Issue 1, June 2023
Staying Open: The Use of Theoretical Codes in Grounded Theory
By Barney G. Glaser, PhD., Hon. PhD. with the assistanceof Judith A. Holton Abstract Theoretical codes (TCs) are abstract models that emerge during the sorting and memoing stages of grounded theory (GT) analysis. They conceptualize the integration of substantive codes as hypotheses of a theory. In this article, I explore the importance of their emergence in the development of a grounded theory and I discuss the challenge of the researcher in staying open to their emergence and earned relevance rather than their preconceived forcing on the theory under development. I emphasize the importance of GT researchers developing theoretical sensitivity to a wide range of theoretical perspectives and their associated codes. It is a skill that all GT researchers can and should develop. Introduction The full power of grounded theory comes with staying open to the emergent and to earned relevance when doing grounded theory (GT). This is especially so with regard to writing up a GT with emergent theoretical codes (TCs). Researchers seem to have the most trouble at this stage of the generating Process – sorting memos and writing up the theory with emergent TCs. Substantive coding comes comparatively easily and is exciting, giving the researcher the exhilarating feeling of discovery. Theoretical coding does not come easily as an emergent and has a beguiling mystique. As one PhD student emailed me: “theoretical codes and interchangeability of indicators were the two aspects of GT that I found the most difficult to comprehend.” (Holton email January 26, 2004). Another GT researcher writes, “The author of this current paper suggests that theoretical coding perhaps places the most demand upon the grounded theorist’s creativity” (Cutcliffe, 2000). Theoretical codes are frequently left out of otherwise quite good GT papers, monographs, and dissertations. The novice GT researcher finds them hard to understand. This article begins the process of trouble shooting this problem by dealing with many facets of theoretical coding and will consider several sources of difficulty in using TCs. The goal is to help the GT researcher stay open to the nonforced, non-preconceived discovery of emergent TCs. The reader may consider this article hard to understand unless he/she has read and studied my several former books. There will be some repetition of the ideas I have already written, but they will be in the service of offering new insights regarding TCs. Readers who are challenged in staying on a substantively abstract level of conceptualization may find this article even harder. Keeping researchers on an abstract or conceptual level is hard – especially for those in nursing, medicine, business and social work – since they are trained at the accurate description level. They tend to slip easily into a theoretical descriptive level as the trained style and practical considerations of their professional field take other. Staying open to TCs will help maintain the substantively conceptual level required by GT and will increase its power. This article is grounded in my origination of GT, in supervising many, many GT researches and dissertations, in reading many dissertations and GT monographs and in intense study of noted QDA methodology books. It is grounded in the hard study of the above caches. It is NOT a “think up” article. It is grounded in what is going on in GT research. The focus of this article, as is my many books, is to help researchers get GT research done – achieve GT products that receive the rewards of PhD degree and career moves. It is not an epistemological rhetorical...The Logic and Language of Classic Grounded Theory: Induction, Abduction, and Deduction...
Alvita Nathaniel, PhD, West Virginia University Abstract Although it is not clearly understood by many, classic grounded theory utilizes deduction, induction, and abduction as the necessary logic functions of the research process. Glaser’s described the forms of logic—induction, abduction, and deduction—but referred to them as conceptualization, theoretical coding, and theoretical sampling. Induction begins with data and produces concepts, which are the building blocks of grounded theory. Employing abduction, the analyst infers relationships among the concepts to develop interrelated hypotheses. Deduction is used to gather data to fill in the gaps and produce an explanatory theory. Each type of logic is indispensable to classic grounded theory method. The purpose of this methodological paper is to briefly describe the process and product of each type of logic as applied to the language and procedures of classic grounded theory. Keywords: grounded theory, research logic, abduction Introduction Classic grounded theory is a rigorous method of inquiry that depends upon all three forms of research logic: induction, abduction, and deduction. Deduction and induction, particularly, are common to most other research methods. However, they are used differently and in a different order in classic grounded theory. Noted for developing his own language to describe the grounded theory process, Glaser used the term conceptualization to refer to the process of induction, theoretical coding to refer to the process of abduction, and theoretical sampling to refer to the process of deduction. The purpose of this methodological paper is to describe how the three forms of logic work together to produce a classic grounded theory. The Logic of Induction: Conceptualization Induction is always the first step of grounded theory analysis. Inductive research consists of reasoning from particular facts observed in the data to more abstract general principles. In classic grounded theory this occurs when the investigator codes and analyzes the raw data from one case, compares it with codes and data from another (or other) case(s), identifies the common bits in the data (indicators), clusters the indicators together to define a concept, and writes conceptual memos (Glaser, 1978, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Coding raw data produces what Glaser calls substantive codes. The word substantive in grounded theory refers to some human experience that has an existence in real life as perceived and communicated by study participants. The grounded theorist collects and examines the raw data and uses the logic of induction to identify substantive codes and then to compare further cases and logically cluster them together to indicate concepts, which are a higher level of abstraction (Fig. 1). Figure 1: The Process of Induction in Classic Grounded Theory Thus, unlike other research methods, the foundational process of classic grounded theory is conceptualization, which is grounded in empirical data and clarified through the process of constant comparison. In fact, even before the publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), Glaser (1965) coined the phrase constant comparative method, which he proposed as a key intellectual strategy of grounded theory analysis. Through constant comparison, indicators are clustered by similarity. Concepts emerge as the analyst goes back and forth in an iterative process constantly comparing the empiric data and writing conceptual memos (Glaser, 1965, 1998). This method increases formal abstraction and corrects for poor data as it brings each concept into closer grounding (Glaser, 1965, 1998, 1999). Abstract concepts derived from empirical data in this way form the building blocks of theory. Procedures of the method move from data collection and conceptualization to abduction. The Logic of...Developing a Classic Grounded Theory Research Study Protocol: A Primer for Doctoral Students and Novice Researchers...
Kara L. Vander Linden, Glaser Center for Grounded Theory, Institute for Research and Theory Methodologies, United States Patrick A. Palmieri, South American Center for Qualitative Research, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Perú; College of Graduate Health Studies, A.T. Still University, United States Abstract The research study protocol is a roadmap for conducting research systematically, efficiently, and ethically. While protocols have standard components, a classic grounded theory protocol differs in its methods, including processes and procedures, because of the uniqueness of the methodology. A classic grounded theory protocol commonly contains the following: (1) introduction to the topic; (2) purpose of the study with the research question; (3) detailed description of the research methods, including data collection and analysis; and (4) procedures to demonstrate the ethical conduct of human participant research. Based on a review of grounded theory methodological literature, the current article describes an approach for developing a research protocol that maintains grounded theory research integrity while adhering to institutional and funding requirements. A properly written study protocol is essential for maintaining methodological fidelity, avoiding method slurring, and unintended remodeling in classic grounded theory. Keywords: Classic Grounded Theory, Study Protocol, Theoretical Sampling, Data Collection, Constant Comparative Method of Analysis, Theory Development. The rapid advancement of qualitative research across the disciplines, described as the “crest of a wave” (Morse, 1994, p. 139), resulted in methodological approaches being considered a unified field for the purpose of critical appraisal (Dixon-Woods et al., 2004). For this reason, aspects of qualitative research, including trustworthiness and rigor, continue to be debated among scholars because of the epistemological differences of the methodologies (Garside, 2014). Even though some methodologists disagree, grounded theory is commonly classified as a qualitative methodology, but this does not mean that a grounded theory uses the same processes and procedures as other methodologies. Since each methodology has procedures to demonstrate rigor and techniques to establish trustworthiness (Vander Linden & Palmieri, 2021), a comprehensive research proposal and the briefer research study protocol are essential to identify, describe, explain, and justify the plan for conducting research using grounded theory. Qualitative research designs are emergent in nature. As such, research is conducted by design rather than designed while being conducted (Sandelowski et al., 1989). The design is prospectively described in the research proposal, a comprehensive document to justify a thesis or dissertation, support a planned research study, and obtain funding for research (Lusk, 2004). Research proposals across research designs are developed with similar sections including the cover page, abstract, introduction, review of the literature, research problem and research questions, research purpose and objectives, research paradigm, research design, research method, ethical considerations, dissemination plan, budget, and supporting appendices (Klopper, 2008). Since “process is outcome” (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2003, p. 781) in methodological studies, the comprehensive research proposal is distilled into a research study protocol that provides a clear, concise, and detailed plan to carry out the study. A good quality research study protocol should be able to justify the research, answer the research question, achieve the study objectives, provide enough details about the methods to replicate the study, and demonstrate the ethical treatment of human participants. A research study protocol, often referred to as the study protocol, is the roadmap for researchers to conduct their study systematically, efficiently, and ethically. A classic grounded theory protocol differs in some areas because of its unique aspects of the methodology (Xie, 2009). Despite variations in content caused by institutional requirements, a classic grounded theory protocol commonly contains the following areas: (1) introduction to...Following suit: Why some choose to remodel the grounded theory methodology in China?...
Y. Wang, School of Nursing, Fujian Medical University Z. Shi, Faculty of Business and Management, Beijing Normal University-Hong Kong Baptist University United International College H. Li, School of Journalism and Communication, Northwest University F. Fei, Grounded Theory Institute Abstract Given the rapid surge in the number of studies claiming the adoption and use of the grounded theory (GT) methodology in China over the past two decades or so, we can now confirm that virtually all studies haven’t been at all conducted in accordance with the GT methodology including its variants, let alone the classic one extended by Glaser and Strauss (1967). We are fascinated by the behaviours of those who have chosen to remodel the original GT methodology (Glaser, 2003), a pattern of which is ascertained as “following suit.” It explains the solution finding process in relation to their central concern of having their work legitimised. Three overlapping and yet, distinctive sub-dimensions of “following suit” have also been identified, which are named as “fitting-in,” “window-dressing,” and “pretexting”. The notion of “following suit” has its general implications elsewhere and in other methods too, as we have also noticed. And we are alert to the probability that some may use the criterion of “modifiability” of GT (Glaser, 1978) as a pretext of remodelling the GT methodology in the pursuit of their own agendas. Keywords: grounded theory, remodelling, China Introduction and scene–setting In this methodological paper, which is the second instalment of “GT in China,” we discuss the intriguing phenomenon of remodelling the GT methodology (Glaser, 2003) specifically in this country. We set out with the initial aim of documenting some disinformation with regards to GT, hoping that our fellow countrymen will be able to become more critical of the extant body of methods literature available. During the course of this joint exercise which will be progressing into the years to come by both experienced and novice researchers, a general pattern of “following suit” constituting three overlapping and yet, distinctive dimensions, to wit “fitting-in,” “window-dressing,” and “pretexting” has been identified in relation to the remodelling of the GT methodology (Glaser, 2003) as a direct result of our observations and analysis in China. The focus of this paper is placed explicitly upon the remodelling of the GT methodology (Glaser, 2003) which we have been observing over the years in China. Thus, the purpose is to highlight the central concern of those who have opted to re-configure the methodology and the behavioural pattern surrounding the very concern of getting one’s work legitimised. We are convinced that our work contributes to the general body of knowledge as far as GT is concerned, by digging deep into the arguments for and against the remodelling of GT from this part of the world. It is worth emphasising at the outset that this methodological paper itself has never been intended to be a product of a GT study, a point of which we would like to make clear for not misleading the readers in any shape or form. Furthermore, we have written this paper deliberately in a style as it is, the novice GT researchers can, therefore, be able to compare this paper with other ones that have claimed the use of GT including its variants. In this particular methodological discussion on remodelling, we have intentionally engaged with two novices (i.e. Li & Shi) who are in the process of doing their own GT studies for the master’s and doctoral dissertations, respectively. Given that the...Building a Classic Grounded Theory: Some Reflections
Lee Yarwood-Ross, University of Wolverhampton Kirsten Jack, Manchester Metropolitan University Abstract This article focuses on some of our reflections of using processes inherent within classic grounded theory methodology to build knowledge surrounding military personnel who experienced combat-related limb-loss from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. We conclude that instead of adding to the issue of mixing different grounded theory perspectives, researchers should instead follow guidance from one approach to avoid becoming perplexed as each strand produces a different product. This article provides our own philosophy and compatibility with a classic grounded theory approach, and we encourage researchers to capitalise on the wealth of exemplar theories within the Grounded Theory Review journal and to engage with Barney Glaser’s books. Keywords: Classic Grounded Theory, Grounded Theory, Combat-Related Limb-Loss, Military Trauma, Combat-Trauma. Introduction Classic grounded theory methodology can be embraced by both quantitative and qualitative researchers (Glaser, 1998, 2008), however in nursing research it has tended to be used for its power in generating knowledge using a qualitative approach to build theories that are discovered or constructed from the data (Glaser 1998; Chun Tie et al., 2019). Specifically, nursing researchers have tended to embrace grounded theory to study areas relating to clinical practice or education (See for example Li et al., 2015 and McCallin, 2011). As a nurse, I (the first author will be referred to in the first person in the article to show that this article is based on his doctoral work) had a prior interest in the effects of amputation on people’s wellbeing, and spending part of my youth as a military child, this interest expanded to understanding the psychosocial impact of combat-related limb-loss on military personnels’ physical and mental health. I focused specifically on military personnel from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts as there was little insight available in the extant literature for this group of people. Grounded Theory is, arguably, one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted methodologies (Olshansky, 2015). Specifically, Timonen et al. (2018) argued that the lack of understanding often existing among researchers relates to the core processes of grounded theory; for example, confusing the general ideas of saturation in qualitative research with that of theoretical saturation (a core tenet of grounded theory), which leads to researchers applying procedures thus making it more difficult to facilitate a grounded theory product. Bryant (2021) also reinforced the misunderstanding that often occurs when researchers may not be aware of the methodology’s inherent sampling procedures, where data collection begins purposively followed by theoretical sampling. Ultimately, I chose to adopt a classic grounded theory (CGT) approach and this article provides our tussles with some aspects relating to the methodology and uses a reflective style of writing that may prove to be useful to other researchers contemplating the use of CGT in their own research endeavours. Our journey began reading the SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007) that provided us with the perspectives and uses of the methodology across disciplines. However, it was overt that there were also various approaches to doing grounded theory research, and further exploration of the extant literature led us to a plethora of critical research available that discussed the different “strands” of GT. We read the contentious issues surrounding the methodology, but importantly, a seminal piece of work that settled our own decision-making around GT as whole was written by Glaser (2014) that concluded “GT methods are just different, not better or worse” (p. 3). However, one does need to...