five cycles demonstrate how CGT informs these leadership and coaching models, including the foundational processes of critical thinking, inferential reasoning, and the facilitation of human emergence.  Key Words: Grounded Leadership, Action Research, Classic Grounded Theory, Emergence Coaching, International Coaching Federation (ICF), Transformational Coaching & Leadership, Human Emergence Introduction This action research study represents an ongoing exploration of the principles and methods of classic grounded theory (CGT) applied to the practices of leadership and coaching. In the first three study cycles we describe Grounded Leadership (GL) and our initial attempts to apply principles of CGT to existing leadership programs. This study highlights the synergies between CGT and the process of non-directive leadership (Wright, R. J., 2008) and later Emergence Coaching (EC), all of which focus on the emergence of explanatory core concepts that characterize what is happening in the data field of practice. Our study focuses on how key principles of CGT research design, including discovery of core variables (i.e. core concepting) and emergence, inform new theories of GL and EC. Our interest in the process of emergence related to leadership and coaching began long before we learned about CGT. The principal researcher for this study was trained in a broad spectrum of individual and group process methodologies, including psychodrama in the French school of Sauvage (Blatner, 2000), contemporary Adlerian group process focusing on challenging limiting beliefs (Mosak & Maniacci, 1999; Wright et al., 2021), and encounter group approaches (Rogers, 1970; Schutz, 1973). He viewed leadership, coaching, and learning through an Adlerian-existential-developmental lens as a process of facilitating the emergence of individuals’ unique potential for becoming their best, most authentic selves (Carkhuff, 2000; Jackins, 1975; Rogers, 1977, 1996; Wright & Medlock, 1995; Wright & Wright, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2013). The role of the leader, coach, and educator was to draw out this unique potential in those they lead and coach. As we were introduced to CGT in our doctoral studies, we were struck by how the principle of emergence was central to the research design. It was the first time that we had seen a pragmatic and user-friendly way to bridge the domains of inquiry relating to content/data, theory building, and the process of facilitating human emergence at the level of being and becoming. Phenomenology includes a methodology of bracketing preconceptions to heighten awareness of what is unique in each present experience (Giorgi,...

About the Authors

Daniel P. Ash is a British criminologist and senior lecturer at the University of Gloucestershire.  He specializes in the development and application of theory in policing, novel research methods, the use of data science techniques to understand and develop operational policing practice, and policing innovation (in its broadest sense). He was formerly a British police officer, serving for twenty years with Northamptonshire Police, working in a variety of multi-agency operational contexts. Email: dash@glos.ac.uk Tom Andrews, PhD, is a Lecturer Emeritus in Nursing at the School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Cork, Ireland. He was trained in Classic GT by Dr. Barney Glaser, who also took part in his Viva Voce.  Tom lectured in research methods on post-graduate courses as well as teaching critical care to undergraduate and post-graduate students.  He has extensive experience in supervising and examining PhD students using Classic GT as well as conducting classic grounded theory troubleshooting seminars based on the model developed by Dr. Glaser. Tom is a fellow of the GT Institute and has several peer reviewed publications in journals. He continues to be active in the methodology of Classic GT and is currently collaborating in organising an international conference in Grounded Theory.   Email: t.andrews@ucc.ie Barry Chametzky, Ph.D. American College of Education. Dr. Chametzky holds graduate degrees in Music (Conservatory of Music at Brooklyn College, City University of New York), French (Middlebury College), and Foreign Language education (University of Pittsburgh).  Dr. Chametzky is an active researcher in the fields of andragogy, e-learning, anxiety and online foreign language acquisition, and classic grounded theory with numerous peer-reviewed publications and book chapters to his credit.  He is also one of the reviewers and the copyeditor for the Grounded Theory Review.  He facilitates online learning with master’s and doctoral students in the fields of educational technology and leadership, and serves as a dissertation chairperson to a number of candidates. Email: barry@bluevine.net 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). From 2013 to January 2022, he was General Secretary of the Economic Council of the Government of Faroe Islands.  The latter job was a full-time job.  From January 2022, Ólavur has been Associate Professor Emeritus at the  University of Faroe Islands. Astrid Gynnild is a Professor PhD of Media Studies,  Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Norway. She is Head of the Journalism Research Group, and works at the intersection of journalism innovation, new technologies, and creative processes. She was Editor of the Grounded Theory Review 2012-2018 and is now a reviewer of the journal. Astrid is a Fellow of the Grounded Theory Institute. Judith A. Holton is Associate Professor Emerita at Mount Allison University, Canada.  Judith completed her PhD in Management Studies at the University of Northampton, UK. Her research interests include grounded theory research methodology, leadership and management of complex systems, and learning and innovation in knowledge work.  She is a Fellow of the Grounded Theory Institute, former Editor of The Grounded Theory Review, and was a frequent collaborator and co-author with Barney Glaser. Judith has published in several academic journals including Management Learning, Organizational Research Methods, Journal of Organizational Change Management, and The Grounded Theory Review. She is co-author with Isabelle Walsh...