[ index
]
Overview
Grounded theory begins with a research
situation. Within that situation, your task as researcher is to understand
what is happening there, and how the players manage their roles. You
will mostly do this through observation, conversation and interview.
After each bout of data collection you note down the key issues: this I
have labelled "note-taking".
Constant comparison is the
heart of the process. At first you compare interview (or other data)
to interview (or other data). Theory emerges quickly. When it
has begun to emerge you compare data to theory.
The results of this comparison are
written in the margin of the note-taking as coding. Your task
is to identify categories (roughly equivalent to themes or variables)
and their properties (in effect their sub-categories).
If this is all a bit abstract, some
examples later will help.
As you code, certain theoretical
propositions will occur to you. These may be about links between categories,
or about a core category: a category which appears central to the study.
As the categories and properties emerge, they and their links to the core
category provide the theory. You write yourself notes about it --
memoing.
As the data collection and coding
proceeds the codes and the memos accumulate.
You add to your sample through theoretical
sampling. This is purposive sampling which increases the diversity
of your sample, searching for different properties. If your core category
and its linked categories saturate; you no longer add to them
or their properties. This is a sign that it is time to move to sorting.
You group your memos, like with like, and sequence them in whatever order
will make your theory clearest.
The literature is accessed
as it becomes relevant. It is not given special treatment. Glaser
makes the point that most research including qualitative research is hypothesis-testing.
The order of your sorted memos provides
you with the skeleton, and many of the words, of your thesis. You
begin writing.
To summarise graphically ...
Over time, a grounded theory study
works through the following mostly-overlapping phases.
In short, data collection, note-taking,
coding and memoing occur simultaneously from the beginning. Sorting
occurs when all categories are saturated -- this is explained in more detail
later, as are the elements of this diagram. Writing occurs after sorting.
For ease of explanation, what follows
may seem a bit prescriptive. Feel free to experiment with it until
you find something that works for you. The theory is emergent
-- discovered in the data, Glaser will say. The methods can be emergent
too.
This is an important issue, worth
more attention.
[ index
]
Hypothesis testing
versus emergence
What most differentiates grounded
theory from much other research is that it is explicitly emergent.
It does not test a hypothesis. It sets out to find what theory accounts
for the research situation as it is. In this respect it is like action
research: the aim is to understand the research situation. The aim,
as Glaser in particular states it, is to discover the theory implicit in
the data.
This distinction between "emergence
and forcing", as Glaser frames it, is fundamental to understanding the methodology.
Most of you, whatever your discipline, will have been exposed more to hypothesis-testing
research than to emergent research. The research processes you have
learned and the thesis structures you have internalised are those of hypothesis
testing, not of emergence. Doing grounded theory well is partly a
matter of unlearning some of what you have been taught or have acquired
through your reading.
If you judge grounded theory by
the criteria you have learned to use for hypothesis testing research you
will likely misjudge it, perhaps badly. In particular, the place of
literature is quite different. So is the way in which both methodology
and theory develop gradually as data and interpretations accumulate.
In particular, judgments about the
rigour of research are often based on narrow criteria: criteria which make
sense only for the methodology for which they were developed. Grounded
theory has its own sources of rigour. It is responsive to the situation
in which the research is done. There is a continuing search for evidence
which disconfirms the emerging theory. It is driven by the data in
such a way that the final shape of the theory is likely to provide a good
fit to the situation.
In fact, Glaser suggests two main
criteria for judging the adequacy of the emerging theory: that it fits the
situation; and that it works -- that it helps the people in the situation
to make sense of their experience and to manage the situation better.
Elsewhere, I’ve offered similar
arguments in favour of action research. In particular, I draw your
attention to my 1999 paper to the AQR conference, and the recent paper on
data driven research.
Now, the elements in more detail
...
[ index
]
Data collection
You will of course keep your eyes
open. There is a lot to be learned just by observing, some of it evident
within minutes of entering a situation.
Interviews are frequently the main
source of the information you will develop your theory from. But any
data collection methods can be used. Focus groups are not uncommon
in other qualitative research, and are suited to grounded theory.
So is informal conversation, group feedback analysis, or any other individual
or group activity which yields data.
I’ve included some references
in the bibliography. For interviewing I like Minichiello, Aroni, Timewell
and Alexander (1990) or Kvale (1996), and of course my own Convergent
interviewing. For focus groups you might try some of the recent
work: Bader and Rossi (1998) I like, and also Barbour and Kitzinger (1999).
For both interviews and focus groups I’ve also listed some others.
For group feedback analysis, try Heller and Brown (1995).
I won’t go into further detail
here. I will say two further things. First, I assume
that you will touch base with the literature on your chosen method.
Second, I presume you’ll continue to fine tune it as you develop more
experience in its use. I encourage you to experiment.
[ index
]
Note-taking
Glaser recommends against recording
or taking notes during an interview of other data collection session.
Speaking for myself, I agree with his avoidance of tape recordings and word-by-word
transcripts. I think you’ll get more understanding from the extra
interviews you could do in the time it would take you to listen to and transcribe
a tape recording.
However, I think he is vulnerable
on that point, and especially for thesis purposes. My suggestion is
that you take key-word notes during the interviews and convert them to themes
afterwards. I also suggest that you tape-record the interviews and
check your notes against the tape recording. This won’t be as
time consuming (or alternatively as costly) as full transcripts and in my
experience it will do the job well.
If it’s not for thesis purposes
I think you can make your own choices. I neither take notes during
interviews nor use a tape recorder. I find rapport develops more rapidly
and effectively if I don’t. However, I do have a memory system
which allows me to memorise up to 20 distinct themes (more if it’s
necessary) and recall them in order.
The coding (which follows) will
be much easier if you do it adjacent to the interview notes. You can
leave wide margins (as much as a third of the page, perhaps) for that purpose.
[ index
]
Coding
So -- in reality or in imagination
-- you have in front of you a set of interview notes. They are written
in the left hand two-thirds of the page, let’s say. You’ve
identified any important bio-data about the person interviewed at the head
of the notes (this may later help to identify properties).
Have some other pieces of paper,
or preferably cards, for memoing. The benefits of that will become
evident soon.
You begin to code. You take
a sentence at a time and examine it.
[ index
]
For the first interview you are
merely asking yourself: What is going on here? What is the situation?
How is the person managing that situation? Therefore, what categories
(plural) are suggested by that sentence?
Code the second interview with the
first interview in mind. Code subsequent interviews (or data from
other sources) with the emerging theory in mind. That’s constant
comparison: initially comparing data set to data set; later comparing
data set to theory.
- For instance, suppose you
were to ask the postgraduates in the coursework higher degrees at Griffith
University about the course, as I did recently. The first two people
might mention (as they did) having to organise time or organise work.
You may tentatively code these sentences as "organising" (perhaps among
other codes).
As you do this, be aware of any
theoretical ideas that come to mind. If any do, note them down immediately.
For easier sorting later, I use 125 mm x 75 mm systems cards. They
fit in my pocket and are very convenient. I carry a pocketful around
with me most of the time.
[ index
]
- Categories and
properties
In effect, a category is a theme
or variable which makes sense of what your informant has said. It
is interpreted in the light of the situation you’re studying, and other
interviews, and the emerging theory.
- In the two sentences considered
above, I’ve already mentioned "organising" as a tentative category.
What is different between the two sentences is this: one is about
organising time, one about organising work. Perhaps this will be
a property, a sub-category, of organising.
[ index
]
After a time one category (occasionally
more) will be found to emerge with high frequency of mention, and to be
connected to many of the other categories which are emerging. This
is your core category. It is hazardous to choose a core category too
early in the data collection. However, when it is clear that one category
is mentioned with high frequency and is well connected to other categories,
it is safe to adopt this as the core category.
(If more than one core category
emerges, Glaser recommends focussing at one time on one only. You
can recode for the second of them later, if you wish.)
- All five of the postgraduates
I talked to in my miniature example mentioned the use they were making
or would make of what they were learning. If became evident before
long that this one category (titled "application") fitted the two criteria
of frequency of mention and high connectedness.
When a core category has been identified,
you cease coding any sentences which do not relate to it. You will
find that in most instances your coding rapidly becomes more efficient as
the study progresses. You now code for the core category, other connected
categories, and properties of both.
You record any identified connections
between categories in memos. You continue doing this, adding to your
sample as necessary (see sampling, below), until you achieve saturation.
[ index
]
In collecting and interpreting data
about a particular category, in time you reach a point of diminishing returns.
Eventually your interviews add nothing to what you already know about a
category, its properties, and its relationship to the core category.
When this occurs you cease coding
for that category.
[ index
]
Sampling
Your initial sample is likely to
be defined by your choice of research situation. If there are many
people associated with the situation, you might begin by putting together
as diverse a sample as you are able. (I don’t recall anywhere
that Glaser offers a clear description of the beginning sample, though I
may be mistaken there.)
As categories emerge from your data,
you then seek to add to your sample in such a way that you further increase
diversity in useful ways. Your purpose is to strengthen the emerging
theory by defining the properties of the categories, and how those mediate
the relationship of category to category.
Glaser and Strauss refer to this
as theoretical sampling. The sample is emergent, as is the
theory and the method generally.
- The small group of postgraduates
I talked to were either studying part-time and working, or had worked
at some stage. One might expect a category such as "application"
to be influenced by work experience. I could therefore have added
usefully to the sample by identifying and talking to people from the program
who had never worked.
[ index
]
Memoing
I have mentioned already that memoing
continues in parallel with data collection, note-taking and coding.
In effect, a memo is a note to yourself about some hypothesis you have about
a category or property, and particularly about relationships between categories.
Glaser makes the point, and I agree,
that memoing is given high priority. As an idea occurs to you, pause
in what you are doing and write a memo to yourself. I carry a pocket
full of 125 mm x
75 mm system cards in my pocket most of the time, for jotting down memos.
In time your core category and the
categories related to it will have saturated. By the time this happens
you will have accumulated a large number of memos. Between them they
will capture the different aspects of the theory which has emerged from
your data.
- In the example, early memos
might record hypotheses that "organisation" and "application" were categories.
Another memo might question if "present application to work" and "future
application to work" might be properties of application. A further
memo might hypothesise that application is a core category. Another
memo might query if organisation is important at least in part because
it may lead to better application.
In short, in using grounded theory
methodology you assume that the theory is concealed in your data for you
to discover. Coding makes visible some of its components. Memoing
adds the relationships which link the categories to each other.
The next task is to decide how you
will structure the report to communicate your theory to others. That
is the purpose of sorting.
[ index
]
Sorting
My reason for using cards for memoing
is twofold. They are easier to carry, so I can jot down ideas whenever
they occur to me. They are easier to sort.
For the actual sorting I work on
a large table or on the floor. First I group them on the basis of
the similar categories or properties they address. I then arrange
the groups to reflect on the sorting surface their relationship. The
intention is that their layout in two-dimensional space will capture the
structure of the eventual report or thesis.
I then gather the cards in the sequence
which will allow the structure to be described. This provides the
basis for the writing up, which follows.
[ index
]
Writing up
Having done all this -- coding,
memoing, sorting -- the writing is less a chore than it might otherwise
be. The sort structure is the report structure. It is often
just a matter of preparing a first draft by typing up the cards in sequence
and integrating them into a coherent argument.
[ index
]
The place of literature
There are two important points to
be made about the literature. The first is that, in an emergent study,
you probably won’t know at the beginning which literature will later
turn out to be relevant. This has implications both for the place
of reading in your own research process and for your report. The second
is that the literature is not given a position of privilege when compared
to the data. It is treated as data, with the same status as other
data.
[ index
]
Most people embarking on a research
project will first examine the relevant literature. Thesis candidates
often do not begin data collection until well into their candidature.
In an emergent study you can begin collecting data as soon as you have a
research situation. You can then access literature as it becomes relevant.
Glaser (especially 1978) makes much
of the prior background reading which provides the models to help make sense
of the data. He recommends reading widely while avoiding the literature
most closely related to what you are researching. His fear, which
I share, is that your reading may otherwise constrain your coding and memoing.
At the same time, I think this approach
may leave you vulnerable to criticism from examiners or referees or colleagues.
The defence is to take special pains to be responsive to the data, to seek
disconfirming evidence assiduously, and to defend by careful argument your
decision to do so.
Reading later is less an issue for
Glaser. My own view is that it makes sense to access relevant literature
as it becomes relevant. Most examiners and colleagues will
expect you to locate your study within the relevant fields of literature.
You can also reach a wider sample, in effect, by refining your findings
in the light of the literature in slightly different but related fields.
In short, a progressive accessing
and reading of relevant literature can become a part of your data collection
procedures.
[ index
]
Constant comparison remains your
core process. Your aim as you read is to compare literature to the
emerging theory in the same way that you compare data to the emerging theory.
For instance you might follow the same procedure of data-collection (in
this instance reading) overlapping with note-taking, coding and memoing.
Whether or not you do precisely
this, the key issue is how you treat apparent disagreement between your
emerging theory and the literature. You don’t assume that your
theory must be wrong. After all, you have been concerned throughout
with its fit to the data and its ability to make sense of actual experience.
You seek to extend the theory so that it makes sense of both the data from
your study and the data from the literature.
This issue -- of treating disagreement
appropriately -- has been a focus of some of my own work on rigour in action
research. It is in fact possible to substitute some action research
procedures for some of all of data-collection, note-taking, coding, memoing
and sorting.
[ index
]
A variation based
on action research
I research my own practice as educator,
facilitator and consultant. The methods I use were developed until
recently entirely independently of grounded theory. I wasn’t
familiar with its literature. When I did eventually start to read
that literature I was pleased at the obvious parallels between the two approaches.
Let me illustrate this by describing
how I approach ... let’s say, organisational diagnosis, using
interviewing. I’ll do this in such a way that the parallels are
evident. I think you will find that the parallels are such that you
can substitute parts of one for parts of the other.
[ index
]
In diagnostic interviewing (see
my 1990 monograph) I begin in a very open-ended way. For instance
I may often say "Tell me about this organisation" or whatever it is.
I then keep the person talking for somewhere about 45 minutes without asking
specific questions. This increases the likelihood that the data come
from the informant's experience, not from the questions I ask.
I memorise the themes they mention (some of my colleagues instead take key-word
notes, which serve the same purpose).
I prefer to work with a colleague
who at the same time interviews a different informant. After each
pair of interviews we compare notes. We identify those themes which
both informants mention.
Sometimes those themes are mentioned
in the same way by both informants. Sometimes they mention the same
theme, but with disagreement.
- I was evaluating an action
learning program with Karyn Healy, a colleague. Many informants
mentioned that they weren’t provided resources which allowed them
to pay someone to do their work, to free them up for their action learning.
An example of agreement might
be two informants saying words to the effect that their action learning
was done in their own time, which they both resented. A disagreement
would be when both mentioned doing it in their own time, but one of
them mentioned this with satisfaction, not dissatisfaction.
When we identify an agreement
we devise probe questions to seek exceptions to the agreement.
- For example, we might ask
if there were people who didn’t resent the intrusions on their own
time. We might ask if there were advantages to being able to devote
their own time to the action learning projects.
When we identify a disagreement
we devise probe questions which seek explanations for the difference.
- For instance we might say
something like this ... "Many people have mentioned taking part
in the action learning in their own time. To what extent was this
your experience? How did you feel about that? Some have mentioned
this with substantial resentment. Others seem not to mind.
Can you help us understand how this difference might arise?"
As with grounded theory the explanations
emerge gradually from the data as the study proceeds. All interviews
begin open-ended. In the later interviews there are more probe questions.
And more of those probes are specific. The theory emerges from the
data, from the informants. In the early stages it consists primarily
of themes. These become more elaborated as the study develops.
This is depicted diagrammatically
below.
I suggest that, in deciding your
own methods, you choose those which will be easiest for you to defend to
examiners, readers or colleagues. What you do is probably less important
than how well you justify it.
[ index
]
Qualitative psychology
This is for those attempting to
use grounded theory in psychology. Many of you will barely have heard
of qualitative methodology, let alone learned how to use them. However,
there is a growing, if small, band of people exploring the application of
qualitative methods in psychology. I’ve included some of them
in the bibliography below. It may help you with your supervisors,
committee or examiners if you can demonstrate that there is an alternative
tradition to which your studies are a contribution.
[ index
]
Contribution to
knowledge
I have no doubt, by the way, that
you will have a contribution to knowledge at the end of it all. The
theory will arise more quickly than you imagine. You’ll enjoy
doing it (Glaser calls it the "drugless trip"). There is a good chance
it will be an addition to the literature because most psychological research
builds on what has gone before. You, on the other hand, are going
to be responsive to the research situation as it is. You are going
to find out what is really happening there.
By some chance you may discover
a theory only to find someone else has come up with the same theory using
more traditional methods. You still have a contribution to knowledge,
and a valuable one. You have cross-validated, using a very different
methodology, the theory previously offered.
Have fun.
[ index
]
Bibliography
Altrichter, Herbert; and Posch,
Peter (1989) Does the grounded theory approach offer a guiding paradigm
for teaching research? Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 21-31.
Presents
a methodological model for orienting teacher researchers. The grounded
theory approach is examined, noting it may not be a valuable paradigm.
An alternative is proposed which uses quality criteria for professional
action as the criteria definition.
Ashworth, P. D., Giorgi, A.
& De Koning, A. J. J. , eds. (1986) Qualitative
research in psychology. Proceedings of the International Association
for Qualitative Research in Social Science. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne
University Press.
Babchuk, Wayne (1997) Glaser or
Strauss?: grounded theory and adult education. Midwest Research-to-Practice
Conference in Adult, Continuing and Community Education. Available
on line: http://www.canr.msu.edu/aee/research/gradpr96.htm)
Bader, Gloria E., and Rossi, Catherine
A. (1998) Focus groups: a step by step guide. San Diego,
Ca.: The Bader Group.
This
brief and clearly written monograph provides a very practical overview of
how to set up and use focus groups. The emphasis is on involving employees
in organisational change.
Banister, Peter, Burman, Erica,
Parker, Ian, Taylor, Maye, and Tindall, Carol (1994) Qualitative methods
in psychology: a research guide. Buckingham, England: Open University
Press.
Barbour, Rosaline S., and Kitzinger,
Jenny, eds. (1999) Developing focus group research: politics, theory
and practice. London: Sage.
A good mix of theory and practice in this examination of focus groups as
serious research tools beyond their usual use in market research.
Some of the 13 contributed chapters address the use of focus groups with
different participant groups and for different research topics. Others
address the principles or underlying philosophy of focus group research.
Brown, A. and Heller, F.
(1981) Usefulness of group feedback analysis as a research method: its application
to a questionnaire study. Human Relations, 34, 141-156.
Group
feedback analysis is in effect a small-group method for survey feedback.
It therefore lends itself to research which achieves change through working
directly with small groups; but can be used with several such groups
to allow results to be collated and compared.
Brydon-Miller, Mary (1997) Participatory
Action Research: psychology and social change. Journal of Social
Issues, 53(4), 657-666.
Burman, Erica (1997) Minding the
gap: positivism, psychology, and the politics of qualitative methods.
Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 785-801.
Extensive
bibliography on qualitative psychology.
Calloway, Linda Jo, and Knapp, Constance
A. (nd) Using grounded theory to interpret interviews. Available
on line at http://csis.pace.edu/~knapp/AIS95.htm)
Compares
two grounded theory approaches to interpreting interviews.
Charmaz, Kathy (1983) The grounded
theory method: an explication and interpretation. In Emerson, R.M.,
ed., Contemporary field research: a book of readings. Boston:
Little, Brown. [pp 109-126]
Explains
that grounded theory: (1) stresses discovery and theory development;
(2) shapes research processes and products from data; (3) checks developing
ideas with further specific observations; (4) studies process, and assumes
that "making theoretical sense of social life is itself a process".
Describes the process as: coding -> focused coding -> memo writing
-> theoretical sampling (these are overlapping, not linear).
Also
in Glaser, Barney G., ed., More grounded theory methodology: a reader.
Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press. [pp 95-115].
Charmaz, Kathy (1999) [Review
of] Context and method in qualitative research, edited by Gale Miller
and Robert Dingwall. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997. Contemporary
Sociology, 28(2), 247.
Chenail, R. & Maione,
P. (1999) Qualitative inquiry in psychotherapy: research on the common
factors. In: M.A. Hubble, B.L. Duncan, & S.D.
Miller, eds., The heart and soul of change: what works in therapy.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Chenitz, W. Carole and Swanson
Janice M. (1986) From practice to grounded theory: qualitative
research in nursing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
Although
focussed primarily on nursing research, this collection of papers covers
many aspects of grounded theory approaches to research. (The grounded
theory discussed is closer to Strauss than to Glaser.) A number of papers
present specific and useful examples.
Creswell, John W. (1998) Qualitative
inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Thousand
Oaks, Ca.: Sage.
Describes
and evaluates five qualitative approaches: biography, phenomenology, grounded
theory, ethnography and case study; discusses methods for data collection
and analysis
Dey, Ian (1999) Grounding grounded
theory: guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego: Academic
Press.
Packed
with a surprising amount of material, theoretical and practical, for its
small size. There is a strong emphasis on the process of theorising
from grounded data.
Dick, Bob (2000) Data-driven action
research [On line]. Available at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/datadriv.html
Dick, Bob (1999) Sources of rigour
in action research: addressing the issues of trustworthiness and credibility.
A paper presented at the Association for Qualitative Research Conference
"Issues of rigour in qualitative research" at the Duxton Hotel, Melbourne,
Victoria, 6-10 July 1999. Available on line at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/rigour3.html
Dick, Bob (1990) Convergent interviewing,
version 3. Brisbane: Interchange.
An
interviewing method which uses structured process, unstructured content,
and a procedure for increasing the rigour of qualitative information.
Edmunds, Holly (1999) The focus
group: research handbook. Chicago, Ill.: NTC Business Books.
A
practical guide to the use of focus groups, primarily for market research
in corporate settings.
Foddy, William (1993) Constructing
questions for interviews and questionnaires: theory and practice in social
research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Giorgi, Amedeo (1970) Psychology
as a human science: a phenomenologially based approach. New York:
Harper and Row.
Glaser, Barney G. (1978) Theoretical
sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill
Valley, Ca: Sociology Press.
Develops
further the methodology described in Glaser and Strauss (1967), The discovery
of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research (Chicago: Aldine).
Offers specific and practical advice to the grounded theorist.
Glaser, Barney G. (1992) Basics
of grounded theory analysis: emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley,
Ca.: Sociology Press.
Published
as an expression of Glaser’s belief that Strauss and Corbin had grossly
misrepresented the most important features of grounded theory. It
describes in detail the way in which Glaser’s style of grounded theory
is done. As the subtitle implies, the heart of the difference is between
allowing the theory to emerge from the data as opposed to forcing it into
preconceived frameworks.
Glaser, Barney G., ed. (1994)
More grounded theory methodology: a reader. Mill Valley, Ca.:
Sociology Press.
A
collection of papers, most not recent, on grounded theory and its applications.
Glaser, Barney G., ed. (1995)
Grounded theory 1984-1994, Volume 1. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology
Press.
This
and its companion Volume 2 between them carry a large collection (48) of
papers from a variety of authors on a variety of aspects of grounded theory.
Many case studies are included.
Glaser, Barney G., ed. (1995)
Grounded theory 1984-1994, Volume 2. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology
Press.
Glaser, Barney G. (1995) A
look at grounded theory: 1984-1994. In Glaser, Barney G., ed., Grounded
theory 1984-1994, Volume 1. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press.
[pp3-17]
Strongly
argues for an emergent approach to theory-construction, and against preconceptions
and "forcing".
Glaser, Barney G. (1998) Doing
grounded theory: issues and discussions. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology
Press.
Intended
as a text book to guide the novice grounded theorist past some of the pitfalls.
Glaser, Barney G. and Strauss,
Anselm L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago.: Aldine.
An
important seminal work which contrasts grounded theories (developed directly
from data during research) with grand theories (logico-deductive theories).
Comparative analysis is the basic method: incidents are categorised, their
properties are identified, models are constructed.
Hadden, Stuart C., and Lester, Marilyn
(1994) Grounded theory methodology as a resource for doing ethnomethodology.
In Glaser, Barney G., ed., More grounded theory methodology: a reader.
Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press. [pp 159-180]
In
effect, the authors offer grounded theory as one possible way of interpreting
data in ethnomethodological studies. They illustrate the approach
with a case study.
Haig, Brian D. (1996) Grounded
theory as scientific method. Available on line at
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/95_docs/haig.html
Hayes, Nicky, ed. (1997) Doing
qualitative analysis in psychology. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology
Press.
Covers
account analysis, repertory grid, theory-driven approaches, grounded theory
and phenomenology, among other approaches.
Heller, Frank A., and Brown, Alan
(1995) Group Feedback Analysis applied to longitudinal monitoring of the
decision making process. Human Relations, 48(7), 815-836.
Group
feedback analysis (GFA) is a method that can be considered as the middle
ground between quantification and descriptive approaches commonly used in
field research studies in organizations. It serves as a more flexible
and involving alternative to questionnaire surveys.
Henwood, K.L., and Pidgeon, N.F.
(1992) Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. British
Journal of Psychology, 83, 83-111.
Hollway, Wendy (1989) Subjectivity
and method in psychology: gender, meaning and science. London:
Sage.
Holstein, James A., and Gubrium,
Jaber F. (1995) The active interview. Thousand Oaks,
Ca.: Sage.
This
brief monograph, written from a constructivist perspective, presents interview-based
research as active and flexible, though guided by the research aims.
The authors label their style of interview the "active interview".
A final chapter provides a useful summary of the implications of their approach
for interview design and conduct.
Howard, George S., and Myers, Paul
R. (1990) Predicting human behavior: comparing idiographic, nomothetic,
and agentic methodologies. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
37(2), 227-233.
Discusses
why agentic and idiographic approaches (in combination with more typical
nomothetic, nonagentic studies) may enhance the predictive accuracy of psychological
experiments. Presents a study on the exercise behavior of 42 college student
subjects.
Hubble, M.A., Duncan, B.L.
and Miller, S.D., eds., (1999) The heart and soul of change: what works
in therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Press.
Kelle, U. (1997) Theory building
in qualitative research and computer programs for the management of textual
data. Sociological Research Online, 2(1), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/2/1.html
Kinach, Barbara M. (1996)
Grounded theory as scientific method: Haig-inspired reflections on educational
research methodology. Available on line at http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/PES/95_docs/kinach.html
Kopala, Mary and Suzuki, Lisa A.,
eds. (1999) Using qualitative methods in psychology.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kvale, Steinar (1996) InterViews:
an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
The
interview as qualitative research. A wide-ranging examination of research
interviews predominantly regarding the interview as conversation but giving
attention to the philosophical and scientific context.
Kvale, Steinar (1999) The psychoanalytic
interview as qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(1),
87-113.
Lawler, Edward E., III; Mohrman,
A.M. Jr.; Mohrman, S.A.; Ledford, G.E. Jr.;
and Cummings, T.G., eds. (1985) Doing research that is useful for
theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Some
of the leading qualitative researchers in North America identify the issues
and compare notes on their experience. Underlying many of the papers
is a concern that many of the research methods that are required in the
field have still to establish themselves.
Marecek, Jeanne, Fine, Michelle,
and Kidder, Louise (1997) Working between worlds: qualitative methods and
social psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 631-644.
Martin, Julie (1994) Action research:
evaluation and health care widening our perspectives on nursing research.
Armidale, N.S.W.: University of New England Press.
Martin, P.Y., and Turner, B.A.
(1986) Grounded theory and organizational research. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2),141-157.
Mertens, Donna M. (1997) Research
methods in education and psychology: integrating diversity with quantitative
and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Miller, Gale, and Dingwall, Robert,
eds. (1997) Context and method in qualitative research.
London: Sage.
Minichiello, Victor; Aroni,
Rosalie; Timewell, Eric; and Alexander, Loris (1990) In-depth
interviewing: researching people. Melbourne, Vic.: Longman Cheshire.
Regards
"in-depth interviewing" as covering the spectrum from "focused" to unstructured.
A textbook-style overview of interviewing for research and other purposes.
Moustakas, Clark (1994) Phenomenological
research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Nightingale, David J., and Cromby,
John, eds. (1999) Social Constructionist psychology: a critical
analysis of theory and practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Packer, M. J. and R.
B. Addison, eds. (1989) Entering the circle: hermeneutic
investigation in psychology. Albany, NY, State University of New
York Press.
Pandit, Naresh R. (1996) The
creation of theory: a recent application of the grounded theory method.
Qualitative Report, 2(4). Available on line at http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/pandit.html
Pidgeon, Nick, and Henwood, Karen
(1997) Using grounded theory in psychological research. In Hayes,
Nicky, ed. Doing qualitative analysis in psychology.
Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press. [pp245-273]
Polkinghorne, D. E.
(1988) Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY,
State University of New York Press.
Rabinowitz, Vita Carulli, and Weseen,
Susan (1997) Elu(ci)d(at(ing) epistemological impasses: re-viewing the qualitative/quantitative
debates in psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 605-630.
Useful
for its extensive bibliography, among other things.
Ratner, Carl (1997) Cultural
psychology and qualitative methodology: theoretical and empirical considerations.
New Yord: Plenum.
Rennie, David L. (1998) Grounded
theory methodology: the pressing need for a coherent logic of justification.
Theory and Psychology, 8(1), 101-119.
Richardson, John T.E., ed.
(1996) Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the
social sciences. Leicester, UK: BPS Books.
Schwandt, Thomas A. (1993)
Theory for the moral sciences: crisis of identity and purpose. In
Flinders, David J., and Mills, Geoffrey E., eds., Theory and concepts
in qualitative research: perspectives from the field. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University. [pp5-23]
Schwandt
believes that atheoretical research is impossible. Taking this argument
further he argues against a form of grounded theory in which the theory
arises inductively from the data.
Seidman, Irving (1998) Interviewing
as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social
sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
Shavarini, Mitra K. (1997)
Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Harvard Educational
Review, 67(1), 159.
Slife, Brent D. and Williams,
Richard N. (1995) What's behind the research? Discovering
hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks,
Ca.: Sage.
In
the behavioural sciences, the authors say, it is conventional for methods
and theories to be regarded as the methods, the theories. There are
often alternative theories and methods which deserve consideration.
Smith, Jonathan A., Harré,
Rom, and Van Langenove, Luk, eds. (1995) Rethinking methods in
psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Stern, Phyllis Noerager (1980) Grounded
theory methodology: its uses and processes. Image, 12(1). Reprinted
in Glaser, Barney, ed. (1994) More grounded theory methodology:
a reader. Mill Valley, Ca.: Sociology Press. [pp 116-126]
Describes
the process of grounded theory, Glaser style. Codes focusing on process
-> cluster codes into categories -> concept development through reduction
of categories, selectively sampling literature, selectively sampling data
-> core variables -> concept modification and integration through
memo writing and theoretical coding. Stern points out that it isn't
as linear as this makes it appear: these activities are overlapping.
Strauss, Anselm, and Corbin, Juliet
(1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
This
book presents a reasonably detailed description of a particular approach
to data collection. It particularly emphasises interpretation and
theory building.
Strauss, Anselm, and Corbin, Juliet,
eds. (1997) Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks,
Ca.: Sage.
Ten
case studies illustrating the use of grounded theory for theory building
from field data.
Taylor, Steven J., and Bogdan, Robert
(1998) Introduction to qualitative research methods: a guidebook and
resource, third edition. New York: Wiley.
A
practical overview of "mainstream" qualitative research, with emphasis on
participant observation and in-depth interviewing. Several examples
are given of how qualitative research may be reported.
Tsoi Hoshmand, Lisa L. (1994)
Orientation to inquiry in a reflective professional psychology.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Vaughn, Sharon; Schumm, Jeanne
Shay; and Sinagub, Jane (1996) Focus group interviews in education
and psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ward, John (1993) How to research
community issues: the grounded community development research method: a
resource learning manual with case studies. Oakleigh, Vic.: Partnership
Press and Deakin Univ.
Wilson, Melvin A. (1992) Extending
the constant comparative method: some benefits of participant involvement
in data analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA, April 20-24, 1992).
The
constant comparative method of B. G. Glaser and A. L.
Strauss (1967) of qualitative data analysis is illustrated using data from
a study that investigated the knowledge and beliefs of four preservice secondary
school mathematics teachers.
Zuuren, Florence J. van;
Wertz, Frederick J.; Mook, Bep, eds. (1987) Advances in qualitative
psychology: themes and variations. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
[ index
]
Copyright © Bob
Dick, 2000-2005. You may copy this if you do not include it in material
sold at a profit, and this notice is included.
This document may
be cited as: Dick,
Bob (2005) Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch. [On line]
Available at http://www.aral.com.au/resources/grounded.html
