Research Seminar Wolverhampton University April 2016

 To very briefly outline what GT is  To discuss some of the different approaches  To present 10 things that lead to rejection or major revisions of submitted journal papers based on GT

 Inductive largely qualitative methodology for building theory out of data rather then testing theory deductively.  Developed in the 1960s by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss – reaction against testing existing ‘old’ theories at the expense of developing new ones.  At a time when sociology was looking to be treated as a ‘science’.

 Initial consultation of literature to look for ideas.  Theoretical sampling – go to the people who are living the experiences and allow data to generate questions.  Simultaneous data collection and analysis.  Constant comparison of data.  Memo writing.  Abstraction through a series of coding processes – open, axial, selective.  Theoretical saturation (of both data and theoretical possibilities).  Development of new theory.

 Since Strauss and Corbin’s 1990 ‘Basics of Qualitative Research the two original authors have split. Glaser’s critique of forcing over emergence – counter to the aims of GT.  Now at least 4 versions:  Glaser – some see as risky as stress on openness, wallowing and emergence.  Strauss and Corbin – favoured by management students but highly prescriptive and mechanical.  Social Constructivism GT – Charmaz (2008) greater attention to context and the role of the researcher.  Transformative GT – Redman-MacLaren and Lills (2015) calls for the methodology to be used for positive social change

 GT from the reviewer’s perspective  Analysis of my reviews and those of other reviewers of GT papers submitted to JCR, JM EJM and CMC.  4* and 3* journals  Triple blind reviewed  Builds on Roy Suddaby’s (2006) Academy of Management Journal paper ‘what GT is not’.

 Papers based on interviews or observations that have not used the basic procedures of GT.  Stating a minimum and maximum sample size.  Cooked up rules, i.e. for diagrams with every concept.

 A phenomenological grounded theory study adopting an ethnographic approach to data collection!!!!  Nothing wrong with multi method studies  Multi-methodological studies much harder to justify.  Each has its own ontology, forms of data collection, analysis and ideas about the role of the researcher.  Common – but avoid!

 Idea that because GT is inductive it has to be written as it was conducted.  This does not make sense as you go around in circles.  Seen it in PhDs  Remember GT is a methodology – a means to an end, not a theory in itself!

it is incumbent upon the researcher to state that although they are presenting their study in a traditional manner, the concepts did, in fact emerge from the data...moreover, the authors should ‘describe their methodology transparently enough to reassure me that they followed core analytical tenets (i.e theoretical sampling, constant comparison) in generating the data and that I can reasonably assess how the data were used to generate key conceptual categories. I’m also interested to see indicia of the researchers’ theoretical sensitivity – their openness to new or unexpected interpretations of the data, the skill with which they combine literature, data and experience, and their attention to subtleties of meaning…………Finally I am very attentive to the researcher’s use of technical language in describing their methodology because I believe there is a close connection between rigor in language and rigor in action (Suddaby 2006, p640).

 Why was GT the most appropriate methodology?  Don’t theory build if the field is saturated.  Over emphasis on the coding process without showing how these codes emerged from the data.  Routine application of formulaic techniques to data (Suddaby 2006)  “The grounded theorists does not wish to parade in a very obvious way the very low-level kinds of conceptual descriptions which make up the bulk of the analysis……The concepts which have been taken out, made explicit, and defined rigorously, need then to be ‘hidden’ again in the theoretical/descriptive account” (Turner, 1983 p347). In a similar vein ‘qualitative software programs can be useful in organizing and coding data, but they are no substitute for the interpretation of data” (p368). Ultimately, it is down to the researcher to attach meaning and provide insight and exposition.

 Can we divorce ourselves from our intellectual baggage?  ‘Open mind’ v ‘empty mind’  Literature is not saturated but it is consulted!  It is part of the inductive, iterative process of data collection and analysis.  Ultimately you have to show fit and contribution to the field.

 Just to say the data were coded using GT is not enough.  Need to explain how the concepts were abstracted.  How you moved through the various levels.  How you decided which concepts were important.  How you looked for themes and patterns.  Don’t overload with detail, but at least give some sort of overview.

 Never let data just speak for itself.  It is your job to interpret it.  Don’t just describe – analyse!  Think theoretically.

 Be clear what the theory offers to the field.  Do not claim to ‘invalidate’ a field of study, i.e., CCT.  Show how it challenges, extends, or if it is totally new, how and why it is new.

 Ideally the GT should stay in the field until nothing new emerges from the data.  When do you stop? And how do you convince the reviewer that you have reached saturation both in terms of data and theoretical analysis of that data?  Don’t use it for grant applications!

 It’s just an application of an existing concept or theory, i.e., brand community, tribe  Too many things going on and no unifying category (i.e., pleasure).  It’s just not new!

 Grounded theory is not an excuse to ignore the literature  Grounded theory is not presentation of raw data  Grounded theory is not theory testing, content analysis of word counts  Grounded theory is not simply routine application of formulaic technique to data  Grounded theory is not perfect  Grounded theory is not easy

The grounded theory researcher has three important characteristics: an ability to conceptualize data, an ability to tolerate some confusion, and an ability to tolerate confusion’s attendant regression. These attributes are necessary because they enable the researcher to wait for the conceptual sense making to emerge from the data. This is just a fact…….Students who attempt grounded theory but cannot tolerate confusion and regression, and who need to continually feel cognitively in control, fall by the wayside. They get fed up” (Glaser 1999, p838).

 Any questions?