Grounded Description: No No

Barney G. Glaser, PhD, Hon PhD Grounded description is on the increase with the increase of grounded theory throughout the world. Much grounded description is jargonized as GT and it is not GT. Grounded description is trying to describe the population studied, like a QDA study requires, by describing all the interchangeable indicators that grounded the concept. In contrast, GT is not to describe the population. GT is the relation between concepts  which emerged from the population by constant comparing and then are related to each other by a theoretical code. The GT theory then becomes general and abstract of the study population by time, place and people. The GT stands on its own, and the data on which it is grounded is often forgotten for the grab and general implications of the theory. For example, rooting from here to there is based on BMRs (eg, planning basic mobility resources for a trip). Why is this happening? There are several reasons. Description is  frequently demanded by an academic department perspective and professor demands since research is traditionally descriptive nearly 100% of the time. Being abstract of time, place and people is not the normal quest of academic research. Accurate description is the quest.  The generated concepts used for normal description can be very discreet and its indicators also. They prove relevance and fit for population data. The abstract nature and its general implications of a GT core concept and its potential for generating a GT are ignored or lightly referred to while describing takes over. Grounded description is a step toward discovery of a GT, not a GT. But many new to the GT methodology do not realize this. They become thrilled with generating a grabby concept and think that it is the final step to generating a GT and then describe it at length to prove its accurate existence. This approach, of course, suites the descriptive perspective of most academic research. Grounded description is further supported by the simple fact that most people, including academics, cannot conceptualize. It is best, if at all, if they can come up with one generated concept. Or if not they can use a conjectured—usually ungrounded—concept, taken from their field literature. That is fine, since description proven accurate, runs the world, with conjectured concepts based on no facts a close second. A distant third is conceptualizing concepts, however powerful they may actually be. There are many books written now on GT that are actually about grounded description. They confuse the definition and methodology of GT with lofty academic scholarship backed by high-level positions in a university department. They bring GT back to description. Mixed writing on QDA and GT often tend to regress GT to description procedures, such as taping preformed interviews. In this paper I will discuss many of the differences between GT and conceptual description, so the reader can spot the latter being termed the former. Conceptual description easily results in data overload in quest of full coverage.  For a GT concept why keep collecting interchangeable indicators as required by full accurate description once you a have a concept? Five or six indicators can be enough, as apposed to dissertation requirements to get data from all respondents on a concept for descriptive generality that will soon become stale dated anyway. Full coverage of data collection is a waste of research resources for generating a GT once a core concept pattern is discovered and theoretically sampled for. Since concepts are abstract of...

Optimising Capacity – A Service User and Caregiver Perspective on Reablement...

Cathrine Moe, Nord University, Norway Berit Støre Brinchmann, Nord University, Norway Abstract Reablement focuses on offering individuals the opportunity to regain independence and thus stay longer in their homes. Few studies have looked at service users and caregivers’ perspectives on reablement. There is also a lack of theories grounded in this relatively new field of practise. This study aims to generate a grounded theory of service users’ and their caregivers’ experiences of reablement. The empirical data are based on interviews with 17 service users and 10 caregivers and observations of reablement provision. For seniors to manage as well as possible in their own homes emerged as the main concern. The core category is optimising capacity. The grounded theory builds on the core category, integrating identified strategies and concepts of health and coping.  The conditions of reablement are grounded in the social and cultural life of the recipient. We conclude, therefore, that including the individual’s life history and existing coping strategies is essential to the success of reablement. Keywords: grounded theory, reablement, service user, caregiver, optimising capacities, open concept of health, coping. Background Reablement (also known as restorative care) is an approach focused on offering individuals the opportunity to regain independence and thus stay in their own homes longer. The goal of reablement is for service users to re-learn skills and find new ways to perform daily activities, be active, socialise, and participate in society. The method consists of using physical training and adaptive equipment to strengthen actions the individual defines as important (Tuntland, Espehaug, Forland, Hole, Kjerstad, & Kjeken, 2014.; Winkel, Langberg, & Wæhrens, 2014). Reablement is time-limited, person-centred, and typically delivered by an integrated team consisting of various health professionals such as nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and nurse assistants (Kjerstad & Tuntland, 2016; Wilde & Glendinning, 2012). Reablement services are increasingly offered to everyone who meets local eligibility criteria for home-care services. Still, aging persons (65+) are the most common recipients of reablement. The targeted populations are individuals with diverse mortality and morbidity risks, multimorbidity, and diverse prognostic outcomes, symptoms and disabilities. Exclusion criteria are typically advanced cognitive impairments and end-of-life care (Legg, Gladman, Drummond, & Davidson, 2016; Wilde & Glendinning, 2012). Reablement is supposed to represent a shift from reactive home care services to preventative and proactive models based on early intervention and active engagement (Legg et al., 2016). The evidence for reablement is growing, but the ill-defined intervention towards a heterogeneous service user group means that it is complicated to get an overview of the state of knowledge (Legg et al., 2016). Reablement is found to improve the ability of aging persons receiving reablement services to engage in daily activities (Lewin & Vandermeulen, 2009; Winkel et al., 2014) and to have positive impacts on their health-related quality of life and social care outcomes (Glendinning et al., 2010). Reablement is often presented as a solution to future health service challenges. However, there is still very little knowledge about what recipients of this service view as important. Few studies have looked at service users and caregivers’ perspective on reablement. It is not clear who benefits most from reablement and which barriers to independence arise (Glendinning et al., 2010; Ryburn, Wells, & Foreman, 2009; Wilde & Glendinning, 2012). Barriers may be compounded when service users live alone or have few social contacts, or when they have a limited understanding of the purpose of reablement. It is unclear how reablement affects relatives and whether their involvement influences the outcomes (Glendinning...

Rationalising Transgression: A Grounded Theory Explaining how Emergency Department Registered Nurses Rationalise Erroneous Behaviour...

Tracy Flenady, Trudy Dwyer, and Judith Applegarth, Central Queensland University, Australia Abstract The aim of this classic grounded theory study was to unearth the main concern of emergency department (ED) registered nurses (RN) when they perform respiratory rate observations to generate a substantive theory that explicates how the identified problem is resolved.  Analysis of data collected from 79 registered nurses revealed that health sector forced compliance in recording observations meant that ED RNs are more than likely to record a respiratory rate without actually counting respirations. This erroneous behaviour provokes varying degrees of emotional discomfort as the nurses’ actions are often incongruent with their professional values and beliefs. The theory Rationalising Transgression explains how nurses continually resolve this issue by compensating, minimalizing, or trivialising to titrate the level of emotional discomfort associated with erroneous behaviour, consequently facilitating the rationalisation of transgression. Keywords: nursing, wasting time, trivialising, cutting corners, emotional discomfort, social norms. Background It is internationally acknowledged that inconsistent monitoring of vital sign observations and lack of understanding regarding the significance of physiological changes patients experience are two contributing factors of undetected clinical deterioration (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care [ACSQHC], 2012; National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2007; National Patient Safety Agency, 2007). Vital sign observations provide health care clinicians with valuable information regarding each patient’s clinical acuity throughout all stages of their emergency department stay. Many hospitals now employ observation charting systems that require nurses to measure and record scores for each vital sign observed, with the combined value of scores referred to as an early warning score (Day & Oxton, 2014; Prytherch, Smith, Schmidt, Featherstone, Stewart, Knight, & Higgins, 2006). The total score from each round of observations is a reliable predictor of clinical deterioration; when the score reaches a certain threshold, a predetermined response is triggered (Ludikhuize, Smorenburg, de Rooij, & de Jonge, 2012; Silcock, Corfield, Gowens, & Rooney, 2015). There are many studies whose authors reported the efficacy of these early warning scores in regards to the timely identification of clinical deterioration of patients in an emergency department setting (Hogan, 2006; Hosking, Considine, & Sands, 2014; Lam, Mak, Siu, Lam, Cheung, & Rainer Lam, 2006; So, Ong, Wong, Chung, & Graham, 2015). The respiratory rate, one of the vital signs that contribute to the early warning score, is significant in that abnormal respiratory rates alone are widely reported as accurate indicators of clinical deterioration (Considine, 2004; Considine, Charlesworth, & Currey, 2014; Hosking et al., 2014; Jonsson, Jonsdottir, Möller, & Baldursdottir, 2011; Ljunggren, Castrén, Nordberg, & Kurland, 2016; Parkes, 2011). Abnormal respiratory rates herald potentially life-threatening conditions and provide health care clinicians with the opportunity to respond expediently to these episodes of clinical decline. Timely recognition and response to clinical deterioration have the potential to prevent high acuity unit admissions, reduce hospital admission length of stay and significantly improve overall mortality rates (Ljunggren et al., 2016; McBride, Knight, Piper, & Smith, 2005). Accordingly, to achieve optimal patient outcomes, it is integral that respiratory rate observations are collected regularly, obtained correctly, and recorded accurately for every patient. Despite this acknowledged importance of the respiratory rate observation, Ansell, Meyer, and Shona (2014), Cooper, Cant, and Sparkes (2014), Cretikos et al., (2008), Hosking et al., (2014), Odell et al., (2007) and Parkes (2011) revealed this vital sign is often absent or erroneously recorded on emergency department observation charts. While emergent literature confirms this practice occurs, what is not known is why it occurs. One of the...

Wayfinding: A Grounded Theory Study

of the Information-Seeking Behavior of Constructors James W. Jones, Ball State University, Indiana, United States Abstract This study examined how and why practitioners in the construction industry sought information in their routine work activities. A grounded theory method found the main concern of constructors is the ability to seek accurate information efficiently and effectively. A substantive theory termed wayfinding was developed through interviews with 24 constructors, which is applied using five strategies. These strategies include clarifying, confirming, sourcing, preparing, and managing risk. Strategies are adopted based on the intent and type of information being sought within perceived boundaries of time and accuracy required. Techniques used to implement these strategies include networking, branching/filtering, and cost-saving. The implementation of the strategies varied with experience, with novices using a more limited range of strategies and techniques than experienced constructors. Keywords: Wayfinding, Information-seeking, constructors, strategies, managing risk. Introduction Those people involved in the management of construction work in a fast-paced, high-pressure environment where decisions must be made quickly and effectively. The ability to find accurate information rapidly is an important part of this environment (Sears, Sears, & Clough, 2008; Stowe, 2009). Although it is an essential process for the constructor, it is barely mentioned in most texts developed for construction curricula in higher education; the result is that it is not a standard subject of study and hence is learned through personal experience in the “school of hard knocks” once the field is entered. In this study, the author examines the professional lives of constructors using a classic grounded theory method and finds that seeking information is their main concern. The result of the study is a theory that explains how and why constructors seek information as part of their day-to-day activities. This theory, called wayfinding, explains the information-seeking behavior of constructors so that it may be used by people currently in industry, educators preparing people to enter the field, and other related, interested parties. Method The author of this study examines the way that practitioners in the construction industry seek information in the course of their work. The selection of a grounded theory approach was driven by the intent of the investigation. The objective was to provide an integrated explanation of how this information-seeking behavior takes place in the working lives of constructors to inform practice and praxis. Grounded theory is particularly well-suited for fields of practice, as it can be used to “give the practitioner a conceptual tool with which to guide practice” (Merriam & Simpson, 2000, p. 113). The developed theory may therefore be usefully employed by those in practice, teachers in the field, and other related disciplines. A classic grounded theory approach was used, as described by Glaser (1964, 1968, 1972, 1978, 1992, 1998), Glaser and Kaplan (1996), and Glaser and Strauss (1965, 1967). Individual interviews were the primary data collection tool; 23 interviews were conducted with a total of 24 participants. Interviews started after the research protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board; analysis commenced with the first interview and continued throughout collection. Categories emerged as data were initially open-coded directly on the transcripts and field notes. The memoing process helped the researcher to discover the main concern and core category quickly; selective coding and theoretical sampling were then emphasized until saturation of concepts was reached. After temporal spacing, the researcher returned to the data and memoranda for theoretical coding to integrate the categories into a cohesive theory, finding all approaches to be members of the strategy...

Entering the Field: Decisions of an Early Career Researcher...

Adopting Classic Grounded Theory Sajeel Ahmed, University of Bedfordshire, United Kingdom Markus Haag, University of Bedfordshire, United Kingdom Abstract Classic grounded theory methodology is a much-debated topic in research, especially when novice researchers are selecting classic grounded theory for their research or theses. There is a constant need to justify and defend certain processes of grounded theory, which often challenge other research methods. As a novice researcher, I have often found myself juggling between the need to follow specific procedures and regulations of the university while opting to support the views of Glaser and the application of classic grounded theory for my research. To tackle such difficulties, specific decisions were used to support and justify key choices that favoured classic grounded theory and the requirements of the research institute and my research process. This article provides a reflection on the decisions taken at different stages of the research process to help readers make informed decisions before entering the field. Keywords: exploration, rhetorical wrestle, classic GT, emergence, entering the field, sampling, constant comparison. Introduction Every researcher is faced with many choices and decisions that help him or her guide the research towards a path. This article highlights a set of ten decisions I made during my research based on specific requirements of my institute and methodological choice. The decisions were mainly important to defend against the rhetorical wrestle and the adoption of classic grounded theory based on Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser (1978, 1992, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005). The ten decisions discussed in this paper provide an outline for novice researchers to justify their adoption of (classic) grounded theory as well as to offer them guidelines on conceptualising the research process of their own research projects. As a PhD candidate in an era influenced and dominated by information and communication technology (ICT), I decided to do my PhD on computer-mediated communication focusing on investigating the influence emoji have on communication. The reasons for perusing such an area were personal interest and the desire to understand the communication process through computer-based channels. While being unaware of concepts of theoretical sensitivity and philosophical perspectives, one of the first stages of my research process was to conduct a literature review in the research area, focus the research, and support it with a theoretical perspective. The first point of action was to conduct databases searches for existing papers with relevance to “emoji” as the key area of research. The results were surprising: only seven papers focused on emoji. They mainly focused on quantitative measures, and the papers did not provide much insight from a qualitative perspective on emoji and their influences in terms of communication. Thus, a more in-depth study was needed to explore and understand the research area further to develop an initial base in the context of emoji. Decision One: Choosing an exploratory research design The lack of publications in the topic area provided this researcher an opportunity to investigate and develop research from the ground up. Thus, an inductive style seemed appropriate. Also, an exploratory design was selected to investigate the unknown area of research, following Blaikie’s (2009) views that exploratory research is very much suited in areas where little is known and helps develop a better idea about a social phenomenon. A strong emphasis was to develop an initial understanding of the research area using the exploratory research approach and open areas which can be further investigated. A justification was also provided from Blumer’s (1969) perspective that exploratory research...

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...