Session Content
Preliminary Reading
JOHNSTON, T. L. (2008). ‘Pushing for Privileged Passage: A grounded theory of guardians to middle level mathematics students.’ The Grounded Theory Review. 7(1): 43-60. [Review Article]
The Grounded Theory Review is an open access journal available at http://groundedtheoryreview.com.
DOWLING, P.C. & BROWN, A.J. (2010). Doing Research/Reading Research: re-interrogating education. London. Routledge. c. 7.
Further Reading
The themed section of The Grounded Theory Review 11(1) contains interesting discussion on constructivist GT and, in particular, the articles by Barnett and by Hernandez and Andrews mark out the key differences between constructivist and classic GT.
CRESWELL, J. (2012). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: choosing among five approaches. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks. Sage. Sections on grounded theory and also Appendix D.
DOWLING, P.C. (2012). ‘Being Barney Glaser.’ Grounded Theory Review. 11(2). no page numbers.
This piece is an essay review of the Martin & Gynnild collection.
GLASER, B. G. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence versus forcing. Mill Valley, Sociology Press.
GLASER, B.G. & STRAUSS, A.L. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York. Aldine Publishing Company.
GLASER, B.G. & STRAUSS, A.L. (1965). Awareness of Dying. Chicago IL. Aldine Publishing.
KRESS, G. & VAN LEEUWEN, T. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London. Routledge.
MARTIN, V.B & GYNNILD, A. (Eds). (2011). Grounded Theory: the philosophy, method, and work of Barney Glaser. Boca Raton. Brown Walker Press.
STRAUSS, A. & J. CORBIN (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Second Edition: Techniques for Developing Grounded Theory. London, Sage.
The session will be concerned with the grounded theory (GT) approach originally presented in the 1967 Glaser and Strauss book and enacted in their earlier work, Awareness of Dying, and subsequently developed in rather divergent ways (see Strauss & Corbin (1998) and Glaser (1992), which was a response to the first edition of Strauss & Corbin, see also Martin & Gynnild (2011). GT has is now probably the most widely recruited approach in qualitative social research, though, as I have indicated, it really consists of a range of approaches some of which are, unlike classic GT, not appropriately regarded as distinct methods. GT is most commonly used in qualitative research, although Glaser contends that it is appropriate for any kind of data. The general principle of GT is that it is vital to let the empirical setting be heard. I would say that this is true of any research approach, but in classic GT it is particularly important to avoid imposing preconceptions on the setting. Of course, no one can come to a research setting without already existing experiences and knowledge, but the intention should be to get into the mind-set of seeing the analysis and the developing theory as emerging from the data that is collected. This will perhaps be easier to see in comparing the approach of the preliminary reading for this session with that for session 3 (on narrative analysis), which adopts a particular theoretical position in advance of the analysis.
Key features of the grounded theory approach include theoretical sensitivity, theoretical sampling, coding, conceptualisation, the writing of memos, constant comparison, and saturation. Theoretical sampling entails that decisions on who to speak with, what to look at, where, when and so forth are not all made in advance, but in the light of the developing analysis. This, of course, means that data analysis and data collection start at the same time—generally a good idea, in fact—although the process of analysis will always continue well beyond the point at which data collection has come to an end. Memos are pieces of writing—of any length—that attempt to clarify and, I would say, illustrate categories as they are emerging from the analysis. Memos may, in my view, be ephemera so that their productivity is in the doing of the writing rather than in the memos themselves as records, though the latter may be of value in reconstructing the history of the analysis and in subsequent development, for example in the move from substantive to formal GT. In classic GT, the memos are more important and form the basis for the write-up of the research. Constant comparison involves the researcher constantly moving between consideration of developing categories and theory and the data and between different parts of the data and different categories in an attempt to develop coherence and, ultimately saturation, which is the point at which no new categories are emerging from the further consideration of data. In the preliminary reading the author conducts interviews with ‘forty-one subjects who worked with or had children attending 13 schools in 10 school districts and three states’ (p. 44). This is a substantial amount of data and rather more than would be appropriate for a masters dissertation interview study, which may involve, say, 6–10 interviews. If you are used to looking at the results of survey research, then this may seem a very small number and, indeed, it would be small if the intention were to generalise the findings to a wider population. This is not the case, however: GT is always more or less context bound. This is not to say, though, that GT has no value beyond the context of its production. On the contrary, the substantive GT—in the preliminary reading, the generally sequenced modes of pushing that student guardians deploy—is constituted as a more general social process. It will have implications for and raises questions of similar settings as is made clear in the reading and may potentially be developed as formal GT, as is also discussed in the paper.
The author of the preliminary reading notes that the expression 'pushing' occurred frequently in her data and has used this in vivo term to name her core category. It is important to recognise, however, that her use of the term constitutes a conceptualisation of the data as distinct from the various ways in which it was actually used empirically. Pushing has three properties: investing, pressuring, and lobbying. Each of these properties also has sub-categories. All of these categories are illustrated in the paper. Theoretical sampling is illustrated by reference to the attempt to balance and extend the sample. This strategy is not, however, directed at representativeness so much as testing or developing the emerging theory. At the end of the paper the author points to other contexts—involving ‘powerless populations’ and also the particular case of athletics—in which pushing might be a relevant process with a possible view to developing a formal GT.
QDA (Qualitative Data Analysis)
The chapter in Dowling & Brown is concerned with qualitative analysis generally and includes a semiotic analysis of a visual text and some analysis of some verbal text. In this session we shall be concerned with approaches to analysis and also with what it means to analyse data and what the analysis produces.
Key Methodological Term
axial coding
case study
category
causality
coding
conditional matrix
constant comparison
constructivism
content
control
core category
credibility
data
documentation
empiricism
epistemology
expression
field work observation
focus group
formal GT
grand tour question
grounded theory
in vitro codes
in vivo codes
interpretive paradigm interview
memo
methodology
multimodality
objectivism
observation
open coding
open-ended interview
positivism
probe
prompt
property
qualitative research
quantitative research
questionnaire
reflective diary
reflexivity
reliability
respondent
sample
saturation
semi-structured
signified
signifier
interviews
selective coding
semiotic analysis
serial coding
subjectivism
substantive GT
theoretical coding
theoretical sampling
theoretical sensitivity
transcription
triangulation
trustworthiness
validation
validity
variable