Roger || Grounded Theory

So there are a number of variations of grounded theory, and this was news to me. 

I found an article that focused on constructivist grounded theory which I was drawn to because I identify with the constructivist approach and have been this way for a long time now. 

I actually think that grounded theory may best suit my approach, along with case study/focus groups as an overlay on top of the grounded theory approach.  I honestly want to learn more of the other methodologies, so that I can be 100% sure in three years that I chose the right approach and why.  I have a working knowledge of case study and focus group approaches, but these are still fuzzy in my head, I expect that when John  presents that I will get a better understanding from John’s work

I read two articles to prepare for our study group meeting and these quotes resonated with me:

Grounded theory is a methodology that seeks to construct theory about issues of importance in peoples‟ lives (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). It does this through a process of data collection that is often described as inductive in nature (Morse, 2001), in that the researcher has no preconceived ideas to prove or disprove.  Rather, issues of importance to participants emerge from the stories that they tell about an area of interest that they have in common with the researcher”

“Undoubtedly, however, their work demonstrates a mixture of language that vacillates between postpositivism and constructivism, with a reliance on terms such as recognizing bias and maintaining objectivity when describing the position the researcher should assume in relation to the participants and the data. Nevertheless, they mix these ideas with observations such as “we emphasize that it is not possible to be completely free of bias” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 97). This has led some researchers to remark that “people can find support in it for any ontology that they wish” (MacDonald & Schreiber, 2001, p. 44), which is not to negate the value of evolved grounded theory. Rather, it can be seen as evidence of a struggle to move with the changing moments of qualitative research (Annells, 1997).

“Traditional grounded theory asks of researchers that they enter the field of inquiry with as few predetermined thoughts as possible, enabling them to remain sensitive to the data by being able to record events and detect happenings without first having them filtered through and squared with pre-existing hypotheses and biases¡± (Glaser 1978, p. 3). There is a reliance on the researcher’s immersion in the emerging data to increase their theoretical sensitivity. Much has been made of Glaser’s claim that the researcher in traditional grounded theory must be a tabula rasa, or blank slate, when entering a field of inquiry (Clarke, 2005) to develop theoretical sensitivity legitimately. We would argue that he was not so naive as to think this was possible and that the emphasis should be on his expected emergence or unveiling of a separate entity called data.locating the participant as a vessel containing a precious liquor in which the researchers will immerse themselves so as to become more theoretically sensitive.”

“The form of grounded theory followed depends on a clarification of the nature of the relationship between researcher and participant, and on an explication of the field of what can be known. Constructivist grounded theory is positioned at the latter end of this methodological spiral, actively repositioning the researcher as the author of a reconstruction of experience and meaning.”

 

“grounded theory goes hand-in hand with inductive inquiry. As a method of inquiry, a grounded theory approach resonates with the principles of my constructivist”

Inductive Inquiry
Teaching that follows the cycle used in scientific inquiry. Steps usually include: searching the literature, making observations, generating hypotheses, designing and carrying out experiments, then analysis of results and restarting the cycle.

“To ensure a strong research design, researchers must choose a research paradigm that is congruent with their beliefs about the nature of reality. Consciously subjecting such beliefs to an ontological interrogation in the first instance will illuminate the epistemological and methodological possibilities that are available. We do not quickly or easily reach any sort of conclusion or resolution about our own view of the nature of truth and reality. We are all influenced by our history and cultural context, which, in turn, shape our view of the world, the forces of creation, and the meaning of truth. Often these underlying assumptions about the world are unconscious and taken for granted. Constructivism is a research paradigm that denies the existence of an objective reality, “asserting instead that realities are social constructions of the mind, and that there exist as many such constructions as there are individuals (although clearly many constructions will be shared)” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 43).”

“As a method of analysis, grounded theory demanded the continuous interplay of data collection, analysis, and reflection that in turn allowed for emerging lines of inquiry and themes that may have gone unnoticed in a deductive or objectivist approach to data collection and analysis.”

“Grounded theory reverses the order of empirical research—hypothesis generation followed by data collection”  

“There are tensions contained within different types of grounded theory that also echo students’ confusion about induction versus deduction and between subjectivity and objectivity”