Remodeling Grounded Theory

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


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;


3/22


# 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



4/22


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



5/22


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



6/22


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



7/22


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



8/22


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*



9/22


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>



10/22


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



11/22


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,,



12/22


#.# 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



13/22


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



14/22


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



15/22


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



16/22


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



17/22


#.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/.



18/22


#.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



19/22


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,



20/22


&. 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



21/22


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"

http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/beirat/glaser-e.htmhttp://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/beirat/glaser-e.htm


22/22


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]

Remodeling Grounded Theory

Documents

Transcript of Remodeling Grounded Theory