Episode 5: Exploring Research Methodologies—Grounded Theory

In this episode we begin our exploration of interdisciplinary research methodologies. We start with an examination of grounded theory and why you may want to use this as part of your research design.

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Hi everyone, 

Siomonn here. In this podcast I will share some of my reflections on grounded theory as a methodology. We'll explore some of its paradigmatic associations, and while we're at it, we'll check out some of its epistemological foundations, too. 

 Sounds good? All right, then, let's go! 

It's funny that grounded theory, for some reason seems to have gotten a bad rap in the social sciences over the last 10 years or so. I'm not entirely sure if this is because of the almost ubiquitous critical turn in the social sciences over the last 10 years. 

Well, as a methodology, early conceptualizations of ground theory may have come across as too empirical to find its place in the new playing field of this critical paradigmatic shift. Perhaps Charmaz’s attempt to present a critical grounded theory showcases how methodologies can shift epistemologically. Well, more on that later.  

So in Unit 5, we learn that there are various dimensions of grounded theory. Glasser, Strauss, and Charmaz are the three most prominent thought leaders when it comes to this methodology. 

Glaser and Strauss first worked together in 1967, proposing the idea of grounded theory in their publication The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative research, which built upon the work of symbolic interactionist and offered an alternative to the predominance of experimental design as the dominant research, epistemology, and sociology during the 1950s and 1960s. 

Symbolic interactionism grew out of the interactionist sociology of the early 1900s, largely credited to scholars at the University of Chicago. 

The interactionist methodologies emphasize the possibility that closely studying everyday interactions could provide a unique and informative window on understanding modern social organization and communities. George Herbert Mead’s notion of the self as a social reality, with the self constituted in relationship to the other, was particularly influential as a descendant of interactionism. Symbolic interactionism provided a further methodological lens to explore this dialectic tension between the self and the other. 

The term symbolic interactionism was coined by Herbert Blumer in his 1937 publication Man and Society.Blummer, a student of George Herbert Meade, argued that understanding the human capacity to create meaningful symbols was foundational to understanding culture and history, because individuals create their social reality through their collective and individual actions. For Blummer, social life was therefore a fluid and negotiated process and symbolic interactionism provided a methodological lens from which we could try to understand each other and our social world by examining how humans intrinsically engage in symbolic interactions, or the complex interactions between meanings, objects, and behaviors. 

The realization of the continuous evolution and change in meaningful symbols, however, presented symbolic interactionists with some methodological challenges. For example, how do you address variations in cultural understandings of symbols? How do you move outwards from the individual symbolic conception to the larger group in society, and how do you account for the social context from where the symbols emerge? 

Parallel to Blummer, there was also a specific American branch of phenomenology, driven by sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. Thier 1966 The social construction of reality, a treatise on the sociology of knowledge built on Alfred Schutz, phenomenology of the social world to argue that our perception of reality is not given, but socially constructed through social  relationships and conversations. This was a radical theory that marked the deep paradigmatic shift in the social sciences in the 1960s. And, I would suggest, deeply influenced Glasser and Strauss and the development of grounded theory as a strategy for qualitative research.  

Glasser and Strauss incorporated, a set of distinct methodological techniques that are now considered unique to grounded theory. Most specifically, they argued that data collection and analysis should occur simultaneously and be conducted through theoretical sampling, coding, constant comparison, saturation, and memo writing. All terms that you are probably familiar with now after reading through these unit 5 resources. Well, underlying the concept of the methodology was that instead of relying on the experimental design approach to research, that data collection is used to test hypothesis and theory, grounded theory suggested that budding theory will emerge as data is collected, coded, compared, and organized. Emergent theories are then edited, refined and compared with incoming raw data to forge a reciprocal relationship between data and theory formation. 

Glaser and Strauss believe strongly that grounded theory provided a methodology to successfully develop theory grounded in Social Research and not deduced from a priori assumptions. 

Well, in the 1970s and 1980s the 1st division in grounded theory emerged when Glaser and Strauss differed on their ideas surrounding the methodological approach. Charmaz emerged on the scene in the 1990s. While Strauss and Glasser debated the values of inductive versus deductive approaches to grounded theory, Charmaz introduced a constructivist approach to grounded theory that aligned the methodology with the post modern critical theory frameworks, now proliferating in the social sciences.  

Well, unlike other versions of grounded theory, the constructivist version locates the research process and product in historical, social, and situational conditions. It's open-ended, emergent methods are intended to foster the development of a critical stance with pragmatic outcomes. 

Interestingly, grounded theory doesn't really have a reputation for being pragmatic. Instead, as Timonen, Foley and Conlon  pointed out in the readings from Unit 5, it's processes are often considered to be time-consuming and convoluted, involving a multitude of rules that come across as challenging, and even obtuse. 

And all these approaches to grounded through require rigorous and somewhat prescriptive process. As we learned from Tie, Birks and Francis, the process of doing grounded theory is not linear. It's iterative and recursive, and involves meticulous applications of specific methods and processes. 

Well, I thought that Tie, Birks and Francis's figure one on page four of the reading provided a great visual for the process. And if you're thinking of using this methodology as the basis of your research design, please study this figure carefully. It has the steps laid out really nicely. 

The Timonen, Foley and Conlon reading does a great job, I thought, of situating the main schools of grounded theory and their offshoots and providing some rich discussions on the underlying principles linking these various approaches well. Let's quickly review these 4 principles.  

First is the understanding that any grounded theory study must remain open to new, unanticipated findings and avoid a hypothesis testing style of input. This means keeping your knowledge of the literature in the background when entering the field so as not to force data into a priori categories. This also involves employing unstructured or lightly structured interview guides consisting of open-ended questions or prodigals for observations and other data generation formats. You also need to remain flexible throughout the data collection process in order to be able to capture data in a maximally open way. You may also want to consider to be prepared to alter your research questions as a result of observations and insights gained when collecting data. 

The second principle is that in order to capture and explain process events and phenomena through data generation, you need to be attuned to the complexity of the actions- come re-interactions - at play in your research, this means increasingly orienting your research focus to understanding such things as, well: what's going on here and what are the major patterns that I'm seeing and what may explain them? 

Thirdly, the author suggests that grounded theory is both an art and a tool of social science, and while the data must stay central, there's a strong creative impetus at work in grounded theory data analysis. Connections must develop from close readings of the data that might not be apparent at face value. So as a grounded theory researcher, you're constantly asking what is this data doing in relation to this inquiry? Well, this necessitates an iterative process, so we, as we've already learned, such as memoing - there's that word again - and constant comparison where core concepts and theory emerge only after multiple rounds of data analysis. This is crucial, as any result in argumentation and theorizing must ultimately be brought back and justified against your data. 

And finally, the 4th principle raised by Timonen, Foley and Conlon is that a grounded  theory study must always seek to theorize. Grounded theory’s iterative process relies on a series of coding strategies that ideally evolve towards theoretical sampling. This is when - so theoretical sampling is a really important term in grounded theory - this is where no significant new insights are emerging from your data; when all your codes, categories are well described and the emergent theories and concepts are able to explain the relationship between the central concepts and the questions of your research. 

Well, I would say that the main driving force behind grounded theory and, really, why you'd want to use it as a methodology, is its focus on developing new theories of a particular phenomenon or building out existing theories of a specific phenomenon. And while constructivist grounded theory suggests the theory is co-constructed together with the data and other variables, including the researcher’s subjectivity, Straussian and classical grounded theory argue that theory is discovered and emerges alongside your data. 

Grounded theory continues to be controversial within the social sciences as a methodological approach. Well, I've even heard some of my colleagues comment that students like grounded theory because they're afraid of “real theory”. There continues to be a lot of eye rolling and deep sighing amongst academic supervisors and committee members when students suggest that they're going to do a grounded theory research project.  

Well, I'm not particularly adverse to grounded theory. I think there's a place for it. Especially when the underlying goal is to develop new theoretical frameworks to help better understand conceptions of social phenomena. As a methodology, it continues to be prescriptive and very rigorous to do accurately. I do feel like it has merits within a critical realist, post-positivistic, approach to researching social change. I don't think I would characterize grounded theory as an objective tabula rasa research methodology. Well, I'm too much of a “po-mo” geek to believe in tabula rasa or objectivity for that part. So classical grounded theory doesn't really work for as a research approach.  

Maybe after all is said and done, grounded theory is just a convoluted approach to basic qualitative thematic analysis? A thematic analysis has some of the elements of emergent data nodes, deep analysis and closeness to your data sets that are associated with grounded theory without the complicated processes and methodological baggage attached. Just a thought.   

I'd be interested in what you all think: is grounded theory, just overly convoluting basic qualitative thematic analysis? Well, I don't know about you, but I'm all about simplifying the research process for efficiency and deep impact. 

Well, that's it for now everybody. Thanks for listening. But before I go, I do want to thank you for the great discussion in the Unit 5 forum. I I know your experiences with assignment 2 are rich and even surprising in the results. So I'm I'm really looking forward to starting to review these assignments this week. 

Remember, I'm just a phone call or e-mail away, so don't hesitate to reach out if you feel the urge. 

Thanks everyone. I'll see you on the flip side.