GROUNDED
THEORY
MELANIE BIRKS & JANE MILLS
companion ~
website v..r
~
~S
GROUNDED
THEORY
50
YEARS
SAGE was founded in 1965 by Sara Miller McCune to
support the dissemination of usable knowledge by publishing
innovative and high-quality research and teaching content.
Today, we publish more than 750 journals, including those
of more than 300 learned societies, more than 800 new
books per year, and a growing range of library products
including archives, data, case studies, reports, conference
highlights, and video. SAGE remains majority-owned by our
founder, and after Sara's lifetime will become owned by a
charitable trust that secures our continued independence.
Los Angeles I London I Washington DC I New Delhi I Singapore
GROUNDED
THEORY
MELANIE BIRKS & JANE MILLS
'SAGE
Los Angeles I London I New Delhi
Singapore I Washington DC
($)SAGE
Los Angeles I London I New Delhi
Singapore I Washington DC
SAGE Publications Ltd
©Melanie Birks and Jane Mills 2015
1 Oliver's Yard
55 City Road
First published 2012. Reprinted 2012, 2013. This edition 2015
London EC1 Y 1 SP
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or
SAGE Publications Inc.
private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the
2455 Teller Road
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication
Thousand Oaks, California 9 1320
may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by
any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction,
B 1/1 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the
Mathura Road
Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning
New Delhi 110 044
reproduction outside those terms should be sent to
the publishers.
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483
Editor: Jai Seaman
Assistant editor: Lily Mehrbod
Production editor: Ian Antcliff
Copyeditor: Jen Hinchliffe
Proofreader: Thea Watson
Indexer: Silvia Benvenuto
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014945201
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A catalogue record for this book is available from
the British Library
Marketing manager: Sally Ransom
Cover design: Shaun Mercier
Typeset by: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd, Chennai, India
Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Limited at
The Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT1 1 HD
"
",,_}
�
MIX
Paper from
responsible sources
Fsc· co139a5
ISBN 978-1-4462-9577-9
ISBN 978-1-4462-9578-6 (pbk)
At SAGE we take sustainability seriously. Most of our products are printed in the UK using FSC papers and boards.
When we print overseas we ensure sustainable papers are used as measured by the Egmont grading sy�
We undertake an annual audit to monitor our sustainability.
CONTENTS
About the authors
vi
vii
viii
Acknowledgements
Companion website
1 Essentials of grounded theory
1
2 Planning a grounded theory study
16
3 Quality processes in grounded theory research
32
4 Positioning the researcher in a grounded theory study
49
5 Data generation and collection
64
6 Data analysis in grounded theory
85
7 Theoretical integration
108
8 Presenting a grounded theory
125
9 Evaluation and application of grounded theory
140
10 Situating grounded theory in the context of current debate
154
Appendix A Working grounded theory
167
Glossary
References
Index
-
An example
177
182
194
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Melanie Birks is employed as Professor of Nursing at James Cook University, Australia,
a role which serves her passions for education, research and nursing. Her primary
focus is on the promotion of scholarship in teaching and learning through mentorship
and fostering a culture of research. She has extensive experience in international edu
cation, having taught in Hong Kong, Singapore, Papua New Guinea and Malaysia. Her
research interests are in the areas of accessibility, innovation, relevance and quality in
nursing education to ensure preparation of graduates who are industry -ready and able
to make a contribution to the profession. Her commitment to research is reflected in
her publication history, which includes numerous journal articles and book chapters.
Most recently, she co-authored a qualitative research text for graduate students,
Qualitative Methodology: A Practical Guide with Jane. Visit
Melanie Birks' website at
https://research.jcu.edu.au/portfolio/melanie.birks/
Jane Mills is Professor of Nursing, Director, Centre for Nursing and Midwifery
Research and Deputy Dean of the Graduate Research School at James Cook
University, Australia. In this role Jane works closely with students and academic staff
to build research and research education with the intent of creating a brighter future
for life in the tropics worldwide through graduates and discoveries that make a
difference. Jane's research is in the areas of primary health care, health workforce
development, health systems strengthening, and teaching and learning using both
grounded theory and mixed methods. Jane has pubhshed extensively in the area of
qualitative methodology, with her work on grounded theory particularly well
received. She has been writing with Melanie for nearly 10 years and together they
have produced a number of important peer-reviewed articles and books that have
guided students in their own work. Visit Jane Mills' website at http://research.jcu.
edu.au/portfolio/jane.mills/
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are delighted to have been asked to produce this second edition of Grounded
Theory: A Practical Guide for SAGE. Our aim in the production of the first edition
was to assist the reader in understanding philosophical and methodological concepts
inherent in research and, in particular, demystify some of the complexities associated
with grounded theory. Feedback received from students and teachers across the globe
has confirmed our success in this regard. In producing this second edition, we hope
to further our work in promoting the practical use of grounded theory in the conduct
of research.
Once again we wish to thank our eternally patient families for their support while
we worked on producing this text and acknowledge our original research mentors
Professor Karen Francis and Professor Y sanne Chapman. Our thanks also go to all
those who shared their experience of grounded theory in the 'Windows into
grounded theory' that feature throughout the original text and this revised edition.
We would particularly like to express our appreciation for the invaluable support of
our research assistant, Jennifer Chamberlain-Salaun and our Dean, Professor Lee
Stewart. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the professional guidance of our pub
lisher, Jai Seaman, and editorial assistance of Lily Mehrbod at SAGE Publications.
COMPANION WEBS ITE
($)SAGE
Instructor Resources
Student Resources;
IH'lllD
Student Resources
I.
Addinonal Windows into
-
ReVision Activities
Grounded T heory
"
ChecldiStS & Templates
,
-.
Muluple Choice Qulzies
5.
Useful Weblinks
6.
Useful YouTube Links
7.
SAGE Journal Ar.ides
8
Contact us
Help
I
I GROUNDED
Grounded Theory
I T-�-�_?!<_Y
A Practical Guide
Welcome m the companion websn:<> for the second edition of Grounded Theory
by Melanie Birks and Jane Mills. This website offers a range of teaching and
learning resources. lndud1ng:
Authors. Melanie Birks
}ar.e Milts
For lecturers:
and
Pub Date: FebttJaty 2015
V•deos Of' Grounded Theory
•
Power?oim slides accompanying each chapter
For students:
•
Add'itlonal wi"dows into grounded meory
•
Oeflr>ltions and 'mix and match' activities:
Ordtu R�.-wi Copy
test your knowledge of key
glossary terms
•
Planning cheddlst to help �·ou plan your grounded theory study
•
lhesis/di«ertation cheddlst to help you step-by-step in your wrWng
•
Word search puzzle to help you revise impor..ant terms
•
Free access to selected SAGE journal articles
•
Vldeos on conducting grounded theory researm
•
•
Multiple choice questions for each chapter
Web and YouTube Unks to help you explore further
About the second edition
'This updated new edition contains detailed guidance on all aspeccs of
conducting a ground"d ::hoory study, from plar,nlng a study and ensuring 115
quality. to the> presentation of results. The authors are experienced
re-:earchers who are skilled in conducting grounded theory srudles. ensuri�g
th<>t the advice is both practical and rel�ant.'
}oner Anderson, Senior Leauret; Florence Nighcingole School of Nursing and
Midwifery, King's College London
Discover more at study.sagepub.com/birksmills2e
ONE
ESSENTIALS OF
GROUNDED THEORY
#!!J;J�iifti·':fl!§i@f#
This chapter will help you to:
•
•
•
•
•
Summarize the historical background of grounded theory
Discuss methodological influences on grounded theory as an approach to research
Outline key positions taken in the literature about grounded theory
Identify a personal philosophical position
Define essential grounded theory methods
Introduction
Grounded theory is one of the most popular research designs in the world. Not only
are there thousands of publications that report on studies using grounded theory
methods, but there is also a collection of seminal texts that researchers can use to
guide their study and ensure the rigour of their work. So why then, you may ask, is
there a need for another book on grounded theory? For beginning researchers, includ
ing graduate students, the magnitude of information that exists about grounded
theory methods and findings has made engaging in a grounded theory study a com
plicated endeavour. Trying to understand the general principles of grounded theory
in the context of the debate and discussion that is so much a part of this research
tradition can be incredibly difficult. Where to start? What to read? Who to 'follow'?
And why? This book aims to provide you with a place to begin as you explore the
wider grounded theory literature.
An important first step in becoming a grounded theorist is deciding how you posi
tion yourself philosophically. As Birks (2014) explains, each of us has a unique con
ceptualization of existence and reality. How we understand the world is influenced
by our history and the context in which we find ourselves. Our personal philosophy
is very important because it defines what we consider to be real and how we can
GR...OVNDED Jl-jt=OR...Y
legitimately acquire knowledge about the world. As such, Birks defines philosophy as
'a view of the world encompassing the questions and mechanisms for finding answers
that inform that view' (2014: 18). One of the learning outcomes of this chapter is
for you to resolve your philosophical position so that future decisions about how to
use grounded theory methods are methodologically based. As you will come to
understand, grounded theorists take various philosophical and methodological posi
tions that influence the implementation of a set of essential grounded theory methods.
Each chapter in this text addresses these differences and highlights the implications
they may have when undertaking a study.
The grounded theory generations
In recent times, books about grounded theory have documented the beginnings of
the method and the original work of Anselm Strauss and Barney Glaser (Covan,
2007; Stern, 2009; Urquhart, 2013). In 1960, Anselm Strauss joined the University
of California, San Francisco (UCSF) School of Nursing. The UCSF School of
Nursing has a proud intellectual history: Edith Bryan, the first American nurse to
earn a doctoral degree, was its founding leader in 19 18 (UCSF, 2007). In appointing
the then 44-year-old Strauss to a professorial position, the school's leaders were
strategically investing in his intellectual capital with the aim of establishing a doc
toral studies programme. Shortly after his appointment, the Department of Social
and Behavioral Science was created within the school and Strauss appointed its
inaugural Director.
In 196 1, at the age of 33 years, Barney Glaser had completed his PhD at
Columbia University in New York under the guidance of Paul Lazerfeld and Robert
Merton (Covan, 2007). At this time, Strauss was successful with a grant application
for a four-year funded study to examine the experience of dying, and recruited
Glaser to the res�arch team. It was during this study that the grounded theory
methods we know today began to coalesce. In 1967, after the completion of
Awareness of Dying, Glaser
Theory. Together they made
and Strauss published
The Discovery of Grounded
their scholarly motivation for this publication quite
clear, stating that:
We would all agree that in social research generating theory goes hand in hand with verifying it;
but many sociologists have been diverted from this truism in their zeal to test either existing
theories or a theory that they have barely started to generate. (1967: 2)
The notion of generating new theory from data, as opposed to testing existing theory,
resonated with other social scientists, and grounded theory as a research design
became increasingly popular. For the next 10 years, Strauss and Glaser taught
together at UCSF, with many of their students now forming a coterie who would
carry on their legacy. While Strauss continued teaching at UCSF until 1987, and later
as an Emeritus Professor, Glaser left the academy to write, publish, consult and teach
around the world.
2
EffENTIALf OF GR..OVNDED Jf·-/EOR..Y
Increasingly there is a trend in the literature to categorize Glaser and Strauss as
the first generation of grounded theorists. At UCSF they created a challenging and
supportive teaching environment that was a crucible for many of those who have
become known as second-generation grounded theorists (Morse et al., 2009). It is the
second generation of grounded theorists who have written about their interpretations
of Glaser and Strauss's grounded theory methods and who have in many cases used
the original work as a launching pad for their own iterations (Bowers and Schatzman,
2009; Charmaz, 2006; Clarke, 2005).
Table 1.1
Seminal grounded theory texts
Year
Author
Title
1967
Glaser and Strauss
The Discovery of Grounded Theory
1978
Glaser
Theoretical Sensitivity
1987
Strauss
Qualitative Analysis tor Social Scientists
1990
Strauss and Corbin
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques
1992
Glaser
Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis
1994
Strauss and Corbin
'Grounded theory methodology: An overview', in Handbook of
Qualitative Research (1st Edition)
1995
Charmaz
'Grounded theory', in Rethinking Methods in Psychology
1998
Strauss and Corbin
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques
2000
Charmaz
(2nd Edition)
'Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods', in
Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd Edition)
2005
Clarke
Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern
Turn
2014
Charmaz
Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through
Qualitative Analysis (2nd Edition)
Table 1. 1 is ordered chronologically and lists those works considered by us to be
seminal grounded theory texts because they are characterized by their originality of
thought and subsequent influence. Making a decision about what to classify in this
way is an arbitrary process; however, the citation rate of each of these works provides
an indication of scholarly opinion. It is not suggested that a novice grounded theorist
read the books in this list from top to bottom, even though supervisors sometimes
recommend this.
Over the years, much has been made of a supposed split between Strauss and
Glaser following the publication of Strauss and Corbin's text Basics of Qualitative
Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques in 1990 (Babchuk, 20 1 1).
Glaser's rebuttal ( 1992) sparked a debate among grounded theory scholars (Boychuk
Duchscher and Morgan, 2004; Heath and Cowley, 2004; Howell, 20 13) about the
differences between each scholar's work, a debate that continues today. It is worth
noting, however, that in spite of the intellectual discussion that surrounds variations
3
GR.OVNDED 11·-if:OR.Y
in the use of grounded theory methods, Glaser and Strauss's personal and profes
sional relationship endured until Strauss's death in I996.
You will frequently see reference to Glaser and Strauss's different perspectives
on grounded theory in the literature. Often a researcher will demonstrate (a some
times almost fanatical) adherence to either a traditional Glaserian or an evolved
Straussian version of grounded theory. This text aims to provide a balanced view
of grounded theory methods without adopting a dichotomous position. Few things
are ever black and white, especially when it comes to research with an overtly
interpretive component, and there is much to be learned from all antecedent
grounded theorists.
Philosophy, methodology and methods
One of the key aims of a doctoral research programme, and to a certain extent other
graduate programmes, is to instil in students the knowledge of various philosophies
and in turn the methodologies and methods that are linked to these schools of
thought. It is important to understand the difference between a methodology and a
set of methods. Stemming from a congruent philosophy, a methodology is a set of
principles and ideas that inform the design of a research study. Methods, on the other
hand, are practical procedures used to generate and analyse data. There is a fluid
interplay that occurs between methodology and method in the process of undertak
ing a research study. The methodological framework with its underpinning philoso
phy influences how the researcher works with the participants, in other words the
position they take in the study. Depending on their philosophical beliefs and adopted
methodology, researchers take either a position of distance or acknowledged inclu
sion both in the field and in the final product of the study (see Chapter 4). As well,
and crucially for grounded theory, the methodology subscribed to influences the
analysis of the dat� as it focuses the researcher's attention on different dynamics and
alerts them to possible analytic configurations in the process of conceptual and theo
retical abstraction. The following diagram represents each component of the
grounded theory research process, including the role of philosophy, methodology and
methods in a study. As you can see, philosophy and in turn methodology or the '.....
strategy that outlines the way one goes about undertaking a research project'
(Howell, 20I3: ix) are constants throughout the grounded theory research process.
In order to map the grounded theory research process against the contents of the
book, we have identified the chapters pertaining to each of the major phases of
preparation, implementation and dissemination (Figure I. I). Although this diagram
is presented in a linear format, it is important to note that the process is actually
iterative and recursive. As Rich reminds us, grounded theory 'is not a lock-step
research methodology in which a researcher can only move on to the next stage after
successfully completing a prior one' (Rich, 20 12: 4).
In this chapter, our purpose is to discuss philosophical and methodological influ
ences on grounded theory. For a broader and more comprehensive explanation of the
4
E��ENT°IAL� OF GR.OVNOt:O P-/EOR.Y
The Grounded Theory Research Process
"
••
• . . ·�
> ••
""'
,
•
' ,
••
.:
•
•
�
.i�;����:i'.):t·<
:-=:1/:,_�_::1
•
.
'
•
.
•
�
��
'
.
,
!
··.
�
.
' >;.: ,.:
�.; �,
�
�
'
-
:.
.'
�
Establish a philosophical position (Ch 1 & 4)
Investigate methodological possibilities (Ch 1)
Plan the study (Ch 2)
Enter the field (Ch 2, 5, 6 & 7)
Apply essential grounded theory methods (Ch 1-7)
Develop a theoretical mode.I (Ch 7)
Develop a dissemination plan (Ch 8)
Evaluate grounded theory (Ch 9)
Implement strateqies to increase impact of findinqs (Ch 10)
Figure 1.1
The Grounded Theory Research Process
various paradigmatic positions that can be assumed by a researcher we recommend
you seek out other texts that address these issues in detail (for example, Lincoln,
Lynham and Cuba's chapter 'Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerg
ing confluences; revisited' in the Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th edn), edited
by Denzin and Lincoln (Lincoln, Lynham and Guba 20 1 1) or similar works).
One of the major criticisms of the first generation of grounded theorists, and in
this we include Juliet Corbin who co-wrote some of the seminal texts with
Strauss, is that they did not write about grounded theory as a methodological/
methods package; rather, they wrote only about the various strategies and tech
niques (methods) that could be used (Amsteus, 20 14). Fortunately this has been
rectified to an extent in the latest edition of Corbin and Strauss's (2008) book,
which includes a chapter, absent from the earlier editions, explaining pragmatism
and symbolic interactionism as the philosophies that methodologically underpin
Strauss's iteration of grounded theory methods (Chamberlain-Salaun, Mills and
Usher 20 13). Glaser has never really entered the conversations about grounded
theory 'methodology', rather his writing has focused on grounded theory method
and what constitutes a grounded theory itself. Conversely to Strauss and Corbin,
he has dismissed the applicability of any specific philosophical or disciplinary
position, including symbolic interactionism, in his belief that adopting such a per
spective reduces that broader potential of grounded theory (Glaser, 2005).
5
GR..OV NDfD -p-{t;OR..Y
Because of the language that Glaser uses when writing about emergence in the
process of concurrent data collection and analysis, as well as in the later stages of
analysis when the core category is also said to emerge, he has generally been con
sidered a critical realist researching within the post-positivist paradigm (Annells,
1996). More recently however, an argument has been mounted that Glaserian or
'classic' grounded theory is consistent with the philosophy of pragmatism with
Nathaniel (2011) linking the ontological, epistemological and methodological
premises of this paradigm with Glaser's work over time.
Methodological gaps in seminal texts written by first-generation grounded theo
rists have led to students of grounded theory needing to figure out what was (to
borrow a famous grounded theory mantra) 'going on' ontologically and epistemolog
ically in order to plan and execute a rigorous study that would pass examination.
Because of this, many second-generation grounded theorists developed methodolog
ical frameworks for grounded theory methods underpinned by a range of philoso
phies. Rather than argue for one genre of grounded theory in this book, you will note
that we move across these now established methodological positions in order to
demonstrate their influence on the use of grounded theory methods. We have also
made an assumption, in concert with others (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007), that there
is a set of methods essential to the research design that must be used in order for the
final product to be considered a grounded theory.
Throughout this book, we encourage you to identify your own underlying assump
tions about the world, to decide how you are positioned philosophically and in turn
methodologically. To help you to achieve this we will provide you with some strate
gies later in this chapter. Once you have accomplished this task, you will be in a
much better position to draw the best from a variety of thinkers about how grounded
theory methods can be used in individual research designs. This is what many of the
second-generation grounded theorists themselves have done, with the result that
grounded theory research design has moved into new methodological spaces
(Charmaz, 2000; �larke, 2005).
Methodological influences on grounded theory
Grounded theory is most often derived from data sources of a qualitative (interpre
tive) nature. Qualitative research studies originate from early world explorers who
documented their experiences of encountering the tribes of foreign lands while col
lecting cultural artefacts, all in the name of colonization.
Denzin and Lincoln (2011) identify eight moments of qualitative research orig
inating at different points of history and influenced by the social milieu of the
time. The eight moments of qualitative research are not moments that have ever
passed, rather they continue today and shape the variety of methodological posi
tions that researchers take in their designs. Methodologically, grounded theory has
been influenced by researchers situated in the second, third, fourth and fifth of
these eight moments of qualitative research. The dates attached to the following
explanations of these relevant moments are provided to indicate their period of
dominance.
6
fViENTIAL\ OF GR..OVNDfD THEOR..Y
BOX 1.1
'
DENZIN AND LINCOLN S MOMENTS OF QUALITATIVE INQUIRY 1-------.
(MILLS AND BIRKS, 2014A:
6)
Moment
Years
The second moment (from the post war years to 1970) is known as the 'golden age
of rigorous qualitative analysis' (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005: 16) durifig which time
Glaser and Strauss developed grounded theory methods. Philosophically the second
moment is dominated by post-positivism resulting in researchers working within an
ontological and epistemological frame where there is an assumed reality worth dis
covering as a detached objective observer.
The third moment of qualitative research dawned soon after the publication of
Discovery of Grounded Theory, as a response to cultural ruptures in American society
which took hold in 1968 (Mills and Birks, 2014a). This phase is called 'blurred
genres' (1970-86) and is characterized by qualitative researchers questioning their
place in research texts. Constructivist thinking became very influential in this
moment, and of importance to grounded theory, as Charmaz began to consider
grounded theory using this methodological lens.
It was not until the fourth moment of qualitative research (2005), dubbed the
'crisis of representation' (1986-90), that Charmaz began to publish about construc
tivist grounded theory (Charmaz1 1995). Charmaz's work is clearly influenced by the
third and fourth moments in its focus on the place of the author in the text, their
relationship with participants, and the importance of writing in constructing a final
text that remains grounded in the data (Charmaz, 2000, 2014).
The fifth moment of qualitative research overlaps and extends the fourth and is the
period of postmodernism that is also referred to as 'the triple crisis' as it adds legitima
tion and praxis to representation. Legitimation questioned measures for deciding on the
merit of qualitative research outcomes, while the crisis of praxis provoked questions
about the ability of textual analyses of society to effect change (Denzin and Lincoln,
2005). Postmodernist thought permeated much of this debate and influenced the next
key movement in grounded theory, Clarke's work on situational analysis (2005).
7
In Box 1.2, Merilyn Annells discusses situating her own study within the fifth
moment of qualitative research and the influence this had on establishing her philo
sophical position. Note how Annells supports researchers taking a broad and evolving
view of grounded theory and the advice she gives for ensuring success in adopting a
non-traditional position.
BOX 1.2 WINDOW INTO GROUNDED THEORY
Merilyn Annells on philosophical positioning
Although I did a small study in 1991 that I thought was grounded theory (GT) research, my first
real GT study commenced in 1994 as part of my PhD research. The 1991 study included GT
research processes but was descriptive, exploratory qualitative research achieving concep
tual ordering but not a full explanatory scheme as per GT.
With my PhD research, fortunately a supervisor knew that in 1994 we were in the 'fifth
moment' of qualitative research, which, according to Norman Denzin and Yvonne Lincoln,
was being defined and shaped by dual crises of representation and legitimation. Therefore, I
was encouraged to consider in which paradigm of qualitative research my philosophical
position about inquiry placed me - so I studied the writings of Egon Guba and Yvonne Lincoln
to discover that I was embedded in the constructivist paradigm.
However, this led me to a dilemma. How could I do GT research that would be ontologi
cally, epistemologically and methodologically constructivist? GT literature in that era did not
satisfactorily answer the question. Disciples of Glaserian or Straussian modes of GT were
polarized about 'rightness' of the modes, but mostly silent about philosophical perspectives.
So I 'took the bull by the horns' and did my own extensive analysis of writings by GT's major
identities, Barney Glaser, Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. My opinion became that Glaserian
GT was post-positivist and controversially that Straussian GT was leaning toward construc
tivism although still showing signs of post-positivism with symbolic interaction foundations.
This led me to applying the Straussian mode but in an ostensibly constructivist way, and 1 had
to write a solid defence of this choice.
What helped was meeting with Juliet Corbin in the US in 1995 to discuss my analysis of
data for the study, and in 1996, prior to his death, having correspondence about my philo
sophical analyses of GT with Anselm Strauss. Several articles were published in the
mid-1990s presenting my philosophical analyses of GT modes - this led to critical comment
by others. Nevertheless, having eminent examiners of the thesis added credibility to the
research and the philosophical analyses. These examiners were the qualitative research
methodologist, Margarete Sandelowski, and the pioneer grounded theorist nurse researcher
who worked with Glaser and Strauss in the 1960s, Jeanne Quint Benoliel.
What has remained constant is my conviction that GT can be conducted within any quali
tative paradigmatic position if ensuring commensurable process and claims of outcome. This
needs to be thoroughly justified when planning and reporting the study. Additionally, I believe
that GT is evolving and it is not only OK but also beneficial to have multiple modes of GT from
which to choose. PhD candidates who I have supervised have justifiably and successfully
used quite different approaches to GT. These days there is plenty of literature about the
philosophical underpinnings of GT so a student does not have to try and work it out. If there is
something about GT that needs some new thought and opinion, don't hesitate to delve into it.
Viva la GT!
8
Annell's perspective reinforces our assertion earlier in this chapter that dividing
grounded theory into either traditional or Glaserian grounded theory, and evolved or
Straussian grounded theory, is not very helpful. Doing so fails to account for the
subtleties and differences in grounded theory research design that have developed in
the third, fourth and fifth moments of qualitative research. Methodologically, there
are no right or wrong approaches to using grounded theory methods; however, there
are differences that need to be taken into account. It is the methodological differ
ences in how essential grounded theory methods are used that we will explore and
explain in the chapters that follow.
Discerning a personal philosophical position
You may already be very clear about how you see yourself philosophically and in
turn methodologically. For some, this hard-thinking work is part of their scholarly
history and training, but others may have yet to attempt this task in an orderly way.
The importance of discerning a personal philosophical position before you begin to
conceptualize a research study is highlighted in the following quote:
All research is interpretive; it is guided by the researcher's set of beliefs and feelings about the
world and how it should be understood and studied. Some beliefs may be taken for granted,
invisible, only assumed, whereas others are highly problematic and controversial. (Denzin and
Lincoln, 2005: 22)
Articulating their beliefs and feelings about the world and reflecting on these equips
a researcher to make decisions of a methodological nature, which in turn affects how
the essential grounded theory methods are used. As to whether a researcher's beliefs
and feelings are highly problematic and controversial, the question must be asked: for
whom might this be the case? Chapter 4 discusses positioning the researcher at
length; however, if there is some early work that needs to be done to think through
a philosophical position, now is the time to 'clear a space for the writing voice, hacking
away at the others with [a] machete' (Lamott, 1994) and begin to write.
ACTIVITY 1.1 IDENTIFYING YOUR UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS
ABOUT THE WORLD
Make sure that you will be uninterrupted and comfortable (get a cup of coffee and perhaps a
chocolate biscuit). Prepare to time yourself to write for six minutes without stopping.
Think about the following questions:
1
How do we define our self?
2 What is the nature of reality?
3 What can be the relationship between researcher and participant?
4 How do we know the world, or gain knowledge of it?
(Continued)
9
GR.OVNDED 11--/EOR.Y
(Continued)
Now write for six minutes, without stopping, about the questions listed. Do not worry about
style, spelling or punctuation - just get your thoughts down on paper. Don't stop to critique
your work - just concentrate on writing.
Put this piece of w_riting away for a couple of days and then come back to it. Print it out, get
a highlighter pen and go through it. Find the gems in the dross: focus on these and write some
more. Look for the gaps, reflect on what else you need to read and consider. Write some
more. Never throw anything away; instead, file it carefully for another day.
Essential grounded theory methods
As will be discussed in the following chapters, many research studies purporting to
be grounded theories are often a qualitative descriptive analysis (Glaser, 2007) of a
particular phenomena. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (Bryant and
Charmaz, 2007) has brought the question of what are the salient characteristics of
grounded theory research design to the forefront of contemporary discussions about
grounded theory. We consider the following to constitute a set of essential grounded
theory methods: initial coding and categorization of data; concurrent data generation
or collection and analysis; writing memos; theoretical sampling; constant comparative
analysis using inductive and abductive logic; theoretical sensitivity; intermediate cod
ing; identifying a core category; and advanced coding and theoretical integration. The
remainder of this chapter provides a brief introduction to each of these methods to
create a sense of how they are used in undertaking a grounded theory study. The fol
lowing chapters will examine each of these methods in relation to producing an
integrated grounded theory while discussing the various debates and ideas present in
the literature.
Initial coding and categorization of data
Initial or open coding is the first step of data analysis. It is a way of identifying impor
tant words, or groups of words, in the data and then labelling them accordingly.
In vivo codes are when important words or groups of words (usually verbatim
quotes from participants) are themselves used as the label, while categories are
groups of related codes (Holloway, 2008). Categories are referred to as theoretically
saturated when new data analysis returns codes that only fit in existing categories,
and these categories are sufficiently explained in terms of their properties and the
dimensions.
There are various terms used to describe coding in grounded theory, which can
become confusing. In the original text, Glaser and Strauss (1967) paid little attention
to describing the process of coding, assuming that the reader would know what this
entailed. Since then, the process of coding in grounded theory studies has had phases
of being quite elaborate (Strauss and Corbin, 1990), to in more recent times becom
ing much more straightforward (Charmaz, 2012; Charmaz, 2014; Saldana, 2013).
10
Concurrent data generation or collection and analysis
Fundamental to a grounded theory research design is the process of concurrent data
generation or collection and analysis. To achieve this, the researcher generates or col
lects some data with an initially purposive sample. The data from these initial
encounters is coded before more data is collected or generated and the process of
analysis repeated. It is this concept that differentiates grounded theory from other
types of research design that require the researcher either initially to collect and
subsequently analyse the data, or to construct a theoretical proposition and then col
lect data to test their hypothesis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
Writing memos
Memos have been wonderfully described as 'intellectual capital in the bank' (Clarke,
2005: 85). More prosaically, memos are written records of a researcher's thinking
during the process of undertaking a grounded theory study. As such, they vary in
subject, intensity, coherence, theoretical content and usefulness to the finished prod
uct. However harshly you may critique your efforts at memo� writing, never throw a
memo away as you cannot anticipate when it might suddenly become vitally impor
tant. Memo writing is an ongoing activity for grounded theorists as memos are gener
ated from the very early stages of planning a study until its completion. Your memos
will in time transform into your grounded theory findings. Writing consistently and
copiously will help build your intellectual assets.
Theoretical sampling
Researchers use theoretical sampling to focus and feed their constant comparative
analysis of the data. During this iterative process, it will become apparent that more
information is needed to saturate categories under development. This often occurs
when you want to find out more about the properties of a category, conditions that
a particular category may exist under, the dimensions of a category or the relationship
between categories (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). To sample theoretically, the
researcher makes a strategic decision about what or who will provide the most
information-rich source of data to meet their analytical needs. Writing memos is an
important technique to use in this process, as it allows the researcher to map out
possible sources to sample theoretically, while at the same time creating an important
audit trail of the decision-making process for later use.
Constant comparative analysis
Part of the process of concurrent data collection and analysis is the constant com
parison of incident to incident, incident to codes, codes to codes, codes to categories,
and categories to categories. This is termed constant comparative analysis and is a
process that continues until a grounded theory is fully integrated.
Grounded theory methods are referred to as inductive in that they are a process
of building theory up from the data itself Induction of theory is achieved through
11
GR.OVNDED H-JEOR.Y
successive comparative analyses. The logic of abduction is also much more apparent
in the recent literature about grounded theory methods (Charmaz, 2006; Reichertz,
2007; Richardson and Adams St Pierre, 2005). Abductive reasoning occurs at all
stages of analysis, but particularly during the constant comparative analysis of cate
gories to categories that leads to theoretical integration. When using abductive rea
soning, the researcher 'has decided ... no longer to adhere to the conventional view
of things ... Abduction is therefore a cerebral process, an intellectual act, a mental
leap, that brings together things which one had never associated with one another: A
cognitive logic of discovery' (Reichertz, 2007: 220).
Theoretical sensitivity
Theoretical sensitivity is first cited in Glaser and Strauss's seminal text (1967) as a
two-part concept. Firstly, a researcher's level of theoretical sensitivity is deeply per
sonal; it reflects their level of insight into both themselves and the area that they are
researching. Secondly, a researcher's level of theoretical sensitivity reflects their intel
lectual history, the type of theory that they have read, absorbed and now use in their
everyday thought. Researchers are a sum of all they have experienced. The concept
of theoretical sensitivity acknowledges this fact and accounts for it in the research
process. As a grounded theorist becomes immersed in the data, their level of theo
retical sensitivity to analytical possibilities will increase.
Intermediate coding
Intermediate coding is the second major stage of data analysis following on from
initial coding. In saying this, the researcher moves between initial and intermediate
coding during the process of concurrent data generation or collection and analysis,
and the constant comparison of data.The researcher employs intermediate coding in
two ways: firstly, to develop fully individual categories by connecting sub-categories,
and fully developing the range of properties and their dimensions; and, secondly, to
link categories together. Initial coding is often said to fracture the data, whereas inter
mediate coding reconnects the data in ways that are conceptually much more
abstract than would be produced by a thematic analysis. Axial coding is the most
advanced form of intermediate coding and has been a feature of the work of Strauss
(1987) and Strauss and Corbin (1990) over time.
Identifying a core category
Developing categories through the process of intermediate coding will increase the
level of conceptual analysis apparent in the developing grounded theory.At this time,
the researcher may choose to select a core category that encapsulates and explains
the grounded theory as a whole. Further theoretical sampling and selective coding
focus on actualizing the core category in a highly abstract conceptual manner. This is
achieved through full theoretical saturation of both the core category and its sub
sidiary categories, sub-categories and their properties.
12
Advanced coding and theoretical integration
Advanced coding is critical to theoretical integration. Theoretical integration is the
most difficult of the essential grounded theory methods to accomplish well. A
grounded theory generally provides a comprehensive explanation of a process or
scheme apparent in relation to particular phenomena. It is comprehensive because it
includes variation rather than assuming there is a one-size-fits-all answer to a research
question. Advanced coding procedures include the use of the storyline technique
(Strauss and Corbin, 1990) as a mechanism of both integrating and presenting
grounded theory. Glaser (2005) employs theoretical coding during the advanced cod
ing stage. Theoretical codes can be drawn from existing theories to assist in theoreti
cal integration while adding explanatory power to the final product of a grounded
theory study by situating it in relation to a theoretical body of knowledge.
Generating theory
The final product of a grounded theory study is an integrated and comprehensive
grounded theory that explains a process or scheme associated with a phenomenon.
r/I
0
E
Q)
:::
Theoretical sensitivity
Intermediate coding
Selecting a core category
Theoretical saturation
Purposive sampling
Initial coding
Concurrent data collection or
generation
Theoretical sampling
Constant comparative analyis
Category identification
Figure 1.2
Essential grounded theory methods
13
:s:
II)
3
0
C/l
This theory is generated by the researcher (Glaser and Strauss,
ods we have just provided an overview of Figure
1 967) using the meth
1.2 illustrates how the essential
methods fit together during the process of grounded theory research.
We have purposely grouped essential grounded theory methods into three wheels that
can drive a machine (you) to generate grounded theory. The largest wheel includes pur
posive sampling, initial coding, concurrent data generation and collection and analysis,
theoretical sampling, constant comparative analysis and category identification. This
wheel constitutes the most straightforward and easiest to accomplish of the methods.
Together, large wheel methods form the powerhouse of grounded theory research design,
enabling you to both generate and refine data. The two smaller wheels include concepts
and techniques that are no less important. Rather, small-wheel methods take your study
to a level of sophistication that will lift your analysis beyond qualitative description. The
lower of the small wheels includes theoretical sensitivity, intermediate coding, identifying
a core category and theoretical saturation. Engaging in these methods will further refine
your analysis while increasing the comprehensiveness of the final product. The upper
small wheel includes complex methods of advanced coding and theoretical integration.
This is where a grounded theory either comes togethe� or not, as the case may be.
Writing memos lubricates each of the wheels as they rotate around each other during the
grounded theory research process. Without high-quality memos, the machine will very
quickly grind to a halt. If one of the small wheels becomes j ammed, or has absent com
ponents, then a grounded theory will never be produced. It is as simple as that.
Conclusion
This chapter has provided you with an introduction to grounded theory research. In
the chapters that follow, you will have the opportunity to explore in detail the criti
cal elements of grounded theory introduced so far. By now, you will have written
your first memo documenting how at the beginning of your study you understood
reality and how hu�an beings can both acquire and develop knowledge, an extremely
important task to have accomplished before you begin to plan your grounded theory
study, which is the subject of Chapter
2.
How important do you think the prevailing research culture was in shaping Glaser and
Strauss's original work on grounded theory?
2 Consider second-generation grounded theorists. What do you think were the most impor
tant influences on their work?
3 Essential grounded theory methods are mul ti-faceted. Identify the purposes of each of
these.
4
Reflect on the different methodological influences apparent in grounded theory research.
What type of language would you expect each of the seminal authors to use in relation to
both participants and their findings?
14
-l'·';'''�'i%4.·'i·l'''+';f#
11':'
Review the 'Working grounded theory' example presented in Appendix A. Note:
•
The preconceptions this researcher held about grounded theory prior to commencing the
study.
•
•
The relationship this researcher had with the seminal works on grounded theory.
The personal philosophical position of the researcher and how this was expressed.
15