tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16236758689457761672024-02-20T14:32:21.753-08:00CLASSIC GROUNDED THEORY RESEARCHERSIN EMERGENCE WE TRUSTObservation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-83984942878919656162010-04-11T21:04:00.000-07:002010-04-11T21:04:28.053-07:00Memos ClosedDue to an unstable condition of my health, this blog is closed temporarily. Happy theorizing!Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-83331331433081736032010-02-07T07:42:00.000-08:002010-02-07T07:42:29.994-08:00Memo #6<div style="text-align: justify;">Why is <i><b>nagging </b></i>such an interesting behavior to study? I don't know if I can ever get anything from it. Concept or theory ... nah! A zillion miles from it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So far, all I obtained from the conversations with the participants were merely descriptions of what, why, when, who and how. Nothing emerged, yet. This is more like I'm doing phenomenology than GT.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">The mistake I made is clear now. This study of <i><b>nagging </b></i>was supposed to be using phenomenology. Three years a go, before my encounter of the third kind with GT, I decided to use phenomenology for my study. I couldn't come up with a proposal because the literature review wasn't exhaustive. Anyway, it wasn't my fault, the studies or articles related to <i><b>nagging </b></i>were so few and mostly mentioned as an effect of dissatisfaction. The studies were always denotated as conflict in the family.There were no mentions of theory or concept of <i><b>nagging</b></i>. The only consolation and possibly motivation for me to continue the study was actually the lack of literature in <b><i>nagging</i></b>. So I thought, may be I should push the boundary further by using GT. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But my experience with the <i><b>nagging </b></i>literature and phenomenology will definitely have great influence on my conceptualizing the phenomenon. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">My supervisor wanted me to proceed with <i><b>nagging </b></i>because she sees its significance. She believes that it'll be a great study. I don't quite agree with her because GT wasn't her expertise. She is an ethnographer. Some fellows from the GT Institute also wanted me to do nagging. They said it's interesting. But still I have worries that must be resolved.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Is this the right substantive area of study? Or is <i><b>nagging </b></i>actually the initiation stage of other things to come?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Help me, Grounded Theorists!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-39223233754914826042010-02-02T08:46:00.000-08:002010-02-02T08:50:05.595-08:00Memo #5Three female graduate students (the participants) came to my room this afternoon requesting me to sign their GRF forms. I took the opportunity to ask them questions regarding nagging. It began with this question. "Tell me about your experience when you were being nagged at". These are extracts from my notes:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>Nagging is an expression of dissatisfaction through incessant verbal remarks. </li>
<li>Nagging contains insinuations, comparisons, mocks and advice.</li>
<li>Mothers aren't the only group of people who nag. Father, son, daughter, sister also nag.</li>
<li>It may occur many times in a day.</li>
<li>It can happen in a few minutes or lasts for about an hour.</li>
<li>The participants also nag and they emulate the way the naggers (their mothers) nag.</li>
<li>One of them react verbally to the nagger if she feels she is innocent.</li>
<li>They keep silent if they feel the nagger is right about the claims.</li>
<li>Mother's nagging serve as a deterrent.</li>
<li>Compliance (doing what was nagged by the mother) is a way to keep her to cease from nagging.</li>
</ul>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-23588024948066831052010-01-25T01:53:00.000-08:002010-01-25T02:04:36.528-08:00Memo #4<div style="text-align: justify;">During class of EDU 6011 Psychology of Personality this afternoon, Arezou (an Iranian student) who presented a paper on Attachment and Personality, mentioned that she is not strongly attached to her mother. She said she is more attached to her father. I asked why and she answered that may be because her mother was always not satisfied with her. Her mother usually complained a lot about her but never her brother. She didn't elaborate and I didn't have the heart to know how and what.<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Well, I thought at first may be her mother liked to nag at her thus, causing the weak attachment but she said that was only a part of the problem. She revealed that her mother was depressed during the early years of her marriage when she lost her mother and father. Her personality, too, changed after that.<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So nagging is only a part of the problem. No big deal. It's not the nagging that she was really concerned with.<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Before the class ended, Koh (not her real name), told me that nagging is very natural as she nags everyday at home. It's something she does to make sure that everything in the house is in order. It's more of caring than dissatisfaction. It's way to remind the children and her husband that things must be in order. It's an instinct, she said.<br />
</div>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-42193660791244781272010-01-22T00:09:00.001-08:002010-01-22T19:45:14.434-08:00Memo #3I had a conversation with my wife yesterday and I asked her if she realized that she was nagging every time she nagged. Here's her responses: <div><br /></div><div><b><i>Sometimes yes but sometimes no. Sometimes when I nagged it was like I was talking to myself.</i></b></div><div><br /></div><div>I asked again "Since you said you were talking to yourself, what if there is no listener? Will you nag?"</div><div><br /></div><div><b><i>Of course not! Actually I just want people to hear about my dissatisfaction</i>.</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Is that your main concern? You want to be heard.</div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><b><i>Yes ... and don't interfere when I nag because I am talking to myself. Just listen.</i></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-65558004111181456882010-01-20T17:24:00.000-08:002010-01-20T17:35:59.774-08:00Memo #2<div style="text-align: justify;">Yesterday while teaching the course KOH3432 Skills in Interpersonal Communication, I asked my students if their mothers ever nag. As expected, all of them agreed that their mothers nag.<br /><br />So nagging is just a natural occurance in everyday life but does it have any impact on the listener?s Why do people nag? What actually are the concerns of the naggers and the naggee? Are mothers the only people who nag in the family?<br /><br />I am going to find out and may be LD can help me.<br /></div>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-47197790559556329762010-01-19T16:27:00.000-08:002010-01-22T19:43:42.565-08:00Memo # 1<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">During a meeting with my thesis supervisor a week ago, she told me to start writing for my PhD proposal immediately. I was required to write the Problem Statement, Research Questions and the Methodology. I was a bit shocked. She knew that I will be using CGT and I thought she knew how CGT works as she has attended the CGT Workshop on March 2009. Clearly I was wrong.<br /><br />I made a mistake of reminding her that CGT doesn't work the way she thinks. She was disheartened. My remark must have been an insult to her. She replied hastily "I know CGT!".<br /><br />Then she said something that I always hate to hear. "Just get the degree first. Later you can do whatever you want to do". Sigh.<br /><br />This notion of getting the degree first is not new to me. I have heard lecturers and students asserting the same quote "Get the degree first!". Period.<br /><br />"Just get the degree first" is a quote that connote the quick and easy way of getting a degree and then be known as "doctor". To me, it's just another way of saying that the PhD research thesis should be of low quality.' It's only a ticket that eventually allow you to a higher level of research.<br /><br />The problem is I am 53 years old and I will retire in only a few years time. I don't want to obtain a degree from a poor quality thesis. I want to do something that will contribute or at least push further the boundary of knowledge in the communication discipline.<br /><br />"Why get yourself into trouble to obtain the PhD the hard way?" they said.<br /><br />The hard way to obtain a PhD degree is by using qualitative (CGT included) method! That's according to a lecturer during our conversation at the cafeteria. But she did her PhD research using the quantitative method and it took her seven years to complete. Was that easy?<br /><br />But somehow, many of the lecturers I met who have obtained their PhD were either proud or a little embarrassed to talk about their PhD thesis. The new young "doctors" were always too eager to tell me about it. But the older "doctors" were somewhat hesitant. Wonder why? Is it the age / maturity factor.<br /><br />Whatever will be, I will do something that I really like to do. I will do what no one else do and I will do something what everyone else chooses not to do. Period. </div>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-87957570132548781682010-01-13T23:25:00.000-08:002010-01-13T23:30:42.529-08:00Pak Ngah's Questions in the Grounded Theory Institute Forum<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Pak Ngah's question</span><br /><br />Hello everyone,<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">I must admit that I am very new to qualitative method not to mention the general method such as Classic GT. Currently I'm investigating a common occurrence in family communication : Nagging. In order to save myself from being biased and to avoid the forcing of data, I have avoided reading any literature related to it. I have started interviewing informants that include the naggers, the persons who are being nagged at and people who are not involved in the nagging but inevitably have to listen to the naggers. So far I have data that I did not expect to get such as nagging can be normal and extreme, nagging is a responsibility of the nagger and nagging as an intrapersonal communication. Yet, I do not know what and where to focus on in order to proceed with the study. I don't think that I am theoretically sensitive and as a result I have no idea in analyzing the data. What should I do now? Please help.<br /></div><br />------------------<br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Tom responded to my question.</span><br /><br />Hi PakNgah,<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">You sound as if you are doing just fine. It is not at all unusual to get data you didn’t expect. I suggest that you just stick with what you are doing, that is, asking open questions and listen to what people are telling you. Code every interview/encounter and memo at every opportunity. You need to tolerate not knowing what the focus of your study is currently, on the understanding that in GT the main concern of participants will emerge. This is guaranteed but may take some time. You are doing everything right at the moment. The focus will come as you continue with open coding and memoing. The emergence of the core category will give the study clear focus. Just continue to ask open questions and follow up on what is emerging. Let this guide the questions you ask (theoretical sampling). You are experiencing “core confusion”, which is usual in GT as often the researcher does not know where the study is leading. In summary, tolerate your current confusion and “trust in emergence”.<br /></div><br />Tom<br /><br />-----------------------<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Tina's response</span><br /><br />Hi,<br /><br />I might also add that it would be good to start looking for main concerns. Do you find that the naggers or naggees have a main concern? :) As a sometimes nagger i can think of my main concern :) In doing my GT studies I find that identifying the concern is vital in helping me begin to then look for patterns of behavior and the core category.<br /><br />Tina<br /><br />----------------------------------<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Hanst responded, too.</span><br /><br />Hi ishak!<br /><br />to study nagging seems a relevant job indeed!<br />And I would be very interested in the theory once generated.<br />Since I myself would like to find out about nagging patterns and how to optimize family life<br /><br />Ie what is the main concern of the naggers and how are they resolving it?<br />"Nagging as a responsibilty" - this I see in parents or teachers (?)<br />"Nagging as intrapersonal communication" I do not really understand. Try to find easier way to explain what is going on.<br />Do you mean that nagging could be a way of crying out loud what you are thinking?<br /><br />hanstObservation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-20155141992868186102010-01-13T23:18:00.000-08:002010-01-13T23:25:16.812-08:00Probability of Theoretical Codes/Saturation/Significance<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic;">From Keith Woodman</span><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Hello folks. Good news, I just passed my dissertation proposal defense but it was quite a fight. My committee is made up of 4 professors, only one of whom appreciates and understands inductive research. The main sticking points were as follows:<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">1. When describing theoretical codes, I stated that they describe the most probable relationships between concepts. This turned into a 20 minute discussion by what I meant by "probable". I stated that the theoretical code was the best way I could link my concepts based on data triangulated from multiple sources.<br /></div><br />2. I was asked how I would know I've reached saturation. Having already collected all my data and conducted several iterations of coding, I knew when I had reached saturation during the study at least with concepts, but kept taking data in order to collect more information to describe concept properties and increase validation through triangulation. But I couldn't state, "you just know when you've reached saturation because you're so close to the data".<br /><br />3. The last sticking point was significance. How do you know your inductive study is going to be significant to the body of knowledge since you don't conduct a literature review until close to the end? Got to admit, this one stumped me. I knew I could prove the significance of my study having conducted my literature review but how would one do that at the beginning of an inductive study? (Note: I collected most of my data and conducted my analysis and literature review before the proposal defense because my opportunity to collect data was a once in a lifetime opportunity.)<br /><br />Although I've made it through proposal defense, I post these for two reasons. First, to help those who may be coming up on their proposal defense. Second, my committee is taking me seriously now and wants to meet with me every three months until I am finished. I would like to be able to answer their questions and make these deductive researchers feel more comfortable with what I'm doing.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />----------------<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Tom's response to Keith</span><br /><br />Hi Keith,<br />Your posting raises some interesting questions. You sound as if you dealt with them very well. I will answer them briefly as follows.<br />1. Theoretical codes essentially are the qualitative research equivalent to conceptual frameworks. They demonstrate how the core, sub-core and categories relate to each other- they hold the study together. Like all aspects of GT they emerge as well and while there may be several relevant in any one study, it is likely that there will be an overriding one.<br />2. You achieve saturation when you see no new incidents of the same category or you see interchangeability of indices. Being “close to the data” is not an issue. Remember that “validation” is not an issue either in GT because of its conceptual nature.<br />3. It is likely that most studies using qualitative research will be descriptive. The significance of GT is that it generates a conceptual theory, one that at a minimum can be used explain and/or understand the behaviour of participants in resolving or processing their main concern. It makes a theoretical contribution, particularly in areas where there theory is lacking and there are many. Again, a minimum contribution is that the generated theory can be used to guide practice. It is generalisable because it is independent of time, place and people. A generated GT has the potential to be very influential.<br /><br />I hope this helps and gives you something to think about when answering the questions of your committee. Also, I would encourage you to read some of Dr. Glaser’s later books where these issues are dealt with at length.<br /><br />---------------------<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Lettra's questions to Tom</span><br /><br />Hi Tom. I always find your imput very helpful. I wonder if you could confirm what you mean by core sub-core and categories. To clarify what I mean - At the open coding stage I identifed themes used by participants, To compare them I then numbered them to identify similars and none-similars, which produced the substantive codes. These were then delimited by noting how many times each similar was used; e.g the lesser number 1-3 were delimited as not being significant enough to become a category, others above this number were so identifed. Eventually one specific core category emerged making the rest sub-categories.<br />My question is this: Are your core: sub-core: categories the same under different labels?<br /><br />-------------<br /></div><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Tom responded to Lettra</span><br /><br />Hi Lettra,<br /><div style="text-align: justify;">First of all the words code and category are used interchangeably in GT; they mean the same thing. The aim is to identify a core category which accounts for most of the variation in the behaviour of participants. It is at this point that researchers delimit, meaning that data are collected around the core category only and other categories not related to the core are dropped since they haven’t “cored out” that is, they are not related to the core. They might become the focus of another paper. That is what is meant by delimiting. So delimiting is not applied to incidents. Categories/concepts are the naming of patterns of behaviour. This is what researchers are looking for in the behaviour of people. There is no need to look for similarities and differences, negative cases etc. as in qualitative research. However, researchers will often be concerned with what varies a category. It could be consequences, conditions, contingencies etc. but these must emerge and not be forced in any way. For example (and it’s not a particularly good one but the only one I can think of currently), in a category called “money worries” participants may be worried along a continuum from not being too worried to being greatly worried. Rather than treating them differently GT researchers would look at what varies money worries. Incidents would still indicate the same category (money worries) but in this example, it varies along a continuum. Qualitative research would concern itself with describing in detail each of the variations, while not necessarily relating them one to another. Not so in GT where the pattern is conceptualised and related using theoretical coding. I hope this makes sense.<br /></div>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-55111013113535446522009-04-21T19:55:00.000-07:002009-10-22T17:12:43.105-07:00<p style="text-align: justify;"> <strong><span class="LargeText">Here is an excellent outline of the GT process by Odis Simmons</span>:</strong> </p><div> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Proprietary – not for use or distribution without permission of author Composed by: Odis E. Simmons, Ph.D. Stages of a Classic (Glaserian) Grounded Theory Study:Stages are generally sequential, but once research process begins they are often conducted simultaneously, as the particular research requires. </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> <strong>1. Preparation</strong>: Minimizing preconceptions. No preliminary literature review. General research topic, but no predetermined research “problem.” </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> <strong>2. Data Collection:</strong> Most common form: intensive interviews, often combined with participant observation. But, any type of data can be used, including quantitative. Theoretical Sampling </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Initial analysis determines where to go and what to look for next in data collection. Analysis and data collection continually inform one another. </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> <strong>3. Analysis: Constant Comparative Analysis</strong> Relating data to ideas, then ideas to other ideas. </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Substantive Coding </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Substantive codes summarize empirical substance. Have grab, relevance, and fit. </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Sensitizing concepts: Are “accessible” through imagery, humor, irony. </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> In vivo concepts: concepts inherent to action scene (e.g. milkman’s “coffee stop”). </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Open Coding </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Coding for anything and everything. The analyst asks three general questions of the data: </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> A. "What is this data a study of?" Leads to discovery of the “core variable.” The core variable becomes the focus of the research and theory. The core variable is the variable which accounts for the most variation (e.g. Milkman’s “cultivating relationships”) </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> B. "What category does this incident indicate?" </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> C. "What is actually happening in the data?" </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Selective Coding </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Usually occurs when core variable and major dimensions and properties have been discovered. Closed coding involves limiting the coding to things related to the core variable. </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Theoretical Coding </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Theoretical codes conceptualize how the substantive codes may relate to each other as hypotheses to be integrated into the theory (see Glaser’s “theoretical coding families”). </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> <strong>4. Memoing:</strong> Memos are the theorizing write-up of ideas about codes and their relationships. </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Data collection, analysis and memoing are ongoing, and overlap. </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Memoing should take precedence, because it is the actual write-up of what is emerging from the data and the analysis. Data is always available, and can be analyzed at any time. Ideas are fragile. They should be written down at the earliest possible time. </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> While writing memos, think and write theoretically, in a "stream of consciousness" fashion, with no concerns about grammar, spelling, and such. </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> This minimizes writers block. </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Memos are always modifiable as you discover more about your topic. </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Integrating the Literature </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> Once you are confident in your theory, you can begin to analyze and integrate relevant existing literature into it. Theoretical material from the literature must earn its way into your theory, just like any other theoretical construct. </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> <strong> 5. Sorting & Theoretical Outline</strong>:Sorting refers not to data sorting, but to conceptual sorting of memos into an outline of the emergent theory, showing relationships between concepts. This process often stimulates more memos, and sometimes even more data collection. 6. Writing: </p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p style="text-align: left;"> The completed sort constitutes the first draft of your write-up. From here it is merely a matter of refining and polishing your product into a final draft. </p>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-91842225393818563162009-04-04T17:28:00.001-07:002009-05-04T09:14:46.107-07:00Getting through the PhD process using Orthodox GT; a supervisor/researcher perspectiveThis paper is a collaboration between Andy an experienced GT PhD supervisor and Wendy one of his researchers whose doctoral thesis of “Keeping Clients in Line”, Guthrie (2000), was externally examined by Dr Barney Glaser. The main inspiration of the paper is to help both PhD supervisors and researchers to navigate their way through some of the obstacles they are likely to confront whilst doing a PhD using the orthodox grounded theory method in a conventional university setting.<br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />The paper identifies five main issues which have to be confronted and dealt with in order to ensure that the PhD using an orthodox GT research methodology is achieved.<br /><br />(i) Establishing a consensus on the purpose of the PhD<br />(ii) Finding and evaluating the most appropriate supervisor<br />(iii) Understanding how the specific university regulations might impact on the research process<br />(iv) How to manage your committee<br />(v) Getting published<br /><br />The Future is Grounded<br /><br />Sometimes being ahead of your time is difficult. Barney Glaser can vouch for this. Experienced GT researchers will identify with this too. How many times have you had to explain the whys and wherefores of doing GT?<br /><br />Of course we shouldn’t be surprised by the need to painstakingly unpack what GT has to offer. Anything which is complex and unfamiliar takes time to be adopted. And indeed some things take longer than others!<br /><br />We remember Barney saying a number of years ago that GT was some 20 -30 years ahead of its time. We aim to raise awareness of the multi-faceted challenges likely to be faced, by those wishing to gain a PhD using GT, and, for their supervisors tasked with navigating the route to the successful completion and award of the degree.<br /><br />The advice is designed for fledgling GT researchers and supervisors new to GT (or those seeking comfort in the knowledge that they are not alone!). It is intended that the advice offered deflects some of the pitfalls which ordinarily would be discovered through experience.<br /><br />We hope that the information offered smoothes the path ahead in two fundamental ways. Firstly our writing should raise your levels of awareness about critical issues which may impinge upon progress and in so doing, enable you to anticipate what challenges my lie ahead. At the very least you should be better placed to take appropriate decisions with the benefit of other’s hindsight.<br /><br />We are the test pilots – there is no need for you to crash and burn. Latch on to the opportunity to make swift progress based on our learning. Enjoy the Grounded Theory journey.<br /><br />Initial decisions for the student<br />Make sure you really want to discover how to use GT. After all there are many alternatives available. Question your motivation to study for a PhD in the first instance and reasons for wishing to use orthodox GT methodology in particular. Once you have verified these fundamentals, seek out good support from others. Early on, get to grips with the pertinent texts which articulate the theory of using the chosen methodology. The principal sources of authentic material are generally to be sourced through the Sociology Press (Glaser 1978,1992), with the exception of the original text by Glaser and Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, published in 1967.<br /> <br />Read the texts which are examples of grounded theory in action in order to become familiar with the real thing (Glaser, 1993 & Glaser(ed) 1995), (Glaser & Strauss, 1971, 1972).<br /><br />Study examples of good GTs, observe how experts tackle the challenges - during workshops examine how more experienced practitioners practice their art, cultivate dialogue with your peers and read diverse examples of well constructed literature to become sensitive to the constituents and how they are integrated. If possible establish a small writing group and convene regularly. If not physically viable consider utilizing the virtual environment. Building in a group dimension avoids the potential negative impact of feeling isolated. It has the added bonus of building a discipline for the writing activity. The purpose of this suggestion is to encourage writing to become routine. The more practice gained the greater the forward momentum. It is easy to become over-committed to the process of data collection; writing and analysis can easily be sidelined to the detriment of the overall process.<br /><br />Beginning to analyze the data in concert with generating the data is essential. Stockpiling superb data to be analyzed later is at best unhelpful. Worse still this counterproductive activity risks unnecessarily prolonging the time taken in the field through failing to use the theoretical sampling process to best effect. It may be somewhat intoxicating to generate more and more fascinating data from the field, adhering to GT procedure however prevents this from taking over and diverting energy.<br /><br />Orthodox GT states we must curb our inclination for indiscriminate data collection, however captivating. Furthermore it encourages us to begin analysis immediately and consequently the overall data collection process becomes superbly focused being directly guided by what is emerging from the ongoing analysis. Activity is purposeful and directed as a consequence.<br /><br />It is normal to feel some degree of apprehension regarding just how to begin to analyze your data. Imagine how terrible it would be to begin the PhD process and discover that you have no analytic ability or aptitude for the task! Convince yourself that this is unlikely to be the case and get going with initial attempts to make sense of the data. Do this by strictly disciplining yourself to the business of fragmenting the data into open codes.<br /><br />It is human nature to avoid exposing oneself as possibly incompetent and this may explain the underlying reluctance to leap headlong into analysis. I experienced this as a post graduate beginning the PhD journey. Simply recognize this phenomenon. Rationalize it as a way of dealing with the risk of such potential embarrassment and the threat of public ridicule. Acknowledge these concerns are normal and legitimate. Consciously choose to begin analysis at the earliest point. This is a learning process. These are the first shots at a difficult task and it is not a finished product. There should be no expectation of perfection at the outset. Beginning the analytic process is only that. It gives a feeling of making progress and gaining forward momentum.<br />This is energizing in itself.<br /><br />There are particular difficulties associated with doing GT for the first time. Be aware of these but don’t get unnecessarily concerned. To a newcomer some of the key texts may appear, at first sight, difficult. Have you ever read a book which aims to teach you how to ski, surf, ride a horse? None, no matter how well written, can mimic what it is really like to feel the full range of these real experiences as they are lived. Using GT is no different. Indeed reading and re-reading the texts, such as Discovery and Theoretical Sensitivity, which describe the methodology, explain its use and reveal how to do orthodox GT, is essential. Many years after beginning to discover GT, revisiting these resources throws up different perspectives which, based on experience, and with the passage of time, reveal more of their secrets.<br /><br />Skills become honed through the practice of doing GT. As skills develop greater depth of understanding is possible, the texts take on new meanings. With growing knowledge finesse in doing grounded theory increases. Equally we can look back and visualize how our abilities to generate theories from data have evolved. This is empowering. We can also begin to pinpoint how to develop further as a grounded theorist. A fuller grasp of the subtlety of doing GT research becomes possible. This is incremental.<br /><br />Many who purport to be using GT do not, in fact. There are many reasons why they fail to deliver an authentic rendition of the methodology in practice. Among these are<br />• The control freaks who want the legitimization GT offers. They cannot let go of their pre-understanding and consequently deliver ‘fraudulent’ theory which is usually grounded in extant knowledge and does not reflect the reality of what is in the data. They are likely to be experts in their field, they think they know the answers already and want to pretend they have discovered them systematically. Professionals cannot admit they do not have all the answers it would be unprofessional, wouldn’t it? In this sense GT challenges the socially structured myth of the omniscient professional. It may therefore be seen as anti-establishment. The subtext means exponents of GT risk being labeled as unorthodox; hence, worthy of suspicion.<br />• GT is so often miss-used that this in itself breeds further miss-use. For example so and so used GT like this so, I will too – that must be how it is done…<br />• People fail to take the time and effort to understand correctly what doing GT entails. These ‘users’ latch on to it because they think it will be quick and easy. <br />• Too few people are well qualified to judge what a good GT is. Often those who are tasked with such evaluation impose inappropriate criteria on such work, recognition being falsely attributed; again perpetuating miss-use.<br /><br />One key dimension of grounded theory is the highly effective focusing that that happens as a consequence of the requirement to simultaneously generate and analyze data. This integration stimulates directed activity where relevant to the emerging theory. It does not waste activity elsewhere, unnecessarily. It is advisable not to latch on to the apparently obvious discoveries too soon. It may be that as a relatively inexperienced GT researcher there is a risk that such a decision may be premature in interpreting where the action is. Counter this inclination by continuing the process of coding the data and in this way ensuring you are seeing what really matters.<br /><br />(i) Establishing a consensus on the purpose of the PhD<br />Western European universities from the Middle Ages onwards have been issuing academic degrees of various types. Throughout Europe universities were dominated by the Christian church. The church sought be the sole custodian of both knowledge and power. The first doctoral degrees to be awarded were all doctor of divinity degrees, then came Master of Arts and Science degrees. The PhD was the most recent new comer of all higher degrees. The contemporary PhD has its academic roots in Germany in the 1850s, shifting soon after to the USA. Later it caught on in the UK and then the rest of the world. By tradition the holder of a PhD degree is a person who is qualified to practice high quality research without supervision. Around the world today there is a vast variation of both the purposes and objectives of the PhD degree. This variation is extends to different universities within the same country. At one extreme the PhD process is completely formularistic. At the other extreme the PhD is vague and ambiguous. Even the way in which the PhD is evaluated is extremely varied. In Australia most universities which award PhDs the PhD candidate does not have the opportunity to defend the thesis in person. Instead the PhD researcher simply submits the thesis and awaits the written evaluation of the committee. In most other countries there is the opportunity to for the PhD candidate to personally defend the thesis but there are hundreds of different ways in which the process is conducted. The issue of importance for the PhD researcher and supervisor involved in the PhD is to have an in-depth understanding long before the process begins.<br /><br />What a PhD should be<br /><br />It should be a process of empowerment to achieve intellectual autonomy and creativity. The PhD should be an important vehicle for the development of personal self-confidence. It is a process of becoming a PhD. In addition to gaining intellectual independence the researcher also is becoming a member of a social grouping; the PhD community.<br /><br />What a PhD should not be<br /><br />A PhD should not be done just to fulfill other people’s desires and requirements. This type of “surrogate PhD” will neither bestow intellectual autonomy nor achieve personal self-confidence. Often parental expectations, possibly driven by their own lack of opportunities or achievements, can pressurize some researchers to commit to doing a PhD against their better judgment. It must be the researcher’s PhD not someone else’s.<br /><br />Why a Grounded Theory PhD is different<br /><br />The Grounded Theory research method demands that the researcher allows the latent patterns embedded in the data to emerge. It is predicated on the belief that human behaviour can be understood by latent pattern analysis. The GT method is not based on the preconceptions of others. To some university systems this will be intolerable.<br /><br />The GT PhD is not for everyone. It is best suited to those researchers who have an affinity for conceptualization coupled with a high tolerance for uncertainty. It is neither contextually based nor focused on any existing body of knowledge. It will not be preceded by a discursive literature review. Neither will it be possible at the out set to give very specific research objectives. This does not mean that it is impossible to write both a literature review or give very specific research objectives in order to comply with some institutionalized prerequisite when doing an orthodox GT PhD. Rather it means that the novice GT PhD researcher needs to learn [the difference between] the importance of fulfilling institutional requirements without violating the basic tenets of the orthodox GT research method. Achieving these twin goals may at first appear unlikely especially if you find yourself in an apparently hostile, to GT, institutional environment. Do not despair. Although any individual PhD researcher will always be out flanked by the powerful institutional forces of a university, there are ways in which this imbalance can be successfully managed. The important issue is that the novice GT PhD researcher has to understand is that it is, in fact, possible to both satisfy the institutional requirements of a university without violating the orthodox GT method. The way to achieve this is treat both issues quite separately. Initially you must fulfill the basic institutional requirements of the university because without which you will neither be registered nor will you be awarded the PhD. If the regulations state that any PhD research proposal must be accompanied by a literature review, then do a literature. If the regulations say that a literature review must become the first chapter of the PhD then again give them a literature review. However the most important thing for the novice GT PhD researcher to understand is to do the GT research in the orthodox manner first rather than then retro fit a contrived literature review into the PhD thesis. The literature review [which is written after the core variable has emerged] as used in the orthodox approach to the GT method can be shown in an appendix. In reality what will happen is that once your core variable from the orthodox GT research has emerged the external examiners will be far more interested in that than in any literature review you did before the research evolved. <br /><br />Although the GT research method is now an internationally recognized as a robust and legitimate research methodology its power has been diminished by several academic [Corbin (insert dates) et al] who have sought to label their own descriptive research as GT research. There are even authors who have hijacked the label to present it as something entirely different. From the out set the aspiring GT PhD researcher has to be able recognize the orthodox GT research from the pretenders. This is quite easily done however. The only legitimate source of the orthodox approach to the GT research method is to be found in the publications of Dr Barney Glaser and at the Grounded Theory Institute website [www.groundedtheory.com]. If researchers use any other adaptation of GT they will be deluding themselves and misleading others. The orthodox grounded theory research method is a very specific methodology with each step of the process very specifically delineated. Those who adapt and amend the Orthodox GT process should not label the research method they have used as GT. Instead they should say their research was “influenced” or “inspired by GT” and then go on to create a new label for the research process they have used. [Supervisors should insist on methodological clarity, at a minimum, to demonstrate rigorous endeavor.] This practice is worth cultivating because it establishes as routine the need to be clear about how research processes are conducted and acts as an indicator of intellectual competence.<br /><br />(ii) Finding and evaluating the most appropriate supervisor<br /><br />Supervision options<br /><br />Historically most GT PhD researchers have used the “minus-mentoring” approach. This means that the researcher does the GT research in the absence of a knowledgeable and experienced GT research supervisor. The researcher often has an institution based PhD supervisor who knows little of the GT process but does have knowledge of the institutional requirements of the PhD process. “Minus-mentorees” then seek help and guidance from experienced GT researchers and practitioners who become their unofficial mentors. These GT mentors are to be found via the Grounded Theory Institute’s own website [www.groundedtheory.com] as well as through the usual academic channels of networking [via conferences, academic journals and on-line research discussion groups]<br /><br />It is still quite rare for the GT PhD researcher whose formal supervisor is also an experienced GT practitioner but it is happening more every year. This follows a traditional supervision model where the supervisor and supervisee enter into a mutually beneficial contract with the end game of the completion of a GT PhD.<br /><br />In recent times it is now becoming more possible to have a supervisory contractual agreement between a remote geographically internet based supervisor and a researcher. Andy is based in Bangkok Thailand and his most recent GT PhD researcher [Christiansen (2007)] was based in the Fareo Islands some 7,000 miles away. This achieved a satisfactory conclusion because it was stipulated that the supervisor had to have a face to face meeting with the researcher at least once a year.<br /><br />How to ensure that you have the most appropriate supervisor<br /><br />Many novice PhD researchers may feel rather uncomfortable about the notion of doing background checks on their potential supervisors. They should not be concerned about doing this because one of the main reasons for PhD researchers’ failure to complete is caused by poor supervision. In many universities there is an absence of systematic PhD supervisor training. Because of this it is important for the researcher to find out if their chosen institution has a PhD supervision “mentoring” system. This type of system is an on the job training program for PhD supervisors where other colleagues and faculty members meet with the supervisor on a regular basis to assist them with their PhD supervision tasks. These kinds of systems are necessary because it does not always follow that a successful career academic is also a competent PhD supervisor. The job of a career academic can be classified into four main types of tasks; administration, teaching, research and publication. The fast track career academic has to make sure that he gives an appropriate priority to these four types of activities. The type of PhD supervisor to avoid is the PRAT. By that I mean the person first prioritizes his own publication, then his research, then administration and finally teaching and supervision. The reason why it’s dangerous for the novice PhD researcher to get involved with a PRAT is because they would categorize PhD supervision as a low priority and see it as a combination of administration and teaching. Excellence in either activity is not valued in terms of their personal career advancement. This is a consequence of the structural reward system existing in academic institutions. The novice PhD researcher should try and look for the career academic that is caught in the TRAP. This type of academic prioritizes his time with students and researchers because to him the order of priorities are as follows; teaching, research, administration and publication.<br />The researcher must ascertain the detailed prior supervision experience of his potential supervisor. Avoid institutions that arbitrarily allocate researchers to supervisors as an administrative convenience. The researcher must first research all potential supervisor candidates carefully. This can be done by first establishing an accurate assessment of the candidate’s track record in supervision. There are at least three ways to discover more about the supervisor’s competence. Firstly visit the library of the institute where you are considering registering to a PhD. Ask the library officials to point you in the right direction where you can view all the PhDs awarded in your area of interest selected by both researcher and supervisor. Secondly, track down all those researchers who have been supervised by your potential supervisors and arrange to meet them in person. If this is not possible get hold of their e-mail addresses and ask them the following questions:<br />[1] How long did the PhD process take?<br />[2] Were you encouraged to meet the other researchers this person was supervising?<br />[3] What happened at your first PhD supervision meeting?<br />[4] How many meetings a year were scheduled?<br />[5] What goals and objectives were agreed at these meetings?<br />[6] What were the best aspects of your supervisor’s supervision regime?<br />[7] What were the worst aspects of the supervision regime?<br />[8] Would you recommend your supervisor as an appropriate person for my proposed PhD?<br />[9] Did your supervisor give you an overview of the whole PhD<br />process during your first meeting?<br />[10] At which point in the PhD process did your supervisor explain in detail the formal assessment criteria for the PhD<br /><br />Some consequences of having an inappropriate supervisor<br /><br />[A] You may have to find a surrogate supervisor<br />A surrogate supervisor is a person who volunteers to offer the PhD researcher continued assistance throughout the PhD process. The surrogate supervisor neither has any official standing as supervisor nor receives any financial reward. Why you do surrogate supervisors agree to do this? When I was doing my own PhD I had an inexperienced and inept supervisor and my PhD was saved by the timely intervention of a surrogate supervisor. In my case the surrogate supervisor was a professor from a different university from where I was registered as a PhD researcher. He heard me give a presentation at an international conference and generously made several positive comments about my work and indicated how it could be further developed. Surrogate supervisors exist because there are some generous people in the academic world who are willing to offer help to those in need. However it is an unwise strategy to do a PhD with the aim of finding a surrogate supervisor. Its much wiser to make sure that your own supervisor is really up to the job.<br /><br />[B] You may have to dismiss your PhD supervisor<br />This may seem to be rather drastic action but there are instances when this is the only course open to the PhD researcher. Andy can remember an instance when he was approached at a conference [long after I had got my own PhD] by a young PhD researcher, from a different university from where I worked, who told me that he had been allocated a very lazy and incompetent PhD and he [the PhD researcher] was in danger of being de-registered as a PhD researcher because of his allegedly poor work. Actually it was the lack of feed back and general absence of supervision which was the cause of the problem. The PhD researcher was from Asia and it was totally alien to him to openly criticize any teacher especially his PhD supervisor. I advised him that he should make an official complaint for “mal-supervision” and contact the student’s union lawyers to start legal proceedings to reclaim the supervision fees and other living costs he had incurred during the research process. The advice worked perfectly. The university made an investigation into the lazy PhD supervisor’s behaviour and found that other researchers also complained about his conduct. The university apologized to the PhD researcher and allocated a much more experienced PhD supervisor and the researcher received his PhD without any further problems. He was awarded his PhD in 2008.<br /><br />(iii) Understanding how specific university regulations might impact the research process<br /><br /><br />Writing the research proposal<br />All universities, however diverse there regulations, all require the PhD researcher to write a formal research proposal. There are several different ways to accomplish this and it is probably better to write three different research proposals [one for each type of audience] for the same research project in order to obtain the most efficient results. The type of research proposal you use depends on the audience it is addressing.<br />There are three broad categories of research proposal audiences; your supervisor, the institution where you are going to register your PhD and the external funding constituencies.<br /><br />The informal research proposal for your supervisor<br />The research proposal for your supervisor should focus on the type of supervision relationship you are hoping to establish. This means that you should clearly indicate your preferred pattern of supervision that will ensure the attainment of the PhD in a reasonable time frame. To do this the researcher has to think very carefully about both the nature and frequency of supervision meetings. It is usually more effective to have goal oriented supervision meetings rather than calendar based ones. There must be a built in mechanism for the researcher to receive frequent written feedback from the supervisor. The feedback mechanism is a safety device for the researcher so that when the PhD is being evaluated patterns of inadequate supervision can be distinguished from shortcomings in the researcher’s own skills. <br /><br />The formal research proposal for the university<br /><br />The novice GT PhD researcher must follow the detailed guidelines from the university where the PhD is to be registered. If the university does not have a detailed and inflexible research proposal procedure and structure then the researcher is advised to take full advantage of this and write a research proposal for GT PhD as follows:<br /><br />[1]Pre understanding: containing a summary of the author's previous exposure to the subject area. Includes an overview of the author's own subjective influences which are likely to affect the generation and interpretation of the research data.<br /><br />[2]Pilot Study: a primary data generation phase to obtain a better understanding of the main issues of concern amongst those being studied.<br /><br />[3]Refinement of research objectives: dialogue between the pilot study indicators and the author's own subjective understanding which leads to a more focused research agenda.<br /><br />[4]Outline of the chosen research design: description of the chosen research method, including explanation of the research procedures used; and justification of the chosen research method.<br /><br />[5] Explanation of generated data: analysis and synthesis of the data generated.<br /><br />[6]Data Interpretation and Comparative Literature Review: a succinct interpretation of the data is followed by a comparative literature review.<br /><br />[7]Recommendations: policy guidelines or indicators for the different constituencies of the research community, policy makers and others.<br /><br /><br />If the university does have very specific and inflexible detailed regulations governing the structure, format and process of the PhD there is no need for the orthodox PhD researcher or supervisor to panic. You must comply fully with the university regulations. But it should be done in a skilful manner. All formal research proposals should be submitted exactly as specified. This may mean it is necessary to start the research with a formal literature review. There are at least two different skilful ways to approach any inflexible regulations. The first way can be called “pre-GT” and the second way is called “post-GT”.<br /><br />The “pre-GT” research proposal<br />In order to fully comply with the university regulations you go ahead a write a logically plausible [but quite irrelevant] literature review.<br /><br />The “post-GT” research proposal<br />Here the researcher first completes the orthodox GT research in the correct manner. Then subsequently re-writes the thesis in order to fully comply with the university regulations.<br /><br />Once the PhD has been awarded then the researcher reverts to the orthodox GT approach and publishes.<br /><br />The research proposal written to obtain external sources of funding<br /><br />Here are some general guidelines which will help novice GT PhD researchers to be more effective in communicating their ideas to those in control of resources. The research proposal should contain the following main sections:<br /><br />1 A statement of the main research objectives.<br />2 An indication of the area of study and an explanation of the context in which the research is to be set.<br />3 Clarification of the underlying assumptions of the research proposal.<br />4 Indication of the possible values of the research outcomes to different constituencies.<br />5 A detailed research design which includes what the intent of the research is, how it can be operationalized, and why the chosen or recommended method is especially appropriate for the type of problem selected. The main criteria by which orthodox GT research should be judged are clearly articulated in Glaser (1978, p…)[Can’t find my copy of Theoretical sensitivity will complete as soon as I have this]<br /><br />6 Indication of a detailed resource plan which includes the financial, technical and human resources needed for successful completion.<br />7 Production of a detailed time plan indicating the key points in the research project, especially when feedback will be given to the sponsor (or sponsors) of the research project.<br />8 Explanation of the type of dissemination strategy to be adopted once the research has been completed.<br /><br />In addition to the above, novice researchers should ask the following questions:<br /><br />• What is the story I am telling? All research projects are written by people with very different backgrounds and interests. This influences the perspective which will be given to each research project. By giving the story in the context of the issues shown above, this may help would be sponsors of the research to become more personally interested in a given proposal. It will also force the researcher to be more honest, transparent and open about motivations for interest in a specific research topic.<br />• Who are the audiences to which the research proposal is being addressed? The researcher has to decide whether the research proposal is a plea for finance, recognition, moral or intellectual support, or rather more straightforwardly, simply gaining the approval of his or her research supervisor or supervisory committee. Occasionally the need may arise to write different research proposals for the same project, as it may be aimed at different audiences. For instance, academic funding bodies will place more emphasis on the academic credibility of the research design, whereas practitioners will more interested in the utility of the research outcomes.<br />• Why does it matter? Readers and evaluators of research proposals are likely to be very busy and the last thing they want to do is read a rather dull and ordinary proposal, or alternatively read a proposal which is plainly lacking in the basic elements of desirable form and structure. It can be argued that the researcher has a duty to readers (and indeed themselves) to make the proposal interesting, from a both a readability and structural perspective.<br />• Why now and why me? By the time the research proposal is written there is already a sense of knowledgeability in relation to the chosen subject area. This can be demonstrated by injecting a sense of urgency into the research proposal, by explaining consequences of the research not taking place (especially when applying for research funding). In particular, researchers are advised to make a point of communicating [any] unique qualities or skills possessed which will enable the research outcomes to be achieved.<br /><br />The researcher should also bear the following in mind:<br /><br />• Perfect the research proposal<br />• Research proposals should never be written in isolation. Often, there are many other highly experienced people whose advice, assistance or critical comments may enhance the probability of successful research progression.<br />• Allow sufficient time: constructing a good research proposal is time consuming. Time spend in reconnaissance is rarely wasted. Before beginning detailed development of a proposal it may be worthwhile to investigate other successful proposals, where these are available in the public domain or otherwise through personal ingenuity. Scanning previously acceptable proposals may assist in generating funds, where necessary, or submitting a successful proposal. Learn from the effort of others before submitting anything. This has now become much easier because all the governmental research bodies have their own web sites. Where dissertation or thesis proposals need to be written, it is crucial to access any or all literature, either internal or external to the appropriate research domain. Nothing is more frustrating than having to rewrite a proposal for academic research over and over again; notably, for externally funded research, there is no second chance.<br />• Consider all opportunities for financial help: in addition to the usual governmental research bodies there are a number of specialist charitable organizations who have research foundations who may well be able to offer financial resources. Obtaining money from the corporate sector is possible but it is wise not to oversell any possible research outcomes and to be honest about time scales. One of the most useful techniques in obtaining funds is called ‘snowballing’. This happens when an initial modest amount of money is gradually increased by attracting more funds from other bodies who can be persuaded to collaborate. Often, firms related to your topic area may be interested in sponsoring some, or all, of the project. The question of what's in it for them must be thought through carefully before approaching any firm.<br />• Discuss the proposal: wherever possible enter into dialogue with experienced research professionals, including colleagues, in advance of submitting anything. It is especially important when seeking external funds that the research agendas of these organizations are understood in relation to your own project.<br />• Justify all financial requirements of the proposal: it is not sufficient merely to give an indication of financial requirements relating to a given project. Expenditures need to be justified. This is necessary for all kinds of reasons. One of the less obvious reasons is that the more meticulous one is in explaining requirements, the more it gives a number of positive messages to would be sponsors. Firstly, it demonstrates that the researcher is not profligate and can be trusted. Secondly, it indicates that the researcher has a firm intellectual grasp of the nature of the project to be embarked upon. Finally, it is simply just more professional.<br /><br />It is mistake to get derailed by the circular arguments as to which research method is the best one to use. Instead, focus on two other aspects: firstly, the nature of the problem; and, secondly, the extent of the researcher's abilities, talents, skills and temperament. Certain types of problems are best suited to deductive research and others to inductive research. Since all research contains elements of both methodological approaches, purists may miss the point entirely. To do good research demands a firm intellectual grip of the nature of the research problem and a deep understanding of one's own emotional and intellectual capabilities.<br /><br />Look at the work of other [successful] researchers and find out what they have done previously. Ask the advice of experienced people, and they may offer to critically evaluate your effort prior to submitting the research proposal to a supervisor/sponsor/group. If researchers remember that the journey is more important than the destination then not only should some interesting research be earned out, but also one's own potentially blinkered mindset may be altered or expanded.<br /><br />(iv) Managing your committee<br /><br />Choosing your PhD committee<br />If the university allows it, it is important for the both PhD researcher and supervisor to select the committee. If neither of these two parties has an influential role in the selection process then there is scope for many problems in the evaluation process. Orthodox GT research is still not fully understood by many leading academics. At one extreme are the simply ignorant. At the other are the prejudiced. There will be problems having a committee comprised of either of these extremes. One way to ensure that this does not happen is to regularly publish your research and present conference papers. This will increase the span of awareness of your work as well as widen your own personal net work of potential PhD committee members.<br /><br />How to survive the formal PhD evaluation process<br />In Scandinavian countries the evaluation process takes on a more transparent format. Often the process is in two parts. First only involving the PhD committee and the second part is a ritualized procedure to which the general public is invited to participate. In reality, although the decision to award the PhD is never announced until after the public participation, the decision is made exclusively by the PhD committee. One of the PhD researchers I supervised to a satisfactory conclusion submitted his thesis to a Danish university. His committee comprised of three professors two of which were openly hostile to the orthodox GT method. Prior to his formal evaluation the research candidate received a very detailed written report about his thesis from the PhD committee. The PhD researcher wanted to respond with an equally detailed written rebuttal. Here is an extract of the e-mail Andy sent him:<br /><br />“The most important aspect about how to respond to the written comments of the committee is to establish what is the correct protocol for that university. Are you as a PhD candidate expected to make a formal written response prior to the date of your evaluation? Or are they only expecting you to do that on the day? I am asking you these questions because it is of special importance not to unnecessarily alienate the committee before the due date. If there are neither any formal requirements nor expectations for you to make a formal written response prior to the evaluation then I would definitely NOT write to them with a detailed rebuttal. Instead I would write to them thanking them for their very detailed comments which you are looking forward to discussing with them on the due date. There are five reasons why communicating to the committee in writing with a detailed rebuttal is a very bad idea. Firstly, if members of the committee do not agree with your perspective now they never will. Writing to them will only reinforce their prejudices. Whereas talking to them face to face in an open forum will put peer pressure on them to reconsider their own perspectives. Secondly, when ever we receive communications in writing which we do not wholly endorse it tends to reinforce our prejudices and appears to be confrontational and hostile. It is always easier to embrace new perspectives verbally. Thirdly, the committee could well open up new lines of criticism if you chose to send them a detailed written rebuttal prior to your evaluation. Fourthly, if you do not give a detailed written rebuttal before the PhD evaluation date the committee are disadvantaged because they are unsure as to how you will respond to their comments. This gives you an advantage during the evaluation process. Finally, by withholding your response it demonstrates the development of your own intellectual maturity. By holding your fire until the evaluation you are showing that you are able to acknowledge that research [as in the rest of life] has multiple perspectives. By resisting the temptation to send a written rebuttal it demonstrates your ability to discuss why different perspectives exist. If you do it in a relaxed and non-confrontational manner you are more likely are more likely to persuade them of the power of your line of argument. No PhD candidate, however brilliant, should be arrogant. If you did send a detailed rebuttal to your committee, prior to the formal evaluation, they are very likely to consider you to be rather arrogant. Relax, smile and be humble when the committee interrogate you on your evaluation day. Calmly explain your own perspective without denying the possibility that they too have legitimate perspectives even if they are quite different.<br />Remember that you are in a very privileged position having being sent very detailed comments about your work by the PhD committee prior to your formal evaluation. If you are skilful you can transform a potentially stressful confrontation [on the day of your evaluation] into the opportunity of a lifetime to clearly express yourself with confidence about your research. After all know one knows more about your own research than you! Getting a PhD is the final part of the basic sociological process of becoming a PhD. You have to demonstrate to the committee, in a respectful and diplomatic way, that you have already emerged to become part of the wider community of PhDs. In other words you have to show that you are now “one of them”. This means that when you hear some of their comments which either appear to you as “ignorant” or “irrelevant” pause before you reply with an instinctive rebuttal. After the pause be skilful and thank them for their comments and politely explain your own line of argument. To become a PhD it is essential that you have a perspective and that are able to clearly articulate it. It may well be that some of the apparently “negative” or “misinformed” comments made by the committee have deliberately been made polemical in order to gauge your own reaction and to give you the opportunity to demonstrate that you are worthy of joining the PhD community. From the committee’s perspective getting a PhD is not just about doing robust sound research it is also about you being able demonstrate your own intellectual autonomy.<br /><br />I have gone to great pains to explain why you must resist the temptation to reply with a detailed written rebuttal prior to your evaluation. However should protocol demand that you reply in writing before the formal evaluation do so in a very concise, polite and enigmatic manner. <br /><br />I am pleased to report that this PhD candidate got his PhD in 2007.<br /><br /><br />(v) Getting Published<br /><br />All orthodox PhD theses have the distinct advantage that they are dealing with issues of substance and interest. If the thesis is appropriately packaged for the journal or publisher they have a good prospect of being published.<br /><br />How to re-package your research to meet the needs of different journals<br /><br />Before this is explained Andy would like to share the experience of an unsuccessful attempt in publishing some of his own research. 15 years ago I asked Dr Barney Glaser if he would agree to co-authoring a paper on how orthodox GT impacts on theory of marketing in business. We wrote the paper and then submitted it to a very prestigious academic journal in this field. The three “blind” reviewer unanimously rejected it. The first reviewer said that who ever wrote this paper clearly did not understand grounded theory. The second reviewer stated that the author of this paper was someone from a country where English was not their mother tongue and they should hire a more skilled interpreter [it was subsequently discovered that this reviewer was from Norway]. The final reviewer said that there were insufficient citations. There are several teachings from these comments. First prejudice and ignorance is alive and well in the academic publishing world. Secondly, there are 100s of academic journals out there and the choice of which journal to position the research is often more important than the research itself. Finally, the editorial boards of each journal must be carefully scrutinized so that the extent and nature of the prejudice and ignorance can be better assessed prior to submitting the research for publication.<br />However the PhD which has used orthodox GT will have revealed authentic latent patterns of human behaviour which are are transcendent of their original context based. This has three important benefits which should enable publishing in academic journals. Firstly, the range of academic journals to which your research can be disseminated is vast. A single piece of orthodox GT research has the potential to be published in methodological journals, contextual journals as well as research strategy journals. Secondly, the GT author can also re-write the grounded theory to higher levels of theoretical abstraction giving yet more publication options. Finally on rare occasions the GT author can also generate a formal theory which has the potential to be published in an even wider range of titles.<br /><br />References<br /><br />Glaser B G & Strauss A L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine 1967<br /><br />Glaser B G & Strauss A L. Status Passage. London: Routladge & Keegan Paul 1971<br /><br />Glaser B G. Experts versus laymen. A study of the patsy and the subcontractor. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press 1972<br /><br />Glaser B G. Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press 1978<br /><br />Glaser B G. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence Vs Forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press 1992<br /><br />Glaser B G. Examples of Grounded Theory: A Reader. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press 1993<br /><br />Glaser B G (Ed) Grounded Theory: 1984-1994 Vols 1&2 Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press 1995<br /><br />Guthrie W Keeping clients in line: A grounded theory explaining how veterinary surgeons control their clients. PhD Thesis University of Strathclyde<br /><br />Lowe A Managing the Post Merger Aftermath by Default Remodelling in Management Decision. Vol 36, No 2 1998<br /></div>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-62621898911898560042009-02-26T04:55:00.000-08:002009-02-26T04:58:52.042-08:00About GT and QDA<div style="text-align: justify;">The point of GT is to create a theory; a theory about how a population goes about solving it’s main concern. Conceptual categories emerge from the systemic, rigorous procedures of the GT method, and these concepts are related to each other as a theory. Many advisors feel that creating a theory is beyond the abilities of a grad. student; it is the work of the “great thinkers.” This is not true. Good grounded theories emerge every time if the method is followed completely.<br /><br />I am not sure what GTs you have read, but many people claim to do GT when all they are really doing is qualitative research. Have you read many of Glaser’s books? You should at a minimum read Theoretical Sensitivity and Doing Grounded Theory. You should also see his readers and The GT Review, for good examples of GTs. You might also consider attending one of our seminars.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></div>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-23241814672046107432009-02-26T04:49:00.000-08:002009-02-26T04:52:42.504-08:00Jill's Comment on Strauss and Corbin's GT@QDA<div style="text-align: justify;">On the Evaluation of Grounded Theory Studies<br /><br />When considering the evaluation of a grounded theory study, I believe that the first matter that should be taken into consideration is what has come out of the study. Rather than "Rich Thick Description," which is the goal of most contemporary ethnographic approaches (in the Geertzian tradition), a grounded theory study yields substantive theory. A theory may be thought of as an integrated set of hypotheses that has explanatory and predictive power. As such, the resultant theory should be both conceptual (in that it may be abstracted from the context(s)/condition(s) it was discovered in and subjected to different parameters and retain its conceptual integrity) and it should be dense (in that it subsumes multiple indicators of a pattern that has been named conceptually).<br />This is what a grounded theory studies "comes up with." Considering this, in a grounded theory study it is not acceptable to bring as a lens to the research an existing theory, theoretical framework, coding scheme, pet concept, or "great man" ideology. Conceptual categories must earn their way in as they are discovered in the data. Good concepts have "grab" in that the implications are immediately apparent to colleagues in the field and readily prompts them to "flood out" with their own experienced indicators of the discovered concept.<br /><br />Now it is important to turn to the methods of the methodology. The researcher of a GT study should have employed the tools: open coding, theoretical coding, theoretical sampling, memoing, constant comparison, theoretical sorting, and theoretical writing. Also, a GT study should yield a core category.<br /><br />Like other methodologies, a GT study should be systematic, rigorous, appropriate, and fair.<br /><br />Unlike hypothesis testing approaches, a lengthy literature review should not precede the writing of the theory however, connections to existing theory, research, a particular field and so forth may be constructed in the writing once the theory has been written.<br /><br />I feel compelled to point out a few warning signs of poor GT studies or write ups or that they that may in fact not be GT studies:<br /><br />1. There is no theory that comes out of the study<br />2. There is no mention of core category or core variable<br />3. GT is cited only in terms of coding<br />4. There is no mention of memoing (memoing is where the action is in a GT study and is commonly ignored in reifications of GT).<br />5. There is an existing theoretical framework, theory, or ideology that is brought to the research<br />6. The study yields vague categories that do not carry a notion of fit, relevance, and grab with general implications. Another way to think of this would be to say that the categories do not "hang together" in a coherent and obvious way. This may be a sign of a lack of conceptualization.<br />7. A very large number of categories or codes are reported and then collapsed into others and then into others. While this MAY be appropriate in some circumstances, I see this frequently as leading to large vague categories that don't integrate well into theory. A lack of memoing usually accompanies this as does the use of NVivo.<br />8. There is a large amount of quoting from the data that is used to paint descriptive accounts. This is common in qualitative studies but can also be said of quantitative studies as well.<br />9. The study is an evaluation of an intervention, innovation, product, approach, or pet concept.<br />10. The study makes use of logic, philosophical neologisms, or super-think rather than data to prove concepts or make assertions.</div>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-87335851331291350122009-02-26T04:48:00.000-08:002009-02-26T04:53:38.700-08:00Tom's comment on Strauss and Corbin's GT @ QDA<div style="text-align: justify;" class="quote"><b>Keith Woodman wrote:</b><div class="innerquote">In Strauss and Corbin's 1990 paper "Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluation Criteria" they list several criteria for judging grounded theory studies (I've paraphrased and combined some):<br /><br />Research Process Judging Criteria:<br />1. How and why was the original sample selected?<br /><br /><b>R: this may be relevant for a dissertation committe of course, for classic GT it is not very important. In classic GT (CGT) one may start collecting data whenever and however. Important to CGT is the researcher's motivation to do the study. This will drive the research. The original data is often part of a professional concern. However, with time this concern is replaced by the concern of participants if one follows CGT procedures.<br /></b><br />2. What major concepts emerged?<br /><br /><b>R: well, this is what you write up in your theory. I e that is what your theory is about - to fit the emergant concepts together in a theory that explains what is going on in the studied scene<br /></b><br /><br />3. What were some of the incidents that pointed at the emerged concepts?<br /><br /><b>R: again a question the diss committe might ask but in a CGT this is part of conceptual illustration. I e you'll have to give examples of incidents in the data that are conceptualized in order to make the reader understand what patterns of behavior these incidents are examples of.<br /></b><br />4. On the basis of what concepts did theoretical sampling proceed? How did it guide data collection? Was it representative of the concepts?<br /><br /><b>R: again a question the diss committe might ask but in a CGT this may show in your memos and eventually in the write up of the theory<br /></b><br /><br />5. What were some of the hypotheses pertaining to conceptual relations (that is, among categories)? How were they formulated and tested?<br /><br /><b>R: conceptual relations is about what CGT calls theoretical coding and should also as the other issues above be implicit in the written theory - to discuss in detail how you did your theory thru coding, sampling, memoing, sorting, re-coding and re-memoing and re-sorting and eventually writing up the theory is not required or relevant in a CGT - it just bores the reader and steals valuable space since word count is limited for most publications.<br />Compare it to a quantitive study where the results are numbers. In such a study with the results written into a scientific paper the methods section is normally short with references to what statistical methods were used, but you do not have to elaborate how you did your statistic tests in detail. Unless you have developed a new statistical method. But CGT has been around for decades and the books are there for anyone to read who wants to understand the procedures.<br />The hypotheses are formulated in the written theory conceptually by using understandable language - think theoretically but write substantively is a CGT advice.<br />Testing is not required in CGT.</b><br /><br />6. Were there instances when hypotheses did not hold up against what was actually seen? How was this accounted for? How did it affect the hypotheses?<br /><b>R: in CGT you constantly compare your data and check if your hypotheses stick and fit the data. If they do not fit you'll have to modify them so that they will fit.<br /></b><br />7. How and why was the core concept selected?<br /><b>R: sometimes the core flies in your face during the first interview, other occasions it takes months or even years (if you do your research part time and you are a novice) . The core explains with much variation the behavior/action of the participants in the studied field of interest according to CGT.<br /></b><br />Empirical Grounding Judging Criteria:<br />1. Are concepts generated?<br /><br /><b>R: Well that is the basic idea of CGT...</b><br /><br />2. Are the concepts systematically related?<br /><br /><b>R: this is a workability question</b><br /><br />3. Are there many linkages between concepts? Are they well developed?<br /><br /><b>R: this has to do with how well theoretical coding was done</b><br /><br />4. Is much variation built into the theory?<br /><br />R<b>:this is of course important to CGT, unless modifiability is good the theory is too much of a tiny topic research<br /></b><br />5. Are the broaden conditions built into its explanation?<br /><br />???<br /><br />6. Has process (change or movement) been taken into account?<br /><br /><b>R: process is a common theoretical coding approach but it is not always relevant<br /></b><br />I was wondering if people feel that all or some of these can be used to judge a Grounded Theory study based on Glaser's methods? Are there different criteria for judging based on Glaser's canons of fit, relevance, workability, modifiability?</div></div>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-72479246594758249112009-02-21T21:03:00.000-08:002009-02-21T21:10:13.644-08:00WHAT IS CLASSIC GROUNDED THEORY? (from Wikipedia)<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Grounded theory</b> (GT) is a systematic <a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative" title="Qualitative">qualitative</a> research methodology in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences" title="Social sciences">social sciences</a> emphasizing generation of theory from data in the process of conducting research.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">It is a research method that operates almost in a reverse fashion to traditional research and at first may appear to be in contradiction of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" title="Scientific method">scientific method</a>. Rather than beginning by researching & developing a hypothesis, a variety of data collection methods are the first step. From the data collected from this first step, the key points are marked with a series of <b>codes</b>, which are extracted from the text. The codes are grouped into similar <b>concepts</b>, in order to make them more workable. From these concepts <b>categories</b> are formed, which are the basis for the creation of a <b>theory</b>, or a reverse engineered <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis" title="Hypothesis">hypothesis</a>. This contradicts the traditional model of research, where the researcher chooses a theoretical framework, and only then applies this model to the studied phenomenon<span style="text-decoration: underline;">.</span><sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory#cite_note-0" title=""><span></span><span></span></a></sup></p><p>Most chapters in the first GT methodology "The Discovery of Grounded Theory" (6995 Google Scholar citations May 2007) (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) were written by Glaser, trained in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Methodology_generation&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Methodology generation (page does not exist)">methodology generation</a>. Glaser alone wrote the second methodology "Theoretical Sensitivity" (Glaser, 1978) and has since written five more books on the method and edited five readers with a collection of GT articles and dissertations (see Literature at end). The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grounded_Theory_Review&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Grounded Theory Review (page does not exist)">Grounded Theory Review</a> is a peer-reviewed journal publishing grounded theories and articles on different aspects of doing GT.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Strauss and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juliet_Corbin&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Juliet Corbin (page does not exist)">Juliet Corbin</a> (Strauss & Corbin 1990) took GT in a different direction from what Glaser had outlined in Theoretical Sensitivity and the 1967 book. There was a clash of ideas between the discoverers and Glaser in 1992 wrote a book arguing against the Strauss & Corbin book chapter by chapter.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Hence GT was divided into Strauss & Corbin’s method, and Glaser’s GT with the original ideas from 1967 and 1978 still in operation. The following article deals with GT according to Glaser.</p> <p><a name="Goals_of_grounded_theory" id="Goals_of_grounded_theory"></a></p> <h3><span class="editsection"></span> <span class="mw-headline">Goals of grounded theory</span></h3> <p style="text-align: justify;">GT is a systematic generation of theory from data that contains both inductive and deductive thinking. One goal of a GT is to formulate hypotheses based on conceptual ideas. Others may try to verify the hypotheses that are generated by constantly comparing conceptualized data on different levels of abstraction, and these comparisons contain deductive steps. Another goal of a GT is to discover the participants’ main concern and how they continually try to resolve it.<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The questions you keep on asking in GT are "What’s going on?" and "What is the main problem of the participants and how are they trying to solve it?" These questions will be answered by the core variable and its subcores and properties in due course (see below). GT does not aim for the "truth" but to conceptualize what's going on by using empirical data. In a way GT resembles what many researchers do when retrospectively formulating new hypotheses to fit data.<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">However, in GT the researcher does not pretend to have formulated the hypotheses in advance since preformed hypotheses are prohibited (Glaser & Strauss 1967).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">If your research goal is accurate description, then another method should be chosen since GT is not a descriptive method. Instead it has the goal of generating concepts that explain people’s actions regardless of time and place. The descriptive parts of a GT are there mainly to illustrate the concepts.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In most behavioral research endeavors persons or patients are units of analysis, whereas in GT the unit of analysis is the incident (Glaser & Strauss 1967). There are normally at least several hundred incidents analyzed in a GT study since every participant normally reports many incidents. When comparing many incidents in a certain area, the emerging concepts and their relationships are in reality probability statements.<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Consequently, GT is not a qualitative method but a general method that can use any kind of data even if qualitative at the moment are most popular (Glaser, 2001, 2003). However, although working with probabilities, most GT studies are considered as qualitative since statistical methods are not used, and figures not presented. The results of GT are not a reporting of facts but a set of probability statements about the relationship between concepts, or an integrated set of conceptual hypotheses developed from empirical data (Glaser 1998). Validity in its traditional sense is consequently not an issue in GT, which instead should be judged by fit, relevance, workability, and modifiability (Glaser & Strauss 1967, Glaser 1978, Glaser 1998).</p> <p><b>Fit</b> has to do with how closely concepts fit with the incidents they are representing, and this is related to how thoroughly the constant comparison of incidents to concepts was done.</p> <p><b>Relevance</b>. A relevant study deals with the real concern of participants, evokes "grab" (captures the attention) and is not only of academic interest.</p> <p><b>Workability</b>. The theory works when it explains how the problem is being solved with much variation.</p> <p><b>Modifiability</b>. A modifiable theory can be altered when new relevant data is compared to existing data. A GT is never right or wrong, it just has more or less fit, relevance, workability and modifiability.</p> <p><a name="GT_nomenclature" id="GT_nomenclature"></a><span class="editsection"></span><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mw-headline">GT nomenclature</span></p> <p>A concept is the overall element and includes the categories which are conceptual elements standing by themselves, and properties of categories, which are conceptual aspects of categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The core variable explains most of the participants’ main concern with as much variation as possible. It has the most powerful properties to picture what’s going on, but with as few properties as possible needed to do so.<br /></p><p>A popular type of core variable can be theoretically modeled as a <b>basic social process</b> that accounts for most of the variation in change over time, context, and behavior in the studied area. "GT is multivariate. It happens sequentially, subsequently, simultaneously, serendipitously, and scheduled" (Glaser, 1998).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><b>All is data</b> is a fundamental property of GT which means that everything that gets in the researcher’s way when studying a certain area is data. Not only interviews or observations but anything is data that helps the researcher generating concepts for the emerging theory. Field notes can come from informal interviews, lectures, seminars, expert group meetings, newspaper articles, Internet mail lists, even television shows, conversations with friends etc.<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is even possible, and sometimes a good idea, for a researcher with much knowledge in the studied area to interview herself, treating that interview like any other data, coding and comparing it to other data and generating concepts from it. This may sound silly since you don’t have to interview yourself to know what you know, but you don’t know it on the conceptual level! And GT deals with conceptual level data.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Open coding</b> or <b>substantive coding</b> is conceptualizing on the first level of abstraction. Written data from field notes or transcripts are conceptualized line by line. In the beginning of a study everything is coded in order to find out about the problem and how it is being resolved. The coding is often done in the margin of the field notes.<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">This phase is often tedious since you are conceptualizing all incidents in the data, which yields many concepts. These are compared as you code more data, and merged into new concepts, and eventually renamed and modified. The GT researcher goes back and forth while comparing data, constantly modifying, and sharpening the growing theory at the same time as she follows the build-up schedule of GT’s different steps.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Selective coding</b> is done after having found the core variable or what is thought to be the core, the tentative core. The core explains the behavior of the participants in resolving their main concern. The tentative core is never wrong. It just more or less fits with the data.<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">After having chosen your core variable you selectively code data with the core guiding your coding, not bothering about concepts with little importance to the core and its subcores. Also, you now selectively sample new data with the core in mind, which is called <b>theoretical sampling</b> – a deductive part of GT. <b>Selective coding</b> delimits the study, which makes it move fast.<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">This is indeed encouraged while doing GT (Glaser, 1998) since GT is not concerned with data accuracy as in descriptive research but is about generating concepts that are abstract of time, place and people. <b>Selective coding</b> could be done by going over old field notes or <b>memos</b> which are already coded once at an earlier stage or by coding newly gathered data.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Theoretical codes</b> integrate the theory by weaving the fractured concepts into hypotheses that work together in a theory explaining the main concern of the participants. Theoretical coding means that the researcher applies a theoretical model to the data. It is important that this model is not forced beforehand but has emerged during the comparative process of GT. So the <b>theoretical codes</b> just as <b>substantives codes</b> should emerge from the process of constantly comparing the data in field notes and <b>memos</b>.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="Memoing" id="Memoing"></a></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><h3 style="text-align: justify;"><span class="editsection"></span><span class="mw-headline">Memoing</span></h3><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Theoretical memoing</b> is "the core stage of grounded theory methodology" (Glaser 1998). "Memos are the theorizing write-up of ideas about substantive codes and their theoretically coded relationships as they emerge during coding, collecting and analyzing data, and during memoing" (Glaser 1998).</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;">Memoing is also important in the early phase of a GT study such as open coding. The researcher is then conceptualizing incidents, and memoing helps this process. Theoretical memos can be anything written or drawn in the constant comparison that makes up a GT. <b>Memos</b> are important tools to both refine and keep track of ideas that develop when you compare incidents to incidents and then concepts to concepts in the evolving theory.<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">In memos you develop ideas about naming concepts and relating them to each other. In memos you try the relationships between concepts in two-by-two tables, in diagrams or figures or whatever makes the ideas flow, and generates comparative power. Without memoing the theory is superficial and the concepts generated not very original. Memoing works as an accumulation of written ideas into a bank of ideas about concepts and how they relate to each other.<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">This bank contains rich parts of what will later be the written theory. Memoing is total creative freedom without rules of writing, grammar or style (Glaser 1998). The writing must be an instrument for outflow of ideas, and nothing else. When you write memos the ideas become more realistic, being converted from thoughts in your mind to words, and thus ideas communicable to the afterworld. In GT the <b>preconscious processing</b> that occurs when coding and comparing is recognized. The researcher is encouraged to register ideas about the ongoing study that eventually pop up in everyday situations, and awareness of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity" title="Serendipity">serendipity</a> of the method is also necessary to achieve good results.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="Sorting" id="Sorting"></a></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><h3 style="text-align: justify;"><span class="editsection"></span><span class="mw-headline">Sorting</span></h3><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;">In the next step memos are sorted, which is the key to formulate the theory for presentation to others. <b>Sorting</b> puts fractured data back together. During sorting lots of new ideas emerge, which in turn are recorded in new memos giving the memo-on-memos phenomenon. Sorting memos generates theory that explains the main action in the studied area. A theory written from unsorted memos may be rich in ideas but the connection between concepts is weak.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="Writing" id="Writing"></a></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><h3 style="text-align: justify;"><span class="editsection"></span><span class="mw-headline">Writing</span></h3><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Writing up</b> the sorted memo piles follows after sorting, and at this stage the theory is close to the written GT product. The different categories are now related to each other and the core variable. The theoretical density should be dosed so concepts are mixed with description in words, tables, or figures to optimize readability. In the later <b>rewriting</b> the relevant literature is woven in to put the theory in a scholarly context. Finally, the GT is edited for style and language and eventually submitted for publication.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="No_pre-research_literature_review.2C_no_taping_and_no_talk" id="No_pre-research_literature_review.2C_no_taping_and_no_talk"></a></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><h3 style="text-align: justify;"><span class="editsection"></span><span class="mw-headline">No pre-research literature review, no taping and no talk</span></h3><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;">GT according to Glaser gives the researcher freedom to generate new concepts explaining human behavior. This freedom is optimal when the researcher refrains from taping interviews, doing a pre research literature review, and talking about the research before it is written up. These rules makes GT different from most other methods using qualitative data.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>No pre-research literature review.</b> Studying the literature of the area under study gives preconceptions about what to find and the researcher gets desensitized by borrowed concepts. Instead, grounded theories in other areas, and GT method books increase theoretical sensitivity. The literature should instead be read in the sorting stage being treated as more data to code and compare with what has already been coded and generated.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>No taping.</b> Taping and transcribing interviews is common in qualitative research, but is counterproductive and a waste of time in GT which moves fast when the researcher delimits her data by field-noting interviews and soon after generates concepts that fit with data, are relevant and work in explaining what participants are doing to resolve their main concern.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>No talk.</b> Talking about the theory before it is written up drains the researcher of motivational energy. Talking can either render praise or criticism, and both diminish the motivational drive to write memos that develop and refine the concepts and the theory (Glaser 1998). Positive feedback makes you content with what you've got and negative feedback hampers your self-confidence. Talking about the GT should be restricted to persons capable of helping the researcher without influencing her final judgments.</p>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-58478042712240746522009-02-21T02:47:00.000-08:002009-02-21T08:50:05.574-08:00GROUNDED THEORY DISCUSSION : The most difficult aspect of doing a GT dissertation?<div style="text-align: justify;" class="postdiv"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;" ><br />From <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">jrpatton</span>09:</span><br /><br />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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">memoing</span>.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Can anyone comment on why this would not be considered GT?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />--------------------------<br /><br />From <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Marilou</span>:</span><br /><br />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!</div><br />--------------------------------<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />From Tina:</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">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).<br /></div><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">priori</span> hypothesis.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">1. quantitative studies-those studies developed around a set hypothesis to test for accuracy<br /></div>2. qualitative studies studies with no strict a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">priori</span> hypothesis but a theoretical framework and designed to investigate in detail a focus environment or situation.<br /><br />and finally<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">3. Theory development: studies with no a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">priori</span> hypothesis or theoretical framework that seek to develop hypothesis of how things (or people) work. Obviously GT is an example of this paradigm.<br /></div><br />This is a rough view and I'm sure there is room for clean up. Does anyone have any insight or argument for me??<br /><br />-----------<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">From Tom:</span><img src="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/ADMINI%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">preconscious</span> 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!<br /></div><br />--------<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">From Rhonda:</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">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, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">memoing</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">reginite</span> my use of the vernacular, to network, and to see what I truly know about the GT process.<br /></div><br />-----------<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">From Nicolas:</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">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.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Reading the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Glaserian</span> literature was a pleasure, so I found that learning the method was very exciting.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">For me, the most difficult aspect of GT dissertation was the constant presence of the process in my mind. I confess that sometimes, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">nigt</span> 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 ? …<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">realy</span> alone, depressed… So, I think it is really <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">usefull</span> to read the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Glaserian</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">litterature</span>, that explains these phenomenons of feeling depressed etc.<br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">From Joy:</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />----------------------------<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">From <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Olavurc</span>:</span><br /><br />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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Glaserian</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Glaserian</span> 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.<br /><br />---------------------------<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">From Toke:</span><br /><br />For me the most difficult was<br /><br />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<br /><br />2) that I wanted to get published in traditional medical journals<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></div>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623675868945776167.post-8022765544463415672009-01-17T23:33:00.000-08:002009-01-22T18:13:02.535-08:00CLASSIC GROUNDED THEORY WORKSHOP<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">We are inviting researchers, lecturers and graduate students from all over Malaysia as well as abroad to participate in The Classic Grounded Theory Workshop to be held on the 10th and 11th March 2009 at the Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, University Putra Malaysia. The workshop is organized by the faculty in joint collaboration with the Grounded Theory Institute, Mill Valley, California.</span></span></div><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">The fee for the workshop is MYR 800.00 / pax. Payment will include meals, workshop bag and file, modules and two certificates from University Putra Malaysia and The Grounded Theory Institute, Mill Valley, California.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">The workshop will focus on addressing problems confronted by Classic Grounded Theory researchers such as:<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">1. Data collection and theoretical sampling</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">2. Writing memos and theoretical sensitivity</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">3. Method of analysis, open and selective coding.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">4. Classic Grounded Theory Thesis Dissertation (written and verbal presentation)</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">5. Quantitative Grounded Theory Methodology<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">If you have any qualitative data that you want to analyze, please bring them to the workshop.<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" >The Instructor</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />Dr Andy Lowe (pic below), a fellow of the Grounded Theory Institute, will conduct the workshop. He has close working relationship with the co-originator of Grounded Theory (Dr Barney Glaser) which has resulted in a series of international research seminars in Brussel, Paris, Helsinki, Stockholm, Karlstad, San Francisco, Berlin, London, Lisbon, Hangzhou, Johor Bahru, Singapore, Shanghai and Glasgow. He was on the editorial board of the first edition of The Grounded Theory Review which was originally launched in the late 1990's.<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BUpVPdrATCY/SXKwuSo-nfI/AAAAAAAAARQ/6Bx5Wd9R3SY/s1600-h/andy+lowe.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 142px; height: 145px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BUpVPdrATCY/SXKwuSo-nfI/AAAAAAAAARQ/6Bx5Wd9R3SY/s320/andy+lowe.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292486821437939186" border="0" /></a>There will also be a teleconference session with the <span style="font-weight: bold;">co-originator of Grounded Theory, Dr Barney Glaser</span> (pic below), live from Mill Valley, California.<br /></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a style="font-family: arial;" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BUpVPdrATCY/SXKxMBJvweI/AAAAAAAAARY/d6t_l4LdY-U/s1600-h/552px-Glasr75.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 162px; height: 218px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BUpVPdrATCY/SXKxMBJvweI/AAAAAAAAARY/d6t_l4LdY-U/s320/552px-Glasr75.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292487332139614690" border="0" /></a></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">HURRY! REGISTER EARLY. LIMITED TO 50 PARTICIPANTS ONLY.</span><br /></div><span xmlns=""><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">If you have any inquiries please contact the persons below or leave your message in this blog.<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Mr Ishak Abd Hamid<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Communication Department<br />Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication<br />University Putra Malaysia<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">43400 Serdang, Selangor<br />MALAYSIA<br />Tel. no. +603 89468779 or +6013 3801956<br />E-mail: <a href="mailto:ishak@fbmk.upm.edu.my">ishak@fbmk.upm.edu.my</a><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Associate Prof. Dr Ezhar Tamam</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span xmlns="">, Assistant Dean (Research and Innovation),</span></span></p></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">University Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">MALAYSIA</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Tel. no. +603 89468663</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">E-mail: </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="mailto:ezhar@fbmk.upm.edu.my">ezhar@fbmk.upm.edu.my</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Dr Andy Lowe</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Fellow of the Grounded Theory Institute</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">806 Monterey Place</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Sukhumvit Soi 16</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Bangkok 10110</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Thailand</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Tel +6626638477</span></span>Observation and Research Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08860858608813172984noreply@blogger.com0