Date post: | 03-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | ridhwan-taib |
View: | 223 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 22
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
1/22
Remodeling Grounded Theory
Barney G. Glaser with the assistance of Judith Holton
Abstract: This paper outlines my concerns with Qualitative Data Analysis' (QDA) numerous re-
modelings of Grounded Theory (GT) and the suse!uent eroding impact" # cite several e$amples of
the erosion and summari%e essential elements of classic GT methodology" #t is hoped that the
article will clarify my concerns with the continuing enthusiasm ut misunderstood emrace of GT y
QDA methodologists and serve as a preliminary guide to novice researchers who wish to e$plore
the fundamental principles of GT"
Table of Contents
&"#ntroduction
"QDA locing of GT
*"Grounded Theory +rocedures
*"&Theoretical sensitivity
*"Getting started
*"*All is data
*",se of the literature
*".Theoretical coding
*"/0pen coding
*"1Theoretical sampling
*"23onstant comparative method
*"43ore variale
*"&56elective coding
*"&&Delimiting
*"nterchangeaility of indicators
*"&*+acing
*"&,7emoing
*"&.6orting and writing up*"&/Analytic rules developed during sorting
,"6ummary
8eferences
Authors
3itation
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;orum Qualitative 6o%ialforschung ; orum: Qualitative 6ocial 8esearch (#66< &,*2-./1)
=olume .>
!ualitative data
analysis> constant
comparative
method> theoreti-
cal sensitivity
FORUM: QUALITATIVESOCIAL RESEARCHSOZIALFORSCHUNG
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
2/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
1. Introduction
The difference etween the particularistic> routine> normative data we all garner in
our everyday lives and scientific data is that the latter is produced y a
methodology" This is what maes it scientific" This may sound trite> ut it is ust
the eginning of many comple$ issues" Bhatever methodology may e chosen to
mae an ensuing research scientific has many implicit and e$plicit prolems" #t
implies a certain type of data collection> the pacing and timing for data collection>
a type of analysis and a specific type of research product" C&
#n the case of !ualitative data> the e$plicit goal is description" The clear issue
articulated in much of the literature regarding !ualitative data analysis (QDA)
methodology is the accuracy> truth> trustworthiness or oectivity of the data" This
worrisome accuracy of the data focuses on its suectivity> its interpretativenature> its plausiility> the data voice and its constructivism" Achieving accuracy is
always worrisome with a QDA methodology" C
These are a few of the prolems of description" 0ther QDA prolems include
pacing of data collection> the volume of data> the procedure and rigor of data
analysis> generali%aility of the unit findings> the framing of the ensuing analysis
and the product" These issues and others are deated at length in the !ualitative
research literature" Borrisome accuracy of !ualitative data description continually
concerns !ualitative researchers and their audiences" # have addressed these
prolems at length in EThe Grounded Theory +erspective: 3onceptuali%ation
3ontrasted with DescriptionE (GFA68> 55&)" C*
#n this paper # will tae up the conceptual perspective of classic Grounded Theory
(GT)" (#n some of the research literature> classic GT methodology has also een
termed GFA68ian GT although # personally prefer the term EclassicE as
recognition of the methodology's origins") The conceptual nature of classic GT
renders it astract of time> place and people" Bhile grounded in data> the
conceptual hypotheses of GT do not entail the prolems of accuracy that plague
QDA methods" C,
The mi$ing of QDA and GT methodologies has the effect of downgrading anderoding the GT goal of conceptual theory" The result is a default remodeling of
classic GT into ust another QDA method with all its descriptive aggage" Given
the ascending focus on QDA y sheer dint of the numer of researchers engaged
in !ualitative analysis laeled as GT> the apparent merger etween the two
methodologies results in default remodeling to QDA canons and techni!ues"
3onceptual re!uirements of GT methodology are easily lost in QDA prolems of
accuracy> type data> constructivism> participant voice> data collection rigor
according to positivistic representative re!uirements> however couched in a
fle$iility of approach (see F0B> &441)" The result is a locing of classic GT
methodology and the loss of its power to transcend the strictures of worrisome
accuracyHthe prime concern of QDA methods to produce conceptual theory that
e$plains fundamental social patterns within the sustantive focus of in!uiry" C.
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
3/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
# will address some> ut not all> of the myriad of remodeling locs to classic GT
analysis rought on y lacing it with QDA descriptive methodological
re!uirements" 7y goal is to alleviate the ane on good GT analysis rought on y
those QDA senior researchers open to no other method> especially the GT
method" # hope to relieve GT of the e$cessive scientism rought on it y those
worried aout accuracy and what is ErealE data when creating a scientific product"
# hope to give e$planatory strength to those +hD dissertation level students to
stand their GT grounds when struggling in the face of the misapplied QDA
criti!ue y their seniors and supervisors" C/
# wish to remind people> yet again> that classic GT is simply a set of integrated
conceptual hypotheses systematically generated to produce an inductive theory
aout a sustantive area" 3lassic GT is a highly structured ut eminently fle$ile
methodology" #ts data collection and analysis procedures are e$plicit and thepacing of these procedures is> at once> simultaneous> se!uential> suse!uent>
scheduled and serendipitous> forming an integrated methodological EwholeE that
enales the emergence of conceptual theory as distinct from the thematic
analysis characteristic of QDA research" # have detailed these matters in my
oos ETheoretical 6ensitivityE (GFA68> &412)> Easics of Grounded Theory
AnalysisE (GFA68> &44)> EDoing Grounded TheoryE (GFA68> &442a)> and
EThe Grounded Theory +erspectiveE (GFA68> 55&)" C1
0ver the years since the initial pulication of EDiscovery of Grounded TheoryE
(GFA68 I 6T8A66> &4/1)> the transcendent nature of GT as a general
research methodology has een susumed y the fervent adoption of GT
terminology and selective application of discrete aspects of GT methodology into
the realm of QDA research methodology" This multi-method cherry picing
approach> while oviously acceptale to QDA> is not compatile with the
re!uirements of GT methodology" C2
3urrently it appears to e very popular in QDA research sustantive and
methodological papers to lael QDA as GT for the rhetorical legitimating effect
and then to criti!ue its various strategies as somewhat less than possile or
effectiveJ then further> to sanctify the mi$ of methods as one method" 3lassic GT
is not what these Eadopted QDAE usages would call GT" These researchers donot reali%e that while often using the same type of !ualitative data> the GT and
QDA methods are sufficiently at odds with each other as to e incapale of
integration" ach method stands alone as !uite legitimate" The reader is to eep
in mind that this paper is aout GT and how to e$tract it from this remodeling" #t
does not condemn QDA in any way" QDA methods are !uite worthy> respectale
and acceptale" As # have said aove> the choice of methodology to render
research representations aout !ualitative data as scientific is the researcher's
choice" ut there is a difference etween received concepts> prolems and
framewors imposed on data y QDA methods and GT's focus on the generation
and emergence of concepts> prolems and theoretical codes" The choice of
methodology should not e confused> lumped or used piecemeal if GT is
involved" To do so is to erode the conceptual power of GT" C4
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
4/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
As such> GT procedures and ideas are used to legitimate and uttress routine
QDA methodology" 3onsidering the inundation> overwhelming and overload of
QDA dictums> EwordsE and assumed re!uirements on GT methodology> the
reader will see that it is hard to oth assimilate and withstand this avalanche on
GT methodology" The assault is so strong and well meaning that manyH
particularly novice researchersHdo not now> nor reali%e> that GT is eing
remodeled y default" C&5
The view of this paper is that the researcher who has to achieve a GT product to
move on with his or her career and sill development is often loced y the
confusion created through this inappropriate mi$ing of methods and the attendant
QDA re!uirements thus imposed" ndoing the locs to GT y this default
remodeling will not e an easy tas given the overwhelming confusion that has
resulted and seems destined to continue to grow" C&&
# will deal with as many of the locs as # see relevant ut certainly not all" #f #
repeat> it will e from different vantage points to undo QDA remodeling in the
service of advancing the GT perspective" # will hit hard that GT deals with the
data as it is> not what QDA wishes it to e or> more formally> what QDA
preconceives to e accurate and to e forcefully conceptuali%ed" This re!uires
honesty aout taing all data as it comes> figuring it out and then its
conceptuali%ation" # have written at length on Eall is dataE and on forcing in EDoing
Grounded TheoryE (GFA68> &442a)" C&
As # deal with this escalating remodeling of GT to QDA re!uirements> my hope is to
free GT up to e as originally envisioned" #n ETheoretical 6ensitivityE # wrote: EThe
goal of grounded theory is to generate a conceptual theory that accounts for a
pattern of behavior which is relevant and problematic for those involved. The goal
is not voluminous description nor clever verification.E (GFA68> &412> p"4*) C&*
2. QA !loc"ing of GT
This paper has a simple message" GT is a straightforward methodology" #t is a
comprehensive> integrated and highly structured> yet eminently fle$ile process
that taes a researcher from the first day in the field to a finished written theory"ollowing the full suite of GT procedures ased on the constant comparative
method> results in a smooth uninterrupted emergent analysis and the generation
of a sustantive or formal theory" Bhen GT procedures are laced with the
e$haustive> aundant re!uirements of QDA methodology> GT ecomes distorted>
wasting large amounts of precious research time and derailing the nowledgeH
hence groundingHof GT as to what is really going on" The intertwining of GT with
preconceived conecture> preconceptions> forced concepts and organi%ation>
logical connections and efore-the-fact professional interest defaults GT to a
remodeling of GT methodology to the status of a mi$ed methods QDA
methodology" This leads to multiple locs on conceptual GT" C&,
The word EanalysisE is a catchall word for what to do with data" #t is Escienti%edE
up> down and sideways in QDA methodologies catching up GT analysis in its
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
5/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
wae" QDA leads to particularistic analysis ased on discrete e$periences while
locing the astract idea of conceptuali%ing latent patterns upon which GT is
ased" Bhen GT ecomes laced with QDA re!uirements> it is hard to follow to
the point of confusion" Theory development is confused with QDA description
therey locing GT generation of conceptual theory" C&.
GT has clear> e$tensive procedures" Bhen rought into QDA> GT astraction is
neglected in favor of accuracy of descriptionHthe dominant concern of QDA
methodologyHand GT ac!uires the QDA prolem of worrisome accuracyHan
irrelevant concern in GT" To repeat> GT methodology is a straightforward
approach to theory generation" To spend time worrying aout its place in QDA
methods and science is ust fancy> legitimating tal> ut the result is the defaulting
of GT to the confusion of QDA analysis" C&/
386BFF in his oo EQualitative #n!uiry and 8esearch DesignE (&442) lumps
GT into comparisons with phenomenology> ethnography> case study and
iographical life history" The result of the lumping is a cursory default remodeling
of GT to a EindE of QDA" This lumping of GT with other QDA methods prevents
GT from standing alone as a transcending general research methodology" The
criteria of 386BFF's continuum organi%e methods according to when theory
is used in research> varying from efore the study egins to post-study" y study>
he means data collection and structuring !uestions" This is a very wea gradation
for discerning the difference among QDA methods and GT methodology"
386BFF clearly does not discern the difference etween generating theory
from data collection and generating theory that applies to the data once collected"
oth come during and after data collection> ut are very differently sourced" The
result is a lumping and confusion of GT with QDA" C&1
386BFF (&442> p"2/) says:
EAt the most e$treme end of the continuum> toward the 'after' end> # place grounded
theory" 6trauss and 3orin (&445) are clear that one collects and analy%es data
efore using theory in a grounded theory study" This e$plains> for e$ample> the
women's se$ually ause study y 7orrow and 6mith (&44.) in which they generate
the theory through data collection> pose it at the end> and eschew prescriing atheory at the eginning of the study" #n my own studies> # have refrained from
advancing a theory at the eginning of my grounded theory research> generated the
theory through data collection and analysis> posed the theory as a logic diagram and
introduced contending and contrasting theory with the model # generate at the end of
my study (3reswell I rown &44> 3reswell and rom &441)"E C&2
386BFF may e stating a fundamental tenant of GTHegin with no
preconceived theory and then generate one during the analysis (unless he meant
applying an e$tant theory)" As a distinguishing item of GT> however> it is arely a
eginning> leaving the reader with no nowledge of how generating is done>
becausethe assumption is that it is done y routine QDA" 3ontrasting the
generated theory with e$tant other theories to prove> improve or disprove one or
the other neglects or ignores constantly comparing the theories for category and
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
6/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
property generation" This contrasting with other theories also prevents modifying
the GT generated theory using the other theory as a ind of data" oth constant
comparing and modifying are two vital tenants of GT" C&4
GT may or may not e mentioned in a QDA methodological discussion> ut its
procedures fre!uently are" As such> constant comparative analysis> prolem
emergence> theoretical sampling> theoretical saturation> conceptual emergence>
memoing> sorting> etc" ecome laced with QDA re!uirements therey defaulting
their rigorous use to a QDA urden" This virtual suversion of GT results in
comple$ confusion of an otherwise simple methodology for novice researchers"
The researcher is loced and no longer freed y the power and autonomy
offered y GT to arrive at new emergent> generated theory" The aility to e
honest aout what e$actly is the data is conse!uently distorted y the
unattainale !uest for QDA accuracy" or e$ample> Kathryn 7AL unwittinglyerodes the GT methodology in QDA fashion when descriing the cognitive
processes inherent in data analysis"
EDoing !ualitative research is not a passive endeavor" Despite current perceptions
and student's prayers> theory does not magically emerge from data"
if only one is patient enough> insight wondrously enlightens the researcher" 8ather>
data analysis is a process that re!uires astute !uestioning> a relentless search for
answers> active oservation> and accurate recall" #t is a process of piecing together
data> of maing the invisile ovious> of recogni%ing the significant from the
insignificant> of lining seemingly unrelated facts logically> of fitting categories one
with another> and of attriuting conse!uences to antecedents" #t is a process of
conecture and verification> of correction and modification> of suggestion and defense"
#t is a creative process of organi%ing data so that the analytic scheme will appear
ovious"E (7AL> &44,> p"&5) C5
Dr 7AL engages in descriptive capture in QDA fashion and attacs the main
tenant of GT> that theory can emerge" 6he is lost in accurate fact research> which
is moot for GT" 6he prefers to force the data> maing it oey her framewor" 6he
does not acnowledge the constant comparative method y which theory
emerges from all data" Again> GT is defaulted to routine QDA" C&
6imilarly> this +hD studentHin her e-mail cry to me for helpHwanted to do a GT
dissertation ut was caught up in QDA and descriptive capture"
E# need some guidance" #'m on wrong tracH# don't care aout the main concerns of
clinical social worers in private practice" # care aout the main concerns of anyone
attempting to conte$tuali%e practice" 7aye the issue is that #'m interested in an
activity regardless of the actor" #f # as these !uestions # have no dout that main
concerns will emerge as well as attempts to continually resolve them" This # care aout"E
(e-mail correspondence> ?an 55) C
6he is caught y the QDA approach to force the data for a professional concern"
6he wants to use GT procedures in service of a QDA forcing approach> which
defaults GT" GT does not wor that way> ut the prevalence of QDA would have
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
7/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
her thin that way" Fater> under my guidance> she let the main concern emerge
and did an ama%ingly good dissertation on inary deconstruction etween social
worer and client" C*
The GT prolem and core variale must emerge and it will" # have seen it
hundreds of times" Fater> when the GT's main concern emerges and is e$plained
in a generated theory> it will have relevance for professional concerns" 6tarting
efore emergence with the professional interest> a prolem is very liely to result
in research with little or no relevance in GTHust routine QDA description with Eas
ifE importance" C,
@ere is a good e$ample of e$tensive lacing of GT y QDA needs" The confusion
of QDA re!uirements and GT procedures> in this e$ample> maes it hard to follow
and clearly erodes GT y default remodeling"
E3omprehension is achieved in grounded theory y using tape-recorded>
unstructured interviews and y oserving participants in their daily lives" @owever> the
assumption of symolic interactionism that underlie grounded theory set the stage for
e$amining process> for identifying stages and phases in the participant's e$perience"
6ymolic interaction purports that meaning is socially constructed> negotiated and
changes over time" Therefore the interview process sees to elicit a participant's
story> and this story is told se!uentially as the events eing reported unfold"
3omprehension is reached when the researcher has interviewed enough to gain in-
depth understanding"E (7086> &44,> p"*4) C.
#n fact> GT does not re!uire tape-recorded data" ield notes are preferale" GT
uses all types of interviews and> as the study proceeds> the est interview style
emerges" #t is not underlined y symolic interaction> nor constructed data" GT
uses Eall as data>E of which these are ust one ind of data" GT does not
preconceive the theoretical code of process" There are over &2 theoretical coding
families of which process is only one" #n GT> its relevance must emergeJ it is not
presumed" #nterviews lead to many theoretical codes" +articipant stories are
moot" +atterns are sought and conceptuali%ed" GT does not search for
description of particularistic accounts" All data are constantly compared to
generate concepts" C/
7086 continues her description of GT:
E6ynthesis is facilitated y ade!uacy of the data and the processes of analysis"
During this phase the researcher is ale to create a generali%ed story and to
determine points of departure> of variation in this story" The process of analysis
egins with line-y-line analysis to identify first level codes" 6econd-level codes are
used to identify significant portions of the te$t and compile these e$cerpts into
categories" Briting memos is ey to recording insight and facilitates> at an early
stage> the development of theory"E (7086> &44,> p"*4 C1
#t is> indeed> hard to recogni%e GT procedures in this !uote y 7086"
EAde!uacy of dataE and a Egenerali%ed storyE smac of worrisome accuracy and
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
8/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
descriptive capture> which are pure QDA concerns" They do not relate to GT
procedures" GT fractures the story in the service of conceptuali%ation" @er
approach to line-y-line analysis is a are reference to the constant comparative
process> ut that is all" @er references to first level> second level codes> portions
of te$t and compiling e$cerpts into categories are far from the constant
comparative method designed to generate conceptual categories and their
properties from the outset of data collection and analysis" Briting memos in GT
has to do with immediate recording of generated theoretical conceptual ideas
grounded in data> not the mysticalHperhaps conecturalHinsights to which
7086 refers to" C2
7086 continues with her description of GT:
EAs synthesis is gained and the variation in the data ecomes evident> groundedtheorists sample according to the theoretical needs of the study" #f a negative case is
identified> the researcher> theoretically> must sample for more negative cases until
saturation is reached when synthesis is attained"E (7086> &44,> p"*4) C4
Again> finding GT procedures in this description is hard" There is always variation
in the data" GT is concerned with generating a multivariate conceptual theoryH
not data variation for QDA" #n GT> seeing negative cases is not a procedure"
This is more liely to e preconceived forcing" GT sees comparative incidents y
theoretical sampling" The purpose in sampling is to generate categories and their
properties" The GT researcher does not now in advance what will e found"
#ncidents sampled may e similar or different> positive or negative" 7086's
reference to saturation does not imply conceptual saturationJ rather> it anticipates
simple redundancy without conceptual analysis" C*5
7086 continues:
ETheori%ing follows from the processes of theoretical sampling" Typologies are
constructed y determining two significant characteristics and sorting participants
against each characteristic on a $ matri$" Diagramming is used to enhance
understanding and identifying the asic social process (6+) that accounts for most
of the variation in the data"E (7086> &44,> p"*4)" C*&
Theori%ing in GT is an emergent process generated y continuous cycling of the
integrated processes of collecting> coding and conceptual analysis with the
results written up constantly in memos" Theoretical sampling is ust one source of
grounding during the constant comparative method" +reconceiving theoretical
codes such as typologies or asic social processes (6+s) is not GT" #n GT>
relevant theoretical codes emerge in conceptual memo sorting and could e
Ewhatever"E Bhile the fourfold property space is a good tool> when emergent> for
conceptuali%ing types (see GFA68 I 6T8A66> EAwareness of Dying>E &4/.)>
it is notfor placing or sorting participants> a priori> nor for counting them" This is
strictly routine> preconceived QDA descriptive capture> notGT" C*
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
9/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
7086 finishes:
EAs with the methods previously discussed> reconte$tuali%ation is determined y the
level of astraction attained in the model development" Bhereas sustantive theory
is conte$t ound> formal theory is more astract and may e applicale to many
settings or other e$periences"E (7086> &44,> p"*,) C**
This statement is totally wrong for GT> ut it addresses the usual QDA !uandary
of trying to generali%e a description of a unit" #n contrast> GT sustantive theory
always has general implications and can easily e applied to other sustantive
areas y the constant comparative method of modifying theory" or e$ample> y
comparing incidents and modifying the sustantive theory of milmen who
engage in cultivating housewives for profit and recreation> a GT of cultivation can
apply easily to doctors cultivating clients to uild a practice> therey e$pandingthe original sustantive theory to include cultivating down instead of cultivating up
the social scale" ormal theory is generated y many such diverse area
comparisons done in a concerted way to generate a formal theory of cultivating
for recreation> profit> client uilding> help> donations etc" C*,
3onte$t must emerge as a relevant category or as a theoretical code lie all other
categories in a GT" #t cannot e assumed as relevant in advance" As one applies
sustantive theory elsewhere or generates formal theory> conte$tHwhen relevant
Hwill emerge" C*.
These !uotes clearly lump GT into the multi-method QDA camp with the result
eing default remodeling y erosion of classic GT methodology" of
theoretical completeness> conceptual saturation> core variale analysis> open to
selective coding> memo ans> analytic rules> theoretical sorting> memo piles
writing up> reworing and resorting> emergent prolem> interchangeaility of
indices and theoretical (not sustantive) coding" The effect of such default
remodeling is a great loss of essential GT procedures loced y the imposition
of QDA worrisome accuracy re!uirements" C*/
GT re!uires following its rigorous procedures to generate a theory that fits> wors>is relevant and readily modifiale" Bhen it is adopted> co-opted> and corrupted y
QDA research> a close loo at the wor often shows that the QDA researcher is
tinering with the GT method" @e or she rings it into a QDA research design to
comply with the strictures and professional e$pectations of the dominant
paradigm" Getting some ind of product with a few concepts rescues the QDA
research> since the QDA description alone does not suffice" Then> the GT lael is
used to legitimate the QDA research" C*1
GT stands alone as a conceptual theory generating methodology" #t is a general
methodology" #t can use any data> ut oviously the favorite data> to date> is
!ualitative data" rgo GT is drawn into the QDA multi-method world and eroded
y conse!uence> however unwittingly" This revealing of method muddling (see
AK8> B6T> I 6T8 &44) of procedures does a tinering rescue o>
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
10/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
ut the result is that GT is default remodeled" GT ecomes considered> wrongly>
as an interpretative method> a symolic interaction method> a constructionist
method> a !ualitative method> a descriing method> a producer of worrisome
facts> a memoing method> an interview or field method and so forth" #t is clear that
this tinering y QDA researchers indicates they are too derailed y QDA to learn
systematic GT procedures" At est> a few GT procedures are orrowed out of
conte$t" C*2
These aove authors are typical of many trying to place GT somewhere in the
QDA camp" irst they lace it with some QDA re!uirements and ideas> which they
then use to lump GT into QDA multi-method thought" Fumping GT in as a QDA
methodology simply does not apply and> indeed> locs good GT while the
default remodeling of GT into another QDA rages on" Fumping erodes GT" #n the
remainder of this article> # will try to show how GT stands alone on its own> as aconceptuali%ing methodology" 7y goal will e to ring out the classic GT
perspective on how GT analysis is doneHto lay this method areHand in the
argain to show how QDA locs> as # have said> GT generation and product
proof" C*4
#. Grounded Theory $rocedures
Bhen not laced and lumped with QDA re!uirements> GT procedures are fairly
simple" The locing prolems come with the method mi$ing" # have already
written in detail much aout GT procedures in EDiscovery of Grounded TheoryE
(GFA68 I 6T8A66> &4/1)> ETheoretical 6ensitivityE (GFA68> &412)> EDoing
Grounded TheoryE (GFA68> &442a)> Easics of Grounded Theory Analysis
(GFA68> &44)> E7ore Grounded Theory 7ethodologyE (GFA68> &44,)> and
EThe Grounded Theory +erspectiveE (GFA68> 55&)> all y 6ociology +ress" #
have also pulished many e$amples of a EgoodE GT analysisHE$amples of
Grounded TheoryE (GFA68> &44*)> EGrounded Theory &42, to &44,E (GFA68>
&44.)> EGerund Grounded TheoryE (GFA68> &442)Hand have given many
references in my oos" C,5
The GT product is simple" #t is not a factual description" #t is a set of carefully
grounded concepts organi%ed around a core category and integrated intohypotheses" The generated theory e$plains the preponderance of ehavior in a
sustantive area with the prime mover of this ehavior surfacing as the main
concern of the primary participants" # have said over and over that GT is not
findings> not accurate facts and not description" #t is ust straightforward
conceptuali%ation integrated into theoryHa set of plausile> grounded
hypotheses" #t is ust thatHno moreHand it is readily modifiale as new data
come from whatever sourceHliterature> new data> collegial comments> etc" The
constant comparative method weaves the new data into the su-
conceptuali%ation" Bhat is important is to use the complete pacage of GT
procedures as an integrated methodological whole" C,&
The following is a summary of the essential elements of GT methodology: ear in
mind> when reading this summary> that the goal of GT is conceptual theory
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
11/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
astract of time> place and people" The goal of GT is ut are
systematically wored out in relation to the data during the course of the
research" A researcher re!uires two essential characteristics for the development
of theoretical sensitivity" irst> he or she must have the personal and
temperamental ent to maintain analytic distance> tolerate confusion and
regression while remaining open> trusting to preconscious processing and toconceptual emergence" 6econd> he;she must have the aility to develop
theoretical insight into the area of research comined with the aility to mae
something of these insights" @e;she must have the aility to conceptuali%e and
organi%e> mae astract connections> visuali%e and thin multivariately" The first
step in gaining theoretical sensitivity is to enter the research setting with as few
predetermined ideas as possileHespecially logically deducted> a prior
hypotheses" The research prolem and its delimitation are discovered" The pre-
framewor efforts of QDA loc this theoretical sensitivity" C,*
#.2 Getting started
A good GT analysis starts right off with regular daily data collecting> coding and
analysis" The start is not loced y a preconceived prolem> a methods chapter
or a literature review" The focus and flow is immediately into conceptuali%ation
using the constant comparative method" The est way to do GT is to ust do it" #t
cannot fail as the social psychological world of structure> culture> social
interaction> social organi%ation etc" goes on irrespective" There always is a main
concern and there always is a prime mover" As an open> generative and
emergent methodology> GT provides an honest approach to the data that lets the
natural organi%ation of sustantive life emerge" The GT researcher listens to
participants venting issues rather than encouraging them to tal aout a suectof little interest" The mandate is to remain open to what is actually happening and
not to start filtering data through pre-conceived hypotheses and iases to listen
and oserve and therey discoverthe main concern of the participants in the field
and how they resolve this concern" The forcing> preconceived notions of an initial
professional prolem> or an e$tant theory and framewor are suspended in the
service of seeing what will emerge conceptually y constant comparative
analysis" Bhen QDA re!uires this preconception> GT is rendered non-emergent
through coding and memoing as the researcher tries to follow a non-emergent
prolem" C,,
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
12/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
#.# All is data
GT stands alone as a conceptual theory generating methodology" #t can use any
data> ut oviously the favorite data to date is !ualitative" Bhile interviews are the
most popular> GT wors with any dataHEall is dataEHnot ust one specific data" #t
is up to the GT researcher to figure out what data they are getting" The data may
e aseline> vague> interpreted or proper-line" The data is not to e discounted as
Esuective>E Eovious>E Econstructed>E etc> as we find in QDA criti!ues" There is
always a perception of a perception as the conceptual level rises" Be are all
stuc with a EhumanE view of what is going on and ha%y concepts and
descriptions aout it" GT procedures sharpen the generated concepts
systematically" C,.
#.& 'se of the literature
#t is critical in GT methodology to avoid unduly influencing the pre-
conceptuali%ation of the research through e$tensive reading in the sustantive
area and the forcing of e$tant theoretical overlays on the collection and analysis
of data" To undertae an e$tensive review of literature efore the emergence of a
core category violates the asic premise of GTHthat eing> the theory emerges
from the data not from e$tant theory" #t also runs the ris of clouding the
researcher's aility to remain open to the emergence of a completely new core
category that has not figured prominently in the research to date therey
thwarting the theoretical sensitivity" +ractically> it may well result in the researcher
spending valuale time on an area of literature that proves to e of little
significance to the resultant GT" #nstead> GT methodology treats the literature as
another source of data to e integrated into the constant comparative analysis
process once the core category> its properties and related categories have
emerged and the asic conceptual development is well underway" The pre-study
literature review of QDA is a waste of time and a derailing of relevance for the GT
6tudy" C,/
#.( Theoretical coding
The conceptuali%ation of data through coding is the foundation of GTdevelopment" #ncidents articulated in the data are analy%ed and coded> using the
constant comparative method> to generate initially sustantive> and later
theoretical> categories" The essential relationship etween data and theory is a
conceptual code" The code conceptuali%es the underlying pattern of a set of
empirical indicators within the data" 3oding gets the analyst off the empirical level
y fracturing the data> then conceptually grouping it into codes that then ecome
the theory that e$plains what is happening in the data" A code gives the
researcher a condensed> astract view with scope of the data that includes
otherwise seemingly disparate phenomena" 6ustantive codes conceptuali%e the
empirical sustance of the area of research" Theoretical codes conceptuali%e how
the sustantive codes may relate to each other as hypotheses to e integrated
into the theory" Theoretical codes give integrative scope> road pictures and a
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
13/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
new perspective" They help the analyst maintain the conceptual level in writing
aout concepts and their interrelations" C,1
#.) *+en coding
#t is in the eginning with open codingHand a minimum of preconceptionHthat
the analyst is most tested as to his trust in himself and in the grounded method>
his sill to use the method and his aility to generate codes and find relevance"
The process egins with line-y-line open coding of the data to identify
sustantive codes emergent within the data" The analyst egins y coding the
data in every way possileHErunning the data open"E rom the start> the analyst
ass a set of !uestionsH!"hat is this data a study of#! !"hat category does this
incident indicate#! !"hat is actually happening in the data#! !"hat is the main
concern being faced by the participants#! and !"hat accounts for the continualresolving of this concern#!These !uestions eep the analyst theoretically
sensitive and transcending when analy%ing> collecting and coding the data" They
force him;her to focus on patterns among incidents that yield codes and to rise
conceptually aove detailed description of incidents" The analyst codes for as
many categories as fit successive> different incidents> while coding into as many
categories as possile" when he;she does egin to focus> he;she is sure of
relevance" The researcher egins to see the ind of categories that can handle
the data theoretically> so that he;she nows how to code all data> ensuring the
emergent theory fits and wors" 0pen coding allows the analyst the full range of
theoretical sensitivity as it allows him to tae chances on trying to generate codes
that may fit and wor" C,4
Fine y line coding forces the analyst to verify and saturate categories> minimi%es
missing an important category and ensures the grounding of categories the data
eyond impressionism" The result is a rich> dense theory with the feeling that noth-
ing has een left out" #t also corrects the forcing of EpetE themes and ideas> unlessthey have emergent fit" The analyst must do his;her own coding" 3oding constantly
stimulates ideas" The preplanned coding efforts of routine QDA to suit the
preconceived professional prolem easily remodel GT y stifling its approach" C.5
#., Theoretical sam+ling
Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for generating theory
wherey the analyst ointly collects> codes and analyses the data and decides
what data to collect ne$t and where to find them> in order to develop the theory as
it emerges" The process of data collection is controlled y the emerging theory>
whether sustantive or formal" eyond the decisions concerning initial collection
of data> further collection cannot e planned in advance of the emerging theory"
0nly as the researcher discovers codes and tries to saturate them y theoretical
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
14/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
sampling in comparison groups> do the successive re!uirements for data
collection emergeHoth (&) what categories and their properties to e sampled
further and () where to collect the data" y identifying emerging gaps in the
theory> the analyst will e guided as to ne$t sources of data collection and
interview style" The asic !uestion in theoretical sampling is to what groups or
sugroups does one turn to ne$t in data collectionHand for what theoretical
purposeM The possiilities of multiple comparisons are infinite and so groups
must e chosen according to theoretical criteria" The criteriaHof theoretical
purpose and relevanceHare applied in the ongoing oint collection and analysis of
data associated with the generation of theory" As such> they are continually
tailored to fit the data and are applied udiciously at the right point and moment in
the analysis" #n this way> the analyst can continually adust the control of data
collection to ensure the data's relevance to the emerging theory" C.&
3learly this approach to data collection done ointly with analysis is far different
from the typical QDA preplanned> se!uential approach to data collection and
management" #mposing the QDA approach on GT would loc it from the start"
C.
#.- Constant com+arati%e method
The constant comparative method enales the generation of theory through
systematic and e$plicit coding and analytic procedures" The process involves
three types of comparison" #ncidents are compared to incidents to estalish
underlying uniformity and its varying conditions" The uniformity and the conditions
ecome generated concepts and hypotheses" Then> concepts are compared to
more incidents to generate new theoretical properties of the concept and more
hypotheses" The purpose is theoretical elaoration> saturation and verification of
concepts> densification of concepts y developing their properties and generation
of further concepts" inally> concepts are compared to concepts" The purpose is
to estalish the est fit of many choices of concepts to a set of indicators> the
conceptual levels etween the concepts that refer to the same set of indicators
and the integration into hypotheses etween the concepts> which ecomes the
theory" 3omparisons in QDA research are etween far more general ideas that
do not lead to tightly grounded categories" C.*
#. Core %ariable
As the researcher proceeds to compare incident to incident in the data> then
incidents to categories> a core category egins to emerge" This core variale>
which appears to account for most of the variation around the concern or prolem
that is the focus of the study> ecomes the focus of further selective data
collection and coding efforts" #t e$plains how the main concern is continually
resolved" As the analyst develops several worale coded categories> he;she
should egin early to saturate as much as possile those that seem to have
e$planatory power" The core variale can e any ind of theoretical codeHa
process> a condition> two dimensions> a conse!uence> a range and so forth" #ts
primary function is to integrate the theory and render it dense and saturated" #t
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
15/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
taes time and much coding and analysis to verify a core category through
saturation> relevance and woraility" The criteria for estalishing the core
variale within a GT are that it is central> relating to as many other categories and
their properties as possile and accounting for a large portion of the variation in a
pattern of ehavior" The core variale reoccurs fre!uently in the data and comes
to e seen as a stale pattern that is more and more related to other variales" #t
relates meaningfully and easily with other categories" #t has clear and graing
implications for formal theory" #t is completely variale and has conceptual carry
through in the emerging theory> enaling the analyst to get through the analyses
of the processes that he;she is woring on y its relevance and e$planatory
power" 3ore variale> conceptual theory is far eyond QDA description or
conceptual descriptions which are unending since they are not tied down to a
conceptual scheme" A reversion to QDA clearly locs this necessary theoretical
completeness" C.,
#.1/ 0electi%e coding
6elective coding means to cease open coding and to delimit coding to only those
variales that relate to the core variale in sufficiently significant ways as to
produce a parsimonious theory" 6elective coding egins only after the analyst is
sure that he;she has discovered the core variale" QDA researchers have never
figured out the e$act purpose and techni!ues of selective coding" 0ften they
selectively code from the start with preconceived categories" C..
#.11 elimiting
6use!uent data collection and coding is therey delimited to that which is
relevant to the emergent conceptual framewor" This selective data collection and
analysis continues until the researcher has sufficiently elaorated and integrated
the core variale> its properties and its theoretical connections to other relevant
categories" C./
#ntegrating a theory around a core variale delimits the theory and therey the
research proect" This delimiting occurs at two levelsHthe theory and the
categories" irst the theory solidifies> in the sense that maor modificationsecome fewer and fewer as the analyst compares the ne$t incidents of a
category to its properties" Fater modifications are mainly on the order of clarifying
the logic> taing out non-relevant properties> integrating elaorating details of
properties into the maor outline of interrelated categories andHmost importantH
reduction" 8eduction occurs when the analyst discovers underlying uniformity in
the original set of categories or their properties and then reformulates the theory
with a smaller set of higher-level concepts" The second level of delimiting the
theory is a reduction in the original list of categories for coding" As the theory
grows> ecomes reduced> and increasingly wors etter for ordering a mass of
!ualitative data> the analyst ecomes committed to it" This allows the researcher
to pare down the original list of categories for collecting and coding data>
according to the present oundaries of the theory" The analyst now focuses on
one category as the core variale and only variales related to the core variale
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
16/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
will e included in the theory" The list of categories for coding is further delimited
through theoretical saturation" 6ince QDA researchers focus on full description>
and no core variale conceptual analysis> delimiting does not occur in QDA
research" #t ust goes on and onHempirical tiny topics draining oth researcher
and audience" C.1
#.12 Interchangeability of indicators
GT is ased on a concept-indicator model of constant comparisons of incidents
(indicators) to incidents (indicators) and> once a conceptual code is generated> of
incidents (indicators) to emerging concept" This forces the analyst into
confronting similarities> differences and degrees in consistency of meaning
etween incidents (indicators)> generating an underlying uniformity which in turn
results in a coded category and the eginnings of properties of it" rom thecomparisons of further incidents (indicators) to the conceptual codes> the code is
sharpened to achieve its est fit while further properties are generated until the
code is verified and saturated" C.2
3onceptual specification> not definition> is the focus of GT" The GT concept-
indicator model re!uires concepts and their dimensions to earn their way into the
theory y systematic generation of data" 3hanging incidents (indicators) and
therey generating new properties of a code can only go so far efore the analyst
discovers saturation of ideas through interchangeaility of indicators" This
interchangeaility produces> at the same time> the transferaility of the theory to
other areas y lining to incidents (indicators) in other sustantive or su-
sustantive areas that produce the same category or properties of it"
#nterchangeaility produces saturation of concepts and their properties> not
redundancy of description as some QDA methodologists would have it (see
7086> &44.> p"&,1)" C.4
#.1# $acing
Generating GT taes time" #t is aove all a delayed action phenomenon" Fittle
increments of coding> analy%ing and collecting data coo and mature and then
lossom later into theoretical memos" 6ignificant theoretical reali%ations comewith growth and maturity in the data> and much of this is outside the analyst's
awareness until preconscious processing ecomes conscious" Thus the analyst
must pace himself> e$ercise patience and accept nothing until something
happens> as it surely does" 6urviving the apparent confusion is important" This
re!uires that the analyst taes whatever amount of !uality time that is re!uired to
do the discovery process and that he;she learns to tae this time in a manner
consistent with his;her own temporal nature as an analystHpersonal pacing"
8ushing or forcing the process will shut down the analyst's creativity and
conceptual ailities> e$hausting the energy and leaving the researcher empty and
the theory thin and incomplete" #n QDA wor researchers are paced se!uentially
through the program and framewor> and often driven to long periods of no
product and e$haustion" To overlay this QDA program on GT severely remodels
GT to its deficit" C/5
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
17/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
#.1& emoing
Theory articulation is facilitated through an e$tensive and systematic process of
memoing that parallels the data analysis process in GT" 7emos are theoretical
notes aout the data and the conceptual connections etween categories" The
writing of theoretical memos is the core stage in the process of generating theory"
#f the analyst sips this stage y going directly to sorting or writing up> after
coding> he;she is not doing GT" C/&
7emo writing is a continual process that leads naturally to astraction or ideation
Hcontinually capturing the Efrontier of the analyst's thiningE as he;she goes
through data and codes> sorts and writes" #t is essential that the analyst interrupts
coding to memo ideas as they occur if he;she is to reap the sutle reward of the
constant input from reading the data carefully> asing the aove !uestions andcoding accordingly" 7emos help the analyst to raise the data to a conceptual
level and develop the properties of each category that egin to define them
operationally" 7emos present hypotheses aout connections etween categories
and;or their properties and egin to integrate these connections with clusters of
other categories to generate the theory" 7emos also egin to locate the emerging
theory with other theories with potentially more or less relevance" C/
The asic goal of memoing is to develop ideas on categories with complete
freedom into a memo fund that is highly sort-ale" 7emo construction differs from
writing detailed description" Although typically ased on description> memos raise
that description to the theoretical level through the conceptual rendering of the
material" Thus> the original description is susumed y the analysis" 3odes
conceptuali%e data" 7emos reveal and relate y theoretically coding the
properties of sustantive codesHdrawing and filling out analytic properties of the
descriptive data" C/*
arly on memos arise from constant comparison of indicators to indicators> then
indicators to concepts" Fater on memos generate new memos> reading literature
generates memos> sorting and writing also generate memosHmemoing is never
doneN 7emos slow the analyst's pace> forcing him;her to reason through and
verify categories and their integration and fit> relevance and wor for the theory"#n this way> he;she does not prematurely conclude the final theoretical framewor
and core variales" C/,
3omparative reasoning in memosHy constant comparisonsHundoes
preconceived notions> hypotheses> and scholarly aggage while at the same time
constantly e$panding and reaing the oundaries of current analyses" 7emos
are e$cellent source of directions for theoretical samplingHthey point out gaps in
e$isting analyses and possile new related directions for the emerging theory"
3learly the preconceived approach and framewor of QDA research is in conflict
with the freedom of memoing" The conflict is most often resolved y the
preponderance of QDA research and GT loses this vital aspect" C/.
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
18/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
#.1( 0orting and writing u+
Throughout the constant comparative coding process> the researcher has een
capturing the emergent ideation of sustantive and theoretical categories in the
form of memos" 0nce the researcher has achieved theoretical saturation of the
categories> he;she proceeds to review> sort and integrate the numerous memos
related to the core category> its properties and related categories" The sorted
memos generate a theoretical outline> or conceptual framewor> for the full
articulation of the GT through an integrated set of hypotheses" C//
#deational memos are the fund of GT" Theoretical sorting of the memos is the ey
to formulating the theory for presentation or writing" 6orting is essentialHit puts
the fractured data ac together" Bith GT> the outline for writing is simply an
emergent product of the sorting of memos" There are no preconceived outlines"GT generates the outline through the sorting of memos y the sorting of the
categories and properties in the memos into similarities> connections and
conceptual orderings" This forces patterns that ecome the outline" C/1
To preconceive a theoretical outline is to ris logical elaoration" #nstead>
theoretical sorting forces the Enitty grittyE of maing theoretically discrete
discriminations as to where each idea fits in the emerging theory" Theoretical
sorting is ased on theoretical codes" The theoretical decision aout the precise
location of a particular memoHas the analyst sees similarities> connections and
underlying uniformitiesHis ased on the theoretical coding of the data that is
grounding the idea" C/2
#f the analyst omits sorting> the theory will e linear> thin and less than fully
integrated" 8ich> multi-relation> multivariate theory is generated through sorting"
Bithout sorting> a theory lacs the internal integration of connections among
many categories" Bith sorting> data and ideas are theoretically ordered" 6orting is
conceptual sorting> not data sorting" 6orting provides theoretical completeness"
6orting generates more memosHoften on higher conceptual levelsHfurthering
and condensing the theory" #t integrates the relevant literature into the theory>
sorting it with the memos" C/4
6orting also has a conceptual> %eroing-in capacity" The analyst soon sees where
each concept fits and wors> its relevance and how it will carry forward in the
cumulative development of the theory" 6orting prevents over-conceptuali%ation
and pre-conceptuali%ation> since these e$cesses fall away as analyst %eros in on
the most parsimonious set of integrated concepts" Thus> sorting forces ideational
discrimination etween categories while relating them> integrating them and
preventing their proliferation" The constant creativity of sorting memos prevents
the use of computer sorting as used in QDA wor" C15
#.1) Analytic rules de%elo+ed during sorting
Bhile theoretical coding estalishes the relationship among variales> analytic
rules guide the construction of the theory as it emerges" They guide the
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
19/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
theoretical sorting and suse!uent writing of the theory" Analytic rules detail
operations> specify foci> delimit and select use of the data and concepts> act as
reminders of what to do and eep trac of and provide the necessary discipline
for sticing to and eeping trac of the central theme as the total theory is
generated" C1&
There are several fundamental analytic rules" irst> sortingcan start anywhere" #t
will force its own eginning> middle> and end for writing" The important thing is to
start" Trying conceptually to locate the first memos will force the analyst to start
reasoning out the integration" 0nce started> analyst soon learns where ideas are
liely to integrate est and sorting ecomes generative and fun" 6tart with the
core variableand then sort all other categories and properties only as they relate
to the core variale" This rule forces focus> selectivity and delimiting of the
analysis" Theoretical coding helps in deciding and in figuring out the meaning ofthe relation of a concept to the core variale" This theoretical code should e
written and sorted into the appropriate pile with the sustantive code" 0nce
sorting on the core variale egins> the constant comparisons are liely to
generate many new ideas> especially on theoretical codes for integrating the
theory" 6top sorting and memoN Then> sort the memointo the integration" C1
The analyst carries forwardto suse!uent sorts the use of each concept from the
point of its introduction into the theory" The concept is illustrated only when it is
first introduced to develop the imagery of its meaning" Thereafter> only the
concept is used> not the illustration" All ideas must fit in somewhere in the outline
or the integrationmust e changed or modified" This is essential for> if the analyst
ignores this fitting of all categories> he;she will rea out of the theory too soon
and necessary ideas and relations will not e used" This rule is ased on the
assumption that the social world is integrated and the o of the analyst is to
discover it" #f he;she cannot find the integration> he;she must re-sort and re-
integrate the concepts to fit etter" The analyst moves ac and forth etween
outline and ideas as he;she sorts forcing underlying patterns> integrations and
multivariate relations etween the concepts" The process is intensely generative>
yielding many theoretical coding memos to e resorted into the outline" Again it
cannot e done y the simple code and retrieve of computer sorting" C1*
6orting forces the analyst to introduce an idea in one place and then estalish its
carry forward throughout the theory when it is necessary to use it again in other
relations" Bhen in dout aout a place to sort an idea> put it in that part of the
outline where the first possiility of its use occurs> with a note to scrutini%e and
pass forward to the ne$t possile place" Theoretical completeness implies
theoretical coverage as far as the study can tae the analyst" #t re!uires that> in
cutting offthe study> he;she e$plains with the fewest possile concepts and with
the greatest possile scope> as much variation as possile in the ehavior and
prolem under study" The theory thus e$plains sufficiently how people continually
resolve their main concern with concepts that fit> wor> have relevance and are
saturated" C1,
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
20/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
&. 0ummary
Always eep in mind that GT methodology is itself a GT that emerged from doing
research on dying patients in &4/1" #t was discovered> not invented" #t is a sure
thing for researchers to cast their fate with" #t was notthought up as a proffered
approach to doing research ased on conectural EwisdomsE from science>
positivism or naturalism" #t is not a concoction ased on logical EscienceE
literature telling us how science is ought to e" C1.
GT gives the social psychological world a rhetoricHa argon to e sureHut one
aced up y systematic procedures" #t is not an empty rhetoric> ut unfortunately
it often taes time for GT procedures to catch up to rhetoric with Egra"E +art of
the delayed learning is the remodelingHhence locingHy QDA re!uirements>
especially the accuracy !uest" C1/
0ne promise is that the astraction of GT from dataHgenerating GTHdoes away
with the prolems of QDA that are Escienti%edE on and on" As the GT researcher
(especially a +hD student) does GT analysis that produces a sustantive>
conceptual theory with general implicationsHnot descriptive findingsHhe or she
will advisaly steer clear of the !uicsand of the descriptive prolems" QDA
prolems are numerous" A short list of these would include accuracy>
interpretation> construction> meaning> positivistic canons and naturalistic canons
of data collection and analysis of unit samples> starting with preconceived
structured interviews right off> se!uencing framewors> preconceived professional
prolems> pet theoretical codes> etc and etc" The list is long> the idea is clear" C11
E7inus mentoreesE should e cautious> in their aloneness> aout seeing too
much guidance from Eone oo readE mentors and the intrusive erosion that
results as these mentors try to mae sense of GT in their QDA conte$t" They
should see help from people who have written a GT oo" C12
------
The time for GT to e$plain and e applied to Ewhat is going onE means leaving the
onslaught of QDA methodologies> which so erode it and then remodel it" vertG77660< says it clearly in his recent paper> E8elationship mareting and the
oth in academe and in
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
21/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
corporations" Be need to use our oservational capacity in an inductive mode and
allow it to receive the true story of life> search for patterns and uild theory" Les>
theory" General mareting theory that helps us put events and activities into a
conte$t" This is all within the spirit of grounded theory> wide spread in sociology ut
little understood y mareters" 7y interpretation of a recent oo on the suect y
Glaser (55&) is as follows: $ta%e the elevator from the ground floor of raw
substantive data and description to the penthouse of conceptuali&ation and general
theory. 'nd do this without paying homage to the legacy of e(tant theory.$#n doing
this> comple$ity> fu%%iness and amiguity are received with cheers y the researchers
and not shunned as unorderly and threatening as they are y !uantitative
researchers" Good theory is useful for scholars and practicing managers alie"E
(G77660 55> pp".2.-.2/)" C14
# trust that this paper demonstrates how freedom from QDA re!uirements willallow unfettered GT procedures to result in generated theory that fulfills
G77660 &*..-&*/5"
3reswell> ?ohn B" (&442)" Qualitative ,n-uiry and esearch /esign" Thousand 0as> 3A: 6age"
Glaser> arney G"(&412)" Theoretical Sensitivity0 'dvances in the 1ethodology of GroundedTheory" 7ill =alley> 3a": 6ociology +ress"
Glaser> arney G" (&44)" Basics of Grounded Theory 'nalysis" 7ill =alley> 3a": 6ociology +ress"
Glaser> arney G" (d") (&44*)" 2(amples of Grounded Theory. ' eader" 7ill =alley> 3a":6ociology +ress"
Glaser> arney G" (d") (&44,)" 1ore Grounded Theory 1ethodology. ' eader" 7ill =alley> 3a":6ociology +ress"
Glaser> arney G" (d") (&44.)" Grounded Theory *345 to *335" 7ill =alley> 3a": 6ociology +ress"
Glaser> arney G" (&442a)" /oing Grounded Theory. ,ssues and /iscussions" 7ill =alley> 3a":6ociology +ress"
Glaser> arney G" with the assistance of B" Douglas Kaplan (d") (&442)" Gerund GroundedTheory0 The Basic Social 6rocess /issertation" 7ill =alley> 3a": 6ociology +ress"
Glaser> arney G" (55&)" The Grounded Theory 6erspective0 7onceptuali&ation 7ontrasted with
/escription" 7ill =alley> 3a": 6ociology +ress"
Glaser> arney G" I 6trauss> Anselm F" (&4/.)"'wareness of /ying" 3hicago: Aldine +ulishing3o"
Glaser> arney G" I 6trauss> Anselm F" (&4/1)" /iscovery of Grounded Theory" 7ill =alley> 3a":6ociology +ress"
Gummesson> vert (55)" 8elationship 7areting and the Dept of 7aretingniversity of 6trathclyde (Grounded Theory 8eview)"
7ay> Katharyn A" (&44,)" Astract Knowing" The 3ase for 7agic in 7ethod" #n ?anice 7orse (d")>7ritical ,ssues in Qualitative esearch 1ethods(pp"&5-)"Thousand 0as> 3A: 6age"
7orse> ?anice (&44,)" Emerging from the Data"E 3ognitive +rocesses of Analysis in Qualitative8esearch" #n ?anice 7orse (d")> 7ritical ,ssues in Qualitative esearch 1ethods(pp"*-,&)"Thousand 0as> 3A: 6age"
7orse> ?anice (&44.)" ditorial" Qualitative Health eview :> &,1-&,4"
9 55, Q6 http:;;www"!ualitative-research"net;f!s;
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/beirat/glaser-e.htmhttp://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/beirat/glaser-e.htm8/11/2019 Remodeling Grounded Theory
22/22
FQS.()> Art" ,> arney G" Glaser with the assistance of ?udith @olton: 8emodeling Grounded Theory
Authors
arney G" GFA68received his A degree at
6tanford &4." @e studied contemporary literaturefor a year at the 6oronne> niversity of +aris> andhe spent two years in the army one of which wasin reiurg> Germany> where he ecame fluent inGerman and studied literature at niversity ofreiurg during off-hours" @e received his +hDfrom 3olumia niversity in &4/&" @e then went toniversity of 3alifornia 6an rancisco> where heoined Anselm 6T8A66 in doing the dying inhospitals study and in teaching +hD studentsmethods and analysis" @e then pulished hisdissertation as a oo E0rgani%ational 6cientists:Their +rofessional 3areersE and pulished over 5articles on the suect of professional careers andthe dying research" Then EAwareness of DyingE
was written in &4/. and immediately ecame aresounding success" pon re!uest> GFA68 and6T8A66 wrote the EDiscovery of GroundedTheoryE in &4/1 to show how the dying researchwas done" Another ig successN Then followed twomore oos on dying and one on chronic illnessand one on status passage with 6T8A66" 6incethen GFA68 has written &* more oos usingand aout grounded theory" 7ost are nowpulished y 6ociology +ress" @e has writtencountless articles" #n &442 he received anhonorary doctorate from 6tocholm niversity>6weden" @is wors are read throughout the world"
3ontact:
arney G" Glaser +hD> @on +hD
+0 ,557ill =alley> 3a 4,4,6A
Tel: ,&. *22 2,*&a$: ,&. *2& .,
-mail:glaserOspeaeasy"net8F:http:;;www"groundedtheory"com;
Judith H; 3harlottetown> +>3anada" 6he holds a achelor of Arts (Dalhousie)and a 7aster of Arts (8oyal 8oads)" 6he iscurrently engaged in doctoral research usinggrounded theory> as a +hD candidate at niversity3ollege K"
3ontact:?udith A" @olton
8esearch Development 3onsultant@olland 3ollege&,5 Beymouth 6treet3harlottetown> + 3&A ,P&3anada
Tel: 45 .// 4/51a$: 45 .// 4/4
-mail:holtonOislandtelecom"com
Citation
Glaser> arney G" with the assistance of ?udith @olton (55,)" 8emodeling Grounded Theory C25paragraphs" Forum Qualitative So&ialforschung = Forum0 Qualitative Social esearch> :()> Art" ,>http:;;nn-resolving"de;urn:nn:de:5&&,-f!s5,5,."
8evised: ,;5&&
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/beirat/glaser-e.htmhttp://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/beirat/glaser-e.htmmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.groundedtheory.com/http://www.groundedtheory.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/beirat/glaser-e.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.groundedtheory.com/mailto:[email protected]