GROUNDED THEORY DISCUSSION : The most difficult aspect of doing a GT dissertation?

From jrpatton09:

My problem continues to be in convincing people that my research is susceptible to the GT methodology. My research does not examine the interaction of behavior in human subjects. As stated in another post, my study examines a physical, even quantifiable phenomenon. However, the entire process has followed a GT approach long before I knew what GT was. Working in the data without preconceptions, I began noticing a pattern of task delivery, I will call ‘attenuating’ (diminishing). Categories emerged from the data, and I began coding the data. I wrote extensive memos. Later I would learn this is theoretical memoing.

The data was continuously examined and compared to other data and to the theory concurrent with its collection. The process was not linear, but could be defined as starting and stopping, reshaping and adapting the theory to the story the data told. The main difference was that I was not observing a social interaction.

My rationale for this method rests on the premise that I have gathered empirical data, analyzed and coded it and then theorized about the phenomenon that gave rise to the empirical observations. The observation of a phenomenon, the simultaneous involvement of data collection and analysis, the coding, the constant comparative analysis, the memo writing and the emergent innovative theory justify (in my mind) the Grounded Theory approach.

Can anyone comment on why this would not be considered GT?

--------------------------

From Marilou:

I could not start! That is my weakness as a grad student from the start. I actually lost goodwill with a previous employer because I simply could not get me to start doing what I need to do which is to research. My early research output were not publishable 'enough' and now I am about to do GT for my dissertation proposal on humor and relationships and I just could not start. Interest-wise, I have enough of it to not change my mind on the topic and the methodology but I am scared of the reading I need to do to fully understand this methodology and justify choosing it before a panel. My adviser though has promised we will find panel members who are familiar with the method. I doubt though if we will be allowed to get from outside the department of applied linguistics (to which my program belongs). Wish me luck!

--------------------------------

From Tina:

When I was doing my dissertation the most difficult part was the fact that I was learning a methodology (with what I now know were misconceptions at the time) at the same time as conducting a high stakes research study. The good part was that this is a good way to learn anyway (big picture and problem-based learning) but it was nonetheless difficult. This situation was complicated by the fact that I had to defend my research proposal and the method before I really understood what it meant to do a GT study (a very difficult process).

One of my greatest misconceptions at the time was that this was a qualitative method. My definition of qualitative was: any study conducted without an a priori hypothesis.

Since then I have come to a new understanding (at least in my own mind!) That GT should be part of a third research paradigm.

1. quantitative studies-those studies developed around a set hypothesis to test for accuracy

2. qualitative studies studies with no strict a priori hypothesis but a theoretical framework and designed to investigate in detail a focus environment or situation.

and finally

3. Theory development: studies with no a priori hypothesis or theoretical framework that seek to develop hypothesis of how things (or people) work. Obviously GT is an example of this paradigm.

This is a rough view and I'm sure there is room for clean up. Does anyone have any insight or argument for me??

-----------

From Tom:

One of my difficulties like Tina, was assuming that GT was a qualitative methodology. Most research students have attended methods classes and while very useful in gaining an understanding of methodology, I have since concluded that because GT is assumed to be a qualitative method, it is not very well taught. For me one of the challenges of doing GT was to unlearn a lot of what I was taught in those classes. I guess not so much unlearn, but it struck me as so different to other methods that it took me some time and a lot of study to appreciate that it is a general methodology. It was only then that I fully understood what conceptualization meant and why concepts are independent of time, place and people. This came clearly to me at the Paris seminar following much reading, talking and preconscious processing. It was only by studying it while doing it that I further developed my understanding of GT. Like Tina, it was only towards the end of my PhD that I felt I understood it sufficiently to claim that I had used it in my study. Even then, I can’t claim to have fully understood a;; aspects of it. This has come through further study of the method using primary sources (i.e. books written by Dr. Barney Glaser) and writing about it as well as reading others' interpretation (re-writing usually) of the method. In summary, I think that it takes some unlearning of issues usually associated with qualitative research as well as a lot of learning!

--------
From Rhonda:

I completely relate to the postings by Tina and Tom about submitting a proposal prior to understanding and realizing that GT is in a category by itself. On a more specific level, memoing was one tense period of completing my dissertation study. I graduated last year and because I, too, learned while doing, I feel that I need to "do again" a GT study for deeper understanding. However, I feel alone in my value of GT and alone in trying to complete another study. While I find the topic of GT surfacing occasionally in my academic world, I find that most often it is misrepresented. I look forward to the upcoming seminar in New York to reginite my use of the vernacular, to network, and to see what I truly know about the GT process.

-----------

From Nicolas:

For me, the first step, before doing it, was to convince my faculty of the usefulness of the GT. Rhetorical wrestling took me about six months, and was really exhausting. Fortunately, one of my professor, who had more propensity than the others to do qualitative study, found the method very exciting, and allowed me to begin without restriction.

Reading the Glaserian literature was a pleasure, so I found that learning the method was very exciting.

For me, the most difficult aspect of GT dissertation was the constant presence of the process in my mind. I confess that sometimes, nigt and day, I was thinking of the category, the theory... Not being able to think to something else. That was really tiresome, but, part of the method (it was « cooking » as Glaser said) and in fact very productive. I often woke up during the night to write something, or even in my car or in the subway or anywhere… At the beginning of the study, I faced nothing (not having found any category), and very stressed, being unable to know where I was going… The finding of the core category emerged after 5 interviews, and was a great moment for me. But just after, using the constant comparison method, I was anxious about that core category : Does it really fit or not ? …

Well, for me, I think that the most difficult aspect is that you constantly have to question not only the data, but also yourself. That perpetual calling into question is trying. I felt sometimes realy alone, depressed… So, I think it is really usefull to read the Glaserian litterature, that explains these phenomenons of feeling depressed etc.

------------------------------

From Joy:

Though my reply comes late, I also would like to share what I found most difficult in doing GT. It was when I had to present my research to the panel, and I found them asking me questions to show how I had done GT. My mistake during the presentation was that, for the sake of brevity, I did not put in all the details of the interviews. So, when they saw a seamless and well-synthesized paper in the end, they could not believe it was truly "grounded" and asked how it came about. While, it was very clear to me, I of course had to explain it to them. I guess that's what's difficult about GT: how to share the significant experience that you went through in a way that others would be able to engage in as fully has you had.

----------------------------

From Olavurc:

The most difficult is to allow the data, and what the data conceptually relate about a main concern and its recurrent solution, to take control of the research process, and to avoid the ordinary preconceived approach (i.e., descriptive interpretation instead of abstract conceptualization), and to convince peer-reviewers that the Glaserian approach is legitimate and well justified - the idea of allowing the data and what the data relate to take control of the research process is also new to these people. When you explain the Glaserian approach to these people, you risk to offend them. Some of them think they know grounded theory very well, but they do not have a clue about classic grounded theory.

---------------------------

From Toke:

For me the most difficult was

1) that I was spending too much time coding every sentence of 35 hour-long interviews with ... 1000+ different codes and it was virtually useless waste of time - I'm not sure this qualify as a real difficulty, as it just proves that I either had not understood how things should be done or were just too dumb or stubborn to do what I was supposed to

2) that I wanted to get published in traditional medical journals