Commodifying Self: A Grounded Theory Study...

Carol Roderick, M.Ed., Ph.D. Abstract Classic grounded theory was used to identify the main concern of students in their senior year of undergraduate study. This concern was conceptualized as responding to the pressure to commodify self. The pressure to commodify self refers to pressure to turn oneself into a valuable product for the knowledge-based economy. There are three responses to this pressure: complying with commodification, resisting commodification, and humanizing commodification. Seven interrelated factors influence the response employed. The theory of commodifying self integrates much existing research on university students and demonstrates that important insights can be gained from alternative approaches to studying students’ experiences. The theory provides a direct examination of the consequences of macro level social and economic pressure on students and their learning and can be used to understand and enhance campus environments, curricula, and student services. Key words: classic grounded theory, senior year experience, post-secondary education, graduating students, commodification. Introduction Decreased government spending, high tuition fees, demands for accountability and workforce-relevant education are some of the many forces characterizing the contemporary post-secondary education context in Canada. Since the 1980s, government funding for Canadian universities has decreased by thirty percent (Junor & Usher, 2002). This shift in funding has resulted in a downloading of university education costs to institutions and in particular to individuals. In the last decade, on average, tuition fees in Canadian undergraduate programs have almost doubled (McMullen, 2006). Having to shoulder more of the financial burden for a university education, students and their parents are demanding accountability and programs that lead directly to employment upon graduation. Government and the private sector, facing the increasing pressures of the global economy, demand that university graduates be workforce-ready. Universities have responded to these forces by paying increasing attention to the quality and workforce relevance of student experiences and learning outcomes. Dissatisfied with the information gleaned through media rankings such as MacLean’s Guide to Canadian Universities and The Globe & Mail’s University Report Card, many universities have started participating in the Canadian Undergraduate Survey Consortium [CUSC] (Pedro & Belcastro, 2006) and the National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE] (Tamburri, 2003) to understand and improve student satisfaction, student engagement, and student learning outcomes. There are also a growing number of qualitative research studies that focus on students’ experiences in post-secondary education (i.e. Andres and Finlay, 2004; Gardner, Van der Veer & Associates, 1998; Perrone & Vickers, 2003). Despite increasing interest in students’ experiences, actual understanding remains limited. While the Maclean’s, Globe & Mail, CUSC, and NSSE surveys highlight general trends, they yield predominantly quantitative data and the questions asked may not reflect the concerns of students themselves. Researchers, assuming that they know what needs to be asked, often come to data collection with fixed questions and therefore omit alternative questions that they might have selected (Benjamin, 1994). Measures within these surveys may also miss the more complex and meaningful aspects of students’ experiences that explain how students reflect, integrate, and apply what they learn (Brown & Greene, 2006). Furthermore, the qualitative studies have centered primarily on the transition and retention of first-year students. The experiences of graduating students have rarely been examined directly or in depth (Magolda, 2003). Ideally, the graduating year should be a time of integration and reflection on the undergraduate experience, as well as preparing for life after graduation (Gardner et al., 1998). The limited research focused on the senior year, however, suggests that the transition out of university is stressful and anxiety-filled (Gardner et al.,...

The Modifiability of Grounded Theory

Alvita K. Nathaniel, Ph.D., RN and Tom Andrews, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D., RN Abstract Grounded theories are powerful tools that fit empirical situations and provide “relevant predictions, explanations, interpretations, and applications” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.1). Because of their real-world orientation, grounded theories are particularly appropriate for health care research. They can help professionals understand that certain patterns always seem to emerge, that particular people respond in predictable ways, and that actions produce predictable results (Nathaniel & Andrews, 2007). When physicians and nurses better understand patterns that affect patients, they can work towards altering harmful patterns to improve the quality of patient care. As time passes, one may ask, when do grounded theories become obsolete? When are they no longer useful? The purpose of this paper is to revisit the seminal grounded theory, Awareness of Dying, and compare it to contemporary conceptual and descriptive research on end-of-life care, asking the question, is the theory in need of modification? Introduction Modifiability is basic to grounded theory. Because they are generated through inductive logic, grounded theories are naturally modifiable. With induction, the analyst generalizes from a number of cases in which something is true and infers that the same thing is true of a whole class. In grounded theory, these inferences take the form of tentative hypotheses (Glaser, 1978).  Hypotheses and the theories that they comprise demonstrate predictable patterns that can be observed. Glaser writes, “In GT, a concept is the naming of an emergent social pattern grounded in research data. For GT, a concept (category) denotes a pattern that is carefully discovered by constantly comparing theoretically sampled data until conceptual saturation of interchangeable indices. It is discovered by comparing many incidents, and incidents to generated concepts, which shows the pattern ….” (Glaser, 2002, p.4). The grounded theory method corrects for error or bias through constant comparison and abstraction, which further clarifies the underlying latent patterns (Glaser, 2002, rev.2007). After a theory is developed and published, time passes and new evidence becomes available. A basic strategy to ensure rigor, modifiability allows openness to correction and change as new evidence emerges, ensuring against “pet” hypotheses (Glaser, 1978). With that in mind, this paper revisits the original grounded theory, Awareness of Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1965), compares it to contemporary research findings, and finds it to be in no need of modification. Awareness of Dying Revisited Awareness of Dying is a historical grounded theory—the first ever published. Today, a great deal of research focuses on death and dying, but in 1965, Awareness of Dying presented eye-opening revelations about how an awareness of the time and mode of death affects patient attitudes and the care delivered by nurses and physicians. The theory was developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss and was funded by a Public Health Service Research Grant from the Division of Nursing (Glaser & Strauss, 1965a). Glaser and Strauss spearheaded a six-year research program entitled Hospital Personnel, Nursing Care and Dying Patients. This research culminated in a number of publications including Awareness of Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1965a), The Social Loss of Dying Patients (Glaser & Strauss, 1964), Time for Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1968), Temporal Aspects of Dying as a Non-scheduled Status Passage (Glaser & Strauss, 1965b), and The Nurse and the Dying Patient (Quint, 1967). Awareness of Dying is the most well-known theory that emerged from the study. Glaser and Strauss, sociologists, and Jeanne Quint, a nurse, conducted intensive field work at a number of hospitals for six years (Glaser...

Living on Hold in Palliative Cancer Care

Anna Sandgren, RN, M.Sc.N., Ph.D. Student; Hans Thulesius, MD, Ph.D.; Kerstin Petersson, RNT, Ph.D.; and, Bengt Fridlund, RNT, Ph.D. Abstract The aim of this study was to develop a classic grounded theory of palliative cancer patients and their relatives in the context of home care. We analyzed interviews and data related to the behaviour of both patients and relatives. “Living on hold” emerged as the pattern of behaviour through which the patients and relatives deal with their main concern, being put on hold. Living on Hold involves three modes: Fighting, Adjusting and Surrendering. Mode being may change during a trajectory depending on many different factors. There are also different triggers that can start a reconciling process leading to a change of mode. This means that patients and relatives can either be in the same mode or in different modes simultaneously. More or less synchronous modes may lead to problems and conflicts within the family, or with the health professionals. Keywords: adjusting mode, fighting mode, grounded theory, palliative care, surrendering mode Introduction Receiving a cancer diagnosis requires emotional and physical adaptation to a new situation (Flanagan & Holmes, 2000) and when the cancer is incurable, both patients and relatives may confront a life crisis (Kristjanson & White, 2002). Powerlessness and helplessness are common feelings among dying patients (Sand, Strang, & Milberg, 2008), but at the same time they can experience hope and quality of life (Melin-Johansson, Odling, Axelsson, & Danielson, 2008). Patients want to be treated as persons not as diseases (Wenrich, Curtis, Ambrozy, Carline, Shannon, & Ramsey, 2003) and cancer patients want palliative care to be based on safety, participation and trust (Harstade & Andershed, 2004). Adequate information and support in the early phases of treatment is thus important and can better fulfil future needs, render increased trust, and provide confidence throughout the course of the disease (Kristjanson & White, 2002). The patient’s cancer disease also changes the situation of their relatives (Stajduhar, 2003), who may be emotionally overwhelmed by unprocessed emotions (Thomas, Morris, & Harman, 2002). If dying patients are to be cared for at home the well-being of their relatives is crucial (Ramirez, Addington-Hall, & Richards, 1998), and their commitment is often seen as a condition for good home care (Mok, Chan, Chan, & Yeung, 2003). Yet, relatives living nearby are not a necessity for providing quality palliative care (Gyllenhammar, et al., 2003). When patients and relatives are in different phases of their processing of overwhelming emotions, it can be difficult for health professionals to understand their emotional reactions (Fox, 1995). There can also be a mismatch of perceptions as to what is important between patients, relatives and professionals (O’Baugh, Wilkes, Luke, & George, 2003; Widmark-Petersson, von Essen, & Sjoden, 2000). In order to offer support at the right care level, health professionals need a better knowledge of the patients’ and relatives’ situation in palliative cancer care (McIllmurray, et al., 2001). In the last decades there has been a shift in the place of dying and more people die in their own homes (Burge, Lawson, & Johnston, 2003; Socialstyrelsen, 2006), which increases the demand for home care (Fürst, 2000). Studies on patients’ and relatives’ situation in palliative care have mostly been conducted in hospice and advanced palliative care settings, but there is a lack of studies from acute care and basic home care settings, and a considerable lack of explanatory theories of how patients and relatives handle their situation in home care. The aim in the present...

The Coding Process and Its Challenges

Much of this paper is extracted from Holton, J. A. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. (pp. 265-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Judith A. Holton, Ph.D. Abstract Coding is the core process in classic grounded theory methodology. It is through coding that the conceptual abstraction of data and its reintegration as theory takes place. There are two types of coding in a classic grounded theory study: substantive coding, which includes both open and selective coding procedures, and theoretical coding. In substantive coding, the researcher works with the data directly, fracturing and analysing it, initially through open coding for the emergence of a core category and related concepts and then subsequently through theoretical sampling and selective coding of data to theoretically saturate the core and related concepts. Theoretical saturation is achieved through constant comparison of incidents (indicators) in the data to elicit the properties and dimensions of each category (code). This constant comparing of incidents continues until the process yields the interchangeability of indicators, meaning that no new properties or dimensions are emerging from continued coding and comparison. At this point, the concepts have achieved theoretical saturation and the theorist shifts attention to exploring the emergent fit of potential theoretical codes that enable the conceptual integration of the core and related concepts to produce hypotheses that account for relationships between the concepts thereby explaining the latent pattern of social behaviour that forms the basis of the emergent theory. The coding of data in grounded theory occurs in conjunction with analysis through a process of conceptual memoing, capturing the theorist’s ideation of the emerging theory. Memoing occurs initially at the substantive coding level and proceeds to higher levels of conceptual abstraction as coding proceeds to theoretical saturation and the theorist begins to explore conceptual reintegration through theoretical coding. Key words: classic grounded theory, coding, conceptualization, memoing, preconception Introduction There are a number of coding challenges that may confront those undertaking a grounded theory study. Among the most common challenges are those of preconceiving the study through the import of some standard qualitative research requirements, raising the focus of coding and analysis from the descriptive to the conceptual level and trusting one’s intuitive sense of the conceptualization process to allow a core category to emerge, then being comfortable to delimit data collection and coding to just the core concept and those concepts that relate to the core. Those inexperienced in grounded theory methodology may worry about missing something when they leave the rest of the data behind but it is important to remember that grounded theory is about concepts that emerge from data, not the data per se. A fourth major challenge for many is the use of theoretical codes. Many who attempt grounded theory are captured by the energy of conceptual emergence at the substantive level and settle for a few good concepts but do not sustain the discipline and patience to systematically integrate those concepts through theoretical coding. This task is made more difficult if they have neglected the important process of memoing in conjunction with coding and analysis. Developing one’s skills as a grounded theorist takes practice; the method is best learned by cycling through the various procedures learning from each attempt and developing clarity and confidence in their application. This paper will explore each of the aspects and challenges of coding as outlined above. I have illustrated various aspects of coding by offering the...

Theoretical Writing1

Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon. Ph.D. Theoretical sorting has brought the analyst to the point of pent-up pressure to write: to see the months of work actualized in a “piece.” But this is only a personal pressure. The goal of grounded theory methodology, above all is to offer the results to the public, usually through one or more publications. We will focus on writing for publication, which is the most frequent way that the analyst can tell how people are “buying” what really matters in sociology, or in other fields. Both feedback on and use of publications will be the best evaluation of the analyst’s grounded theory. It will be his main source or criticism, constructive critique, and frequently of career rewards. In any case, he has to write to expand his audience beyond the limited number of close colleagues and students. Unless there is a publication, his work will be relegated to limited discussion, classroom presentation, or even private fantasy. The rigor and value of grounded theory work deserves publication. And many analysts have a stake in effecting wider publics, which makes their substantive grounded theory count. The best form to publish in sociology is through a monograph. The highest rewards, in general, go for writing books, for they probably reach the most diverse publics with the maximum amount of material. Journal articles, of course, run a close second. One solution which many analysts take is to write chapters into articles, while fewer combine chapters into books. We shall mainly focus here on chapter form, which is similar to the article form with minor adjustments. In this is the final stage of grounded theory methodology, writing is a “write up” of piles of ideas from theoretical sorting. Writing techniques are, perhaps, not as crucial as the techniques characteristic of the previous stages, but they still crucial. Since writing sums up the preceding work, it cannot be left uncontrolled, perhaps to scuttle it. Rather, writing must capture it. It must put into relief the conceptual work and its integration into a theoretical explanation. So very often in qualitative research, the theory is left implicit in the write-up as the analyst gets caught up in the richness of the data. Below we shall discuss the logic of construction, of shape and of conceptual style of a monograph and a chapter. Then we discuss the reworking of initial drafts, in order to sharpen the shape and style. We briefly indicate our view of uses of the literature, and close with recommendations for the analyst’s theoretical pacing. It must be underlined that the write-up of sorts is a theory of a core variable which freezes the on-going for the moment. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that writing has this “slice of reality” character. We have covered this problem as best as possible by using concepts and processes that have duration and are independent of time and place. We also construct a theory that is readily modifiable. The analyst should underscore these points in his writing, because his writing probably will be read mainly as a fixed conceptual description, not explanation, by most readers. We are in essence stuck with this paradox. Logic of Construction Typically sociological monographs are constructed on the basis of a “little logic.” It is the main building idea of the book, hence the ensuing chapters. The little logic usually consists of no more than a paragraph or two, and often just one long sentence. In monographs it may be...

Marketing for Acceptance

Tina L. Johnston, Ph.D. Abstract Becoming a researcher comes with the credentializing pressure to publish articles in peer-reviewed journals (Glaser, 1992; Glaser, 2007; Glaser, 2008). The work intensive process is exacerbated when the author’s research method is grounded theory. This study investigated the concerns of early and experienced grounded theorists to discover how they worked towards publishing research projects that applied grounded theory as a methodology. The result was a grounded theory of marketing for acceptance that provides the reader with insight into ways that classic grounded theorists have published their works. This is followed by a discussion of ideas for normalizing classic grounded theory research methods in our substantive fields. Introduction Publish or perish is an often quoted phrase in academia aptly describing the pressure put on scholars to produce and get research articles through the journal review process and into content area publications so that new knowledge can be shared throughout the reading populous in their field of study (Vernier, 1994). Submission processes are much the same (although blinding policies may differ). An author writes an article, finds an appropriate journal in which to submit the article for peer- review and then waits for a response from a few volunteering reviewers who will choose to accept, ask for revisions or reject the article for publication (Groves, 2006; O’Gorman, 2008). Regardless of the debate as to the general efficacy of this method, it is the one in place (Groves, 2005; Winkler, 2009; Lee, 2006). Like any researcher, the Grounded Theory author must pursue publication in this way. There are complications that arise when writing and submitting classic grounded theory (hereafter CGT) articles for publication. CGT research methods and articles have different structures than others (Glaser, 1978; 2006). In addition, there are many derivatives of grounded theory methodologies (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Glaser, 1992b; Chen & Boore, 2009). When reviewers volunteer at various journals they are asked to provide topical and methodological expertise by filling out surveys where they check of boxes in which they feel they have expertise. In these lists, very often grounded theory is one of those choices, however, what kind of grounded theory the reviewer is familiar with or even whether that reviewer has a real understanding of the method is not insured. To further complicate matters these journals may publish standard formatting requirements that do not match the standard format of CGT papers. The Problem The problem then is two-fold; users of CGT are under the same pressures as their colleagues to publish studies, yet the journals and reviewers in their field are often inhospitable or ignorant of the intricacies of papers written using the CGT method. Additionally, the ‘Grounded Theory’ articles that do get through to publication in many content area journals have either used some other form of grounded theory (i.e., Qualitative Grounded Theory, or the Strauss and Corbin method) or are claiming to use the method but instead have applied certain aspects or jargon from the method (Glaser, 2009) in combination with other often qualitative research methods such as case study or ethnography. The prevalence of these ‘other’ grounded theory articles set reviewers expectations of what the grounded theory methodology is and what studies that use grounded theory should look like. These expectations cast a shadow on CGT article submissions. Methodology This research study employed the use of classic grounded theory (Strauss and Glaser, 1968; Glaser, 1978, 1992, 1992b). Using data in the form of reviewers’ comments to CGT authors who...

The Hook: Getting your grounded theory research published1...

Phyllis Noerager Stern, DNS, LLD (hon.), FAAN 1This article in an expanded and modified form will appear in the forthcoming book, Accessible grounded theory: A beginner’s handbook. Authors, Phyllis Stern and Caroline Porr I learned about the hook as a fledgling writer back in the late 70’s, and early 80s. I wrote about stepfamilies when almost nobody else did (Stern, 1978, 1982a, 1982b). My big break came when I published an English-language version on how to do grounded theory. In my field, nursing, grounded theory was the buzz word of the day, but few nurses had a sociological background, and thus the vocabulary to be able to understand the Glaser and Straus description (Stern, 1980). That article kick started my career as a writer and researcher. There was a time when it was required reading for graduate students in nursing around the world. Twenty-nine years after its publication, I got a request for a reprint from a doctoral student in New Zealand. What the hook consists of then is timing, a subject that has impact, and a title that sparks the interest of a potential reader. A classic example of all three is The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Straus, 1967), a then new approach to sociological research. Sociologists were interested, but as the authors were based at the University of California, San Francisco School of Nursing, they had an eager audience in the nursing community who were looking for a research method to formalize what they did as nurses. From the point of view of a writer of articles and an editor, (19 years as Editor in Chief of the interdisciplinary journal, Health Care for Women International), I have a seasoned eye for what editors and reviewers are looking for: good science, of course, fluid writing, no doubt about it, a fresh look at a familiar problem, you bet, but there’s something else they want—the hook. They want articles that make their journals the go-to for the new black. What follows pertains to articles in refereed journals. Selecting the Right Journal Most scientific journals have an on-line version which you can access through a university library. Get familiar with a variety of journals, and see where your work might fit. If the editors have just published a special issue on Asian dating patterns, likely they’re full up with that subject. Some editors like to work with new authors to get them up to speed. As an editor I was fond of helping the next generation launch their careers. Other editors have other goals, but being an editor allows one to form intimate relationships with authors. The Title The title needs to be worded in a way that other researchers doing a computer search will relate to, but that’s no reason it can’t be catchy too. As an example, “Discovery of nursing gestalt in critical care nursing: The importance of the gray gorilla syndrome”, (Pyles and Stern, 1983) got a fair amount of attention, as did “The troubleshooter’s guide to media” (Harris, Stern & Paris, 1986). “Method slurring: the grounded theory/ phenomenology example” crossed discipline lines, (Baker, Wuest and Stern, 1992) as did the book chapter, “Eroding Grounded Theory” (Stern, 1994). In 1972, at the suggestion of the professor, June Abby, I submitted a physiology term paper to The American Journal of Nursing, and it was accepted. I consider the title I chose, “APA: Insidious foe of an aging Swede.” to be clever, but unclear (Stern, 1972). It...

Qualitative Tussles in Undertaking a Grounded Theory Study...

Judith A. Holton, Ph.D. 1 Much of this paper is extracted from Holton, J. A. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. (pp. 265-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Abstract Those who’ve been trained to regard grounded theory as a qualitative research method frequently struggle to ‘unlearn’ qualitative data analysis dicta when undertaking a classic grounded theory study. A plethora of research methods texts that support this notion of grounded theory as a qualitative method are primarily responsible for the ensuing confusion. Further supporting this popular misconception are many papers published in leading academic journals and all too often the pressuring advice of thesis supervisors. This paper addresses specifically two issues that can create frustrating tussles for novice grounded theorists, especially in challenging such ‘authoritative’ perspectives: avoiding preconception and transcending descriptive detail. In addressing these persistent tussles, the reader is reminded of the fundamental distinction of grounded theory as a methodology for the emergent discovery of conceptually abstract theory from empirical data. Preconception To remain truly open to the emergence of theory is among the most challenging issues confronting those new to grounded theory. As a generative and emergent methodology, grounded theory requires the researcher to enter the research field with no preconceived problem statement, interview protocols, or extensive review of literature. Instead, the researcher remains open to exploring a substantive area and allowing the concerns of those actively engaged therein to guide the emergence of a core issue. The conceptualization of this main concern and the multivariate responses to its continual resolution emerge as a latent pattern of social behaviour that forms the basis for the articulation of a grounded theory. Remaining open to discovering what is really going on in the field of inquiry is often blocked, however, by what Glaser (1998) refers to as the forcing of preconceived notions resident within the researcher’s worldview, an initial professional problem or an extant theory and framework; all of which pre-empt the researcher’s ability to suspend preconception and allow for what will emerge conceptually by constant comparative analysis. One of the dominant preconceptions regarding grounded theory is the frequent attribution of its ‘roots’ to symbolic interactionism (Clarke, 2005; Goulding, 2002; Locke, 2001). Glaser (2005) has written at length on the impact of this ‘takeover’ (p. 141). While not discounting the influence of symbolic interactionism in the contribution of Anselm Strauss as co-originator of the methodology, to attribute grounded theory’s origins thereto ignores the fundamental influence of Barney Glaser’s training in quantitative methodology at Columbia University. As Martin (2006) suggests, ‘It is really the analytic techniques out of Columbia, through Glaser, that gave qualitative researchers tools for systematic analysis’ (p. 122). Pre-framing grounded theory through the theoretical lens of symbolic interactionism precludes other perspectives, pre-determines what data are used and how these should be collected, and limits the analyst’s creativity in the analysis and conceptual abstraction of the data under study. This is not to suggest that classic grounded theory is free of any theoretical lens but rather that it should not be confined to any one lens; that as a general methodology, classic grounded theory can adopt any epistemological perspective appropriate to the data and the ontological stance of the researcher (Holton, 2008). Concerns that arise through the researcher’s professional training and experience often stimulate the initial research interest and can provide the motivation for pursuing a study. However, when the practitioner turns researcher, she carries into...