Properties, tenets and objectives

The definition of a theory in Straussian grounded theory is different from that used in other types of grounded theory. A grounded theory was originally defined as a group of clearly defined propositions that are systematically linked with statements of relationship to form a theoretical framework that explains the phenomenon under investigation (Glaser and Strauss 1967). These propositions may be right or wrong. On the other hand, a Straussian grounded theory must fit the data, be sufficiently abstract to allow application to a variety of different settings, valid for the daily reality of the topic of interest and provide control by stating the situations in which the theory applies (Strauss and Corbin 1990; Cutcliffe 2005). Some researchers like Charmaz (2006) argue that the Straussian definition of a grounded theory retains problematic positivistic elements of the original (Glaserian) version of grounded theory. Despite this, even Charmaz (2006) concedes that Straussian grounded theory has interpretivist elements and emphasises the conceptual links within the theory. This suggests that the criticism of the Straussian definition of a grounded theory for being too positivist may be unfair, because it overlooks it unique philosophical underpinnings. This study adopted Straussian definition of a grounded theory as it was the most consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of this research method.

The Straussian approach to grounded theory has its own properties and objectives, which make it ideal for certain types of studies. Straussian grounded theory is normally used to shed light on a new topic area, especially when confronted by a novel phenomenon or once a specific problem has been identified (Streubert and Carpenter 1999a; Denscombe 2003). The core objective of Straussian grounded theory is the induction of a conceptually dense grounded theory that is focused on the social processes that pertain to the topic of interest and is presented in a discursive format (Annells 1997a; Strauss and Corbin 1998a).

A Straussian grounded theory must also be applicable to the phenomenon’s management as a result of the insight that it provides for the practitioner, although it remains open to further research (Strauss and Corbin 1998a; Streubert and Carpenter 1999a; Denscombe 2003). These properties and objectives of Straussian grounded theory coincided with the

Page | 58

main objectives of this study to generate a robust theory about the value that nurses place on pressure ulcer prevention through a systematic and replicable process. As a result, the tenets and objectives of Straussian grounded theory were adopted after they had been critically evaluated for their relevance to this study.

The tenets of Straussian grounded theory also have other implications for the theory that is generated. The participants in a Straussian grounded theory study and others who are working in the topic area must be able to comprehend and make sense of the theory that is generated because it is a representation of their reality (Strauss and Corbin 1998b; Bakir and Bakir 2006). This is not the same thing as participant validation. In Straussian grounded theory, participant validation is not necessary because constant comparison ensure the representativeness of the concepts and categories generated (Corbin and Strauss 1990). Participant validation is not recommended in grounded theory studies because the stories the participants recounted can acquire different meanings or significance over time resulting in the participants viewing their stories in a different manner (Andrews 2003). Participant validation is also plagued by difficulties in ascertaining when to start checking, the failure of participants to recall what they said, an unwillingness to contradict the researcher by the participants and a lack of clarity about the level of verification that is acceptable (Cutcliffe and McKenna 1999; Andrews 2003). The use of participant validation was also inappropriate for this study because it used an unobtrusive measure to elicit the value that the participants placed on pressure ulcer prevention. The participants in this study were unaware that the researcher was eliciting their values when they took part in this study. This was not to deceive the participants, but an unobtrusive measure was used in order to overcome the ambiguity associated with the term value. The objective of this study was to generate a theory that nurses could comprehend, but this theory was not validated intentionally by the participants in this study.

The use of an unobtrusive measure and the lack of participant validation did not preclude the researcher from generating a theory that could be understood by nurses working in similar circumstances to the participants. The results of this study were presented to similar groups of nurses at EPUAP and Tissue Viability Society conferences. The majority of those present at these conferences (especially the practising nurses) stated that they understood

Page | 59

the grounded theory from this study and felt that it was representation of their reality in clinical practice. This was despite the fact that these nurses came from different countries, with different healthcare systems. Hence, the theory that emerged from this study fulfilled one of the key tenets of Straussian grounded theory in an unconventional manner.

There are other objectives of Straussian grounded theory which influenced the manner in which this study was undertaken. A Straussian grounded study aims to generate a verified robust theory (Strauss and Corbin 1990; 1998b). This objective is often misconstrued because it does not refer to the traditional objective of establishing a truth value, but instead refers to the search for data that either verify or disprove the relationships in the emergent theory (Dey 1999; Schreiber 2001b). Verification in Straussian grounded theory is not a search for proof, but it entails looking for support for the stated conceptual links in the data (McCann and Clark 2003b; Walker and Myrick 2006). Verification is an incessant

process throughout the tenure of a Straussian grounded theory study and is not solely reliant on subsequent quantitative research (Strauss and Corbin 1990; Schreiber 2001b). Verification of this Straussian grounded theory was provided by constant comparison throughout the duration of this study.

There are other elements of Straussian grounded theory that have been criticised or cited as limitations and the measures that were taken to address these issues will be set out when the rigour of this study is examined in the last chapter. Having explored the key tenets of the research method for this study it is now time to consider the manner which this study met the regulations pertaining to research governance and was designed to gather data.