This article was downloaded by: [University of WisconsinOshkosh]On: 05 October 2014, At: 01:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales RegisteredNumber: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Death StudiesPublication details, includinginstructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udst20

THE MAKING OF AGROUNDED THEORY:AFTER DEATHCOMMUNICATIONEdie Devers & Katherine MortonRobinsonPublished online: 11 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Edie Devers & Katherine Morton Robinson(2002) THE MAKING OF A GROUNDED THEORY: AFTER DEATHCOMMUNICATION, Death Studies, 26:3, 241-253

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481180211271

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracyof all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by

Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not berelied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematicsupply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be foundat http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

????????????????????????????????????????????????????

THE MAKING OF A GROUNDED THEORY: AFTER DEATHCOMMUNICATION

????????????????????????????????????????????????????

EDIE DEVERS and KATHERINE MORTON ROBINSON

University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA

Qualitative research provides understanding of phenomena with a depth and richness thatcannot be generated through quantitative approaches. Qualitative methods, however, canoften appear difficult, if not confusing. In this article, the authors take the reader throughthe grounded theory process using Devers’s research, Experiencing the Deceased:Reconciling the Extraordinary (1994), a study of after death communication(ADC), to illustrate the use of this particular qualitative method.The authors hope thatthis article will leave the reader with a better understanding of grounded theory methodand stimulate an interest in using it for studying other death-related topics.

Anyone who has considered using qualitative methodology for graduatework probably remembers at least one colleague saying `̀ If you everwantto ever finish, do a quantitative study.’’Indeed, a qualitative study can beboth time and labor intensive, and when done correctly is truly a rigor-ous endeavor.The researcher, in a sense, enters the participants’world tocollect data and literally becomes the instrument when analyzing it.Thehours of `̀dwelling in the data,’’ however, are rewarded with humaninsights not attainable by quantitative methods. The results of goodqualitative research provide rich and descriptive narrative, bringing thephenomenon under study to life. The early qualitative works, nowclassic, of Glaser and Strauss (1965,1968) brought rich, vivid, conceptualunderstandings of the social context of death to the death studiesliterature.

Received 5 July 2001; accepted 16 October 2001.Address correspondence to Katherine Morton Robinson, Ph.D, RN, CCRN,The University

of North Florida, College of Health, Department of Nursing, 4567 St. John’s Bluff Road, South,Jacksonville, Florida US 32224-2645.

241

Death Studies, 26: 2417253, 2002Copyright # 2002 Brunner-Routledge0748-1187/02 $12.00 + .00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Choosing Qualitative Research

Qualitative methodologies arise from the philosophic perspectives of thepragmatists (John Dewey, Charles Peirce and George Herbert Mead),the phenomenologists (Martin Heiddeger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty),critical theorists (JÏrgen Habermas, Karl Marx), and the post-moder-nists (Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida) (Creswell, 1998; Munhall &Boyd, 1993; Streubert & Carpenter, 1995). Qualitative methodologiespresuppose the existence of multiple subjective realities that are continu-ally being constructed and revised, the importance of interactionaldynamics and the inherent worth and credibility of the participants(subjects as well as researchers). They are particularly well-suited toexplore phenomena that have not yet been fully described, that aresocial and interactional in nature, and are both complex and multi-factorial. Many specific qualitative methodologies exist. Some of themost commonly used include phenomenology, grounded theory, ethno-graphy, biography, the case method, hermeneutics, narrative inquiry,and discourse analysis. Devers (1994) used the grounded theory methoddescribed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Her study, Experiencing theDeceased: Reconciling the Extraordinary, will be used herein to illustrate thegrounded theory process.

Grounded Theory

Glaser and Strauss recognized that one basic function of inquiry is thediscovery and explication of theory.Theory is useful to explain and pre-dict behavior, advance scientific knowledge, direct inquiry and mayhave practical applications as well. Glaser and Strauss disputed, how-ever, that the traditional logico-deductive method of inquiry generatesuseful theory for social research. Their concern was that logicallydeduced theories can mislead researchers or cause researchers to manip-ulate facts to `̀ fit’’ the theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 29). They pro-posed that theory useful to social scientists be derived from the data or`̀grounded’’ in the data.

Theory based on data, according to Glaser and Strauss (1967), isusually not refuted by more data nor replaced by another completelynew theory. Rather, as conceptual categories are identified by theresearcher, they are compared and contrasted with other data-derivedconcepts. Ultimately, several of these unique categories canbe combined

242 E. Devers and K. M. Robinson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

and organized into a substantive theory. Substantive theories are those thatare generated from data during the study of human interaction. Thebuilding blocks of substantive theories are concepts that are discoveredduring data collection and analysis. Grounded theory research is an induc-tive method of inquiry that yields substantive, or mid-range theory fol-lowing a rigorous analysis of data from a variety of sources, mostcommonly, detailed semi-structured open interviews (Glaser & Strauss,1967). Stern (1980), an earlygroundedtheorist, arguedthatgrounded the-ory was most useful for the study of previously unexplored or underex-ploredareasof inquiry, or togain freshperspectives on familiar situations.

Grounded theory is neither verificationist or falsificationist in the tra-ditional positivistic sense.The researcher does not set out to prove or dis-prove a preconceived hypothesis or notion. Hypotheses are yielded afterthe formulation of a substantive theory, and can be tested in subsequentstudies. As relationships between data categories are observed, and pro-blems, processes, and strategies identified, the skilled analyst generates agrounded theory.

In her initial study of after death communication (ADC),Devers (1987) provided an ethnographic description of ADC, analyzingsurvivors’ reports of direct sensory experiences of the deceased. Aftergaining an understanding of the phenomenon, it became possible tomove on to develop a theoretical framework about ADC. The results ofthis ethnography provided the basis for the grounded theory work,Experiencing the Deceased: Reconciling the Extraordinary (Devers, 1994). Thefocus was on the process survivors went through during and after theADC experience. This grounded theory described all aspects of ADCfrom the perspective of and using the language of those experiencing it.

Reviewing the Literature

Qualitativeresearchersapproachthereviewof the literature froma some-what different perspective than their quantitative colleagues. One func-tion of the review is to describe gaps or inconsistencies in the literatureconcerning the phenomena of interest.The presence of such voids in thescientific understanding of the phenomena supports the appropriatenessof a qualitative approach, and sets the stage for the research question.Whenconducting the review, the researcher needs to become thoroughlyfamiliar with the theoreticalpoints raised by previous researchers, but at

243After Death Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

the same time, must not allow these perspectives to unduly influence theinterpretationandanalysis of the data in his orherownstudy.

Because ADC was studied as a phenomenon within the context ofgrief, Devers, for example, reviewed Eric Lindemann’s (1944) classicstudy of acute grief. Lindemann outlined the pathognomonic points ofgrief, identifying that grief ’s altered sensorium often includes visualizingthe lost person. Bowlby’s extensive work (1980,1982,1984) on attachment,separation, and loss provided the context for the searching behaviors ofsurvivors. Parkes (1970) wrote how the searching, in a sense, producedthe `̀ lost other’’ through the `̀ hallucinations’’ accompanying the survi-vor’s altered sensorium.The literature review also included informationabout ADC itself. For instance, several researchers noted the phenom-enon within the context of their own work (Bowlby, 1980; Glick, Weiss,& Parks,1974; Gorer,1977; Lindemann,1944; Marris,1958; Parkes,1965,1970), and others addressed ADC specifically (Barrett, 199171992;Devers,1987; Haraldsson,1988; Rees,1971;Yamamoto, Okonogi, Iwasaki,& Yoshimura,1969). If this study were done more recently, the literaturewould reflect that and include up-to-date research and professional lite-rature, including such works by Klass, Silverman, and Nickman (1996).

As new concepts are uncovered during data analysis, the researcheragain reviews related literature and integrates it into the text. For exam-ple, in Devers’s study, participants revealed that they were reluctant todiscuss theirADCs because they thought others would judge them nega-tively. Therefore she reviewed work on stigma to see how it might relateto participants in her study. Limandri’s article (1989) provided addi-tional insight into how stigma affects disclosure. Results of Limandri’sstudy were discussed in the findings vis-a© -vis the selective disclosure pro-cess used by those who had experienced ADC.

Once data analysis is complete, the researcher returns to the literaturefor a secondary literature review, to seek out relevant material that sup-ports or illuminates the developed theory.The literature review is a pro-cess that continues throughout the life of the study.

Ethical Considerations

Qualitative researchers are bound by the same institutional review pro-cesses as are any other investigators. Both of Devers’s studies receivedapproval from the University of Florida, Jacksonville Campus

244 E. Devers and K. M. Robinson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Institutional Review Board. Following an explanation of the study,Devers obtained written informed consent from each participant. Theywere also assured that their identity would not be revealed in any publi-cations or presentations, and that interview tapes would be kept underlock and key.

Participants in grounded theory research may expose tender, vulner-able parts of themselves to the researcher. Although many find the pro-cess of sharing therapeutic or healing, others find it painful. Thequalitative researcher must be exquisitely sensitive to the emotionalresponses of the participants. During the interview, the researcher mayneed to affirmthe participant’s right to withdraw fromthe study. Obtain-ing informed consentbecomes a process rather than a one-time event.

Initially Devers interviewed newly bereaved individuals. Thoughthese individuals had consented to describe their ADCs, at the time ofthe interview they felt a greater need to engage in an obsessional review.During these particular interviews it was more important to use empa-thetic listening than questioning techniques. Devers offered informationabout support groups to these individuals. At the close of these few inter-views, participants were gently encouraged to contact the researcher ifand when they were ready to discuss ADC.

Selecting a Sample

Sample selection ingroundedtheoryresearchisnotgovernedbythequan-titative principles of homogeneity or randomness. Samples are selectedboth purposively and theoretically. Initially, the researcher pur-posefully invites participantswho will bestbe able to provide meaningfuldata. Diversity is sought rather than homogeneity. As the analysis pro-gresses, theresearcher mayeithernarroworbroadenthesample tocontri-bute to the evolving theory (Glaser & Strauss,1967; Polit & Hungler,1995;Sandelowski,1986). Sample adequacy is judged by both appropriatenessanddata saturation. Data saturation is said to occur when nonew theoreti-cal categories emerge duringanalysis (Hutchinson,1993; Morse,1986).

Devers’s sample consisted of 22 adult volunteers who experienced thedeceased through one or more of the five senses, through vivid dreams,or had sensed the presence of the deceased. As a starting point, Deverscontacted local churches and organizations such as Mothers AgainstDrunk Driving to acquaint them with the research, asking them to share

245After Death Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

this information with individuals they felt might be interested inparticipating in the study. Few referrals, however, came from thesesources. The most significant response came through word-of-mouthreferrals. One of Devers’s psychiatric nursing students, who knew aboutthe ADC research, volunteered and contacted a friend who also agreedto be interviewed. This type of participant selection, when one partici-pant refers other participants to the research is called snowball samplingby qualitative researchers.

Initially, participants who could reveal a wide variety of ADCs wereinvited to participate in the study. The sample, for instance, included ayoung man who had dreamed vividly of a close friend; an elderly womanwho had seen, felt, and heard her deceased husband, as he sat on her bed;and a young woman who clearly smelled her father’s Old Spice cologneas she was walking down the street. Participants of different ages, differ-ent races, and varied socioeconomic backgrounds were included fortheir diverse insights rather than their demographic status.

Later, the aim of sampling is to discover and confirm relationshipswithin the developing categories. In theoretical or purposeful sampling(Glaser & Strauss,1967; Morse,1986), the researcher deliberately selectsparticipantswhoaremost likely to illuminateoneor more of theemergingtheoretical constructs. At one point, Devers examined how participantsexplained the ADC to themselves.Though they ultimately all believedthe experience tobe spiritual, at various times some foundother explana-tions. One of Devers’s participants commented that after her experience,she told herself she had seena ghost. She saidthat when shethoughtof herADCassupernaturalratherthanspiritual, shefeltfrightened.Deverstheninterviewed those who had explanations, other than spiritual, for theirADCs. Another participant said that sometimes she felt silly for thinkingthat she had actually had communication with her mother, so often sheexplained herADC as something psychological (i.e., projecting imagesfrom her mind outward). Identifying the commonalities and differencesamongtypesof explanationshelpedto shapetheevolving theory.

Collecting Data

Ingroundedtheory research, question formulation, sample selection anddata analysis all occur simultaneously and influence one another. Inter-view questions are expected to change over time and from participant toparticipant. Questions are modified to advance the theory (Stern,1980).

246 E. Devers and K. M. Robinson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Devers collected data from formal in-depth interviews, informalinterviews, and document analysis. The formal interviews lastedapproximately one hour and used an interview guide. Questions on theinterview guide included (a) Describe your experience of encounteringthe deceased, (b) What did you think or feel about the experience?, and(c) What was the meaning of the experience for you? Some of the parti-cipants were contacted again to obtain additional information and ver-ification. One participant who had been interviewed for Devers’s (1987)ethnographic study several years earlier was interviewed a second time.

Interviewswereconductedatatimeandplace thatwereconvenient forthe participants. Most gave permission for interviews to be tape-recorded. If someone seemed even slightly uncomfortable with the tape-recording, it was not done. In a few instances the setting was notconducive to taping. All tapes were transcribed.When notes were taken,they were transcribed as soon as possible after the interview to ensureaccuracy.

Document analysis included sources such as previous interviews,newspaper and magazine articles, books, letters, and unpublishedmanuscripts related to ADC. Popular works like A Grief Observed by C.S.Lewis (1970) provided literary narrative illuminating the qualitative nat-ure of ADC. Today, document analysis may include information fromInternet chat-rooms and message boards.

Analyzing the Data

Data analysis in the grounded theory method is continual and inductive.Constant comparison and paradigmatic analysis are two basic strategiesfor grounded theory data analysis.

Constant comparison was first described by Glaser and Strauss (1967).In the constant comparative method, the data is first coded on a line-by-line basis (open coding, Level I codes). These open codes are then clus-tered into categories (Level II codes). The next step is to integrate thecategories into more abstract, conceptual units called core variables(Level IIIcodes). Some core variables are processual in nature, with dis-tinct stages.When a core variable is processual and has stages, it can belabeled as a basic social process (BSP; Glaser,1978). In the grounded the-ory literature, BSPs are usually stated as stand-alone gerunds, that is,`̀ ing’’ is attached to them. Some examples of BSPs include watching,waiting, surviving, and negotiating.

247After Death Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Strauss and Corbin (1990) described another system of grounded the-ory analysis, using a coding paradigm to examine data.Their systematicapproach to grounded theory analysis also begins with the line-by-line(open) coding, which results in the identification of discrete conceptualunits.The open codes are then analyzed for connections to and relation-ships between each other and are reorganized into new categories. Theprocess of reorganizing the open codes into meaningful categories iscalled axial coding and requires both inductive and deductive analysis,using the coding paradigm.The categories developed during axial cod-ing are then examined; one core category, which relates to all other cate-gories is identified. This process is called selective coding. Once the corecategory has been identified, the analyst examines all the data, relatingit to the core category. The researcher generates a grounded theory asthe relationships, dimensions, and properties of the core category andits constituent categories are conceptualized. The terms basic social pro-blem and basic social process are not used in paradigmatic analysis. Glaser(1992) argued that Strauss and Corbin’s approach violated the funda-mental principles of grounded theory research because of its reductionis-tic approach. Glaser felt that systematizing analysis in this way resultedin force-fitting the data rather than allowing it to take its own shape.

Both analytic systems are recognized and accepted in the qualitativeresearch community, but grounded theory researchers typically use oneor the other.The decision as to which coding strategy will be used is thatof the researcher. Devers elected to use the Glaser’s constant comparisonmethod for data analysis in her study.

Devers (1994), during open coding, identified many instances of`̀ recognizing cues.’’ Some examples include `̀ I think seeing her in thatold hat and clothes let me know it was something real’’ (p. 85), `̀ I hap-pened to glance up into the doorway, and there was my grandmother,she was wearing the same blue dress that she wore at the funeral parlor’’(p. 86), and `̀ When I heard my mother call me by my nickname, I knewit was her’’ (unpublished data).

Other data was coded as `̀ recognizing context.’’ One wife describedher experience of sensing the presence of her deceased husband intheir marital bed: `̀ I think that it was very meaningful that he died ofcongestive heart failure, and that the bed was moving with the rhythmof his heart beating’’ (p. 87).

A third group of codes described experiences that were considered`̀ confirming’’ by the participants. During her evening shower, one

248 E. Devers and K. M. Robinson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

participant saw her deceased father holding his (also deceased) sister’shand. The participant describes her efforts to discount this experiencebut, when visiting another relative, received confirmation of the realityof the experience:

We were talking about our fathers and my relative said `̀ Well, it’s just like theyalways said, that your dad always took his sister by the hand and led her every-where.’’Well, I had never heard this before. No one hadever said that he took herby the hand, that’s the part that was really a shocker. So that was the first time Ireally believed what I had seen. Up until then, I had my doubts. If she had notsaid that, I wouldn’t have anything to make me believe that it was real. (Devers,1994, p. 88)

These three codesörecognizing cues, recognizing context, and con-firmingöwere collapsed into a category called `̀ verifying the expe-rience.’’Another category, `̀ Finding concordance with beliefs’’ wasidentified through a similar inductive process. The researcher, whencomparing these two categories, began to conceptualize them as compo-nents of a core variable,`̀comprehending private reality.’’An additionalcore variable, `̀ responding to public reality,’’ arose from the categories`̀dealing with dissonance’’and `̀selectively disclosing.’’

These categories,`̀comprehending private reality’’and `̀ responding topublic reality,’’ were then identified to be stages of the BSP: `̀ reconcilingthe extraordinary.’’ Following the identification of the BSP, theresearcher reviewed all the previous analytic work to establish that theBSP accounted for the variability in the data.

Preserving Scientific Integrity

The terms credibility, applicability, consistency, and confirmabilityare used byGuba, Lincoln, and Sandelowski to refer to the various components ofscientific rigor in qualitative research (Guba,1989; Guba & Lincoln,1981;Sandelowski,1986).Credibility refers tothetruthvalue orbelievabilityofastudy. It is roughlyanalogous to the quantitative conceptof internalvalid-ity. `̀ Member checking’’ (Hoffart,1991; Lincoln & Guba,1985; Guba,1989) is a strategy that can enhance credibility in qualitative studies.Thefunctions of member checking vary from the member reviewing theadequacy of the transcription to the member’s evaluation of the analyst’sinterpretation. Guba (1989) noted that member checks can be solicitedfrom one respondent, all respondents, or a selected group. Some authors

249After Death Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

(Bloor,1988; Morse,1998; Sandelowski,1993) have discussed concernsabouttheabilityofamembertoassessthetheoreticalqualityofaresearch-er’s synthesis and the possibly disparate motives of researchers and mem-bers. In her1986 work, Sandelowski stated `̀A qualitative study is crediblewhen it presents such faithful descriptions or interpretations of a humanexperience that the people having the experience would immediatelyrecognize it fromthose descriptionsor interpretationsastheirown’’ (p.30).

It was in this spirit that Devers, during the course of her research,shared the unfolding results of her analysis with several committed par-ticipants so they could give her feedback on the credibility of the find-ings. After the study was completed additional individuals who hadexperienced ADC, but had not participated in the research, were askedto read the results and give feedback regarding the congruence of thestudy results with their own experiences. When these individuals saidthese accounts were compatible with their own ADCs, they let theresearcher know the results were credible.

Applicability is roughly analogous to external validity and is a mea-sure of how well the findings of the study fit the data from which they arederived (Sandelowski,1986, p.32). One means of assessing applicability ispeer checking. In peer checking, a professional colleague, skilled in dataanalysis, reviews the data and assesses the appropriateness and ade-quacy of the analysis.

Devers assured applicability by participating in a series of seminarsduring which research peers critiqued each other’s analyses, and by dis-sertation committee feedback. Peer checking, as previously described,also attests to applicability of the research.

Consistency is the qualitative characteristic most closely related toquantitative reliability. By its very nature, qualitative research cannotbe replicated. That is, the same interviews, the same data, the sameinteractions will never occur again because of the dynamic interactivequalities of the participants and life events. However, it is necessaryfor a qualitative researcher to be able to demonstrate the analyticprocess and its consistent use to an outside observer. Consistency can bedemonstrated by clear written descriptions of the research process,retention of the raw data and the maintenance of an `̀audit trail’’of theanalytic process. When a study has the quality of consistency, anotherresearcher, reviewing the data and considering the original researcher’sperspective and situation, should arrive at similar or complementarybut not contradictory results (Sandelowski,1986, p. 33)

250 E. Devers and K. M. Robinson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Confirmability is the characteristic of qualitative research that is mostanalogous to neutrality or objectivity. In qualitative research, theresearcher, as a primary research instrument is not expected to be neu-tral, but rather to be deeply involved with the participants (Creswell,1994; Hutchinson, 1993; Polit & Hungler, 1995; Streubert & Carpenter,1995).The qualitative researcher must be continuously aware of how theinterpretation of the data may be affected by his or her personal feelings,experiences and expertise. This awareness can contribute to the depthand richness of the analysis and the theory (Creswell,1998; Sandelowski,1986). Participation in the previously mentioned seminars also enhancedthe confirmability of Devers’s research through peer critique of both thedata and the analysis. It is through personal memoing, however, that theresearcher details a written account of his or her introspective process.Devers noted that she felt more emotion when talking to participantswhose ADC experience followed the death of a mother to cancer,because she had lost her mother this way. Having this awareness, shewas able to consciously assure that she was approaching these interviewsas she did the others.

Consistency in the research can be demonstrated by review of theaudit trail. Devers’audit trail consisted of all the raw data, all identifiedcodes, and theoretical, methodological and personal memos. Memoingis a technique used by qualitative researchers to document the researchprocess during both data collection and analysis (Stern,1980; Streubert& Carpenter, 1995). Confirmability and consistency can both be shownby detailed memos, allowing the reader access to the researcher’sthought processes, concerns, and insights.

Conclusion

Individual grounded theory studies, such as Experiencing the Deceased:Reconciling the Extraordinary, result in the development of micro- or mid-range theories that are meaningful to clinicians and students. Thesesubstantive theories are useful for suggesting practical strategies andinterventions concerning the phenomenon of study. Scientists, however,recognize that theory generation does not cease at the mid-range level.Glaser and Strauss (1967), and later Kearney (1998), observed that once abody of situation-specific substantive theories has been developed, thenext logical step is to analyze the theories together to generate a broadlyapplicable formal grounded theory. As more grounded theory studies

251After Death Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

are conducted observing bereavement responses, then a grounded for-mal theory of bereavement may be developed.

Qualitative methodologies are powerful tools for studying social andinterpersonal phenomena. Qualitative research, properly conducted,enriches the lives of the participant, the reader and the researcher.Grounded formal theory holds promise for increased understandingof, and sensitivity to, the complex problems and processes of humanexperience.

References

Barrett, D. (199171992).Through a glass darkly: Images of the dead in dreams. Omega,24(2), 977108.

Bloor, M. J. (1988). Notes on member validation. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporaryfield research (pp.1567172). Prospect Heights, IL:Waveland Press.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Loss, sadness and depression. NewYork: Basic Books.Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment. NewYork: Basic Books.Bowlby, J. (1984).The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock.Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Devers, E. (1987). Experiencing an encounter with the deceased. (Master’s thesis, University of

Florida,1987.) Masters Abstracts International,25(02),0236. (University MicrofilmsNo. AAG1331652.)

Devers, E. (1994). Experiencing the deceased:Reconciling the extraordinary (Doctoral disserta-tion, University of Florida, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(11B),6032. (University Microfilms No. AAI9606770.)

Glaser, B. (1978).Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. MillValley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. MillValley, CA: Sociology Press.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1965). Awareness of dying. Chicago: Aldine.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).Thediscovery ofgrounded theory: Strategies forqualitative

research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968).Time for dying. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Com-

pany.Glick, I.,Weiss, R., & Parks, C. M. (1974).The first year of bereavement. NewYork:Wiley &

Sons.Gorer, G. (1977). Death, grief and mourning. NewYork: Arno Press.Guba, E., & Lincoln,Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Guba, E. G. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Hoffart, N. (1991). A member check procedure to enhance rigor in naturalistic research.

WesternJournal of Nursing Research, 13, 5227534.Haraldsson, E. (1988). Survey of claimed encounters with the dead. Omega, 19(2),

1037113.

252 E. Devers and K. M. Robinson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hutchinson, S. (1993). Grounded theory:The method. In P. Munhall & C. Boyd (Eds.),Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (2nd ed., pp. 1807212). NewYork: NLN Pub-lications.

Kearney, M. H., (1998). Ready to wear: Discovering grounded formal theory. Researchin Nursing and Health, 21,1797186.

Klass, D., Silverman, P., & Nickman, S., (Eds.). (1996). Continuing bonds: New understand-ings of grief.Washington, DC:Taylor & Francis.

Lewis, C. S. (1970). A grief observed. NewYork: Bantam.Limandri, B. (1989) Disclosure of stigmatizing conditions: The discloser’s perspective.

Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 3(2), 69778.Lincoln,Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Lindemann, E. (1944). Symptomatology and management of acute grief. AmericanJour-

nal of Psychiatry, 100,1417148.Marris, P. (1958).Widows and their families. London: Pantheon.Morse, J. M. (1986). Quantitative and qualitative research: Issues in sampling. In

P. L. Chinn (Ed.), Nursing research methodology: Issues and implementation (pp. 1817193).Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Morse, J. M. (1998).Validity by committee. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 4437445.Munhall, P. L., & Boyd, C. O. (1993). (Eds.). Nursing research: Aqualitative perspective. New

York: NLN Publications.Parkes, C. M. (1965). Bereavement and mental illness. BritishJournal of Medical Psychol-

ogy, 38,1712.Parkes, C. M. (1970). Seeking and finding a lost object: Evidence from recent studies of

the reaction to bereavement. Social Science and Medicine, 4,1487187.Polit, D., & Hungler, B. (1995). Nursing research, principles and methods (5th ed.). Philadel-

phia: J. B. Lippincott.Rees,W. D. (1971).The hallucinations of widowhood. British MedicalJournal, 4, 37741.Sandelowski, M. (1986).The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing

Science, 8(3), 27737.Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative

research revisited. Advances in Nursing Science, 16,178.Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Stern, P. N. (1980). Grounded theory methodology: Its uses and processes. Image, 12(7),

20723.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Streubert, H., & Carpenter, D. (1995). Qualitative research in nursing. Advancing the huma-

nistic imperative. Philadelphia: Lippincott.Yamomoto, J., Okonogi, K., Iwasaki,T., & Yoshimura, S. (1969). Mourning in Japan.

AmericanJournal of Psychiatry, 125, 3497357.

253After Death Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

Osh

kosh

] at

01:

04 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014