0% found this document useful (0 votes)
44 views9 pages

Creswell GroundedTheory

Uploaded by

lengomaiuyen.fuv
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
44 views9 pages

Creswell GroundedTheory

Uploaded by

lengomaiuyen.fuv
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

the phenomenology with the feeling, “I understand better what it is like for

someone to experience that” (Polkinghorne, 1989, p. 46).

Challenges
A phenomenology provides a deep understanding of a phenomenon as
experienced by several individuals. Knowing some common experiences
can be valuable for groups such as therapists, teachers, health personnel,
and policymakers. Phenomenology can involve a streamlined form of data
collection by including only single or multiple interviews with participants.
Using the Moustakas (1994) approach for analyzing the data helps provide
a structured approach for novice researchers. It may be too structured for
some qualitative researchers. On the other hand, phenomenology requires at
least some understanding of the broader philosophical assumptions, and
researchers should identify these assumptions in their studies. These
philosophical ideas are abstract concepts and not easily seen in a written
phenomenological study. In addition, the participants in the study need to be
carefully chosen to be individuals who have all experienced the
phenomenon in question, so that the researcher, in the end, can forge a
common understanding. Finding individuals who have all experienced the
phenomenon may be difficult given a research topic. As mentioned earlier,
bracketing personal experiences may be difficult for the researcher to
implement because interpretations of the data always incorporate the
assumptions that the researcher brings to the topic (van Manen, 1990).
Perhaps we need a new definition of epoche or bracketing, such as
suspending our understandings in a reflective move that cultivates curiosity
(LeVasseur, 2003). Thus, the researcher needs to decide how and in what
way his or her personal understandings will be introduced into the study.

GROUNDED THEORY RESEARCH

Definition and Background


While narrative research focuses on individual stories told by participants,
and phenomenology emphasizes the common experiences for a number of
individuals, the intent of a grounded theory study is to move beyond
description and to generate or discover a theory, a “unified theoretical
explanation” (Corbin & Strauss, 2007, p. 107) for a process or an action.
Participants in the study would all have experienced the process, and the
development of the theory might help explain practice or provide a
framework for further research. A key idea is that this theory development
does not come “off the shelf,” but rather is generated or “grounded” in data
from participants who have experienced the process (Strauss & Corbin,
1998). Thus, grounded theory is a qualitative research design in which the
inquirer generates a general explanation (a theory) of a process, an action,
or an interaction shaped by the views of a large number of participants.
This qualitative design was developed in sociology in 1967 by two
researchers, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, who felt that theories used
in research were often inappropriate and ill suited for participants under
study. They elaborated on their ideas through several books (Corbin &
Strauss, 2007; Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss
& Corbin, 1990, 1998). In contrast to the a priori, theoretical orientations in
sociology, grounded theorists held that theories should be “grounded” in
data from the field, especially in the actions, interactions, and social
processes of people. Thus, grounded theory provided for the generation of a
theory (complete with a diagram and hypotheses) of actions, interactions, or
processes through interrelating categories of information based on data
collected from individuals.
Despite the initial collaboration of Glaser and Strauss that produced such
works as Awareness of Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1965) and Time for Dying
(Glaser & Strauss, 1968), the two authors ultimately disagreed about the
meaning and procedures of grounded theory. Glaser has criticized Strauss’s
approach to grounded theory as too prescribed and structured (Glaser,
1992). More recently, Charmaz (2006) has advocated for a constructivist
grounded theory, thus introducing yet another perspective into the
conversation about procedures. Through these different interpretations,
grounded theory has gained popularity in fields such as sociology, nursing,
education, and psychology, as well as in other social science fields.
Another recent grounded theory perspective is that of Clarke (2005) who,
along with Charmaz, seeks to reclaim grounded theory from its “positivist
underpinnings” (p. xxiii). Clarke, however, goes further than Charmaz,
suggesting that social “situations” should form our unit of analysis in
grounded theory and that three sociological modes can be useful in
analyzing these situations—situational, social world/arenas, and positional
cartographic maps for collecting and analyzing qualitative data. She further
expands grounded theory “after the postmodern turn” (Clarke, 2005, p.
xxiv) and relies on postmodern perspectives (i.e., the political nature of
research and interpretation, reflexivity on the part of researchers, a
recognition of problems of representing information, questions of
legitimacy and authority, and repositioning the researcher away from the
“all knowing analyst” to the “acknowledged participant”) (Clarke, 2005, pp.
xxvii, xxviii). Clarke frequently turns to the postmodern, poststructural
writer Michael Foucault (1972) to base the grounded theory discourse. In
my discussion of grounded theory, I will be relying on the books by Corbin
and Strauss (2007) who provide a structured approach to grounded theory
and Charmaz (2006) who offers a constructivist and interpretive perspective
on grounded theory.

Defining Features of Grounded Theory


There are several major characteristics of grounded theory that might be
incorporated into a research study:

The researcher focuses on a process or an action that has distinct steps


or phases that occur over time. Thus, a grounded theory study has
“movement” or some action that the researcher is attempting to
explain. A process might be “developing a general education program”
or the process of “supporting faculty to become good researchers.”
The researcher also seeks, in the end, to develop a theory of this
process or action. There are many definitions of a theory available in
the literature, but, in general, a theory is an explanation of something
or an understanding that the researcher develops. This explanation or
understanding is a drawing together, in grounded theory, of theoretical
categories that are arrayed to show how the theory works. For
example, a theory of support for faculty may show how faculty are
supported over time, by specific resources, by specific actions taken by
individuals, with individual outcomes that enhance the research
performance of a faculty member (Creswell & Brown, 1992).
Memoing becomes part of developing the theory as the researcher
writes down ideas as data are collected and analyzed. In these memos,
the ideas attempt to formulate the process that is being seen by the
researcher and to sketch out the flow of this process.
The primary form of data collection is often interviewing in which the
researcher is constantly comparing data gleaned from participants with
ideas about the emerging theory. The process consists of going back
and forth between the participants, gathering new interviews, and then
returning to the evolving theory to fill in the gaps and to elaborate on
how it works.
Data analysis can be structured and follow the pattern of developing
open categories, selecting one category to be the focus of the theory,
and then detailing additional categories (axial coding) to form a
theoretical model. The intersection of the categories becomes the
theory (called selective coding). This theory can be presented as a
diagram, as propositions (or hypotheses), or as a discussion (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). Data analysis can also be less structured and based on
developing a theory by piecing together implicit meanings about a
category (Charmaz, 2006).

Types of Grounded Theory Studies


The two popular approaches to grounded theory are the systematic
procedures of Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) and the constructivist
approach of Charmaz (2005, 2006). In the more systematic, analytic
procedures of Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998), the investigator seeks to
systematically develop a theory that explains process, action, or interaction
on a topic (e.g., the process of developing a curriculum, the therapeutic
benefits of sharing psychological test results with clients). The researcher
typically conducts 20 to 30 interviews based on several visits “to the field”
to collect interview data to saturate the categories (or find information that
continues to add to them until no more can be found). A category represents
a unit of information composed of events, happenings, and instances
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The researcher also collects and analyzes
observations and documents, but these data forms are often not used. While
the researcher collects data, she or he begins analysis. My image for data
collection in a grounded theory study is a “zigzag” process: out to the field
to gather information, into the office to analyze the data, back to the field to
gather more information, into the office, and so forth. The participants
interviewed are theoretically chosen (called theoretical sampling) to help
the researcher best form the theory. How many passes one makes to the
field depends on whether the categories of information become saturated
and whether the theory is elaborated in all of its complexity. This process of
taking information from data collection and comparing it to emerging
categories is called the constant comparative method of data analysis.
The researcher begins with open coding, coding the data for its major
categories of information. From this coding, axial coding emerges in which
the researcher identifies one open coding category to focus on (called the
“core” phenomenon), and then goes back to the data and creates categories
around this core phenomenon. Strauss and Corbin (1990) prescribe the
types of categories identified around the core phenomenon. They consist of
causal conditions (what factors caused the core phenomenon), strategies
(actions taken in response to the core phenomenon), contextual and
intervening conditions (broad and specific situational factors that influence
the strategies), and consequences (outcomes from using the strategies).
These categories relate to and surround the core phenomenon in a visual
model called the axial coding paradigm. The final step, then, is selective
coding, in which the researcher takes the model and develops propositions
(or hypotheses) that interrelate the categories in the model or assembles a
story that describes the interrelationship of categories in the model. This
theory, developed by the researcher, is articulated toward the end of a study
and can assume several forms, such as a narrative statement (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990), a visual picture (Morrow & Smith, 1995), or a series of
hypotheses or propositions (Creswell & Brown, 1992).
In their discussion of grounded theory, Strauss and Corbin (1998) take
the model one step further to develop a conditional matrix. They advance
the conditional matrix as a coding device to help the researcher make
connections between the macro and micro conditions influencing the
phenomenon. This matrix is a set of expanding concentric circles with
labels that build outward from the individual, group, and organization to the
community, region, nation, and global world. In my experience, this matrix
is seldom used in grounded theory research, and researchers typically end
their studies with a theory developed in selective coding, a theory that
might be viewed as a substantive, low-level theory rather than an abstract,
grand theory (e.g., see Creswell & Brown, 1992). Although making
connections between the substantive theory and its larger implications for
the community, nation, and world in the conditional matrix is important
(e.g., a model of work flow in a hospital, the shortage of gloves, and the
national guidelines on AIDS may all be connected; see this example
provided by Strauss & Corbin, 1998), grounded theorists seldom have the
data, time, or resources to employ the conditional matrix.
A second variant of grounded theory is found in the constructivist writing
of Charmaz (2005, 2006). Instead of embracing the study of a single
process or core category as in the Strauss and Corbin (1998) approach,
Charmaz advocates for a social constructivist perspective that includes
emphasizing diverse local worlds, multiple realities, and the complexities of
particular worlds, views, and actions. Constructivist grounded theory,
according to Charmaz (2006), lies squarely within the interpretive approach
to qualitative research with flexible guidelines, a focus on theory developed
that depends on the researcher’s view, learning about the experience within
embedded, hidden networks, situations, and relationships, and making
visible hierarchies of power, communication, and opportunity. Charmaz
places more emphasis on the views, values, beliefs, feelings, assumptions,
and ideologies of individuals than on the methods of research, although she
does describe the practices of gathering rich data, coding the data,
memoing, and using theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2006). She suggests
that complex terms or jargon, diagrams, conceptual maps, and systematic
approaches (such as Strauss & Corbin, 1990) detract from grounded theory
and represent an attempt to gain power in their use. She advocates using
active codes, such as gerund-based phrases like recasting life. Moreover, for
Charmaz, a grounded theory procedure does not minimize the role of the
researcher in the process. The researcher makes decisions about the
categories throughout the process, brings questions to the data, and
advances personal values, experiences, and priorities. Any conclusions
developed by grounded theorists are, according to Charmaz (2005),
suggestive, incomplete, and inconclusive.

Procedures for Conducting Grounded Theory Research


In this discussion I include Charmaz’s interpretive approach (e.g.,
reflexivity, being flexible in structure, as discussed in Chapter 2), and I rely
on Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) and Corbin and Strauss (2007) to
illustrate grounded theory procedures because their systematic approach is
helpful to individuals learning about and applying grounded theory
research.
The researcher needs to begin by determining if grounded theory is best
suited to study his or her research problem. Grounded theory is a good
design to use when a theory is not available to explain or understand a
process. The literature may have models available, but they were developed
and tested on samples and populations other than those of interest to the
qualitative researcher. Also, theories may be present, but they are
incomplete because they do not address potentially valuable variables or
categories of interest to the researcher. On the practical side, a theory may
be needed to explain how people are experiencing a phenomenon, and the
grounded theory developed by the researcher will provide such a general
framework.
The research questions that the inquirer asks of participants will focus on
understanding how individuals experience the process and identify the steps
in the process (What was the process? How did it unfold?). After initially
exploring these issues, the researcher then returns to the participants and
asks more detailed questions that help to shape the axial coding phase,
questions such as these: What was central to the process (the core
phenomenon)? What influenced or caused this phenomenon to occur
(causal conditions)? What strategies were employed during the process
(strategies)? What effect occurred (consequences)?
These questions are typically asked in interviews, although other forms
of data may also be collected, such as observations, documents, and
audiovisual materials. The point is to gather enough information to fully
develop (or saturate) the model. This may involve 20 to 60 interviews.
The analysis of the data proceeds in stages. In open coding, the
researcher forms categories of information about the phenomenon being
studied by segmenting information. Within each category, the investigator
finds several properties, or subcategories, and looks for data to
dimensionalize, or show the extreme possibilities on a continuum of the
property.
In axial coding, the investigator assembles the data in new ways after
open coding. In this structured approach, the investigator presents a coding
paradigm or logic diagram (i.e., a visual model) in which the researcher
identifies a central phenomenon (i.e., a central category about the
phenomenon), explores causal conditions (i.e., categories of conditions that
influence the phenomenon), specifies strategies (i.e., the actions or
interactions that result from the central phenomenon), identifies the context
and intervening conditions (i.e., the narrow and broad conditions that
influence the strategies), and delineates the consequences (i.e., the
outcomes of the strategies) for this phenomenon.
In selective coding, the researcher may write a “story line” that connects
the categories. Alternatively, propositions or hypotheses may be specified
that state predicted relationships.
The result of this process of data collection and analysis is a theory, a
substantive-level theory, written by a researcher close to a specific problem
or population of people. The theory emerges with help from the process of
memoing, in which the researcher writes down ideas about the evolving
theory throughout the process of open, axial, and selective coding. The
substantive-level theory may be tested later for its empirical verification
with quantitative data to determine if it can be generalized to a sample and
population (see mixed methods design procedures, Creswell & Plano Clark,
2011). Alternatively, the study may end at this point with the generation of a
theory as the goal of the research.

Challenges
A grounded theory study challenges researchers for the following reasons.
The investigator needs to set aside, as much as possible, theoretical ideas or
notions so that the analytic, substantive theory can emerge. Despite the
evolving, inductive nature of this form of qualitative inquiry, the researcher
must recognize that this is a systematic approach to research with specific
steps in data analysis, if approached from the Corbin and Strauss (2007)
perspective. The researcher faces the difficulty of determining when
categories are saturated or when the theory is sufficiently detailed. One
strategy that might be used to move toward saturation is to use discriminant
sampling, in which the researcher gathers additional information from
individuals different from those people initially interviewed to determine if
the theory holds true for these additional participants. The researcher needs
to recognize that the primary outcome of this study is a theory with specific
components: a central phenomenon, causal conditions, strategies,
conditions and context, and consequences. These are prescribed categories
of information in the theory, so the Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) or
Corbin and Strauss (2007) approach may not have the flexibility desired by
some qualitative researchers. In this case, the Charmaz (2006) approach,
which is less structured and more adaptable, may be used.

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

Definition and Background


Although a grounded theory researcher develops a theory from examining
many individuals who share in the same process, action, or interaction, the
study participants are not likely to be located in the same place or
interacting on so frequent a basis that they develop shared patterns of
behavior, beliefs, and language. An ethnographer is interested in examining
these shared patterns, and the unit of analysis is typically larger than the 20
or so individuals involved in a grounded theory study. An ethnography
focuses on an entire culture-sharing group. Granted, sometimes this cultural
group may be small (a few teachers, a few social workers), but typically it
is large, involving many people who interact over time (teachers in an entire
school, a community social work group). Thus, ethnography is a qualitative
design in which the researcher describes and interprets the shared and
learned patterns of values, behaviors, beliefs, and language of a culture-
sharing group (Harris, 1968). As both a process and an outcome of
research (Agar, 1980), ethnography is a way of studying a culture-sharing
group as well as the final, written product of that research. As a process,
ethnography involves extended observations of the group, most often
through participant observation, in which the researcher is immersed in the
day-to-day lives of the people and observes and interviews the group
participants. Ethnographers study the meaning of the behavior, the
language, and the interaction among members of the culture-sharing group.
Ethnography had its beginning in comparative cultural anthropology
conducted by early 20th-century anthropologists, such as Boas,
Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown, and Mead. Although these researchers
initially took the natural sciences as a model for research, they differed

You might also like