Approach 2: Grounded Theory

3.4.1 The origin and feature of grounded theory

Grounded theory was initially presented by Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, in their 1967 book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, which proposed a set of

systematic research strategies for qualitative research. The book identified procedures for discovering theory from data that was systematically obtained, selected and

compared (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory was developed to defend the legitimacy of qualitative research in a critical period of social science history, as it

was the only form of systematic social scientific inquiry (Charmaz, 2000).

The term “grounded theory” indicates both the “method of inquiry” and the “product of inquiry” (Charmaz, 2005, p507). With respect to the method of inquiry, the major

strategy is a “general method of comparative analysis” with inductive nature (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.1). It offers a procedure that assists researchers in analyzing large

amounts of qualitative data. The data collection and analysis process are conducted simultaneously or in rapid sequence in order to obtain further understandings. The

research procedure involves four main kinds of technique: coding, comparative analysis, memo writing and theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss &

Corbin, 1998, 2008; Charmaz, 2000, 2006; Pidgeon & Henwood, 2004; Glaser, 2007). It is suggested that researchers who do not attempt to generate a unique theory – as

many grounded theorists aim to – can still adopt grounded theory methods to process their research data and findings. Grounded theory methods can also be combined with

other methods in order to enhance the quality of studies (Charmaz, 2000, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). For example, in doing ethnographical research, Charmaz

(2006) argues that the grounded theory method could help researchers to generate categories from large, disorganised data sets. The process could lead ethnographers

“to compare data with data from the beginning… not after all the data are collected; to compare data with emerging categories; and to demonstrate relations between

concepts and categories” (p.23). Grounded theory methods can, therefore, move ethnographical research, including life history, “toward theoretical development by

raising description to abstract categories and theoretical interpretation” (p.23).

3.4.2 Which grounded theory can best serve life history?

Over time, the original grounded theory method has “evolved into many different

approaches to building theory grounded in data”, and each modification has been “an attempt to modernize or to extend the original method, bringing it more in line with

contemporary thought” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. viii). Because they assume different ontological and epistemological positions, the nature of the generated

grounded theories is also different. In responding to the question “where the theory is”, positivists assume that theory is hiding in data and waiting to be discovered. What

researchers should be doing, therefore, is to follow a set of rigorous procedures to process data and allow theory to ‘emerge’. From this perspective, although data are

analyzed by persons, researchers who are located in a positivist paradigm claim that this is the best way to ensure ‘objectivity’ in data analysis (Charmaz, 2000, 2006;

Strauss & Corbin, 1998). On the other hand, researchers who choose interpretive and constructive paradigms disagree that theory can simply “emerge” from data, “because

interpretation and analysis are always conducted within some pre-existing conceptual framework” (Pidgeon & Henwood, 2004, pp. 627-628). What is studied, therefore, is

“the researcher’s interactions within the field and questions about the data” (Charmaz, 2000, p. 522). This explains why it was important to explain my previous experience

Despite having different epistemological positions, grounded theorists often share similar analytical techniques and attempt to generate theories (or theoretical

understandings about what has been studied) rather than test or verify existing theory. Strauss and Corbin (1998) define generated theory as

“a set of well-developed categories (e.g., themes, concepts) that are systematically interrelated through statements of relationship to form a

theoretical framework that explains some relevant social, psychological, educational, nursing or other phenomenon” (p.22).

However, following the contradiction in epistemology, both positivist and

constructivists also disagree about the use of the generated theory. Positivist grounded theorists attempt to generate theory that can be used to not only explain but also

predict (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). However, this is not to suggest that every grounded theory product is on the same level. Glaser (2007) clarifies that there is “substantive

grounded theory” and “formal grounded theory”. Whereas the former refers to a set of descriptive explanations towards a specific or substantive area, the latter aims to

create conceptual generalizations which are refined from several substantive areas. Thus, a so-called formal grounded theory can be “abstract of time, place and people”

and “endure virtually forever with modification” (p.4). Harry, Sturges and Klinger (2005) also affirm that generated theory could “be tested in various situations” in

order to achieve “the level of formal theory” (p. 11).

Grounded theorists who support the interpretive paradigm are dedicated to acquiring profound understanding rather than making predictions (Charmaz, 2006). Initially,

grounded theorists tend to delay conducting a literature review in order to generate a grounded understanding, which is not influenced or limited by existing theories.

However, in an educational setting, the researchers are usually already involved in the field of study and have a good level of understanding of it and some key literature.

Thus, it is not possible to generate a grounded understanding that is as ‘pure’ as was initially proposed – even if that were ever possible or indeed desirable (Harry, Sturges

& Klingner, 2005). Furthermore, from a constructivist’s viewpoint, the researchers who conduct data analysis are part of the product of grounded theory. Following the

interpretive tradition, the use of grounded theory is to “define conditional statements that interpret how subjects construct their realities” (Charmaz, 2000, p.524). This

positioning of constructivist grounded theorists appears to match with the attempt of life historians to generate interpretive understandings toward the studied individual or

group. So, given that they share a similar epistemological position, it is argued here that constructivist grounded theory has the potential to facilitate the analytic work of

life history.

3.4.3. Responses to criticisms of grounded theory

Thomas and James (2006) strongly criticize the legitimacy of grounded theory by

challenging its three key components: discovery, grounded and theory. They argue that, epistemologically, what is studied is not a “discovery” of something ‘out there’.

The product of grounded theory, therefore, neither emerges from nor is “grounded” but is always a mix of the researcher’s interpretation with the data. Thus, the product

is insufficient to achieve the standard of so-called “theory”. They regard grounded theory as problematic because it risks the researcher “losing the best of qualitative

inquiry” (p.791) by following procedures that may be merely “methods-for-making-sense” (p.771).

Before responding to the above criticisms, it should be clarified that, firstly, Thomas and James (2006) seem to hold a dichotomy which allows for only either positivism or

interpretivism; and secondly, their critique appears to be a counterattack against those who over-glorify and take-for-granted the use of grounded theory, thereby ignoring

other possibilities of conducting qualitative inquiry. Indeed, the original grounded theory was created to meet the needs of qualitative inquiry in a particular context; it

would be problematic, therefore, if contemporary researchers were to employ grounded theory without deliberately considering its nature. Grounded theory has

evolved to meet contemporary requirements over the years. A number of grounded theorists have also come to acknowledge that the generated theory is a construction

through interpretation and interaction rather than a result of discovery by its emergence (Charmaz, 2000, 2006; Pidgeon & Henwood, 2004; Corbin & Strauss,

2008). Furthermore, and importantly, with regard to the intended analytic procedures, it is recognised that “no researcher should become so obsessed with following a set of

coding procedures that the fluid and dynamic nature of qualitative analysis is lost” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p12).

A potential threat to grounded theory, as Thomas and James (2006) argue, is that

ontologically it takes a middle way between objective and subjective reality. However, Sparkes (1992) indicates that researchers often choose such a middle position. As

Harry et al. (2005) argue, rather than being obstructed by the “dichotomy between neutrality and value-laden perspectives”, it is more productive to remain open and

develop “truly reflective research habits” in qualitative research (p.11). Moreover, the use of grounded theory is an attempt to maximise the application of qualitative

findings. As Corbin and Strauss (2008) argue, “without a conceptual language, there is no basis for discussion, conflict, negotiation, or the development of knowledge based

practice” (pp. 10-11). Additionally, although following grounded theory does not necessarily produce meaningful findings, it is also unacceptable for researchers to

employ no clear analytic procedures, or to report findings that are untraceable through the data. Finally, with regard to the use of theory as the product of grounded theory,

rather than create a new name to describe such theory, it is perhaps more realistic to re-define the meaning of the produced theory. It is understandable that using the

word – theory – is based on an attempt to generate something more than description in qualitative research. However, Glaser (2007) admits that no matter how formal the

product of grounded theory is, it is not a grand theory. Thus, Charmaz (2000) defines grounded theory as a product of “middle-range theoretical frameworks that explain the

collected data” (p.509).