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!
