RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.4 THE GROUNDED THEORY DESIGN
3.4.1 Overview of Grounded Theory
Having its theoretical underpinnings in pragmatism and symbolic interactionism, grounded theory has evolved since its first introduction in 1967 in terms of practice, procedures and application (Stern, 1994; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Since the seminal work of Glaser and Strauss in 1967 and despite advances in the procedure, techniques used and even philosophical paradigm adapted by several researchers to underpin this method of inquiry, what has remained core and unchanged, however, is the premise of grounded theory.Explained by Corbin and Strauss (1990: 5), grounded theory “is designed to develop a well integrated set of concepts that provide a thorough theoretical explanation of social phenomena under study”. Moreover, every researcher needs to be mindful of the core facets which include theoretical sensitivity, theoretical sampling, treatment of the literature, constant comparative methods, coding, identifying the core category, memoing and the measure of rigor that need to be addressed in every grounded theory study (Stern, 1994; Glaser, 1992; Strauss and Corbin, 1990).
According to Goulding (1999), the use of grounded theory is strongly associated with the earlier work of Cooley and Mead’s (1930) work on pragmatic sociology and their exploration of symbolic interactionism, the characteristics of social behaviour and the nature of an individual as an etic and emic (within a social group). In the seminal work of Glaser and Strauss published in 1965, the use of grounded theory was proposed as a general method, independent of a particular research paradigm (Glaser and Strauss, 1965) noted that the cardinal tenants in this design are the
“slices of data” collected for theoretical sampling and the fact that the data should be as varied as possible, providing researchers with limitless options for data gathering. Different collection techniques, data types and ways of analyzing the data generate ‘different views or vantage points from which to understand a category and to develop its properties’, thus, suggesting that it is not
54 the nature of the data that is important, but the role it has in generating conceptualizations around the phenomenon of interest (Glaser and Strauss, 1965). According to Strauss and Corbin (1990: 125), “the data must speak for itself”, therefore the objective of grounded theory is to link the research process and findings to the reality of the participants and to allow the findings to emerge from the actual words of the participants.
From the discourses on grounded theory, it is notable that two schools of the design exist, which are aligned to Barney Strauss and Anslem Corbin, and these are often referred to as the Glaserian or the Straussian versions of grounded theory (Egan, 2002; Annells, 1997; Stern, 1994). Noted by several authors, the debate between these two authors (i.e. Glaser and Strauss) began after they co-authored their book entitled, The discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), which received much criticism from various scholars, especially for its lack of verification and what the critiques termed its “looseness” in theory generation without a guiding framework (Allen, 2010; Bumard, 2006; Annells, 1997). Within this backdrop, the split between the two authors transpired. Strauss then joined Corbin in publishing their book entitled Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Here the authors produced what can be considered an information guide of applying grounded theory with the main purpose of presenting a set of procedures, cautioning however that the procedures are not meant to be “followed rigidly or to be followed dogmatically, but rather to be used creatively and flexibly by researchers as they deem appropriate” (p. 13). Strauss and Corbin (1990) also commented that as novice researchers were experiencing difficulties in developing grounded theories in a consistent manner, they had been urged to develop a set of procedures to generate meaningful in-depth and dense theories
55 grounded from the emergent data (Mills, Bonner and Francis, 2006; Boychuk Duchscher and Morgan, 2004; Goulding, 1999).
In 1992, Glaser responded to Strauss and Corbin’s text by producing his work entitled Basics of grounded theory analysis (Glaser, 1992), which contained a chapter by chapter critique to highlight the differences between the two schools of grounded theory (Heath and Cowley, 2004).
These two schools of grounded theory still continue to be discussed, debated and used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, and largely in nursing (Goulding, 1999; Benoliel, 1996). The central tenant of the Glaser style grounded theory focuses on the interpretive, contextual emergent of theory development, while the method followed by Strauss focuses on the systematic methodology used in its coding technique that facilitates the emergence of a theory grounded in its data (Glaser, 1992; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Despite the existence of these two camps in grounded theory, both aspire to creating a theory that is grounded in the data of the phenomenon under study (McCann and Clarke, 2003a; Goulding, 1999).
The Glaserian and Straussian approaches to grounded theory differ in their epistemological and methodological underpinnings of the design. Boychuk, Duchscher and Morgan (2004) discuss these differences stating that the four main areas in which the two authors differ are (i) the formation of the research question; (ii) the use of literature; (iii) the process of data analysis; and (iv) verification and validation of the emergent theory.
3.4.1.1 The formation of the research question
Heath and Cowley (2004) and Annells (1997) explain that one of the differences between the two schools of thought is that the timing of the formation the research question varies. Strauss and Corbin (1990) maintain that the research question should be defined as a statement which
56 identifies the phenomenon that is to be studied, thus asserting that the research question should be formulated in the early phases of the research inquiry process. According to these authors, the purpose of the research question is to contain the research by focusing the researcher into an appropriate and researchable research problem in terms of scope and size, asserting that it is not always possible and feasible to study the entire phenomenon (McCann and Clarke, 2003b; Stern, 1994).
Glaser (1992), on the other hand, is of the opinion that the research question is emergent in nature and thus is produced within the process of constant comparison techniques and theoretical sampling of concepts. Glaser asserts that not having a research question is complementary to the emergent epistemological underpinning of his approach of grounded theory and that the identifying of a research question at the beginning of the research process is limiting and contrary to the ‘emergent and discovered’ tenant of the grounded theory being developed from the corpus of data as opposed to the research question.
Strauss and Corbin (1990), in response to this assertion, stated that the research question, albeit identified at the beginning of the research process, should be flexible so that premised on the concept of theoretical sampling it will be refined and aligned to the theoretically relevant concepts emerging from the data. These authors, furthermore, maintain that not having a direction, scope or boundary to any research inquiry, which the research question brings, leads to unfocused and sometimes irrelevant concepts and categories being yielded(Kelle, 2005; McCann and Clarke, 2003b). Therefore, according to Strauss and Corbin (1990), the process of data analysis structures and refines the research question, which at the outset is identified and is
57 flexible, while Glaser (1992) argues that the process of data analysis will lead to discovery of the research question.
3.4.1.2 The use of literature
Strauss and Corbin (1990) support the use of literature such as reports of research studies and theoretical and philosophical paper before the research study commences. They acknowledge that researchers, being human, are not likely to start a research study without a point of reference in terms of their experience, previous work or worldview (McGhee, Maryland and Atkinson, 2007; Annells, 1997). They maintain that the use of discipline specific literature, together with personal and professional experiences, can guide the process of data collection and analysis and the formation of the research question, cautioning, however, that the researcher’s previous knowledge must not be taken for granted and assumed in the emergent nature of theoretically relevant concepts, rather is should serve to as a repository of terms and inspiration for ideas to label and name concepts as they emerge from the data (McGhee et al., 2007; Strauss and Corbin, 1990).
Glaser’s belief in the classic form of grounded theory contradicts the use of literature before the research commences (Heath and Cowley, 2004; Boychuk Duchscher and Morgan, 2004). Glaser argues that the use of literature causes issues of forcing the data as opposed to allowing concepts to emerge naturally from the constant comparison in data analysis and collection (McCann and Clarke, 2003b; McCallin, 2003; Glaser, 1992). Glaser’s argument that the use of literature before the commencement of the research can be contaminating and force the emergent concepts, is also supported by Struebing (1999) and Kelle (2005). However, both these authors support Strauss
58 and Corbin’s acknowledgement that the theoretical sensitivity and previous experiences of a researcher need to be factored in.
3.4.1.3 Process of data analysis
Both Glaser and Strauss note that the process of data analysis through the coding process is central to grounded theory methodology as coding allows the data to be meaningfully constructed into theoretical constructs which creates density and dimensions to the emergent categories (McCann and Clark, 2003; Goulding, 1999; Annells, 1997). In addition, both Strauss and Corbin agree that the coding levels or processes are not meant to be distinct or linear in their use (Heath and Cowley, 2004). According to Schreiber (2001), the Glaserian and Straussian ways differs in terms of the process of coding. Glaser speaks of two levels of coding whereby firstly, the data is placed into as many categories as possible, referred to as substantive open coding and secondly, the categories are then integrated, which is referred to as theoretical coding.
Strauss and Corbin (1990), however, have three levels of coding, open, axial and selective coding. Kendall (1999) states that the only difference between the two methods is the emphasis placed on emergence, but Heath and Cowley (2004) state that Strauss and Corbin’s use of axial coding is the key difference in the two authors work. Axial coding in the Straussian version makes use of a framework which promotes causal relationship among the emergent categories and subcategories aligned to six constructs, namely: the causal conditions; the context: action and interaction strategies: intervening conditions; and consequences relating to the phenomenon of interest.
59 Kelle (2005) explains that according to Glaser, the use of axial coding can be restrictive in the emergence of the theory, as researchers may be inclined to fit their data into the preconceived constructs of the paradigm model. Mtshali (2009) contends that researchers using the Straussian version of grounded theory must be mindful of moving beyond conceptual descriptions to theorizing. This is in response to Kendall’s (1999) experience of merely fitting data into the paradigm model due to the fixation of the constructs as opposed to the emergent nature that underpins the design.
Strauss and Corbin (1990), however, maintain that the model only fosters systematic thinking and encouraging greater depth and density in the data. As this study employed the Straussian version of grounded theory, the aspects of axiel coding will be discussed further in later sections.
3.4.1.4 Verification and validation of the emergent theory
This issue of theory generation and verification is also treated differently by the two schools of thought. Strauss and Corbin (1990) highlight the importance of verification in the process of theory generation, arguing that verification allows initial hypothesis of the study phenomenon to be accepted or refuted based on evidence. Glaser (1992), on the other hand, states that verification is not needed based on the emergent nature of the grounded theory.
The Straussian version of grounded theory was used for the purpose of this study. As the researcher is a novice in qualitative research, the lack of structure of the Glaserian method was a deterrent, whilst the systematic and structured procedures outlined by Struass and Corbin made the research more manageable and achievable with clear starting and ending points. Furthermore, given the nature of the phenomenon, it was necessary to engage with technical literature to establish the research question. The researcher has also previously engaged in HIV/Aids related
60 research studies, albeit not in the context of nursing education constructs of critical reflection, but among nurse practitioners, some of which explored the psychosocial aspects of nurses working in the context of HIV/Aids. This experience has created a worldview for the researcher and Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) acknowledgement of a researcher’s past experience and discipline specific knowledge in inspiring the research through theoretical sensitivity fitted more appropriately than Glaser’s (1992) complete “blankness” and objectivity to a phenomenon aligned to emergence.