Later, however, Glaser (1992) disagreed with Strauss' (with Corbin) 1990 efforts to expand the theory, 'Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory, Procedures and Techniques', by saying that Strauss and Corbin had misrepresented Grounded Theory. He criticized their work as a forced and preconceived full conceptual description.
Some view the whole Glaser-Strauss dichotomy as a binary opposition, but others saw it as a natural spin-off as the theory evolved and developed from its original tenets (Mills, et al, 2006).
From there various forms of GT has emerged, including a constructivist version of it (Charmaz, 2000)
Here are some comparisons between Glaser's and Strauss' versions:
Glaser/Classic GT | Strauss & Corbin/Evolved GT | |
Ontological and Epistemological positions | · Objective reality (‘real’ reality) | · Relativism (truth is enacted) |
Influence on Methodologies | · Positivist | · Relativist pragmatism · Between post-positivism and constructivism · Interpretive of perspectives and voices of people |
Research Methodologies | · All is data- qualitative + quantitative data | · Qualitative research, QDA (Qualitative Data Analysis) |
Theoretical sensitivity | · No pre-determined thoughts · No pre-existing hypotheses/ bias · Researchers immerse in emerging data to raise theoretical sensitivity · Blank slate when entering a field of inquiry | · Various techniques (1) to enhance researcher sensitivity during analysis and to stimulate reflection about the data at hand · Theorising is… constructing from data an explanatory scheme that systematically integrates various concepts through statements of relationship · theories are “interpretations made from given perspectives as adopted/researched by researchers |
Literature reviews | · A need not to review any of the literature in the substantive area under study… to avoid… contaminating, constraining, inhibiting, stifling, or impeding the researcher’s analysis of codes emergent from the data · the data is an entity separate from both participant and researcher | · Engaging proactively with the literature from the beginning of the research process · Interweave the literature throughout the process of evolved grounded theory as another voice to contribute to the researcher’s theoretical reconstruction · to provide examples of similar phenomena that can “stimulate thinking about properties or dimensions that can be used to examine the data · “nontechnical” literature, such as reports and internal correspondence are potential sources of data, providing information, in particular, about the context within which the participant operates, for example, their employing organization |
Coding and Diagramming | · Three forms of codes- open, theoretical, and constant comparative (2) · 18 coding families to draw on to develop conceptual analysis | · Complex coding methods as strategies to examine the interface between structure and process · Focused on one particular coding family, the “6Cs,” ie the causes, consequences, and conditions affecting categories identified by the researcher · Later simplified their paradigmatic framework ie AXIAL CODING (3) · Conditional/consequential matrix- to expand the dimensions of analytic work (4) · Intensive use of diagramming (5) |
Identifying the Core Category | · The dichotomy between emergence and construction continues in the identification of the core category; “it always happens that a category will emerge from among many and ‘core out’ ” of its own accord. | · Selective coding- identifying the core category to acknowledge the role of the researcher as the author of a theoretical reconstruction. (7) · Researchers describe their “gut sense” about the subject matter of the research · Acknowledges the reconstruction of the participants’ stories (8) by the researcher and the fulfillment of their obligation to “give voice—albeit in the context of their own inevitable interpretations” |
Outcomes | · Conceptualization abstract of people, time and place | · Descriptive accuracy |
Notes:
(1). Examples- questioning, the flip-flop technique,far-out comparisons; these techniques are tools for the researcher to draw on in the act of theory development.
(2) Open coding is the initial step of theoretical analysis, developing codes from the data. This form of coding ends when it locates a core category.
Theoretical codes are “conceptual connectors” that develop relationships between categories and their properties
Constant comparative coding describes the method of constant comparison that
imbues both open and theoretical coding.
(3) AXIAL CODING- to ask questions about conditions, actions/interactions, and consequences of categories, thus making links between the ideas being conceptualized from the data; to provoke thinking about the relationships between categories and their properties and dimensions.
(4) Conditional/consequential matrix- “an analytic device to help the analyst keep track of the interplay of conditions/consequences and subsequent actions/interactions and to trace their paths of connectivity.” Using the matrix, the researcher is able to locate an interaction that appears repeatedly in the data and then trace the linkages from this through the micro and macro conditions that might influence it. This allows the researcher to reconstruct the original data in such a way that its broader context becomes apparent.
(5) Diagramming- Initially, in the coding process, logic diagrams such as flowcharts are used. When undertaking higher level analysis, researchers use both the conditional/consequential matrix and integrative diagramming, illustrating the complex interplay between the different levels of conditions.
(6) Axial Coding and Conditional Matrix are NOT constraints to theory construction but are tools for reconstructing a grounded theory that is both dense and significantly analytical, as well as representative of structure and process
(7) Core category- central point of a GT, which integrates all of that theory’s various aspects; explores the centrality of the story, the narrative rendering of the analysis, to the eventual development of the core or central category
(8) The story line is the final conceptualization of the core category, and as such, this “conceptual label” must fit the stories/data it represents.
(9) The researcher as co-producer/researcher as author, has the following roles:
- to “add . . . a description of the situation, the interaction, the person’s affect and [their] perception of how the interview went”
- to immerse themselves in the data in a way that embeds the narrative of the participants in the final research outcome, through the use of coding language that is active in its intent and that “helps to keep that life in the foreground”
- include raw data in their theoretical memos …memos should become more complex and analytical to keep the participant’s voice and meaning present in the theoretical outcome
- writing as a strategy- using a writing style that is more literary than scientific in intent.
- analytical in writing but style of writing needs to be evocative of the experiences of the participants
- researcher’s voice need not “transcend experience but re-envis[age] it . . . bring[ing] fragments of fieldwork time, context and mood together in a colloquy of the author’s several selves—reflecting, witnessing, wondering, accepting—all at once”
References:
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, J, Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006), 'The development of constructivist grounded theory.' International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 5, no. 1, 8 March 2010, p. Article 3,
No comments:
Post a Comment