A Novice Researcher ’ s First Walk Through the Maze of Grounded Theory : Rationalization for Classical Grounded Theory

Being new to grounded theory the onus to understand the methodology and the various versionscan be daunting.Learning and understanding the differences between grounded theories methodologies can be as much a learning of one's own research philosophy and this philosophy is often the deciding factor in methodology selection. Learning the different methodologies is a difficult journey as terminology often sounds similar to the novice researcher, but only by exploring the differences can the researcher rationalize their own choice. This paper offers the new researcher a view into the confusing world of grounded theory, where common terms are usedbut the secret lies in understanding the philosophy of the researcher and the topic of discovery. Glaser was correct, the answer is in the data, but you need to understand the philosophy of the method and if it matches your philosophy of research. Theoretical Framework Grounded theory, developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in the early 1960s, is a methodology for inductively generating theory (Patton, 1990). Glaser’s definition of grounded theory is “a general methodology of analysis linked with data collection that uses a systematically applied set of methods to generate an inductive theory about a substantive area” (Glaser, 1992, p. 16).While this definition is accepted by researchers, the approach and rigor in the data collection, handling and analysis created differences between Glaser and Strauss. Strauss developed a more linear approach to the research methodology (Strauss & Corbin 1990). Grounded theory is not new to business research and Mintzberg emphasized the importance of grounded research for qualitative inquiry within organization settings: "measuring in real organizational terms means first of all getting out, into real organizations. Questionnaires often won’t do. Nor will laboratory simulations... The qualitative research designs, on the other hand, permit the researcher to get close to the data, to know well all the individuals involved and observe and record what they do and say" (Mintzberg, 1979, p. 586). As grounded theory became more popular for researchers, the substantial divide between the creators of the methodology was apparent. The two original authors reached a diacritical juncture on the aims, principles, and procedures associated with the implementation of the method. Two paths emerged, and these are marked by Strauss and Corbin’s 1990 publication, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, towhich Glaser responded harshly with accusations of distortion of the central objectives of parsimony and theoretical emergence (Glaser, 1992). Glaser’s views were supported by other grounded theory researchers who agreed that the late Strauss’ 1990 The Grounded Theory Review (2013), Volume 12, Issue 1 38 publication was an erosion of the original 1967 methodology (Stern, 1994). During the years since the opening of the debate on grounded theory, a number of researchers have firmly supported the classic grounded theory methodology CGT (Bowen 2005; Clark & Lang 2002; Davis 1996; Efinger, Maldonado &McArdie 2004; Holton 2007; Schreiber 2001). Various scholars have put forward a range of strategies and guidelines for the coding process (Charmaz 2006; Goulding 2005; Partington 2002; Patton 2002; Strauss & Corbin 1990, 1998). The process and methods for coding have created the highest level of debate for users of grounded theory. Some researchers have combined quantitative and qualitative forms of data collection when using grounded theory. And while nothing prohibits such combination, the purpose needs to be clear, otherwise a muddling of the methodology will occur (Baker, West & Stern 1992; Wells, 1995). While the coding process is an important part of grounded theory, over-rigid structures can create blocks that limit the researcher’s ability to complete the analysis (Glaser, 1978; Katz,1983).These changes in coding go much deeper than just a coding process, they are a departure from the core elements of CGT and this paper looks at how these differences impact the researcher. Fernandez (2012) identified four different grounded theory models: CGT (Glaser 1978), the Strauss and Corbin (1990) qualitative data analysis (QDA) sometimes referred to as the Straussian grounded theory, the constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2000), and the feminist grounded theory (Wuest, 1995). While less known variants of grounded theory exist, these are considered the main grounded theory methodologies widely used in academic research. Gynnild (2011) is critical of a number of how to grounded theory books for committing theory slurring making “non-systematic switching between references to Strauss/Corbin, Glaser and Charmaz...a rather diffuse method of skip and dip when collecting data” (Gynnild, 2011, p. 64). This has increased the confusion for the novice user of grounded theory. Tolhurst (2012), in reviewing the grounded theory methods, “skips and dips” to develop a view without explaining the actual differences between methods. His final analysis did not add clarity, but furthered the confusion by referring to the method as tortuous with no alternative methodology. Egan (2002) also “skips and dips” between CGT and Straussian theory, scarcely making reference to the difference, leading the reader to believe they follow a similar path of data analysis. Martin (2011) noted that numerous published works presented as grounded theory have been guilty of method mixing or method slurring.Stern and Porr (2011), in defence of critics of their book Essentials of Accessible Grounded Theory 2011,argued that, unlike others, any modification they put forward never departed from the core elements found in the traditional Glaser and Strauss (1967) grounded theory. They stated that they had adhered to the “four fundamental principles (Discovery never verification, explanation never description, emergence never forcing and the matrix operation)” (Stern &Porr, 2011:88). Simmons (2011) believes that greater distinction needs to be made between CGT and constructivist grounded theory, and that while Stern and Porr (2011) may have adhered to some of the basics of grounded theory, they failed to effectively draw the differences between the methodologies. In 2004, Glaser put forward a number of concerns about some The Grounded Theory Review (2013), Volume 12, Issue 1 39 of the re-modelling that had taken place with what is termed qualitative data analysis (QDA). Glaser asserted that the mixing of QDA and grounded theory methodologies had the effect of downgrading and eroding the goal of conceptual theory (Glaser, 2004, 2009b,2012b). Conceptualization blocking by applying QDA constraints continues to be the most common complaint of grounded theory researchers (Glaser, 2011). Glaser (2009b) explains in detail how QDA and multiple versions of grounded theory have jargonized elements of CGT to achieve authenticity. A strong advocate of CGT, Simmons(2010, 2011) is critical of any mixing of grounded theory methodologies. An alternative is to remain true to the original work of 1967, with Glaser’s subsequent work (1978, 1992, 1998a, 1998b, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2011, 2012a). A more effective process is to view the different types of grounded theory methods and to select the one that best fits the researcher (Fendt& Sachs 2008). It is important to understand the impact of different research methodologies and how the researcher views the world. Howell (2013) recognizes the importance of the combined philosophy of the researcher and the methodology and highlights this in the following statement: "When we undertake a research project we approach the world with pre-conceptions about the relationship between mind and external reality; such will affect the methodological approach, research programme and methods of data collection" (p.4). The following explores four of the most cited forms of grounded theory, how their views differ on the application of grounded theory, and, ultimately, a rationale for the selection of CGT. To aid the novice research this paper reviews the four main categories of grounded theory and uses the scholarly works of experienced researchers to position the differences. Feminist grounded theory Feminist grounded theory was developed initially for nurses in recognition of the andocentric bias and to ensure that women's voices were heard in the research community (Wuest 1995). Wuest overlays feminist theory onto the CGT, the Straussian, and the constructivist grounded theory, advocating that “[g]rounded theory is consistent with the postmodern feminist epistemology in the recognition of multiple explanations of reality” (Wuest, 1995, p. 127). No preference is stated towards the Straussian, CGT, or constructivist grounded theory methodologies. Wuest selects methodological elements from all three grounded theories to put forward the importance of merging with feminist theory. Wuest states that “[f]eminism is not a research method; it is a perspective that can be applied to a traditional disciplinary method” (1995, p. 129). The feminist grounded theory has been widely accepted as a method of research ideally suited to the nursing profession, and grounded theory is enriched by taking a feminist perspective when the research is based on women (Plummer & Young, 2010). Classic grounded theory (CGT) The CGT grounded theory methodology has its grounding in the original work of Glaser and Strauss (1965, 1967). They provided some guidance for evaluation of the empirical grounding of a grounded theory. This can be summarized as follows: (1) Fit – does the theory fit the substantive area in which it will be used? The Grounded Theory Review (2013), Volume 12, Issue 1 40 (2) Understandability – will non-professionals concerned with the substantive area understand the theory? (3) Generalizability – does the theory apply to a wide range of situations in