1. Grounded Theory
An Overview

2. The Discovery of Grounded Theory
In 1967 two sociologists, Barney Glazer and Anselm Strauss introduced grounded theory as a systematic, iterative, constant comparative method of data analysis for the purpose of sociological theory construction.
Sophisticated quantitative researchers and designs had marginalized the robust qualitative traditions in sociology. This book was a challenge to those trends.
They argued that grounded theory answered the current criticisms of qualitative research because of its rigor, explicit strategies, and the development of generalizations.

3. At the Intersection of Disciplines…
Barney Glaser was a highly trained quantitative researcher who studied systematized quantitative inquiry (Paul Lazarsfeld) and the construction of middle range theories (Robert K. Merton) that would explain the structure and functioning of social intuitions and answer empirical questions.
Anselm Strauss studied with at the University of Chicago who had long engaged in field research and viewed the city as a natural setting to pursue research. He was influenced by pragmatism and adopted a sociological branch of it called symbolic interactionism.
New knowledge, wisdom, is often discoverer at the intersection of disciplines.
New knowledge, wisdom, is often discovered at the intersection of disciplines.

4. Symbolic Interactionism
Views humans as active, free, agents who can interpret and act upon their situations
Takes language and interpretation into account
Treats events as open-ended and emergent
Studies individual and collective action
Acknowledges the significance of temporality.
Truth is mutable or relative…
Pragmatism’s influence

5. Pragmatism
The central notion of pragmatism focuses on the nature of truth. In it simplest explanation pragmatism would yield the following:
Truth is found in that what works; and
Truth is relative to the current situation.
However simple these statements may be they created some of the most heated and widespread debate concerning the value and “truth” of pragmatism as a philosophy.
Its earliest critics, emanating from the European continent, saw pragmatism as a quaintly American philosophy with little value. Later it is viewed by many quantitative and qualitative researchers as an attack on epistemology. What made pragmatism a lighting rod for criticism was first its softening of the nature of truth thus making empirical sciences less certain of their moorings and second its subtle shift towards a separation of truth and reality or more accurately a separation of epistemology and ontology. As James was quick to point out, pragmatists speak of how truth is not ready made and therefore uncertain or relative. Adding to that was the ontological bridge contained within the philosophy of pragmatism that held that we and reality "make" truth.

6. Deduction, Induction, and Abduction
The pragmatist tended to see the world as it is. The dichotomy that had formed between the objective world and the subjective world seemed for the most part inconsequential.
The pragmatist found no value in absolute objectivity or absolute subjectivity, seeing neither as sufficient for understanding the nature of reality.
The pragmatist pointed out that the affinity between quantitative methodologies and qualitative methodologies may be more deeply rooted than is commonly thought.
In part this perspective was formed when the pragmatist positioned their philosophy as being value informed.
Qualitative – value ladened
Quantitative – value informed
The pragmatists’ rendering of reality positioned it not as holding an objective view as held by the quantitative researcher or by subjective view as held by the qualitative researcher. Since objective and subjective positioned methodologies were both contained within the epistemological domain they both sought to discover either a verifiable or generalizable truth.
This immediately positioned pragmatism as an ontologically centered philosophy not unlike others such positions articulated by the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer, the early transcendental renderings of phenomenology by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and the phenomenology of perception presented by Maurice Merleau-Ponty.

7. Ontology…
This philosophical position held by pragmatism yielded an intersubjective rendering of the truth reality where the ontological elements revealed were seen as relational and situational.
The “we” or relationships aspect would hold that truth is co-created by way of intersubjective relationships.
This co-created truth is epistemologically valid because it is co-constructed by the collective experience. It is through this relational construct that the nature of reality, the ontological reality, is revealed.
You really can’t talk about pragmatism, therefore grounded theory, without discussing ontology.

8. Deductive Reasoning
Allows deriving b from a only where b is a formal logical consequence of a.
In other words, deduction derives the consequences of the assumed. Given the truth of the assumptions, a valid deduction guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
For example, given that all bachelors are unmarried males, and given that this person is a bachelor, one can deduce that this person is an unmarried male.

9. Inductive Reasoning
Allows inferring b from a, where b does not follow necessarily from a. a might give us very good reason to accept b, but it does not ensure b.
For example, if all swans that we have observed so far are white, we may induce that the possibility that all swans are white is reasonable. We have good reason to believe the conclusion from the premise, but the truth of the conclusion is not guaranteed. (Indeed, it turns out that some swans are black.)

10. Abductive reasoning Allows inferring a as an explanation of b.
A form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion.
One can best understand abductive reasoning as "inference to the best explanation".
Not as a derivative of b….
Theoretical position!

11. Grounded Theory
Focus - developing a theory grounded in the data from the field
Discipline of origin - Sociology
Data collection - interviews with up to individuals to “saturate” categories and detail a theory
Data analysis - open coding, axial coding, selective coding, conditional matrix
Narrative form - Theory generation, theoretical position, or theoretical model.

12. Grounded Theory
In this type of study, the researcher generates an abstract analytical schema of a phenomenon, a theory that explains some action, interaction, or process. This is accomplished primarily through collecting interview data, making multiple visits to the field (theoretical sampling), attempting to develop and interrelate categories (constant comparison) of information, and writing a substantive or context-specific theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).

13. Constructivist Grounded Theory
This development employs the fluidity and openness of Strauss’ approach while incorporating the specific strategies for analyzing data developed by Glaser.
There are two basic types – the more systematic approach of Strauss and Corbin and the constructivist approach of Charmaz

14. Grounded theory provides a perspective that allows the researcher to view the phenomenon as if through the examination lens of an ophthalmologist. The examiner starts with a standard magnification and refocuses through a sequence of lenses until complete clarity is achieved. This refocusing is accomplished in grounded theory through theoretical sampling, which guides the selection of participants and leads to the discovery of a theory grounded in research data. The number of participants can not be determined in advance. “[T]here are no limits set on the number of the participants, interviewees or data sources” (Cutcliffe, 2000, p. 1477).

15. Process and Protocols Beginning with the Phenomenon of Interest
Theoretical Conditioning: Answers three critical questions;
What is the real issue?
What are the facts as we understand them now?
What is the role of the researcher?
This establishes Theoretical Sensitivity.
Theoretical sensitivity is often overlooked as an aspect of grounded theory design. There is some disagreement as to what theoretical sensitivity entails. The beginning grounded theorist could interpret different postures depending on whose perspective is embraced.
The answer may well rest in discipline. We need to recognize that our participation within the ecology will likely color the data in some fashion. Yet without this closeness of understanding our vision becomes cloudy and distant. Theoretical sensitivity presents us both color and caution. As researchers our ability to discover new knowledge and generate new theories to explain the human ecology rests in our ability to discipline our biases to keep our filters from tinting the true colors of the ecology.

16. Theoretical Sensitivity
Glaser stated that entering the research with as few predetermined ideas as possible could strengthen theoretical sensitivity. His concern was for the eager theorist interested in finding support for a preexisting hypothesis or belief system.
A radical interpretation of Glaser’s position could create a situation where the theorist does nothing to gain a perspective of the ecology under study. Proceeding without theoretical sensitivity, a researcher has no knowledge of fit or relevance of the data collected.
Nickel and a 5 dollar bill

17. Theoretical Sensitivity
Strauss and Corbin (1990) referred to theoretical sensitivity as, “the attribute of having insight, the ability to give meaning to data, the capacity to understand, and the capability to separate the pertinent from that which isn't.”
They were stressing awareness of the activities within the ecology as it related to the data. They appear to be less concerned with preexisting hypotheses than with lack of insight or knowledge about the ecology.
The choice here is on which side do we error - bias or ignorance?
This is where we mislead many doctoral students. Secondary literature reviews.

18. Gaining Theoretical Sensitivity
It is possible to gain theoretical sensitivity through several strategies:
Through participating in the ecology and by doing so becoming part of the environment
By observing the activities within the ecology and reflectively sorting through these observations
By questioning the processes we don't understand within the ecology and by doing so becoming an apprentice to those experts (informants) within the ecology
By using the theoretical literature to examine the interpretations of others that may be related to the nature of this ecology.
By developing an understanding of the human ecology, we are able to identify the real issue within the phenomena we have chosen to study. We have stepped back to gain insights about the ecology in order to gain an enlightened approach. As the study progresses we are able to recognize and appreciate categories that support our emerging theory, and we can now constantly measure those concepts and categories against the ecology from which it emerged. Taking these initial steps crystallizes the role the environment, informants, and our own influences as researchers.

19. Process and Protocols
General Sorting: Generating awareness of human ecology under study.
Reflective Sorting: Examining key concepts, phenomena, events, then organizing them according to knowledge of ecology. Describing setting, actors, process, events. Useful for triangulation and verification.
Selective Questioning: Systematically defining area of interest through questioning. Assessing discoveries obtained during reflective and general sorting that lead to developing study purpose and forming the grand tour question.
Research Protocol Development
The pilot protocol is lifted from theoretical conditioning
The formal protocol is developed from pilot procedures

20. Process and Protocols McCaslin & Carlson
Constructivist Grounded Theory with the addition of Meta-analysis.
Many good grounded theory studies end here.
McCaslin & Carlson

21. Open Coding
Open coding is an inductive, analytical procedure that performs two basic tasks: it makes comparisons and it asks questions.
For this reason grounded theory is often referred to as the constant comparative method of analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Open coding is the systematic process of sorting through the data, categorizing events and concepts by their properties and dimensional range.

22. Open Coding
Glaser recommends the analyst constantly ask three questions:
What is this data a study of?
What category or property of a category, of what part of the emerging theory, does this incident indicate?
What is actually happening in the data? (p. 57).
Step back – and look again!

23. Reflective (Axial) Coding
A T r a n s f o r m a t i v e A p p r o a c h t o
G r o u n d e d T h e o r y
R e f l e c t i v e ( A x i a l ) C o d i n g A n a l y s i s
Reflective (Axial) Coding
Comparing categories generated through open coding towards generating an understanding of the ecology. Open coding fractures the data—axial/reflective coding determines their source and uncovers their properties, processes, dimensions, context and strategies for understanding their consequences as related to ecology.
That depth of reflective coding is directly informed by the researcher’s experience with the phenomenon of interest and appropriateness or “fit” of the theoretical sensitivity achieved.
For that reason I refer to axial coding as reflective coding. Corbin and Strauss, (1990) recognized that open and reflective coding are distinct analytic procedures. However, they concur that in coding a researcher will alternate between the two modes. Let’s explore that reality a bit more.
In grounded theory procedures axial coding is the answer to questions generated during open coding. The term axial does not generate the visual image of what is taking place during this procedure. Axial coding is the process of reflecting on and about the categories that are emerging and reassembling them in a meaningful way.

24. The Conditional Relationship Guide
The Conditional Relationship Guide is formatted to ask and answer the relational questions about the emerging code category.
What is [the code category]? (Using an informant’s words helps avoid bias.)
When does [the code category] occur? (Using “during…” helps form the answer.)
Where does [the code category] occur? (Using “in…” helps form the answer.)
Why does [the code category] occur? (Using “because…” helps form the answer.)
How does [the code category] occur? (Using “by…” helps form the answer.)
With what Consequence does [the code category] occur or is [the category] understood?
(Scott, 2002)

25. Category
What
When
Where
Why
How
Consequence
Ability to Adapt
Shifting Perception to discover & implement new alternatives
During times of Adversity, often, when Age Factor is an issue, dealing with the Negativity of others
In informant’s Background, in Steps of Pursuit
Obstacles Part of Process, Business as Usual, Nothing Personal, & Others Affect Pursuit
Shift Perception, Open to Possibility, Open to Learning from Any Source, Risk, Must be a Way, Focus on What’s Important, Do Those Things I Can Control
Choice
Adversity
Obstacles, illness, injury, rejection of others, negativity, lack of resources, & fundamental to growth
Throughout life, Pursuit
In Background, in Steps of Pursuit
Others Affect Pursuit, Risk, Age Factor; Obstacles Part of Process; Business as Usual, Nothing Personal
Perceptions of: Negativity, Lack of Knowledge, Differences Between US & Other Countries
Perception
Age Factor
In late life, age affects view of ability, not limiting if have health, provides sense of urgency
Mid- to late-life (56 – 70 in this study)
Extraordinary Involvement in Pursuits
Physical/Health Limitations, Others Affect Pursuit
In sailing, age diminishes endurance, in racing ill health & slower recovery from injury diminish strength, expressions of age-related Negativity in writing, music, research
Background
Expressed areas of Informants’ history & philosophy
Throughout life
Venues of life & Pursuit
Belief
Influences of: Others Affect Pursuit, Support & Belief of Others, Coach/Mentors
Belief & Self-Belief/Efficacy
Note: This is only a small section of the Guide. It should be noted how the data was collapsed. In the Scott study she reduced 1908 open codes to 54 categories. She them used the Conditional Relationship Guide a way to lift five key properties from the guide that served as the foundation for her Reflective coding Matrix.

26. The Reflective Coding Matrix
A tool used to bridge reflective coding and selective coding or interpretation.
Useful in isolating, then defining the core category by its linkages to properties, processes, dimensions, context, and for understanding the consequences. 

27. Reflective Coding Matrix example

28. Definition of Key Terms
Category: This is the unit of information analyzed in grounded theory research (Creswell, 2007, p.237). They are concepts the stand for phenomena (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p. 101). General (or open categories) are revealed through the hortizontalization of the data in open coding procedures. Code categories are the generalization of these open codes through axial or reflective coding.
Core Category (sometimes referred to as the central phenomenon): This is the overarching category that begins to reveal the emerging theory. It is the final collapse of data into a theoretical position. It leads to the format statement of the theory that is supported by the data from which it emerged.
Properties: Characteristics of a category; the delineation of which defines and gives it meaning (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p. 101). Properties are attributes of a category that appear during open coding.

29. Definition of Key Terms
Process: Is the pragmatic understanding of the emerging theory that is revealed through the conditional relationship guide. It reveals the dynamic aspects of the emerging theory and aids in interrelating the various properties to the core category.
 Dimensional Range: the range along which general properties of a category vary; giving specification to a category and variation to the theory. (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p. 101).
 Context: This is the reveal concerning where and how the emerging theory fits and/or relates with or to the ecology from which it was discovered.
Strategies for Understanding the Consequences of the Emerging Theory: This is the preliminary statement of the emerging theory. It is a verifying process that examines the emergent theory for fit and relevance to the human ecology. Checks for credibility, transferability, and dependability of emergent theory.

30. Selective Coding
According to Strauss and Corbin (1990) selective coding (interpretation) is the process of selecting the core category, systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationships, and filling in categories that need further refinement and development.
Defined as such it is not a coding process but an interpretive process. During this process of interpreting the data the story line of the theory grounded by the data begins to emerge. It was at this juncture that the data, the categories from open coding, the compressing of events or conditions into causal relationship in reflective coding, were broadened to paint a portrait of the ecology and an answer to the central research question. The core category and its domain serve as a reference point or as an aid for the development of the story line.

31. Constructivist Grounded Theory
Gain theoretical sensitivity in both the ecology & in the literature
Informants: purposeful theoretical sampling, selected for criteria.
Analysis is iterative, & alternately inductive & deductive, weaving from one coding phase to the next.
Open coding is very detailed, separating each strand of data from the rest
Reflective coding begins weaving the strands together
Step back - what’s happening here?
Selective coding is the Interpretation Phase
Tools I devised led me to the story line
Story line led to the emergence of the theoretical position
Constructivist Grounded Theory

32. Literature Constructivist Grounded Theory: (McCaslin/Scott)
Technical Non-Tech
Constructivist Grounded Theory: (McCaslin/Scott)
Ecology
Observations Interviews
Open Coding Analysis
Concepts - Categories - Properties & Dimensions
Reflective Coding Analysis
Reassemble New Way - Link Categories & Dimensions
Conditional Relationship Guide & Reflective Coding Matrix
Selective Coding/Interpretation
Validate Relationships - Discover Patterns
Develop Story Line & Theoretical Position
Grounding the Theory
Crystallize: Data, Literature, Informants in Ecology
What’s happening?

33. Example of Open Coding Analysis
1908 Categories
Age Limitations in Biking Unknown
Age Perspective
Age Illusion
Age Limitations in Writing Unknown
Age Affects View of Ability
Age Benefit
Age Limitations in Pursuit Unknown
Age & Impetus to Decide
Age Affects Ability to Learn
Age Increases Challenge
Age Limiting in Solo Voyage
Age Motivator
Age Impediment
Age Affecting Ability
Age Perception
Age & Adversity
Age Limits Choices
Age Limiting Factor
Age Factor
54 Categories

34. Reflective Coding Matrix Logic Flow
McCaslin & Carlson

35. Reflective Coding Analysis
54 Categories
Conditional Relationship Guide:
What? When? Where? Why? How? Consequence?
Reflective Coding Matrix

36. Reflective coding matrix for defining conditions and dimensions of “Commitment to Extraordinary Involvement.”
Reflective Coding Matrix
Core Category
Commitment to Extraordinary Involvement
Properties
Process
Position
Perception
Product
Purpose
Choice
Conviction
Belief
Achievement
Development
Dimensions
Ability to Adapt
Focus on What’s Important
Must be a Way
Obstacles Part of Process
Follow Threads of Inspiration
Epiphany
Sense of Autonomy
Risk
Negativity
Age Factor
Sense of Urgency
Adversity
Faith
Open to Possibility
Who I am
Success Achievement Plan
Keep Moving Forward
Pursuit Evolved
Learning the Craft
Personal Expression
Sense of Self-Worth
Communicating Perspective
Compelling Passion
Creative Energy
Context
Challenge
Personal Criteria
Identity
Personal Goal
Meaning in Goal
Modes for Understanding Consequences
Momentum in a Direction
Sacrificing Ordinary for Extraordinary
Self-Efficacy
Progressive Realization of Worthwhile Goals
Maximizing Personal Potential Creates Positive Energy

37. Example of a Conditional Matrix (Graphic format)
Positive Force
Personal Criteria
Congruous Autonomy
Inner Voice
Belief, Identity, Self-Efficacy
Follow Inspiration, Conviction
Choice, Obstacles Part of Process
Epiphany: Risk/Sacrifice Urgency
Achievement in Steps
Development, Meaning
Criteria,
Rightness

38. Conditional Matrix Textual (example)

39. Example 2 (from same study as above) Graphical Conditional Matrix

40. Process and Protocols McCaslin & Carlson
Constructivist Grounded Theory with the addition of Meta-analysis.
Many good grounded theory studies end here.
McCaslin & Carlson

41. Constructivist Grounded Theory with the additional of Meta-Interpretation (Cont.)
Note: Stage 4 and on is Glaser and Strauss’s original Model (1967)
McCaslin & Carlson