In the same way, for a chronic invalid nothing exists in a city except phar- macies and hospitals, clinics and medical commissions pronouncing on categories of disability. For a drunk, a city is built from half- litre bottles of vodka… . And for someone in love, a city consists of benches in bou- levards… of the hands of the city clock pointing towards the time of a rendezvous.
— Vitaly Grossman (Everything Flows, p. 56) The use of the term Grounded Theorizing in the title of this book is deliberate, as it stresses that research is primarily a process; any methodology must take full account of this. Glaser and Charmaz, in their own ways, have argued that GTM- oriented researchers should aim to express their core concepts in the form of gerunds, because these accentuate this aspect. Charmaz is keen that the coding process is “done with gerunds,” rather than with an eye for topics or headings or some other more structural and less action- oriented form. In so doing she takes her lead from Glaser’s 1978 book, Theoretical Sensitivity, in which he demonstrates how coding with gerunds helps researchers develop explanations and conceptual models that center on actions and social pro- cesses. Confusingly, a gerund is actually a noun form created from a verb by adding the “- ing” suffix. This means that a gerund can be treated in the same way as any other noun— for example, “Abstracting is a core aspect of GTM”
(the subject of a sentence), “He enjoys coding” (the object of a sentence). Even though they are technically nouns, they are derived from verbs; so they can suggest ideas about processes and simultaneously take on noun- like qualities such as properties, dimensions, and so on.
In English all gerunds end with – ing, but not all words of this form are strictly gerunds; in many cases such words are termed present participles, and
act as modifiers of other words.1 Like many aspects of English grammar, the term present in this case is itself misleading because such words usually appear in connection with other verbs which themselves can refer to past, present, or future. The present participle in the sentence “he went swimming” actually refers to something in the past, and is not a gerund. The gerund form is in evi- dence in a sentence such as “he likes swimming,” as in this case “swimming”
acts as a noun— you could replace it with another noun such as doughnuts, which would not work in the former case!2
In fact, because both gerunds and present participles evoke ideas about actions and processes, there is no need to get too hung up on the distinc- tion between them. Nevertheless if you refer to the gerund approach in your research reports you ought to be able to offer a reasonable account of what the term means and what its use implies. The key point is that the gerund form invokes the idea of a process, which is one of the prime aims of grounded theorizing. The first two grounded theories developed by Glaser and Strauss each centered on different aspects of the process of “dying”— “awareness” and
“time.” Not all GTM outputs use gerunds, however, and in the examples I offer in later chapters it is apparent that some students opted for alternative aspects or terms in their coding, but this did not prevent them from moving their focus to embrace actions and social processes.
Within the realm of social theory, however, the concept of action is com- plex and controversial. Theorists like Talcott Parsons, taking his lead from aspects of Émile Durkheim’s work, stressed the structures within which social action takes place, exemplifying what is termed the “structural- functionalist”
approach. This was criticized by many theorists who wanted to focus on social actors as agents. Harold Garfinkel (1967) ridiculed Parsons’s position, saying that it characterized individuals as “cultural dopes” who lack real autonomy and act merely in compliance with established “alternatives of action that the common culture provides.” This tension between agency and structure con- tinues to perplex social theorists, although at present there is something of a consensus around what Anthony Giddens termed “structuration” (1984), which offers a duality of agency and structure. This emanates from earlier work such as Noam Chomsky’s concept of linguistic structures, which pro- vide the essential generative basis for language; also from the writings of Claude Lévi- Strauss on culture and kinship, and Zygmunt Bauman on cul- ture as praxis (1999). Charmaz and Glaser are correct to stress the value of the gerund form for GTM coding, with its relationship to action, but this is not the be- all and end- all of the matter, as can be seen from Strauss’s final book Continual Permutations of Action. Here Strauss drew on his background in Pragmatism and Symbolic Interactionism, with some references to GTM.
Despite the unprepossessing title, his argument develops from an acceptance that social interaction produces and sustains social structure, and that this can be supported from close (grounded) observation and analysis of existing
social practices. In some senses this echoes Giddens’s ideas, although he is not referred to in Strauss’s book.
Part Two of this book covers the key aspects of the historical develop- ment of GTM (Chapter 3) and provides an overview of the method as a whole (Chapter 4). Taken together these two chapters develop the characterization of GTM as a method in terms of some of the components of the 5x(P+P) model I introduced in Chapter 2; preconceptions and perceptions as well as purpose and periphery. It is now time to turn to the details of the method in use, including the topics of process and procedures, products and presentation, and pragmatics and personnel— that is, dealing with such issues as “How does one get started?”
“What needs to be done?” “Who is involved?” as well as “When can research- ers move on from data- gathering to substantive theoretical statements?” In the chapters that comprise Part Three I have deliberately used the gerund/
participle forms for key aspects of GTM— coding, categorizing, memoing, and so on, in order to stress that research is itself an active and social process.
In the GTM literature different authors have adopted different strate- gies in dealing with these aspects of the method. Glaser and Strauss in their early works (described as the trilogy: Awareness, Discovery, and Time) offered two eloquent articulations of grounded theories— Awareness and Time— each capped with a chapter drawing together what they considered to be the key methodological insights and lessons. Glaser followed this with books that dealt with key aspects of GTM, notably Theoretical Sensitivity, as well as with extended accounts of formal grounded theories. Strauss, and later Strauss and Corbin sought to offer expositions in the form of guidelines, with all the dan- gers that accompany such initiatives, as I explained in Part Two.
In light of the extensive literature on GTM any discussion of the method needs to take some account of existing sources available to students and researchers, but with the aim of complementing and supplementing published sources, maintaining the clear understanding that no single text or source on a method can or should be taken as sacrosanct. Keeping this caution in mind, in the chapters that follow I discuss the processes, procedures, and products that are “essential” to GTM (see Chapter 4) against a backdrop of key GTM texts;
including Charmaz’s Constructing Grounded Theory (2006, 2014), Glaser’s Theoretical Sensitivity (1978), and The Handbook of Grounded Theory (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007a). I focus not only on the activities themselves but also on the ways in which researchers can and should get started in their research. This focus involves consideration of issues such as motivation and rationale. In this regard I am deliberately taking an approach that differs from but supplements Charmaz’s accounts.
Rather than devoting individual chapters to coding, memoing, sampling, and saturation, I opted to begin with a discussion and clarification of termi- nology (Chapter 5), continuing with a worked example and an exercise for readers (Chapter 6), followed by an abbreviated example of a grounded theory
(Chapter 7). These form the basis for more detailed consideration of pro- cess and procedure in the early stages of a GTM- oriented study (Chapter 8), followed by a chapter illustrating differing strategies used by PhD students (Chapter 9). The next three chapters in the section discuss memoing as a form of reflective research practice (Chapter 10), later stages in coding and abstracting (Chapter 11), and issues such as saturation and dissemination (Chapter 12). Chapter 13 offers an extended account of the concept of abduc- tion, until recently a relatively unfamiliar and alien term, but one that is of central importance to GTM and that demands greater attention in the meth- odological literature in general.
To reiterate the point made in the introduction to this book, however, readers may decide to go first to Chapter 7, which offers an example of the use of GTM, prior to reading Chapters 5 and 6.
Notes
1. For a very clear and concise explanation of the distinction see http:// www.chomp- chomp.com/ terms/ gerund.htm
2. A colleague now refers to “Bryant’s doughnut test for gerunds”; but take care, it is not fully tested!
117
5
Coding
TERMINOLOGY AND CLARIFICATION
Coding is certainly a key element of the grounded theory method (GTM), the exact form of coding lying at the heart of the method being a distinctive and radical departure from existing forms and practices of the 1960s. The intri- cacies of GTM coding have become an area of controversy, emanating from Glaser’s contention that Strauss, together with Corbin, had undermined the distinctiveness of GTM in Basics of Qualitative Research (Strauss and Corbin, 1990/ 1998). In the 1990s many publications reporting on GTM research made no mention of this matter, more often than not assuming a direct and unbro- ken line from the founding trilogy of Glaser and Strauss through to Strauss’s solo writing and lecturing, as well as his work in conjunction with Corbin. The authors of these publications describing GTM research gave no indication and did not seem to be aware of the divergence between Glaser and Strauss (see Smit and Bryant, 2000). In recent years it is clear that GTM researchers have felt the need to refer to the matter, even if they are not able or willing to devote the time and space to confront it in any detailed manner.
One of the aims of this chapter and the ones that follow is to provide read- ers with a coherent account of coding such that the process itself can be clearly understood, together with its relationship to GTM as a whole and research practice in general. This necessitates engagement with the differing strategies and rationales relating to coding, but with a view to demonstrating that such differences are far better seen as alternative orientations and practices for the consideration of researchers, rather than the basis for proprietorial and inter- necine disputes. Certainly there are many examples of inadequate, ambigu- ous, or tendentious GTM- type coding; but similar accusations can justifiably be made of any other form of analytical research technique— qualitative or quantitative— without bringing the entire method or technique into disrepute.
One of the skills that researchers need to develop is the ability to read research reports with sufficient sensitivity and understanding that they can distinguish
between the good, the bad, and the ugly. Texts like this one ought to assist in this regard, so that the good ones come to the fore as potential exemplars.
For GTM, there is a further complication emanating from Glaser’s attack (Glaser, 1992) on the work of Strauss and Corbin and the various ways in which the method has been developed and presented since that time. Some of these issues will be discussed in the later sections of this chapter, and also in Part Four, which offers an analysis of a range of GTM papers and the ways in which many of them demonstrate methodological positioning.
Terminology
Before proceeding any further there needs to be some discussion and clari- fication of the terminology used in GTM. Terms such as codes, concepts, and categories are the most widely used, but their meanings and ramifications are not always clear and consistent. In The Handbook of Grounded Theory we offered the following entries in the Discursive Glossary, extracted from some of the relevant chapters and also from the first edition of Kathy Charmaz’s Constructing Grounded Theory.
CODES
What is a code? A code sets up a relationship with your data, and with your respondents – S. L. Star
Codes in grounded theory are such transitional objects. They allow us to know more about the field we study, yet carry the abstraction of the new – S. L. Star
Codes capture patterns and themes and cluster them under an evocative title – L. Lempert
From these extracts it can be seen that there is consensus around the idea of codes. They are transitional in the sense that the ones defined in the early stages of a project will almost certainly not last in the same form throughout the analy- sis and later stages of data sampling: yet they are essential products in providing the basis and spur to later parts of the process. They are the outcome of early attempts at abstraction, and they serve as staging posts. In producing codes in the early stages of a project researchers are involved in breaking down the data into components and analyzing the resulting fragments in order to propose ways in which some of them might be related as clusters, themes, or patterns (Figure 4.2).
CATEGORIES
From the early days of grounded theory, many users of the
method found it difficult to understand the notions “category” and
“property” and to use them in research practice, since these terms were only vaguely defined in The Discovery of Grounded Theory – U. Kelle (2007, p. 194)
… the crucial difference between Glaserian and Straussian category building lies in the fact that Strauss suggests the utilization of a specified theoretical framework based on a certain understanding of human action, whereas Glaser emphasizes that coding is a process of combining
‘the analyst’s scholarly knowledge and his research knowledge of the substantive field’ (Glaser 1978: 70) and has to be realized in the ongoing coding process, which often means that it has to be conducted on the basis of a broad theoretical background knowledge which cannot be made fully explicit in the beginning of analysis – U. Kelle (quoted in Bryant and Charmaz, 2007a, p. 604)
Glaser and Strauss described categories as “conceptual elements of a theory” (1967, p. 36). Categories emerge initially from a close engagement with data, but can achieve a higher level of abstraction through a process of ‘constant comparison’ which allows their
theoretical elaboration and integration – I. Dey (quoted in Bryant and Charmaz, 2007a, p. 604)
Here is a term that has become commonplace in GTM texts, but which was not clarified in the early GTM writings. The term clearly refers to a higher level of abstraction, above and beyond that found in initial codes; the result of theoret- ical elaboration. In developing the idea of clusters or patterns, categories can be thought of as containers for related data, where some properties are common to all those within a category. For some researchers these “containers” emerge from the data, but for others the process involved is one of active construction resulting from detailed examination of the data at hand by the researchers. The extracts from Udo Kelle hint at the distinctions between Glaser and Strauss/
Corbin on this topic. The idea that categories can be constructed, however, has important ramifications that neither the Glaserian nor the Straussian positions encompass, as explained later in this chapter.
CONCEPTS
It is through the production of concepts that the subjects of a grounded theory study are transformed into theoretical objects – B. Gibson
Barry Gibson complements Dey’s view of categories, so that the moves through codes to categories and then to concepts can be seen as stages in the process of theoretical elaboration. The transformation is carried out by the researchers as they progress through the stages of the method. Unfortunately other writers
use these terms in contrasting ways, which can be confusing and perplexing—
for instance:-
We are now moving toward a more “focused coding” procedure that con- sists of building and clarifying concepts. Focused coding employed in grounded theory starts to examine all the data in a category by compar- ing each segment of data with every other segment, working up to a clear definition of each concept. Such concepts are then named and become
“codes” – S. N. Hesse- Biber
Researchers commonly use grounded theory method to generate con- cepts, as opposed to generating theory – C. Urquhart
Here Hesse- Biber refers to concepts becoming codes, while Urquhart invokes a distinction between researchers who produce concepts rather than theories, implying that theorists are better and more effective GTM researchers.
From these and other examples that can be found throughout the GTM literature, it becomes readily apparent that different authors use the same term to mean different things, and conversely use different terms for the same thing.
In many cases the term code can be substituted for concept and vice- versa.
There is no definitive solution for this issue, which emanates in part from Glaser and Strauss’s earliest GTM writings, where, as Kelle points out, terms such as concept and category were used without clear and precise definitions.
Later work by Strauss, and Strauss and Corbin sought in some degree to rem- edy this initial lack and explain how the overall process could be set against a general framework of social action; their explicit guidelines were in part what prompted Glaser’s criticism.
CODING
Coding: the process of defining what the data is about. Unlike quantitative research, which applies preconceived categories or codes to the data, a grounded theorist creates qualitative codes by defining what he or she sees in the data. Thus, the codes are
“emergent”— they develop as the researcher studies his or her data.
The coding process may take the researcher to unforeseen areas and research questions. Grounded theory proponents follow such leads;
they do not pursue previously designed research problems that lead to dead- ends. (Charmaz 2006)
The most basic operations which provide the basis for category building are “coding” and the constant comparison of data, codes and the emerging categories – U. Kelle
Coding is the core process in classic grounded theory methodology.
It is through coding that the conceptual abstraction of data and its reintegration as theory takes place – J. A. Holton
The topic of coding forms the basis for some of the later chapters, and the pro- cess itself is certainly one of the essences of GTM, and a major innovation and contribution to research in general.
CATEGORIZING
Categorizing: the analytic step in grounded theory of selecting certain codes as having overriding significance or abstracting common themes and patterns in several codes into an analytic concept. As the researcher categorizes, he or she raises the
conceptual level of the analysis from description to a more abstract, theoretical level. The researcher then tries to define the properties of the category, the conditions under which it is operative, the conditions under which it changes, and its relation to other categories. Grounded theorists make their most significant theoretical categories into the concepts of their theory. (Charmaz)
This is further discussed later in this chapter in conjunction with the term category.
CONCEPTUALIZING
The term conceptualizing is not defined in many GTM texts, including The Handbook of Grounded Theory (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007a). Yet Strauss and Corbin clearly noticed its relevance and argued that it was the “first step in the- ory building” (1998, p. 103), a form of abstracting. This implies that it comes into force in the middle and later stages of GTM- oriented research, after some form of preliminary or open coding of initial data has been performed.
CODES, CATEGORIES, CONCEPTS: A HIERARCHY
In The Handbook of Grounded Theory Kathy Charmaz and I argued that one way of clarifying these terms was to see them as a hierarchy in the general pro- cess of abstracting, moving from codes at the lowest level through categories, and then on to concepts. Similarly, in terms of the processes involved, coding is followed by categorizing, and conceptualizing; although there will be over- lapping and iterations around these. In the glossary for the second edition of her book Constructing Grounded Theory (2014), Charmaz articulates this in the entry for “concepts:”
Concepts are abstract ideas that account for the data and have specifiable properties and boundaries. Grounded theorists construct fresh concepts from inductive data and check and develop them through abduction… . Although most scholars view theories as demonstrating relationships