The difference between the particularistic, routine, normative
data we all garner in our everyday lives and scientific data is that the latter
is produced by a methodology. This is what makes it scientific. This may sound
trite, but it is just the beginning of many complex issues. Whatever
methodology may be chosen to make an ensuing research scientific has many
implicit and explicit problems. It implies a certain type of data collection,
the pacing and timing for data collection, a type of analysis and a specific
type of research product. [1]
In the case of qualitative data, the explicit goal is
description. The clear issue articulated in much of the literature regarding
qualitative data analysis (QDA) methodology is the accuracy, truth, trustworthiness
or objectivity of the data. This worrisome accuracy of the data focuses on its
subjectivity, its interpretative nature, its plausibility, the data voice and
its constructivism. Achieving accuracy is always worrisome with a QDA
methodology. [2]
These are a few of the problems of description. Other QDA
problems include pacing of data collection, the volume of data, the procedure
and rigor of data analysis, generalizability of the unit findings, the framing
of the ensuing analysis and the product. These issues and others are debated at
length in the qualitative research literature. Worrisome accuracy of
qualitative data description continually concerns qualitative researchers and
their audiences. I have addressed these problems at length in "The
Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with
Description" (GLASER, 2001). [3]
In this paper I will take up the conceptual perspective of
classic Grounded Theory (GT). (In some of the research literature, classic GT
methodology has also been termed GLASERian GT although I personally prefer the
term "classic" as recognition of the methodology's origins.) The
conceptual nature of classic GT renders it abstract of time, place and people.
While grounded in data, the conceptual hypotheses of GT do not entail the
problems of accuracy that plague QDA methods. [4]
The mixing of QDA and GT methodologies has the effect of
downgrading and eroding the GT goal of conceptual theory. The result is a
default remodeling of classic GT into just another QDA method with all its
descriptive baggage. Given the ascending focus on QDA by sheer dint of the
number of researchers engaged in qualitative analysis labeled as GT, the
apparent merger between the two methodologies results in default remodeling to
QDA canons and techniques. Conceptual requirements of GT methodology are easily
lost in QDA problems of accuracy, type data, constructivism, participant voice,
data collection rigor according to positivistic representative requirements,
however couched in a flexibility of approach (see LOWE, 1997). The result is a
blocking of classic GT methodology and the loss of its power to transcend the
strictures of worrisome accuracy—the prime concern of QDA methods to produce
conceptual theory that explains fundamental social patterns within the
substantive focus of inquiry. [5]
I will address some, but not all, of the myriad of remodeling
blocks to classic GT analysis brought on by lacing it with QDA descriptive
methodological requirements. My goal is to alleviate the bane on good GT
analysis brought on by those QDA senior researchers open to no other method,
especially the GT method. I hope to relieve GT of the excessive scientism
brought on it by those worried about accuracy and what is "real" data
when creating a scientific product. I hope to give explanatory strength to
those PhD dissertation level students to stand their GT grounds when struggling
in the face of the misapplied QDA critique by their seniors and supervisors. [6]
I wish to remind people, yet again, that classic GT is simply
a set of integrated conceptual hypotheses systematically generated to produce
an inductive theory about a substantive area. Classic GT is a highly structured
but eminently flexible methodology. Its data collection and analysis procedures
are explicit and the pacing of these procedures is, at once, simultaneous,
sequential, subsequent, scheduled and serendipitous, forming an integrated
methodological "whole" that enables the emergence of conceptual
theory as distinct from the thematic analysis characteristic of QDA research. I
have detailed these matters in my books "Theoretical Sensitivity"
(GLASER, 1978), "Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis" (GLASER, 1992),
"Doing Grounded Theory" (GLASER, 1998a), and "The Grounded
Theory Perspective" (GLASER, 2001). [7]
Over the years since the initial publication of
"Discovery of Grounded Theory" (GLASER & STRAUSS, 1967), the
transcendent nature of GT as a general research methodology has been subsumed
by the fervent adoption of GT terminology and selective application of discrete
aspects of GT methodology into the realm of QDA research methodology. This
multi-method cherry picking approach, while obviously acceptable to QDA, is not
compatible with the requirements of GT methodology. [8]
Currently it appears to be very popular in QDA research
substantive and methodological papers to label QDA as GT for the rhetorical
legitimating effect and then to critique its various strategies as somewhat
less than possible or effective; then further, to sanctify the mix of methods
as one method. Classic GT is not what these "adopted QDA" usages
would call GT. These researchers do not realize that while often using the same
type of qualitative data, the GT and QDA methods are sufficiently at odds with
each other as to be incapable of integration. Each method stands alone as quite
legitimate. The reader is to keep in mind that this paper is about GT and how
to extract it from this remodeling. It does not condemn QDA in any way. QDA
methods are quite worthy, respectable and acceptable. As I have said above, the
choice of methodology to render research representations about qualitative data
as scientific is the researcher's choice. But there is a difference between
received concepts, problems and frameworks imposed on data by QDA methods and
GT's focus on the generation and emergence of concepts, problems and
theoretical codes. The choice of methodology should not be confused, lumped or
used piecemeal if GT is involved. To do so is to erode the conceptual power of
GT. [9]
As such, GT procedures and ideas are used to legitimate and
buttress routine QDA methodology. Considering the inundation, overwhelming and
overload of QDA dictums, "words" and assumed requirements on GT
methodology, the reader will see that it is hard to both assimilate and
withstand this avalanche on GT methodology. The assault is so strong and well
meaning that many—particularly novice researchers—do not know, nor realize,
that GT is being remodeled by default. [10]
The view of this paper is that the researcher who has to
achieve a GT product to move on with his or her career and skill development is
often blocked by the confusion created through this inappropriate mixing of
methods and the attendant QDA requirements thus imposed. Undoing the blocks to GT
by this default remodeling will not be an easy task given the overwhelming
confusion that has resulted and seems destined to continue to grow. [11]
I will deal with as many of the blocks as I see relevant but
certainly not all. If I repeat, it will be from different vantage points to
undo QDA remodeling in the service of advancing the GT perspective. I will hit
hard that GT deals with the data as it is, not what QDA wishes it to be or,
more formally, what QDA preconceives to be accurate and to be forcefully
conceptualized. This requires honesty about taking all data as it comes,
figuring it out and then its conceptualization. I have written at length on
"all is data" and on forcing in "Doing Grounded Theory"
(GLASER, 1998a). [12]
As I deal with this escalating remodeling of GT to QDA
requirements, my hope is to free GT up to be as originally envisioned. In
"Theoretical Sensitivity" I wrote: "The goal of grounded theory
is to generate a conceptual theory that accounts for a pattern of behavior
which is relevant and problematic for those involved. The goal is not
voluminous description, nor clever verification." (GLASER, 1978, p.93) [13]
This paper has a simple message. GT is a straightforward
methodology. It is a comprehensive, integrated and highly structured, yet
eminently flexible process that takes a researcher from the first day in the
field to a finished written theory. Following the full suite of GT procedures
based on the constant comparative method, results in a smooth uninterrupted
emergent analysis and the generation of a substantive or formal theory. When GT
procedures are laced with the exhaustive, abundant requirements of QDA
methodology, GT becomes distorted, wasting large amounts of precious research
time and derailing the knowledge—hence grounding—of GT as to what is really
going on. The intertwining of GT with preconceived conjecture, preconceptions,
forced concepts and organization, logical connections and before-the-fact
professional interest defaults GT to a remodeling of GT methodology to the
status of a mixed methods QDA methodology. This leads to multiple blocks on
conceptual GT. [14]
The word "analysis" is a catchall word for what to
do with data. It is "scientized" up, down and sideways in QDA
methodologies catching up GT analysis in its wake. QDA leads to particularistic
analysis based on discrete experiences while blocking the abstract idea of
conceptualizing latent patterns upon which GT is based. When GT becomes laced
with QDA requirements, it is hard to follow to the point of confusion. Theory
development is confused with QDA description thereby blocking GT generation of
conceptual theory. [15]
GT has clear, extensive procedures. When brought into QDA, GT
abstraction is neglected in favor of accuracy of description—the dominant
concern of QDA methodology—and GT acquires the QDA problem of worrisome
accuracy—an irrelevant concern in GT. To repeat, GT methodology is a
straightforward approach to theory generation. To spend time worrying about its
place in QDA methods and science is just fancy, legitimating talk, but the
result is the defaulting of GT to the confusion of QDA analysis. [16]
CRESWELL in his book "Qualitative Inquiry and Research
Design" (1998) lumps GT into comparisons with phenomenology, ethnography,
case study and biographical life history. The result of the lumping is a
cursory default remodeling of GT to a "kind" of QDA. This lumping of
GT with other QDA methods prevents GT from standing alone as a transcending
general research methodology. The criteria of CRESWELL's continuum organize
methods according to when theory is used in research, varying from before the
study begins to post-study. By study, he means data collection and structuring
questions. This is a very weak gradation for discerning the difference among
QDA methods and GT methodology. CRESWELL clearly does not discern the
difference between generating theory from data collection and generating theory
that applies to the data once collected. Both come during and after data
collection, but are very differently sourced. The result is a lumping and
confusion of GT with QDA. [17]
CRESWELL (1998, p.86) says:
"At the most extreme end of the
continuum, toward the 'after' end, I place grounded theory. Strauss and Corbin
(1990) are clear that one collects and analyzes data before using theory in a
grounded theory study. This explains, for example, the women's sexually abuse
study by Morrow and Smith (1995) in which they generate the theory through data
collection, pose it at the end, and eschew prescribing a theory at the
beginning of the study. In my own studies, I have refrained from advancing a
theory at the beginning of my grounded theory research, generated the theory
through data collection and analysis, posed the theory as a logic diagram and
introduced contending and contrasting theory with the model I generate at the
end of my study (Creswell & Brown 1992, Creswell and Urbom 1997)." [18]
CRESWELL may be stating a fundamental tenant of GT—begin with
no preconceived theory and then generate one during the analysis (unless he
meant applying an extant theory). As a distinguishing item of GT, however, it
is barely a beginning, leaving the reader with no knowledge of how generating
is done, because the assumption is that it is done by routine QDA. Contrasting
the generated theory with extant other theories to prove, improve or disprove
one or the other neglects or ignores constantly comparing the theories for
category and property generation. This contrasting with other theories also
prevents modifying the GT generated theory using the other theory as a kind of
data. Both constant comparing and modifying are two vital tenants of GT. [19]
GT may or may not be mentioned in a QDA methodological
discussion, but its procedures frequently are. As such, constant comparative
analysis, problem emergence, theoretical sampling, theoretical saturation,
conceptual emergence, memoing, sorting, etc. become laced with QDA requirements
thereby defaulting their rigorous use to a QDA burden. This virtual subversion
of GT results in complex confusion of an otherwise simple methodology for
novice researchers. The researcher is blocked and no longer freed by the power
and autonomy offered by GT to arrive at new emergent, generated theory. The
ability to be honest about what exactly is the data is consequently distorted
by the unattainable quest for QDA accuracy. For example, Kathryn MAY
unwittingly erodes the GT methodology in QDA fashion when describing the
cognitive processes inherent in data analysis.
"Doing qualitative research is not a
passive endeavor. Despite current perceptions and student's prayers, theory
does not magically emerge from data. Nor is it true that, if only one is
patient enough, insight wondrously enlightens the researcher. Rather, data
analysis is a process that requires astute questioning, a relentless search for
answers, active observation, and accurate recall. It is a process of piecing
together data, of making the invisible obvious, of recognizing the significant
from the insignificant, of linking seemingly unrelated facts logically, of
fitting categories one with another, and of attributing consequences to
antecedents. It is a process of conjecture and verification, of correction and
modification, of suggestion and defense. It is a creative process of organizing
data so that the analytic scheme will appear obvious." (MAY, 1994, p.10) [20]
Dr MAY engages in descriptive capture in QDA fashion and
attacks the main tenant of GT, that theory can emerge. She is lost in accurate
fact research, which is moot for GT. She prefers to force the data, making it
obey her framework. She does not acknowledge the constant comparative method by
which theory emerges from all data. Again, GT is defaulted to routine QDA. [21]
Similarly, this PhD student—in her e-mail cry to me for
help—wanted to do a GT dissertation but was caught up in QDA and descriptive
capture.
"I need some guidance. I'm on wrong
track—I don't care about the main concerns of clinical social workers in
private practice. I care about the main concerns of anyone attempting to
contextualize practice. Maybe the issue is that I'm interested in an activity
regardless of the actor. If I ask these questions I have no doubt that main
concerns will emerge as well as attempts to continually resolve them. This I
care about." (e-mail correspondence, Jan 2002) [22]
She is caught by the QDA approach to force the data for a
professional concern. She wants to use GT procedures in service of a QDA
forcing approach, which defaults GT. GT does not work that way, but the
prevalence of QDA would have her think that way. Later, under my guidance, she
let the main concern emerge and did an amazingly good dissertation on binary
deconstruction between social worker and client. [23]
The GT problem and core variable must emerge and it will. I
have seen it hundreds of times. Later, when the GT's main concern emerges and
is explained in a generated theory, it will have relevance for professional
concerns. Starting before emergence with the professional interest, a problem is
very likely to result in research with little or no relevance in GT—just
routine QDA description with "as if" importance. [24]
Here is a good example of extensive lacing of GT by QDA needs.
The confusion of QDA requirements and GT procedures, in this example, makes it
hard to follow and clearly erodes GT by default remodeling.
"Comprehension is achieved in grounded
theory by using tape-recorded, unstructured interviews and by observing
participants in their daily lives. However, the assumption of symbolic
interactionism that underlie grounded theory set the stage for examining
process, for identifying stages and phases in the participant's experience.
Symbolic interaction purports that meaning is socially constructed, negotiated
and changes over time. Therefore the interview process seeks to elicit a
participant's story, and this story is told sequentially as the events being
reported unfold. Comprehension is reached when the researcher has interviewed
enough to gain in-depth understanding." (MORSE, 1994, p.39) [25]
In fact, GT does not require tape-recorded data. Field notes
are preferable. GT uses all types of interviews and, as the study proceeds, the
best interview style emerges. It is not underlined by symbolic interaction, nor
constructed data. GT uses "all as data," of which these are just one
kind of data. GT does not preconceive the theoretical code of process. There
are over 18 theoretical coding families of which process is only one. In GT,
its relevance must emerge; it is not presumed. Interviews lead to many
theoretical codes. Participant stories are moot. Patterns are sought and
conceptualized. GT does not search for description of particularistic accounts.
All data are constantly compared to generate concepts. [26]
MORSE continues her description of GT:
"Synthesis is facilitated by adequacy
of the data and the processes of analysis. During this phase the researcher is
able to create a generalized story and to determine points of departure, of
variation in this story. The process of analysis begins with line-by-line
analysis to identify first level codes. Second-level codes are used to identify
significant portions of the text and compile these excerpts into categories.
Writing memos is key to recording insight and facilitates, at an early stage,
the development of theory." (MORSE, 1994, p.39 [27]
It is, indeed, hard to recognize GT procedures in this quote
by MORSE. "Adequacy of data" and a "generalized story"
smack of worrisome accuracy and descriptive capture, which are pure QDA
concerns. They do not relate to GT procedures. GT fractures the story in the
service of conceptualization. Her approach to line-by-line analysis is a bare
reference to the constant comparative process, but that is all. Her references
to first level, second level codes, portions of text and compiling excerpts
into categories are far from the constant comparative method designed to
generate conceptual categories and their properties from the outset of data
collection and analysis. Writing memos in GT has to do with immediate recording
of generated theoretical conceptual ideas grounded in data, not the
mystical—perhaps conjectural—insights to which MORSE refers to. [28]
MORSE continues with her description of GT:
"As synthesis is gained and the
variation in the data becomes evident, grounded theorists sample according to
the theoretical needs of the study. If a negative case is identified, the
researcher, theoretically, must sample for more negative cases until saturation
is reached when synthesis is attained." (MORSE, 1994, p.39) [29]
Again, finding GT procedures in this description is hard.
There is always variation in the data. GT is concerned with generating a
multivariate conceptual theory—not data variation for QDA. In GT, seeking
negative cases is not a procedure. This is more likely to be preconceived
forcing. GT seeks comparative incidents by theoretical sampling. The purpose in
sampling is to generate categories and their properties. The GT researcher does
not know in advance what will be found. Incidents sampled may be similar or
different, positive or negative. MORSE's reference to saturation does not imply
conceptual saturation; rather, it anticipates simple redundancy without
conceptual analysis. [30]
MORSE continues:
"Theorizing follows from the processes
of theoretical sampling. Typologies are constructed by determining two
significant characteristics and sorting participants against each
characteristic on a 2x2 matrix. Diagramming is used to enhance understanding
and identifying the basic social process (BSP) that accounts for most of the
variation in the data." (MORSE, 1994, p.39). [31]
Theorizing in GT is an emergent process generated by
continuous cycling of the integrated processes of collecting, coding and
conceptual analysis with the results written up constantly in memos.
Theoretical sampling is just one source of grounding during the constant
comparative method. Preconceiving theoretical codes such as typologies or basic
social processes (BSPs) is not GT. In GT, relevant theoretical codes emerge in
conceptual memo sorting and could be "whatever." While the fourfold
property space is a good tool, when emergent, for conceptualizing types (see
GLASER & STRAUSS, "Awareness of Dying," 1965), it is not for
placing or sorting participants, a priori, nor for counting them. This is
strictly routine, preconceived QDA descriptive capture, not GT. [32]
MORSE finishes:
"As with the methods previously
discussed, recontextualization is determined by the level of abstraction
attained in the model development. Whereas substantive theory is context bound,
formal theory is more abstract and may be applicable to many settings or other
experiences." (MORSE, 1994, p.34) [33]
This statement is totally wrong for GT, but it addresses the
usual QDA quandary of trying to generalize a description of a unit. In
contrast, GT substantive theory always has general implications and can easily
be applied to other substantive areas by the constant comparative method of
modifying theory. For example, by comparing incidents and modifying the
substantive theory of milkmen who engage in cultivating housewives for profit
and recreation, a GT of cultivation can apply easily to doctors cultivating
clients to build a practice, thereby expanding the original substantive theory
to include cultivating down instead of cultivating up the social scale. Formal
theory is generated by many such diverse area comparisons done in a concerted
way to generate a formal theory of cultivating for recreation, profit, client
building, help, donations etc. [34]
Context must emerge as a relevant category or as a theoretical
code like all other categories in a GT. It cannot be assumed as relevant in
advance. As one applies substantive theory elsewhere or generates formal
theory, context—when relevant—will emerge. [35]
These quotes clearly lump GT into the multi-method QDA camp
with the result being default remodeling by erosion of classic GT methodology.
Nowhere does MORSE refer to the GT procedures of delimiting at each phase of
generating, of theoretical completeness, conceptual saturation, core variable
analysis, open to selective coding, memo banks, analytic rules, theoretical
sorting, memo piles writing up, reworking and resorting, emergent problem,
interchangeability of indices and theoretical (not substantive) coding. The
effect of such default remodeling is a great loss of essential GT procedures
blocked by the imposition of QDA worrisome accuracy requirements. [36]
GT requires following its rigorous procedures to generate a
theory that fits, works, is relevant and readily modifiable. When it is
adopted, co-opted, and corrupted by QDA research, a close look at the work
often shows that the QDA researcher is tinkering with the GT method. He or she
brings it into a QDA research design to comply with the strictures and
professional expectations of the dominant paradigm. Getting some kind of
product with a few concepts rescues the QDA research, since the QDA description
alone does not suffice. Then, the GT label is used to legitimate the QDA
research. [37]
GT stands alone as a conceptual theory generating methodology.
It is a general methodology. It can use any data, but obviously the favorite
data, to date, is qualitative data. Ergo GT is drawn into the QDA multi-method
world and eroded by consequence, however unwittingly. This revealing of method
muddling (see BAKER, WUEST, & STERN, 1992) of procedures does a tinkering
rescue job, but the result is that GT is default remodeled. GT becomes
considered, wrongly, as an interpretative method, a symbolic interaction method,
a constructionist method, a qualitative method, a describing method, a producer
of worrisome facts, a memoing method, an interview or field method and so
forth. It is clear that this tinkering by QDA researchers indicates they are
too derailed by QDA to learn systematic GT procedures. At best, a few GT
procedures are borrowed out of context. [38]
These above authors are typical of many trying to place GT
somewhere in the QDA camp. First they lace it with some QDA requirements and
ideas, which they then use to lump GT into QDA multi-method thought. Lumping GT
in as a QDA methodology simply does not apply and, indeed, blocks good GT while
the default remodeling of GT into another QDA rages on. Lumping erodes GT. In
the remainder of this article, I will try to show how GT stands alone on its
own, as a conceptualizing methodology. My goal will be to bring out the classic
GT perspective on how GT analysis is done—to lay this method bare—and in the
bargain to show how QDA blocks, as I have said, GT generation and product
proof. [39]
When not laced and lumped with QDA requirements, GT procedures
are fairly simple. The blocking problems come with the method mixing. I have
already written in detail much about GT procedures in "Discovery of
Grounded Theory" (GLASER & STRAUSS, 1967), "Theoretical
Sensitivity" (GLASER, 1978), "Doing Grounded Theory" (GLASER,
1998a), "Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis (GLASER, 1992), "More
Grounded Theory Methodology" (GLASER, 1994), and "The Grounded Theory
Perspective" (GLASER, 2001), all by Sociology Press. I have also published
many examples of a "good" GT analysis—"Examples of Grounded
Theory" (GLASER, 1993), "Grounded Theory 1984 to 1994" (GLASER,
1995), "Gerund Grounded Theory" (GLASER, 1998b)—and have given many
references in my books. [40]
The GT product is simple. It is not a factual description. It
is a set of carefully grounded concepts organized around a core category and
integrated into hypotheses. The generated theory explains the preponderance of
behavior in a substantive area with the prime mover of this behavior surfacing
as the main concern of the primary participants. I have said over and over that
GT is not findings, not accurate facts and not description. It is just
straightforward conceptualization integrated into theory—a set of plausible,
grounded hypotheses. It is just that—no more—and it is readily modifiable as
new data come from whatever source—literature, new data, collegial comments,
etc. The constant comparative method weaves the new data into the
sub-conceptualization. What is important is to use the complete package of GT
procedures as an integrated methodological whole. [41]
The following is a summary of the essential elements of GT
methodology: Bear in mind, when reading this summary, that the goal of GT is
conceptual theory abstract of time, place and people. The goal of GT is NOT the
QDA quest for accurate description. [42]
The ability to generate concepts from data and to relate them
according to normal models of theory in general, and theory development in
sociology in particular, is the essence of theoretical sensitivity. Generating
a theory from data means that most hypotheses and concepts not only come from
the data, but are systematically worked out in relation to the data during the
course of the research. A researcher requires two essential characteristics for
the development of theoretical sensitivity. First, he or she must have the
personal and temperamental bent to maintain analytic distance, tolerate
confusion and regression while remaining open, trusting to preconscious
processing and to conceptual emergence. Second, he/she must have the ability to
develop theoretical insight into the area of research combined with the ability
to make something of these insights. He/she must have the ability to
conceptualize and organize, make abstract connections, visualize and think
multivariately. The first step in gaining theoretical sensitivity is to enter
the research setting with as few predetermined ideas as possible—especially
logically deducted, a prior hypotheses. The research problem and its
delimitation are discovered. The pre-framework efforts of QDA block this
theoretical sensitivity. [43]
A good GT analysis starts right off with regular daily data
collecting, coding and analysis. The start is not blocked by a preconceived
problem, a methods chapter or a literature review. The focus and flow is
immediately into conceptualization using the constant comparative method. The
best way to do GT is to just do it. It cannot fail as the social psychological
world of structure, culture, social interaction, social organization etc. goes
on irrespective. There always is a main concern and there always is a prime
mover. As an open, generative and emergent methodology, GT provides an honest
approach to the data that lets the natural organization of substantive life
emerge. The GT researcher listens to participants venting issues rather than
encouraging them to talk about a subject of little interest. The mandate is to
remain open to what is actually happening and not to start filtering data
through pre-conceived hypotheses and biases to listen and observe and thereby
discover the main concern of the participants in the field and how they resolve
this concern. The forcing, preconceived notions of an initial professional
problem, or an extant theory and framework are suspended in the service of
seeing what will emerge conceptually by constant comparative analysis. When QDA
requires this preconception, GT is rendered non-emergent through coding and
memoing as the researcher tries to follow a non-emergent problem. [44]
GT stands alone as a conceptual theory generating methodology.
It can use any data, but obviously the favorite data to date is qualitative.
While interviews are the most popular, GT works with any data—"all is
data"—not just one specific data. It is up to the GT researcher to figure
out what data they are getting. The data may be baseline, vague, interpreted or
proper-line. The data is not to be discounted as "subjective,"
"obvious," "constructed," etc, as we find in QDA critiques.
There is always a perception of a perception as the conceptual level rises. We
are all stuck with a "human" view of what is going on and hazy
concepts and descriptions about it. GT procedures sharpen the generated
concepts systematically. [45]
It is critical in GT methodology to avoid unduly influencing
the pre-conceptualization of the research through extensive reading in the
substantive area and the forcing of extant theoretical overlays on the
collection and analysis of data. To undertake an extensive review of literature
before the emergence of a core category violates the basic premise of GT—that
being, the theory emerges from the data not from extant theory. It also runs
the risk of clouding the researcher's ability to remain open to the emergence
of a completely new core category that has not figured prominently in the research
to date thereby thwarting the theoretical sensitivity. Practically, it may well
result in the researcher spending valuable time on an area of literature that
proves to be of little significance to the resultant GT. Instead, GT
methodology treats the literature as another source of data to be integrated
into the constant comparative analysis process once the core category, its
properties and related categories have emerged and the basic conceptual
development is well underway. The pre-study literature review of QDA is a waste
of time and a derailing of relevance for the GT Study. [46]
The conceptualization of data through coding is the foundation
of GT development. Incidents articulated in the data are analyzed and coded,
using the constant comparative method, to generate initially substantive, and
later theoretical, categories. The essential relationship between data and
theory is a conceptual code. The code conceptualizes the underlying pattern of
a set of empirical indicators within the data. Coding gets the analyst off the
empirical level by fracturing the data, then conceptually grouping it into
codes that then become the theory that explains what is happening in the data.
A code gives the researcher a condensed, abstract view with scope of the data
that includes otherwise seemingly disparate phenomena. Substantive codes
conceptualize the empirical substance of the area of research. Theoretical
codes conceptualize how the substantive codes may relate to each other as
hypotheses to be integrated into the theory. Theoretical codes give integrative
scope, broad pictures and a new perspective. They help the analyst maintain the
conceptual level in writing about concepts and their interrelations. [47]
It is in the beginning with open coding—and a minimum of
preconception—that the analyst is most tested as to his trust in himself and in
the grounded method, his skill to use the method and his ability to generate
codes and find relevance. The process begins with line-by-line open coding of
the data to identify substantive codes emergent within the data. The analyst
begins by coding the data in every way possible—"running the data
open." From the start, the analyst asks a set of questions—"What is
this data a study of?" "What category does this incident
indicate?" "What is actually happening in the data?" "What
is the main concern being faced by the participants?" and "What
accounts for the continual resolving of this concern?" These questions
keep the analyst theoretically sensitive and transcending when analyzing,
collecting and coding the data. They force him/her to focus on patterns among
incidents that yield codes and to rise conceptually above detailed description
of incidents. The analyst codes for as many categories as fit successive,
different incidents, while coding into as many categories as possible. New
categories emerge and new incidents fit into existing categories. [48]
Open coding allows the analyst to see the direction in which
to take the study by theoretical sampling before he/she has become selective
and focused on a particular problem. Thus, when he/she does begin to focus,
he/she is sure of relevance. The researcher begins to see the kind of
categories that can handle the data theoretically, so that he/she knows how to
code all data, ensuring the emergent theory fits and works. Open coding allows
the analyst the full range of theoretical sensitivity as it allows him to take
chances on trying to generate codes that may fit and work. [49]
Line by line coding forces the analyst to verify and saturate
categories, minimizes missing an important category and ensures the grounding
of categories the data beyond impressionism. The result is a rich, dense theory
with the feeling that nothing has been left out. It also corrects the forcing
of "pet" themes and ideas, unless they have emergent fit. The analyst
must do his/her own coding. Coding constantly stimulates ideas. The preplanned
coding efforts of routine QDA to suit the preconceived professional problem easily
remodel GT by stifling its approach. [50]
Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for
generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes and analyses the
data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to
develop the theory as it emerges. The process of data collection is controlled
by the emerging theory, whether substantive or formal. Beyond the decisions
concerning initial collection of data, further collection cannot be planned in
advance of the emerging theory. Only as the researcher discovers codes and
tries to saturate them by theoretical sampling in comparison groups, do the
successive requirements for data collection emerge—both (1) what categories and
their properties to be sampled further and (2) where to collect the data. By
identifying emerging gaps in the theory, the analyst will be guided as to next
sources of data collection and interview style. The basic question in
theoretical sampling is to what groups or subgroups does one turn to next in
data collection—and for what theoretical purpose? The possibilities of multiple
comparisons are infinite and so groups must be chosen according to theoretical
criteria. The criteria—of theoretical purpose and relevance—are applied in the
ongoing joint collection and analysis of data associated with the generation of
theory. As such, they are continually tailored to fit the data and are applied
judiciously at the right point and moment in the analysis. In this way, the analyst
can continually adjust the control of data collection to ensure the data's
relevance to the emerging theory. [51]
Clearly this approach to data collection done jointly with
analysis is far different from the typical QDA preplanned, sequential approach
to data collection and management. Imposing the QDA approach on GT would block
it from the start. [52]
The constant comparative method enables the generation of
theory through systematic and explicit coding and analytic procedures. The
process involves three types of comparison. Incidents are compared to incidents
to establish underlying uniformity and its varying conditions. The uniformity
and the conditions become generated concepts and hypotheses. Then, concepts are
compared to more incidents to generate new theoretical properties of the
concept and more hypotheses. The purpose is theoretical elaboration, saturation
and verification of concepts, densification of concepts by developing their
properties and generation of further concepts. Finally, concepts are compared
to concepts. The purpose is to establish the best fit of many choices of
concepts to a set of indicators, the conceptual levels between the concepts
that refer to the same set of indicators and the integration into hypotheses
between the concepts, which becomes the theory. Comparisons in QDA research are
between far more general ideas that do not lead to tightly grounded categories.
[53]
As the researcher proceeds to compare incident to incident in
the data, then incidents to categories, a core category begins to emerge. This
core variable, which appears to account for most of the variation around the
concern or problem that is the focus of the study, becomes the focus of further
selective data collection and coding efforts. It explains how the main concern
is continually resolved. As the analyst develops several workable coded
categories, he/she should begin early to saturate as much as possible those
that seem to have explanatory power. The core variable can be any kind of
theoretical code—a process, a condition, two dimensions, a consequence, a range
and so forth. Its primary function is to integrate the theory and render it
dense and saturated. It takes time and much coding and analysis to verify a
core category through saturation, relevance and workability. The criteria for
establishing the core variable within a GT are that it is central, relating to
as many other categories and their properties as possible and accounting for a
large portion of the variation in a pattern of behavior. The core variable
reoccurs frequently in the data and comes to be seen as a stable pattern that
is more and more related to other variables. It relates meaningfully and easily
with other categories. It has clear and grabbing implications for formal
theory. It is completely variable and has conceptual carry through in the
emerging theory, enabling the analyst to get through the analyses of the
processes that he/she is working on by its relevance and explanatory power.
Core variable, conceptual theory is far beyond QDA description or conceptual
descriptions which are unending since they are not tied down to a conceptual
scheme. A reversion to QDA clearly blocks this necessary theoretical
completeness. [54]
Selective coding means to cease open coding and to delimit
coding to only those variables that relate to the core variable in sufficiently
significant ways as to produce a parsimonious theory. Selective coding begins
only after the analyst is sure that he/she has discovered the core variable.
QDA researchers have never figured out the exact purpose and techniques of
selective coding. Often they selectively code from the start with preconceived
categories. [55]
Subsequent data collection and coding is thereby delimited to
that which is relevant to the emergent conceptual framework. This selective
data collection and analysis continues until the researcher has sufficiently
elaborated and integrated the core variable, its properties and its theoretical
connections to other relevant categories. [56]
Integrating a theory around a core variable delimits the
theory and thereby the research project. This delimiting occurs at two
levels—the theory and the categories. First the theory solidifies, in the sense
that major modifications become fewer and fewer as the analyst compares the
next incidents of a category to its properties. Later modifications are mainly
on the order of clarifying the logic, taking out non-relevant properties, integrating
elaborating details of properties into the major outline of interrelated
categories and—most important—reduction. Reduction occurs when the analyst
discovers underlying uniformity in the original set of categories or their
properties and then reformulates the theory with a smaller set of higher-level
concepts. The second level of delimiting the theory is a reduction in the
original list of categories for coding. As the theory grows, becomes reduced,
and increasingly works better for ordering a mass of qualitative data, the
analyst becomes committed to it. This allows the researcher to pare down the
original list of categories for collecting and coding data, according to the
present boundaries of the theory. The analyst now focuses on one category as
the core variable and only variables related to the core variable will be
included in the theory. The list of categories for coding is further delimited
through theoretical saturation. Since QDA researchers focus on full
description, and no core variable conceptual analysis, delimiting does not
occur in QDA research. It just goes on and on—empirical tiny topics draining
both researcher and audience. [57]
GT is based on a concept-indicator model of constant comparisons
of incidents (indicators) to incidents (indicators) and, once a conceptual code
is generated, of incidents (indicators) to emerging concept. This forces the
analyst into confronting similarities, differences and degrees in consistency
of meaning between incidents (indicators), generating an underlying uniformity
which in turn results in a coded category and the beginnings of properties of
it. From the comparisons of further incidents (indicators) to the conceptual
codes, the code is sharpened to achieve its best fit while further properties
are generated until the code is verified and saturated. [58]
Conceptual specification, not definition, is the focus of GT.
The GT concept-indicator model requires concepts and their dimensions to earn
their way into the theory by systematic generation of data. Changing incidents
(indicators) and thereby generating new properties of a code can only go so far
before the analyst discovers saturation of ideas through interchangeability of
indicators. This interchangeability produces, at the same time, the
transferability of the theory to other areas by linking to incidents
(indicators) in other substantive or sub-substantive areas that produce the
same category or properties of it. Interchangeability produces saturation of
concepts and their properties, not redundancy of description as some QDA
methodologists would have it (see MORSE, 1995, p.147). [59]
Generating GT takes time. It is above all a delayed action
phenomenon. Little increments of coding, analyzing and collecting data cook and
mature and then blossom later into theoretical memos. Significant theoretical
realizations come with growth and maturity in the data, and much of this is
outside the analyst's awareness until preconscious processing becomes
conscious. Thus the analyst must pace himself, exercise patience and accept
nothing until something happens, as it surely does. Surviving the apparent
confusion is important. This requires that the analyst takes whatever amount of
quality time that is required to do the discovery process and that he/she
learns to take this time in a manner consistent with his/her own temporal
nature as an analyst—personal pacing. Rushing or forcing the process will shut
down the analyst's creativity and conceptual abilities, exhausting the energy
and leaving the researcher empty and the theory thin and incomplete. In QDA
work researchers are paced sequentially through the program and framework, and
often driven to long periods of no product and exhaustion. To overlay this QDA
program on GT severely remodels GT to its deficit. [60]
Theory articulation is facilitated through an extensive and
systematic process of memoing that parallels the data analysis process in GT.
Memos are theoretical notes about the data and the conceptual connections
between categories. The writing of theoretical memos is the core stage in the
process of generating theory. If the analyst skips this stage by going directly
to sorting or writing up, after coding, he/she is not doing GT. [61]
Memo writing is a continual process that leads naturally to
abstraction or ideation—continually capturing the "frontier of the
analyst's thinking" as he/she goes through data and codes, sorts and
writes. It is essential that the analyst interrupts coding to memo ideas as
they occur if he/she is to reap the subtle reward of the constant input from
reading the data carefully, asking the above questions and coding accordingly.
Memos help the analyst to raise the data to a conceptual level and develop the
properties of each category that begin to define them operationally. Memos
present hypotheses about connections between categories and/or their properties
and begin to integrate these connections with clusters of other categories to
generate the theory. Memos also begin to locate the emerging theory with other
theories with potentially more or less relevance. [62]
The basic goal of memoing is to develop ideas on categories
with complete freedom into a memo fund that is highly sort-able. Memo
construction differs from writing detailed description. Although typically
based on description, memos raise that description to the theoretical level
through the conceptual rendering of the material. Thus, the original
description is subsumed by the analysis. Codes conceptualize data. Memos reveal
and relate by theoretically coding the properties of substantive codes—drawing
and filling out analytic properties of the descriptive data. [63]
Early on memos arise from constant comparison of indicators to
indicators, then indicators to concepts. Later on memos generate new memos,
reading literature generates memos, sorting and writing also generate
memos—memoing is never done! Memos slow the analyst's pace, forcing him/her to
reason through and verify categories and their integration and fit, relevance
and work for the theory. In this way, he/she does not prematurely conclude the
final theoretical framework and core variables. [64]
Comparative reasoning in memos—by constant comparisons—undoes
preconceived notions, hypotheses, and scholarly baggage while at the same time
constantly expanding and breaking the boundaries of current analyses. Memos are
excellent source of directions for theoretical sampling—they point out gaps in
existing analyses and possible new related directions for the emerging theory.
Clearly the preconceived approach and framework of QDA research is in conflict
with the freedom of memoing. The conflict is most often resolved by the
preponderance of QDA research and GT loses this vital aspect. [65]
Throughout the constant comparative coding process, the
researcher has been capturing the emergent ideation of substantive and
theoretical categories in the form of memos. Once the researcher has achieved
theoretical saturation of the categories, he/she proceeds to review, sort and
integrate the numerous memos related to the core category, its properties and
related categories. The sorted memos generate a theoretical outline, or
conceptual framework, for the full articulation of the GT through an integrated
set of hypotheses. [66]
Ideational memos are the fund of GT. Theoretical sorting of
the memos is the key to formulating the theory for presentation or writing.
Sorting is essential—it puts the fractured data back together. With GT, the
outline for writing is simply an emergent product of the sorting of memos.
There are no preconceived outlines. GT generates the outline through the
sorting of memos by the sorting of the categories and properties in the memos
into similarities, connections and conceptual orderings. This forces patterns
that become the outline. [67]
To preconceive a theoretical outline is to risk logical
elaboration. Instead, theoretical sorting forces the "nitty gritty"
of making theoretically discrete discriminations as to where each idea fits in
the emerging theory. Theoretical sorting is based on theoretical codes. The
theoretical decision about the precise location of a particular memo—as the
analyst sees similarities, connections and underlying uniformities—is based on
the theoretical coding of the data that is grounding the idea. [68]
If the analyst omits sorting, the theory will be linear, thin
and less than fully integrated. Rich, multi-relation, multivariate theory is
generated through sorting. Without sorting, a theory lacks the internal
integration of connections among many categories. With sorting, data and ideas
are theoretically ordered. Sorting is conceptual sorting, not data sorting.
Sorting provides theoretical completeness. Sorting generates more memos—often
on higher conceptual levels—furthering and condensing the theory. It integrates
the relevant literature into the theory, sorting it with the memos. [69]
Sorting also has a conceptual, zeroing-in capacity. The
analyst soon sees where each concept fits and works, its relevance and how it
will carry forward in the cumulative development of the theory. Sorting
prevents over-conceptualization and pre-conceptualization, since these excesses
fall away as analyst zeros in on the most parsimonious set of integrated
concepts. Thus, sorting forces ideational discrimination between categories
while relating them, integrating them and preventing their proliferation. The
constant creativity of sorting memos prevents the use of computer sorting as
used in QDA work. [70]
While theoretical coding establishes the relationship among
variables, analytic rules guide the construction of the theory as it emerges.
They guide the theoretical sorting and subsequent writing of the theory.
Analytic rules detail operations, specify foci, delimit and select use of the
data and concepts, act as reminders of what to do and keep track of and provide
the necessary discipline for sticking to and keeping track of the central theme
as the total theory is generated. [71]
There are several fundamental analytic rules. First, sorting
can start anywhere. It will force its own beginning, middle, and end for
writing. The important thing is to start. Trying conceptually to locate the
first memos will force the analyst to start reasoning out the integration. Once
started, analyst soon learns where ideas are likely to integrate best and
sorting becomes generative and fun. Start with the core variable and then sort
all other categories and properties only as they relate to the core variable.
This rule forces focus, selectivity and delimiting of the analysis. Theoretical
coding helps in deciding and in figuring out the meaning of the relation of a
concept to the core variable. This theoretical code should be written and
sorted into the appropriate pile with the substantive code. Once sorting on the
core variable begins, the constant comparisons are likely to generate many new
ideas, especially on theoretical codes for integrating the theory. Stop sorting
and memo! Then, sort the memo into the integration. [72]
The analyst carries forward to subsequent sorts the use of
each concept from the point of its introduction into the theory. The concept is
illustrated only when it is first introduced to develop the imagery of its
meaning. Thereafter, only the concept is used, not the illustration. All ideas
must fit in somewhere in the outline or the integration must be changed or
modified. This is essential for, if the analyst ignores this fitting of all
categories, he/she will break out of the theory too soon and necessary ideas
and relations will not be used. This rule is based on the assumption that the
social world is integrated and the job of the analyst is to discover it. If
he/she cannot find the integration, he/she must re-sort and re-integrate the
concepts to fit better. The analyst moves back and forth between outline and
ideas as he/she sorts forcing underlying patterns, integrations and
multivariate relations between the concepts. The process is intensely
generative, yielding many theoretical coding memos to be resorted into the
outline. Again it cannot be done by the simple code and retrieve of computer
sorting. [73]
Sorting forces the analyst to introduce an idea in one place
and then establish its carry forward throughout the theory when it is necessary
to use it again in other relations. When in doubt about a place to sort an
idea, put it in that part of the outline where the first possibility of its use
occurs, with a note to scrutinize and pass forward to the next possible place.
Theoretical completeness implies theoretical coverage as far as the study can
take the analyst. It requires that, in cutting off the study, he/she explains
with the fewest possible concepts and with the greatest possible scope, as much
variation as possible in the behavior and problem under study. The theory thus
explains sufficiently how people continually resolve their main concern with
concepts that fit, work, have relevance and are saturated. [74]
Always keep in mind that GT methodology is itself a GT that
emerged from doing research on dying patients in 1967. It was discovered, not
invented. It is a sure thing for researchers to cast their fate with. It was
not thought up as a proffered approach to doing research based on conjectural
"wisdoms" from science, positivism or naturalism. It is not a
concoction based on logical "science" literature telling us how
science is ought to be. [75]
GT gives the social psychological world a rhetoric—a jargon to
be sure—but one backed up by systematic procedures. It is not an empty
rhetoric, but unfortunately it often takes time for GT procedures to catch up
to rhetoric with "grab." Part of the delayed learning is the
remodeling—hence blocking—by QDA requirements, especially the accuracy quest. [76]
One promise is that the abstraction of GT from data—generating
GT—does away with the problems of QDA that are "scientized" on and
on. As the GT researcher (especially a PhD student) does GT analysis that
produces a substantive, conceptual theory with general implications—not
descriptive findings—he or she will advisably steer clear of the quicksand of
the descriptive problems. QDA problems are numerous. A short list of these
would include accuracy, interpretation, construction, meaning, positivistic
canons and naturalistic canons of data collection and analysis of unit samples,
starting with preconceived structured interviews right off, sequencing
frameworks, preconceived professional problems, pet theoretical codes, etc and
etc. The list is long, the idea is clear. [77]
"Minus mentorees" should be cautious, in their
aloneness, about seeking too much guidance from "one book read"
mentors and the intrusive erosion that results as these mentors try to make
sense of GT in their QDA context. They should seek help from people who have
written a GT book. [78]
------
The time for GT to explain and be applied to "what is
going on" means leaving the onslaught of QDA methodologies, which so erode
it and then remodel it. Evert GUMMESSON says it clearly in his recent paper,
"Relationship marketing and the New Economy: it's time for
De-Programming" (2002). What GUMMESSON says about marketing applies
equally to nursing, medicine, education, social work and other practicing
professions as well as academic work.
"Today's general textbooks perpetuate the
established marketing management epic from the 1960s with the new just added as
extras. It is further my contention that marketing education has taken an
unfortunate direction and has crossed the fine line between education and
brainwashing. The countdown of a painful—but revitalizing—process of
deprogramming has to be initiated.
What do we need in such a situation? A
shrink? No, it is less sophisticated than that. All we need is systematic
application of common sense, both in academe and in corporations. We need to
use our observational capacity in an inductive mode and allow it to receive the
true story of life, search for patterns and build theory. Yes, theory. General
marketing theory that helps us put events and activities into a context. This
is all within the spirit of grounded theory, wide spread in sociology but
little understood by marketers. My interpretation of a recent book on the
subject by Glaser (2001) is as follows: 'take the elevator from the ground
floor of raw substantive data and description to the penthouse of
conceptualization and general theory. And do this without paying homage to the
legacy of extant theory.' In doing this, complexity, fuzziness and ambiguity
are received with cheers by the researchers and not shunned as unorderly and
threatening as they are by quantitative researchers. Good theory is useful for
scholars and practicing managers alike." (GUMMESSON, 2002, pp.585-586). [79]
I trust that this paper demonstrates how freedom from QDA
requirements will allow unfettered GT procedures to result in generated theory
that fulfills GUMMESSON's vision. [80]
Baker, Cynthia; Wuest, Judith & Stern, Phyllis
(1992). Method Slurring, The Phenomenology/Grounded Theory Example, Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 17, 1355-1360.
Creswell, John W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and
Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glaser, Barney G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances
in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press.
Glaser, Barney G. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory
Analysis. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press.
Glaser, Barney G. (Ed.) (1993). Examples of Grounded
Theory. A Reader. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press.
Glaser, Barney G. (Ed.) (1994). More Grounded Theory
Methodology. A Reader. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press.
Glaser, Barney G. (Ed.) (1995). Grounded Theory 1984
to 1994. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press.
Glaser, Barney G. (1998a). Doing Grounded Theory.
Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press.
Glaser, Barney G. with the assistance of W. Douglas
Kaplan (Ed.) (1998b). Gerund Grounded Theory: The Basic Social Process
Dissertation. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press.
Glaser, Barney G. (2001). The Grounded Theory
Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with Description. Mill Valley, Ca.:
Sociology Press.
Glaser, Barney G. & Strauss, Anselm L. (1965).
Awareness of Dying. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
Glaser, Barney G. & Strauss, Anselm L. (1967).
Discovery of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press.
Gummesson, Evert (2002). Relationship Marketing and
the New Economy: It's Time for De-Programming. Journal of Services Marketing,
16(7), 585-589.
Lowe, Andy (1997). Managing to Post Merger
Aftermath-Default Remodeling, Dept of Marketing University of Strathclyde
(Grounded Theory Review).
May, Katharyn A. (1994). Abstract Knowing. The Case
for Magic in Method. In Janice Morse (Ed.), Critical Issues in Qualitative
Research Methods (pp.10-22).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morse, Janice (1994). "Emerging from the
Data." Cognitive Processes of Analysis in Qualitative Research. In Janice
Morse (Ed.), Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods (pp.23-41).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morse, Janice (1995). Editorial. Qualitative Health
Review, 5, 147-149.
Glaser, Barney G. with the assistance of Judith Holton
(2004). Remodeling Grounded Theory [80 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2), Art. 4,
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040245.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Silahkan baca dan share