Posted by
astrid on Jun 22, 2013 in
Issue 1, June 2013 |
Comments Off on Book Review: Ditching Description: From Data to Abstraction
Susan Stillman, Director of Ed for Six Seconds Barney G. Glaser (2013). Getting Out of the Data: Grounded Theory Conceptualization, Mill Valley: Sociology Press Overview In the first chapter of this book, Glaser explains his purpose to help the researcher use the constant comparative method to discover and name patterns in the data, relate them to each other, generate a “conceptual hypothesis” (p. 2), and allow a multivariate substantive theory to emerge around a core variable. The first sentence demonstrates his intent to help the reader in “getting out of the data” into “conceptualization” (p. 1). In preparation for writing this review, I showed the book to a friend who has only a passing familiarity with grounded theory (GT). His immediate reaction upon reading the first sentence was to ask me whether the reader was already supposed to know what “getting out of the data” and “emergence of conceptualization” meant. “All is data” (p. 67) and what good data for me, the reviewer! I had made an assumption that all readers who picked up this book would understand the language used, and my friend’s comment made me realize this might not be the case. This small volume is probably not the book for a casual reader with some curiosity about GT. Glaser’s stated audience is the dissertation researcher, whom he believes would have the most energy, interest, and motivation to preserve the fidelity of classic GT (p. 4), and, therefore, would be looking for additional insights and strategies from newer works. This current book is intended as a “synopsis” (p. 1), to be supplemented by reading Glaser’s other works. Glaser’s process, familiar to his readers, is to do GT, not just write about it. Glaser states, “This book will be a GT of GT use, as is my usual style” (p. 2). In Getting Out of the Data, Glaser emphasizes, as he has done since 1965, the importance of constant comparative analysis for getting to conceptualization, and offers “help in getting out of the data” (p. 2). Help comes in the form of his always evolving thinking on both constant comparative methodological steps such as eliminating preconceptions, collecting data, coding and naming patterns, and in his discussion of the underlying competencies needed for GT method success, such as motivation, patience, and the ability to tolerate ambiguity. In this regard, Glaser shares his recent thinking on blocks to conceptualization, with specific suggestions and motivational support for getting through these obstacles successfully. In preparing to write this review, rather than employ a linear chapter by chapter approach, I used the “skipping and dipping” (p. 75) method to memo and categorize ideas that caught my attention. I’ve called the first section Back to Basics, as Glaser deepens aspects of constant comparative analysis familiar to many readers. In the second section, Blocks and Counter Blocks, I focus on these newer valuable additions to Glaser’s established repertoire of directives to researchers. Back to Basics Term clarification: As an experienced teacher of GT methodology, I have often fielded questions on the meaning of common GT terms. Glaser provides a worthwhile clarification of these terms when he reiterates that code, category, property, and concept are all synonymous names for patterns. I have had students stressed by their attempts at distinguishing between them, and this clarification will help. Glaser also refutes the use of non-GT terms, such as findings. “Treating a code as a finding is a misnomer “ (p. 61). Validity is another concept often misunderstood...