Grounded theory was initially ‘discovered’ and further developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). The basic proposition was that ‘generating grounded theory is a way of arriving at theory suited to its supposed uses’ (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p.3). Theory is generated directly from the data. Such a method, Glaser and Strauss (1967) argued, was in contrast with ‘theory generated by logical deduction from a priori assumptions’ (p.3), or theory deduced through previous knowledge without experience. The system of coding data in grounded theory is meticulous and comprehensive; summarised very simply, data is initially rigorously coded line by line, with codes then grouped into concepts, from which eventually new theoretical meanings emerge. Additionally, of great significance, and a prime feature
66
of grounded theory is a simultaneous ‘constant comparative method’ of four stages described by the originators thus:
...(1) comparing incidents applicable to each category, (2) integrating
categories and their properties, (3) delimiting the theory, and (4) writing the theory. Although this method of generating theory is a continuously growing process – each stage after a time is transformed into the next – earlier stages do remain in operation simultaneously throughout the analysis and each provides continuous development to its successive stage until the analysis is terminated.
(Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p.105)
Harry et al. (2005) interpret Glaser and Strauss’ definition as the researcher ‘moving back and forth among the data’ (p.5), gradually advancing from coding to conceptual categories and finally to the development of theory. On receipt of my first participant responses I began a system of coding by noting or ‘mapping’ commonalities and differences within responses. I realised I was comparing the data with each response as it continued, questioning it, theorising in my research journal through writing memos, and constantly asking questions of my data. I would often go back to earlier responses to do so while remaining within the research parameters and questions. The process I used is described in the next chapter where I discuss my analysis in more detail, but the development of my early analysis led me to believe that I was indeed, as Harry et al. (2005) express, ‘moving back and forth among the data’ (p.5) whilst simultaneously mapping it. Grounded theory therefore required exploring more deeply in view of this consciousness.
Since its first inception, grounded theory has evolved by those that Birks and Mills (2011) term first and second generation grounded theorists (pp.2-3). During this time Glaser and Strauss took separate pathways, with Glaser maintaining his original ethos and Strauss, with Corbin, maintaining but also further developing the original concepts. Corbin and Strauss (2008) recognise that ‘each person experiences and gives meaning to events in light of his or her own biography or experiences, according to gender, time and place, cultural, political, religious, and professional background’ (p.10). Grounded theory therefore, has moved into what Charmaz (2005) calls a more ‘constructivist’ re-vision (p.508) that accounts for
67
However, Glaser (2002) argues: ‘the most important property of conceptualisation for GT is that it is abstract of time, place and people’ (p.25), elements that Clarke (2005) terms the ‘context’, or ‘situation’ of the research in question. Glaser’s (2002) argument is that many researchers who profess to employ a grounded theory analysis are in fact simply carrying out qualitative data analysis (QDA). He reiterates:
In GT, the researcher must keep moving through the data to see the incident over and over and constantly be comparing and conceptualising. This is not easy. Researchers default to QDA.
(Glaser, 2002, p.33).
Conversely, Thomas and James (2006) contend ‘if researchers do pick up and run with grounded theory, they risk losing the best of qualitative inquiry’ (p.791). The authors identify the ‘problematic notions’ of ‘theory’, ‘ground’ and ‘discovery’ as contentious, claiming that a ‘preoccupation with method’ (p.791) can ‘constrain and distort qualitative inquiry’ (p.767). However in their conclusion Thomas and James (2006) refer to a ‘new kind of constructivist grounded theory’ (p.791) in which, they consider, voice may be heard. Similarly, Wasserman et al. (2009) criticise what they perceive as the ‘hierarchical fashion’ (p.360) of coding in grounded theory that in effect avoids linking concepts that give insight arising from their relationship. Glaser and Strauss (1967) in the seminal text refer to
researcher ‘theoretical sensitivity’ (p.46) that comes into play only after scrutiny of the data and at the theory formulation stage. Theoretical sensitivity is described as when a
researcher:
...thinks in theoretical terms about what he knows, and as he queries many different theories... it involves his personal and temperamental bent... (his) ability to have theoretical insight into his area of research, combined with an ability to make something of his insights.
(Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p.46)
Bryant and Charmaz (2007) justify an ‘epistemological rearrangement and re-engagement of grounded theory method’ (p.50) towards a constructivist model, which embeds theoretical sensitivity intrinsically within the method per se. They assert:
68
This repositioning will allow us to understand such issues as those shaping the research process, the roles, social locations, perspectives of the
researcher, the production of data, and the dialectical relationships between sensitising concepts and induction. Closer attention to these issues enables us to situate our grounded theories, see complexity, and to avoid the hegemonic reach of over-generalisation with its erasure of positionality, difference, time and location.
(Bryant and Charmaz, 2007, p.50)
Bryant and Charmaz’ (2007) perspectives clearly resonate with my justification to draw on a constructivist grounded theory approach to analysis. Whilst maintaining the momentum of a traditional constant comparison during data collection, a constructivist approach gives licence to the consideration of those nuances of social life that have contributed towards the construction of my theoretical sensitivity. These will undoubtedly include my personal and professional perspectives and those arising from my research participant stories, as well as the body of policy, research and literature related to my research field. In order to code the data, and to address Wasserman et al.’s (2009) criticism that coding does not link the concepts and their relationships in the data, I adapted a simple system of Clarke’s (2005) concept of situational analysis in grounded theory method to suit this study.
Situational analysis
Clarke’s ‘situational analysis’ (2005) is designed to take account of the emphases of the complexities in social science research that she claims have developed as a result of
postmodernist acknowledgement of the ‘situatedness’ of social science qualitative research. Clarke uses situational maps that ‘open up’ and interrogate the data in fresh ways (Clarke and Friese, 2007), and in which it is claimed ‘all of these postmodern problematics can be addressed through situational analysis’ (p.368). Clarke (2005) asserts:
Situational analyses seek to analyze a particular situation of interest through the specification, re-representation and subsequent examination of the most salient elements in that situation and their relations. Some of these elements have been traditionally discussed as ‘context’
69
It is this issue of context which challenges grounded theory’s traditionalist critics. Clarke’s (2005) aforementioned call for the accountability of ‘situatedness’ drove her to devise a diagrammatic analytical tool which maps coded or partially coded data as a way of ‘moving into and then around in the data’ (p.84). This begins at the start of the data collection in the tradition of grounded theory. Situational analysis offer three cartographic approaches; situational maps, social worlds/arenas maps and positional maps (Clarke and Friese, 2007, p.366).
It seems pertinent therefore that my analysis through adapting Clarke’s mapping concept to suit this study is fit for purpose. From a personal perspective, I have always found visual diagrammatic representation easier to digest than perhaps descriptive straight texts, and ‘mapping’ in several life situations comes naturally to me. To employ mapping as a data coding and analysis tool enabled relationships to be easily identified between elements that directly related to the subject of inquiry. I will demonstrate how I adapted and used
situational maps as visual references in more detail in the next chapter.
Memos
Memos can be perceived as ‘the narrated records of a theorist’s analytical conversations with him/herself about the research data; as such they provide particular ways of knowing (Lempert, 2007, p.247). In the case of this research, the continual reflective and analytical notes that I kept throughout the process in my research journal constitute the writing of memos. Birks and Mills (2011) describe memos as the ‘critical lubricant of a grounded theory ‘machine’ (p.40) and an indicator of quality. Wasserman et al. (2009) emphasise how memo writing ‘allows the researcher to flesh out emergent concepts’ (p.359) from the data. Memos also have the function of ensuring acknowledgement of researcher positionality. Lempert (2007) identifies the inclusion of this aspect to be a ‘deviation’ (p.247) from classical grounded theory rubric, as, similarly, is the use of literature. Lempert’s argument for breaking with the tradition of engaging in the literature when theory is emerging rests in his view that ‘in order to participate in the current theoretical conversation, I need to understand it’ (2007, p.254). I often referred to my appraisal of literature in my memos, as I related issues to my data and my personal and professional experience, and so I am in full accord with Lempert’s ‘deviation’ (p.247).
70
I have justified the rationale of my research design, with reference to the literature from research and its methodologies. In order to proceed with my intended inquiry it is necessary to address all ethical issues perceived as relevant at the start of the study. The University of Sheffield requires all studies involving human participants to be ethically reviewed and approved before data collection can commence, and the following final section will describe the process and issues that I addressed to gain ethical approval.