Choosing a Methodological Path: Reflections on the Constructivist Turn...

Jenna P. Breckenridge, Queen Margaret University, Derek Jones, Northumbria University, Ian Elliott, Queen Margaret University, Margaret Nicol, Queen Margaret University Abstract Researchers deciding to use grounded theory are faced with complex decisions regarding which method or version of grounded theory to use: Classic, straussian, feminist or constructivist grounded theory. Particularly for beginning PhD researchers, this can prove challenging given the complexities of the inherent philosophical debates and the ambiguous and conflicting use of grounded theory ‘versions’ within popular literature. The aim of this article is to demystify the differences between classic and constructivist grounded theory, presenting a critique of constructivist grounded theory that is rooted in the learning experiences of the first author as she grappled with differing perspectives during her own PhD research. Introduction Reflecting on the PhD process, it could be said that the decision to use grounded theory is only a starting point. Often armed with only a limited understanding of ‘grounded theory’, new PhD researchers are faced with the challenge of navigating their way through the methodological mire in order to arrive at an informed decision about which ‘version’ of grounded theory to use: Classic (or glaserian) grounded theory, straussian grounded theory, feminist grounded theory or constructivist grounded theory. Cutcliffe (2004) has identified, however, that many researchers appear to have avoided this challenge altogether, opting simply for an ambiguous medley of aspects from each version without regard for their inherent incompatibilities. Ultimately, this ‘pick and mix’ approach to grounded theory poses a significant challenge for novice researchers as, without being able to refer to useful exemplars of grounded theory studies, it is difficult to understand and prepare for the practicalities of carrying out one’s own grounded theory research (Breckenridge & Jones 2009). By sharing the methodological reasoning developed by the first author during her own PhD study, the aim of this article is to assist novice researchers in understanding the differences between two of the main grounded theory versions: constructivist grounded theory and classic grounded theory. Writing as a classic grounded theorist, the aim of this article is not to discredit constructivist grounded theory, but is instead to illustrate the incompatibilities between versions in order to share learning and emphasise the importance of using classic grounded theory as a full package methodology. Constructivist grounded theory Constructivist grounded theory was proffered by Charmaz (2003, 2006) as an alternative to classic (Glaser 1978, 1992, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2011) and straussian grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin 1990, 1998). Charmaz (2003) has advocated that her constructivist version of grounded theory “takes a middle ground between postmodernism and positivism, and offers accessible methods for taking qualitative research into the 21st century” (p. 250). Certainly, for the first author choosing between versions, Charmaz’s (2003) attempt at ‘modernising’ (or, indeed, ‘post-modernising’) grounded theory had immediate appeal. Her method appeared to value the inductive creativity of the classic methodology, and also resonated with the current popularity of constructivism within social research. As an epistemological stance, constructivism asserts that reality is constructed by individuals as they assign meaning to the world around them (Appleton & King 2002). From a constructivist perspective, meaning does not lie dormant within objects waiting to be discovered, but is rather created as individuals interact with and interpret these objects (Crotty 1998). Constructivism thus challenges the belief that there is an objective truth that can be measured or captured through research enquiry (Crotty 1998). Charmaz (2003) has therefore proposed a version of grounded theory that: “assumes the relativism of...

About the Authors

Lorraine Andrews is a Lecturer in Midwifery in the School of Nursing and Midwifery in Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Currently she is a third year PhD student conducting a classic grounded theory study on men’s experiences of becoming a father, which will be complete in 2013. Her research interests include family centred maternity care, postnatal care and transition to fatherhood. Tom Andrews, Ph.D., is a Lecturer in Nursing at Brookfield Health Science Complex,University of Cork,Ireland, specialising in critical care.  Andrews lectures in research methods on post-graduate courses and currently supervise a number of PhD students using classic GT.  He has conducted a number of classic grounded theory troubleshooting seminars alone and in collaboration. He is a fellow of the GT Institute and publishes in a number of journals.  He is currently involved in two grounded theory projects. His research interests are around worsening progressions whatever the context. Dori Barnett, Ed.D., is a Program Coordinator and School Psychologist in the Orange County Department of Education. Her professional background includes over twenty years of experience specializing in students with emotional and behavioral disabilities in comprehensive, alternative and special education settings. Dr. Barnett’s research interests include behavioral and emotional disabilities in children and adolescents, comprehensive school-wide intervention models, organizational theory and systems change, and qualitative research methodology in education. Jenna Breckenridge is a Lecturer in Occupational Therapy at Queen Margaret University. Her current research interests include vocational rehabilitation and health related employability. Her PhD study, completed in 2010, used classic grounded theory to develop a theory of professional decision making, which has been presented at multidisciplinary conferences in the fields of healthcare and business. She is a member of the Grounded Theory Institute and teaches and supervises grounded theory at MSc and PhD level. Ian C Elliott is a Lecturer in Business in the Division of Business, Enterprise and Management at Queen Margaret University. His research interests cover public management and the relationship between work and health including the Pathways to Work initiative and the Work Programme. Ian has previously worked at the Employment Research Institute, the Scottish Government, University of Edinburgh and Glasgow Caledonian University. Cheri Fernandez, RN, Ph.D.,CDE, is associate professor
at Faculty of Nursing, 
University of Windsor,Canada. Her research interests include diabetes, chronic illness, integration, quality of life, and nursing worklife. She has been an assistant editor of the Grounded Theory Review since 2010. Barney G. Glaser is the cofounder of grounded theory (1967). He received his PhD from Columbia University in 1961. He then went to University of California San Francisco, where he joined Anselm Strauss in doing the dying in hospitals study and in teaching PhD and DNS students methods and analysis. He published over 20 articles on this research and the dying research. Since then, Glaser has written 14 more books using and about grounded theory, and countless articles. In 1998 he received an honorary doctorate from Stockholm University. His latest book, which deals with writing grounded theory, will be published in 2012. Agnes Higgins is Professor in Mental Health Nursing and Head of the School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. She has worked in the area of mental health, palliative care and general nursing. Her research interests are in the area of sexualities, sexual health, mental health and recovery. She has completed and published a number of research studies in these areas. Derek Jones is a Senior Lecturer in Occupational Therapy at Northumbria University and has a first degree in sociology. Research interests...

Volume 5, issue no.1, November 2005

                                                            GT Review vol5 no1 Volume 5, Issue no. 1, November 2005  Staying Open: The use of theoretical codes in grounded theory Barney G. Glaser with the assistance of Judith Holton Keeping My Ways of Being: Middle-aged women dealing with the passage through menopause   Helene Ekstrom, Johanna Esseveld & Brigitta Hovelius Weathering Change: Coping in a context of pervasive change  Michael A. Raffanti Achieving Rigour and Relevance in Information Systems Studies: Using grounded theory to investigate organizational cases Walter D. Fernandez and Hans Hehmann Staying Open: The use of theoretical codes in grounded theory Barney G. Glaser with the assistance of Judith Holton 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 pre-conceived 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. Keeping My Ways of Being: Middle-aged women dealing with the passage through menopause   Helene Ekstrom, Johanna Esseveld & Brigitta Hovelius The meanings given to menopause by women themselves are often left aside.  In this grounded theory study, based on interviews and on open-ended questions in questionnaires answered by middle-aged women, the authors found that not being able to know what would happen and what influence menopause would have on them as individuals were sources of uncertainty. A theory of a general pattern of behaviour emerged, Keeping my ways of being, resolving the uncertainties involved. The intensity of the process and the use of its three different stages, those of Preserving present ways of being, Limiting changes and Reappraising, were considered to be dependent upon the central Personal calculation process, in which the women used their individual explanatory beliefs and evaluations of need. The theory used as a model of thinking in consultations with middle-aged women might show a high degree of workability in explaining what is going on.   Weathering Change: Coping in a context of pervasive change  Michael A. Raffanti This study of organizational change was conducted using classic grounded theory methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).   Most of the relevant data came from open-ended intensive interviews with educators—classroom teachers, professional developers, learning specialists, administrators, and student teachers. Theoretical sampling was also done in organizational settings such as businesses, nonprofits, and religious institutions. The theory of weathering accounts for how organizational members continually resolve their main concern of survival in the face of pervasive change. Weathering is a basic social-psychological process that enables individuals to endure changes in a manner consistent with their personal and professional needs, goals, and values. In the sizing-up phase, an individual initially confronts an impending organizational change. In the filtering phase, one decides how to cope with the change by processing the information through personal and professional filters. The outcome of filtering determines the behaviors exhibited in the coping stage. Coping is a set of behaviors that are best characterized as resisting and acquiescing. The study suggests that leaders consider the complexities of weathering behaviours as they seek to implement organizational changes.   Achieving Rigour and Relevance in Information Systems Studies: Using grounded...

Attraction, Autonomy, and Reciprocity in the Scientist – Supervisor Relationship1...

Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. Abstract This paper explores the basis of work integration between the scientist and his supervisor in an organization devoted to basic research. 2 The analysis uses a three-dimensional model of role integration: 1) mutual attractiveness, why they get together; 2) reciprocity; and 3) autonomy, how they stabilize working together. The recognized competence in research of both parties is shown to be a source of mutual attraction, reciprocity in work and maintenance of autonomy. Introduction Shepard (1956) has noted that the “objective evidence” on the scientist-supervisor relationship is “meager.” He suggests three sources of resistance by research laboratories to its study: (1) “The traditions of science organization prescribe formal, impersonal relations but give little direct guidance for close collaborative relations.” (2) “A relatively low value is placed on collaboration in much scientific education: the student is taught to do independent work.” (3) “Personal and group relations are regarded as peripheral considerations in research, so that it is something of an imposition, if not an indignity, to have to be concerned with them.” In sum, “there is no room for the concept of supervision in the traditions of science organization. So little importance is attributed to personal and social matters as factors in scientific work that they are relegated to the category of ethics” (Shepard, 1956). To be sure, this notion was made in 1956; however, while there has been some subsequent research there is still meager objective detailed evidence on this strategic relationship, as a brief study of the comprehensive footnotes of two recent books on scientists will establish. (Kornhauser, 1962; Marcson, 1960). In contrast, the supervisor’s relationship to his subordinates has been the object of much study in other types of organizations. In a recent consolidation of findings on the role of the supervisor in formal organizations, supervision of scientists is not mentioned, indicating again the meager evidence to date (Blau & Scott, 1962). One reason this relationship has been of much interest for research in other organizations is that the supervisor is potentially a “controllable variable.” He can be taught appropriate styles of supervision. This may be another latent reason for resistance to its close study in research, since it conflicts with the value of autonomy in the institution of science. Beyond adding to the evidence on the scientist-supervisor relationship, my intent in this paper is to present a generalized model of the work integration between the scientist and his supervisor. It is my hope that this model will help guide further research and thought on the scientist-supervisor relationship as well as help consolidate what diverse evidence already exists. Just as supervisors of scientists, because of their powers of evaluation, facilities procurement, protection, support, and sponsorship, are very important to their subordinates’ research and careers, scientists, in their research as well as their successes, are important to their supervisors’ research and careers.3  At the core of this interdependence is the work that scientists and supervisors do, both for themselves and for one another. In attempting to formulate a basis of work integration between the scientist and his supervisor, this analysis employs a three-dimensional model: (1) mutual attractiveness, (2) reciprocity in work, and (3) maintenance of autonomy. According to this model, mutual attractiveness accounts for the initial establishment of a work relationship; reciprocity and autonomy explain how that relationship is stabilized to persist for a sufficient time. I shall attempt to show that socially recognized competence in research, particularly for the subordinate, is a...

The Local-Cosmopolitan Scientist

Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. [This paper was originally published in The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LXIX, No. 3, November 1963] In contrast to previous discussions in the literature treating cosmopolitan and local as two distinct groups of scientists, this paperi demonstrates the notion of cosmopolitan and local as a dual orientation of highly motivated scientists. This dual orientation is derived from institutional motivation, which is a determinant of both high quality basic research and accomplishment of non-research organizational activities. The dual orientation arises in a context of similarity of the institutional goal of science with the goal of the organization; the distinction between groups of locals and cosmopolitans derives from a conflict between two goals. Several studies in the sociology of occupations and of organizations have concluded that some professionals in organizations tend to assume “cosmopolitan” orientation that manifests itself in their working professional goals and the approval of colleagues throughout their professional world, in focusing on a professional career, and in a concomitant lack of loyalty to and effort for the organization. Other professionals tend to assume a “local” orientation that manifests itself in their lesser commitment to the profession in more concern with the goals and approval of the organization and in focusing on an organizational career.ii With the growing movement of scientists into research organizations, there has been some interest by sociologists of science in studying the many problems and strains generated by the often conflicting professional and organizational demands and practices that, in turn, generate the adoptive cosmopolitan and local types of orientations.iii A partial list of these problems might include varying incentive systems, differential emphasis on publication of research results, types of authority and supervision related to the professional need of autonomy, divergent and conflicting influences on work situations, assignments and research problem choices, budgets of time and money, kinds of compatible work groups, focus of performance, multiple career lines and commitments. The major goals of many research organizations, particularly industrial research organizations,iv are, of course, not consistent with the major institutional goal of science: advancing knowledge by basic research. They often emphasize goals of application, product development, and expert service. The scientist seeking a professional career (one based on pursuing an institutional goal) in an organization of this type becomes a “cosmopolitan”, by and large directing his efforts to professional goals, rewards and careers. Insofar as the cosmopolitan is always looking within the community of research organizations for better professional positions and conditionsv and has little “local” loyalty to inhibit his mobility, the result is a high organizational turnover. A professional career may be impeded by a too-long stay in the industrial context. Indeed, insofar as the industrial organization needs basic research, it becomes detrimental for it to try and induce the cosmopolitan to focus his efforts on the major organizational goals – product development, application and service – since that refocusing may reduce the quality of his basic research contributions.vi Whereas studies of industrial research organizations have usually found scientists who have either a primary local or cosmopolitan orientation, I shall try to demonstrate a local-cosmopolitan orientation among highly motivated scientists in an organization devoted to the institutional goal of science. The congruence of goals reduces in considerable measure, if not completely, the strains between organizational and professional requirements that tend to generate distinct local and cosmopolitan types. My principal criterion for ascertaining the general orientation of these investigators will be the direction of their work effort. First, I...

The Literature Review in Classic Grounded Theory Studies: A methodological note...

Ólavur Christiansen, Ph.D. The place and purpose of the literature review in a Classic (Glaserian) Grounded Theory (CGT) study is to situate the research outcome within the body of previous knowledge, and thus to assess its position and place within the main body of relevant literature. The literature comparison is conceptual, i.e. the focus is on the comparison of concepts. The literature comparison is not contextual, i.e., it is not based on the origin of the data. This, of course, means that the literature comparison has to be made in a selective manner. It is obvious that relevant literature for conceptual comparison cannot be identified before stable behavioral patterns have emerged. Therefore, it is obvious that these literature comparisons have to be carried out at later stages of the research process, and especially towards the end. This restriction with regard to preliminary literature studies does not prevent the researcher from carrying out literature studies in order to find a loosely defined research topic that fits to his/her interests. However, if the researcher believes either that he/she can derive the participant’s “main concern and its recurrent solution” from this literature, or that he/she can ignore the empirical discovery of this “main concern” as the first stage of research, the choice of CGT would be meaningless. To study the literature as the first stage of the research with the deliberate purpose to define the research problem is a common pre-framing solution. If this were the case, the choice of CGT would be a meaningless choice. If the researcher wants to preconceive the research problem, he/she should choose another research method. The researcher may preconceive the research problem by defining it in accordance with what he/she thinks is most relevant, or what the literature claims to be most relevant, or by spotting gaps in the literature in order to identify untested hypotheses. If researcher has decided to use Glaser’s GT, a preliminary study of the literature in order to derive the research problem would be waste of time. The research problem, when empirically discovered from behavioral data, may be very different from what the extant or originally identified literature assumes it to be. To avoid the preconceiving and tainting influences from pre-existing literature and pre-existing concepts during treatment of the data, it is recommended that no literature studies in related fields are carried out before the empirical data work is finished and the theory has been generated from the data. However, studies that have applied CGT in closely related fields of enquiry could give some clues. Reading of them is recommended but only after the core category of a study has emerged when coding of data for “emergent fit” could be an option. Reading methodological literature does not need to be avoided. To read literature on CGT methodology may be necessary during the entire research process. It is even recommended to read totally unrelated literature or fiction, poetry or drama for analysing and recognizing behaviour patterns and their relationships. Systematic reading or “explication-de-text-reading” of unrelated literature in order to obtain general training in the discovery of behavior patterns and of relationships between these patterns is also recommended. To facilitate an appreciation of the delimiting of the literature review, it may be helpful to review the reasons behind the delimiting of the study itself. Due to the choice of research methodology, the research has been delimited to the main concern and its recurrent processing or solving for the people being studied. Essentially, what...

The Rediscovery and Resurrection of Bunk Johnson – a Grounded Theory Approach: A case study in jazz historiography...

Richard Ekins, Ph.D., FRSA Abstract This paper was written in the beginning phase of my transitioning from grounded theory sociologist (Ekins, 1997)1 to grounded theory musicologist (Ekins, 2010)2. In particular, it provides preliminary data for a grounded theory of ‘managing authenticity’, the core category/basic social process (Glaser, 1978) that has emerged from my ongoing grounded theory work in jazz historiography. It was written whilst I was ‘credentialising’ (Glaser, 2010) my transition to popular music studies and popular musicology. In consequence, it incorporates many aspects that are inimical to classic grounded theory. As with so much of Straussian and so-called constructivist grounded theory (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007), it roots itself in G.H. Mead and a social constructivist symbolic interactionism – inter alia, a legitimising (authenticating) strategy. Moreover, as is typical of this mode of conceptualising, the paper fills the void of inadequate classic grounded theorising with less conceptual theorising and more conceptual description. Nevertheless, the article does introduce a number of categories that ‘fit and work’, and have ‘conceptual grab’ (Glaser, 1978; Glaser, 1992). In particular, in terms of my own continuing credentialising as a classic grounded theorist, it sets forth important categories to be integrated into my ongoing work on managing authenticity in New Orleans revivalist jazz, namely, ‘trailblazing’, ‘mythologizing’, ‘debunking’, and ‘marginalising’, in the context of the ‘rediscovering’ and ‘resurrecting’ of a jazz pioneer. More specifically, the paper is offered to classic grounded theorists as a contribution to preliminary generic social process analysis in the substantive area of jazz historiography. Introduction This article focuses on a highly mediated event in the history of jazz. I conceptualise the ‘event’ as the ‘rediscovery and resurrection’ of William Geary ‘Bunk’ Johnson (c. 1879 [?1889] – 1949), a jazz pioneer more commonly known as Bunk Johnson. Bunk Johnson was regarded as one of the top New Orleans jazz trumpet players in the period 1905-1915, before the recording of jazz. Between 1915 and the early 1930s, he toured the Southern States in minstrel shows and circuses before retiring from music in the Great Depression years. He settled in New Iberia, Louisiana, where he worked in the rice and sugar fields. He had lost his teeth by 1934 and was unable to play trumpet (Hazeldine and Martyn, 2000). He was ‘rediscovered’ in 1938 by a group of jazz enthusiasts researching early jazz. Fitted out with new teeth and a new trumpet, he first recorded in 1942. He recorded extensively in New Orleans, San Francisco and New York, between 1942 and 1947, before his death in New Iberia, in 1949. To many writers and enthusiasts, within that tradition of so-called ‘authentic’ New Orleans jazz which privileged New Orleans as the birthplace of jazz and which privileged those black ‘stay at home’ (Godbolt, 1989: 13) musicians who did not migrate to Chicago (or New York, or San Francisco) in the early 1920s (Charters, 1963; Stagg and Crump, 1972), the rediscovery and resurrection of Bunk Johnson is, arguably, the most important single event in the history of New Orleans jazz revivalism (Stagg and Crump, 1972). I am particularly concerned with issues relating to how this event has been placed within a particular type of narrative; the issues around unpacking and problematising the event; and alternative modes of historical writing through which histories are constructed. Theoretically, my standpoint is rooted in a social constructionist ‘sociology of knowledge’ approach to jazz historiography. Pivotal to my approach is George Herbert Mead’s theory of time and the past (Mead, 1929b; 1932;...

A Commentary on Ekins (2011)

Hans Thulesius, MD, Ph.D. According to the author, Richard Ekins’ case study on jazz history “provides preliminary data for a grounded theory of managing authenticity“. The paper is well written, entertaining to read and I can recognise the style from Ekins’ paper male femaling1, one of my favourite GTs. The four concepts of trailblazing, mythologising, debunking and marginalising are catchy, interesting and make sense. Ekins says he has not done classic grounded theory but a conceptual description influenced by constructivist approaches. This is probably one explanation to why the main concepts in the paper are not tied together in a recognizable theoretical coding pattern. At least not to me. And the reason may be that the author has some more memo-sorting to do. This is an important part of classic GT, but often left out. By hand sorting memos, the integration of concepts to each other and to the core variable is improved since it stimulates writing of memos on memos. As such, the theoretical coding of the theory is stimulated – how concepts relate to each other as a typology, process, or any other possible conceptual constellation that explains what is going on in the substantive area. Another way of expanding the theory could be through a literature search for the core variable and the four concepts of trailblazing, mythologising, debunking and marginalising. To compare literature data in the diverse fields where these concepts appear would provide more data to be compared and eventually make the theory more mature. Author Hans Thulesius, MD, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Family Medicine Lund University, Sweden Email: hansthulesius@gmail.com   Notes 1. Ekins, R. (1993). On Male Femaling: A grounded theory approach to coross-dressing and sex changing. Sociological Review, 1(1),...