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 21st 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.
