The Grounded Theory Method in principle and in practice 70

Grounded Theory has its beginnings in the work of health researchers Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, in particular the foundational texts Awareness of Dying (1968)

and The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967). Glaser and Strauss developed a new

methodology for their research into death and the social relations between the dying and their relatives and caregivers, focusing on the creation of theory from data. They hoped to challenge the primacy of quantitative research in health settings, proving that qualitative methods could produce substantive, robust, relevant and high-quality theory with potential real-world impact (Glaser and Strauss, 1968; Glaser, 1978; Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Dey, 2007).

Opposing the tradition that theory could only be constructed through deductive reasoning, Glaser and Strauss proposed an inductive method of data collection and analysis which was self-reflexive and responsive to emergent detail. Their tenet of ‘constant comparison’ allowed a researcher simultaneously to gather data, analyse, reflect both on analysis and, crucially, the process of data collection, gather further data, and continue to analyse until theoretical saturation was reached, where new data simply reinforced the theory, no longer adding anything (Birks and Mills, 2011). Alongside and within this process, the diligent writing of memos, or short thematic paragraphs linked to coding, sensitised the researcher to evolving theories (Glaser and Strauss, 1968). Thus the researcher “does not begin with a theory, then prove it. Rather, one begins with an area of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge" (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.23).

Glaser and Strauss later diverged in their development and application of the new methodology, eventually forming distinct, somewhat antagonistic camps, now labelled Glaserian (overtly objectivist) and Straussian (empiricist). As use of their

methods has spread from health to arenas such as social justice and business, Kathy Charmaz has emerged as founder of a third, anti-positivist strand, often referred to as Constructivist Grounded Theory (Charmaz, 1995, 2000, 2006; Bryant and Charmaz, 2007). Charmaz’ approach is employed in this study, for reasons outlined below.

3.4.1 Comparison of the three main forms of Grounded Theory

It is at this point pertinent to compare the three strands of Grounded Theory, noting with Bryant and Charmaz that it can be described as a “family of methods claiming the GTM mantle… [with] family resemblances” (2007, p.11), but where individual methods differ widely. The Glaserian GTM focuses on the construction of theories which fit the data, work to explain its context, are relevant both to the field of study and future practice, and are modifiable in light of new evidence; in particular, Glaser suggests that the researcher should provide recommendations to practitioners as an outcome of study (Glaser, 1978). His objectivist stance could be seen to limit the integrity of theories produced using his method, as it does not allow for the layering of interpretative viewpoints, from participant to interviewer to analyst, instead seeking a contextual truth about a given subject (Glaser, 1992). For example, Glaser does not recommend embarking on a literature survey in advance of data collection.

By contrast, Straussian methods emphasise the quality of empirical data captured, leading to high-quality theory generation. The social context is key, and thus a wider range of potential data sources are permitted (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Strauss claims that a theory grounded in data is “likely to offer insight, enhance understanding, and provide a meaningful guide to action” (1998, p.12). Specific coding tools, including axial coding and conditional matrices, reinforce the social influence upon the phenomenon; this has been criticised for weakening resultant theory by ‘forcing’ the data (Glaser, 1992; Charmaz, 2000), although it can also be said to strengthen theory by reflecting the interactive nature of human experience.

The constructivist model rejects the founders’ positivism in favour of a mission to “find what research participants define as real and where their definitions of reality take them” (Charmaz, 2000, p.523). It seeks to generate theory which is credible, original, resonant and useful (Charmaz, 2006; Birks and Mills, 2011), which fulfils many of the aims of this study in particular. Glaser claims (2001, p.33) that constructivism’s focus on the individual’s perceptual response to a phenomenon risks

“descriptive capture”: employing description rather than theorising. It is arguable that this is as true of Constructivist Grounded Theory as the other strands, springing more from a researcher’s familiarity or expertise with the method than a fatal flaw within constructivist epistemology. Charmaz’ rejection of seeming objectivity has particular application for a study such as this, centred on embodied knowledge, as it embraces the multiplicity of explicit, implicit, tacit, unconscious and witnessed forms of knowing. She states:

To the best of their ability, constructivists enter the phenomenon, gain multiple views of it, and locate it in its web of connections and constraints. Constructivists acknowledge that their interpretation of the studied phenomenon is itself a construction. (2006, p.187)

In the past fifteen years, Grounded Theory methods have been applied more widely than before, expanding into arts and humanities research as a valuable tool. Techniques drawn from GTM can now be found in diverse studies of fields within the arts such as drama therapy (Widdows, 1996), Drama in Education (Zannetou- Papacosta, 1997), visual art (Mace and Ward, 2002), music therapy (Edwards and Kennelly, 2004), participatory performance practices (Hohl, 2009), dance pedagogy (Wilson, 2009) and film (Jones and Alony, 2011). This investigation marks the first occasion on which the GTM has been used to examine theatre for children.

3.4.2 Methods within Grounded Theory

The methods used remain relatively consistent across all strands of GTM. Having outlined the broad phenomenon, the researcher embarks upon initial sampling, identifying participants with intimate knowledge of the given experience (Morse, 2007, p.231). Data collection commences, alongside a parallel process of analysis – thus emerging themes can be fed into the ongoing interview process (Birks and Mills, 2011, p.9). Statements – from interview transcripts, texts, or other sources – are coded and sub-coded to categorise this rich data and begin to bring it under control. These codes can employ a variety of registers to attempt to capture the nuances within excerpts: clichés can be used to emphasise widely accepted statements which recur in several transcripts, almost like homilies (e.g. “putting yourself in a child’s shoes”); ‘in-vivo’ codes use the participant’s own words to create an umbrella term which appositely defines a specific process, thought or concept (e.g. “there are no shortcuts”); bold and creative language can help to crystallise or draw out certain

themes, rather than relying on more pedestrian terminology (e.g. “the Damascene Moment”). This could be described as a performative mode of thinking, making my interpretations visible and available to be challenged.

Throughout the process, as can be seen in the diagram below, the researcher also writes reflexive memos – brief explorations of ideas linked to specific codes – to interrogate both the text and their own preconceptions (Charmaz, 2006). Lora B. Lempert describes this process as “the dynamic, intellectually energising process that captures ideas in synergistic engagement with one another and, through naming, explicating and synthesising them, ultimately renders them accessible to wider audiences" (2007, p.246). The memos themselves become part of the analysed data, feeding into coding in a system of constant comparison, the researcher exhaustively checking and re-checking each code in turn (Dey, 2007; Birks and Mills, 2011).

Once the first stage of data collection is complete, some interviewers choose to revisit certain participants in a process known as ‘member checking’ (Birks and Mills, 2011, p.27), where themes and codes can be discussed in light of previous conversations, the transcripts of these sessions then forming a second dataset to be subsumed into the first. Over time, it is hoped that a ‘core category’ will emerge, encompassing every code and defining the direction of the study. As Glaser notes, a core category “has grab; it is often a high impact dependent variable of great importance; it is hard to resist; it happens automatically with ease. Researchers tend to see their core category everywhere” (2007, p.107). Usually, an investigation results in a single core category which works to explain the phenomenon as a whole; however, some studies, including this one, may result in two distinct core categories, where a secondary factor emerges which can neither be subsumed into the main core category nor rejected as unimportant.

Finally a key stage is reached, that of theoretical saturation, when there are no new codes emerging, and all comments have been incorporated into a web of categories. This is the point when the final stages of theory generation and the making of practical recommendations, as noted earlier, can begin (Glaser, 1978). The process is outlined in this diagram outlining the specific GTM model employed for this study:

Figure 13: The Grounded Theory Method as Employed in this Study

Thus within this investigation, the phenomenon is outlined broadly as performing arts experiences in Scotland for children under three and their caregivers. Recruitment (see section 3.5.3) centres on professional arts practitioners based in

Scotland and producing work for Early Years. Data collection, memoing and coding / analysis (see 3.5.4) follow the format outlined above, being concurrent. Theoretical saturation (and thus the end of data collection) will be reached when no new data emerge from interview analysis, with theory generation following thereafter. Finally, this study aims to provide recommendations of use to practitioners and the wider community, including researchers, families and funders.