A Riddle! -------------- When is Grounded Theory not Grounded Theory?

As a youngster there was a period when it was in vogue to pose riddles to ones friends and the one which comes to mind when I think about Grounded Theory is the question When is a door not a door?  The accepted answer to this riddle is When its (a)jar! The result of the amount of worry about when is it correct to refer to a piece of research as Grounded Theory makes me want to pose the riddle,  When is Grounded Theory not Grounded Theory? Unfortunately the answer is not as simple as When its (a)jar!

It is fair to say that in order to consider a research project as having employed the main characteristics of Grounded Theory it should have some of following attributes:-

1.       A theory development research project and not a theory testing exercise;

2.       An empirical study with a strong emphasis on the centrality of data;

3.       A content analysis orientation to the evidence collected;

4.       An emphasise that concepts, constructs or categories emerge from the researchers’ continued focus on the data especially with a constant comparative attitude;

5.       Theory is developed by acquiring a fuller understanding of the concepts, constructs or categories as building blocks for the theory;

6.       An understanding that substantive theory may be used as a first step in deriving formal theory;

7.       The extant literature may be used to support the theory developed rather than to create the terms of reference in which the research will be conducted.

But if not all of these characteristics are present should we then say, it is not Grounded Theory? Who should make such a judgement? And to whom should it matter whether a piece of research might be considered to have been Grounded Theory? In case there are pedants in the audience it is probably preferable to always describe a piece of research as being Grounded Theory informed. This would allow a certain amount of deviation from any true path there may be required by Grounded Theory purists.

When we say that something is grounded we mean that it is laid on a solid foundation and that it will stand up to some of the challenges which we can expect it to have to face. The real importance of Glaser and Strauss is that they took the lid of the black box of qualitative research and they allowed us to see and understand what this type of research was actually about and how we could go about it. Once we knew what was in the black box we are able to pick and chose different parts of the qualitative research tool set which suits out particular research question and circumstances and provided what we do makes sense and that it helps us answer the research question we don’t have to worry too much about whether we are deviating from Glaser and Strauss’s Via Regio, if they had one.  So much for the riddle, may it rest in peace!

Getting the Researcher's Mindset right!

Academic research is based on the belief that it is possible to understand what we perceive and that we are able to “get behind” our mere perception of phenomena and connect with the principles and theories which explain how the world works. In this sense research is quintessentially an intellectual activity. To achieve the understanding, the primary tool at our disposal is our cognitive capacity and this is the driver of theoretical research. But theoretical research alone will not address all the questions for which answers are required for 21^st century life. For this we need empirical research and thus primary data. Expressed differently our cognitive capacity is not always enough to understand what we are examining and consequently we have the need to acquire appropriate data or evidence to both support and stimulate our thinking. In fact in many if not most cases it is this combination of cognitive capacity and data or evidence which leads to acceptable academic research findings.

The application of the researcher’s cognitive capacity and the acquisition of data or evidence are often challenging to even experienced researchers. There are many ways in which a researcher can be misled by either fussy thinking or by apparently appropriate data and it is for these reasons that research methodology is such an important issue as it should signal to us when we are drifting of track.

Grounded Theory is one way of helping researchers face the challenges of academic research. Clearly it is only one of many ways. While focusing on the importance of data and being prescriptive about how it should be treated by the researcher, and at the same time not being too specific about what actually constitutes data, Grounded Theory provides an insight as to what it means to be a dataist. Barney Glaser remarked that “all is data”, a comment which has proved challenging to many researchers. In fact this expression is not especially helpful other than it reveals a mindset which is required for Grounded Theory. That mindset believes in the paramount importance of the data and that the researcher has to continually revisit the data until a theory or theoretical conjecture emerges and becomes apparent. Of course, theories or theoretical conjectures do not emerges on their own but rather as a result of the cognitive capacity of the researcher which attributes meaning to the data.  What makes the dataist approach different is a more intense emphasis on the examination of the data and an understanding that the theory or theoretical conjecture will be arrived at through reflection which takes the form of a slow realisation of what the data means. In Grounded Theory it is important that theoretical conjectures are not rush or forced.

To understand Grounded Theory as a method which was created by Glaser and Strauss and further developed by Corbin, Charmaz and Bryant is to misunderstand the importance of these thinkers contribution to our knowledge of how academic research should be conceptualised and operationalised. What has been achieved by these individuals is much more important than providing a mere method. By being exposed to the debate surrounding Grounded Theory we are exposed to issues which go to the heart of the research process. Knowing what these are allows up to be much better informed researchers and be able to configure our own researcher in a way that meets our own particular requirements.

 Perhaps what is required is a new term which could be Grounded Research which could refer to the selection of these parts of the thinking of Glaser, Strauss, Corbin, Charmaz and Bryant which are appropriate to answering the research question and which are executed in such a way that the research question is answered appropriately.

It is well to remember that Grounded Theory is greatly admired by some researchers while it is shunned by others and from an academic degree perspective it needs to be engaged in with this diversity of opinion in mind.  It is probably wise not to rush to choose a Grounded Theory approach to one’s research until other approaches have been evaluated and seen to be unsatisfactory.

In the end research questions are answered by researchers and methods are employed to only assist in this process. Academic researchers forget this at their peril.