`

3.1 Straussian Grounded Theory

3.2 History

Though Strauss and Glaser began the grounded theory journey together culminating in the co-authoring of The Discovery of Grounded Theory in 1967, their paths diverged both physically and methodologically regarding grounded theory. Straussian grounded theory refers to the grounded theory approach that Strauss and Juliet Corbin outline in their 1990 publication, The Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Straussian grounded theory is said to provide a "refined and edited" (Kenny & Fourie, 2015, p. 1274) or "evolved version of grounded theory" (Chamberlain-Salaun, Mills, Usher, 2013, p.1). Of significance is that in Straussian theory, theory is not discovered from the data, rather through focused coding, theory is created. This subtle shift in language and resulting methodological implication had huge ramifications. Glaser sharply criticized this new version of grounded theory, publicly calling on Strauss to "withdraw the book pending a rewriting of it" (Glaser, 1992, p. 1).

3.3 Philosophical Position

Though Strauss and Glaser did not explicitly state the philosophical foundations of grounded theory in The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Strauss and Corbin, in their 1998 publication outline a comprehensive list of philosophical assumptions that set the framework for their version of grounded theory.

Strauss and Corbin posit that the philosophical roots of grounded theory are in pragmatism and symbolic interactionism (Strauss & Corbin, 2008). To support their ideas, they present a list of sixteen assumptions of grounded theory, all based on works by members of the Chicago School of Sociology out of the University of Chicago, where Strauss himself attended in the 1950s (Chamberlain-Salaun, Mills, Usher, 2013). The Chicago School was devoted to qualitative inquiry and naturalistic observation and viewed the city itself as the ideal "social laboratory" (Lutters & Ackerman, 1996, p. 2). The Chicago School used rigorous data collection and analysis methods to explore pressing urban social issues of the day, emphasizing the practical everyday application of sociological research.

Philosophical Framework of Straussian Grounded Theory
3.1 Philosophical Framework of Straussian Grounded Theory

Pragmatism

Pragmatism is a practical philosophy that emphasizes personal experience and personal truth seeking (Mead, 1936). Because reality is highly specialized and contextual, people are encouraged to seek out and act in ways that work best for them at that given time. It is humanist in construction, seeing humans as the main actors in creating objective and meaningful reality (Shalin, 1991). In pragmatism, theories must prove themselves through practice as knowledge and action intertwine. Pragmatism is about concrete specifics rather than abstract generalities.

Symbolic Interactionism

"...grounded theory, seeks not only to uncover relevant conditions, but also to determine how the actors respond to changing conditions and to the consequences of their actions. It is the researcher's responsibility to catch this interplay."
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p.3)

Symbolic interactionism is a framework that strives to identify meanings people place on objects, interactions and situations and then trace how these meanings impact resulting behaviors and actions. Objects and people become symbols driving the meanings or interactions that emerge.

Symbolic interactionism emerged out of pragmatic philosophy, providing a framework through which actions could be decoded. In symbolic interactionism, social interaction is the driving force in shaping humanity (Blumer, 1969).

The following three premises make up symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969):

  • Meaning is an important element of human existence and people act in ways that they reflect what they find meaningful

  • People identify and mold their unique symbolic references through the process of socialization

  • Behaviors are adopted through an obscurely subtle learning process and there is a cultural dimension that intertwines the symbolic "educational" development

Because symbolic interactionism sees humans as dynamic and multi-faceted, uniquely positioned as having awareness of both "a mind and a self" (Herman-Kinney & Verschaeve, 2003, p. 214) and ever-changing and imbued with tremendous personal agency, meaning and reality too is fluid and dynamic in response.

3.4 Coding Process

Straussian Coding Framework
3.2 Straussian Coding Framework

Unlike the fairly simple coding structure of both classic and constructivist grounded theory, Straussian Grounded Theory is a multi-faceted, and rigorous highly structured system designed to create rather than discover theory that is grounded within the data. This slight change in semantics (from "discover" to "create") encapsulates the schism that has emerged between classic grounded theory and Straussian grounded theory. Glaser adamantly opposed creating theory as this implies the researcher is making assumptions rather than allowing the data itself to speak (CITE). Creating theory is directly in keeping with the pragmatic and symbolic interactionist philosophy of Strauss and Corbin as the theory that emerges will be first highly practical and next emerge from the symbolism participants themselves place on events.

Straussian grounded theory coding has four stages: Open Coding, Axial Coding, Selective Coding, and Conditional Matrix Generation (Kenny & Fourie, 2015; Struass & Corbin; 1990).

Open Coding

Open coding involves breaking down the data by separating out key words, lines, and phrases. In open coding, the researcher becomes acquainted with overarching concepts that may later be woven into the theory.

Axial Coding

Axial coding involves building relationships within data. In axial coding, larger common concepts are abstracted from data. Data is then grouped or clustered around the central core category in a "network of relationships" (Bohm, 2004, p. 271).

Selective Coding

Selective coding further integrates and abstracts the central core categories that have emerged in axial coding. If data is dense and rich enough, one dominant core category should emerge that is broad and abstract enough to integrate all other categories. When the dominant category emerges, the researcher engages in the following five steps to build toward theory (Kenny & Fourie, 2015):

  • Story Line
    a "general descriptive overview" of the phenomenon under study is written

  • Subsidiary Category Relationship Overview
    relationships between core category and sub categories are outlined with particular attention toward relational hierarchy following the pattern of: “A (conditions) leads to B (phenomenon), which leads to C (context), which leads to D (action/interaction, including strategies), which leads to E (consequences)” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 125).

  • Dimensional Relationships
    properties and dimensions of core category are established.

  • Validating Relationships with Data
    emergent theory is validated with collected data to ensure it is adequately grounded.

  • Conceptual Density Check
    if necessary, further theoretical sampling occurs to fill in any missing details or gaps in the data.

Conditional Matrix

The conditional matrix presents a summary of the coding process, showing how the three levels of coding integrate together. The matrix allows the researcher to see the scope of conditions and consequences latent in the theory. The researcher uses the matrix to trace the phenomenon through successive levels of influence, from specific and individual to national/international. Creating the matrix allows the researcher to grasp both activating conditions of the theory and potential emergent consequences from the theory (Kenny & Fourie, 2015).

Reactions to Straussian Coding

Though the process, with its iterative process of abstracting data into theory, is overall akin to both Classic and Constructivst Grounded Theory, each step in Straussian grounded theory coding much more prescriptive. Glaser and Charmaz both found fault with what they saw as an overly complex coding structure in Straussian Grounded Theory, which could stifle the emergence of theory truly connected with a phenomenon (Glaser, 1992; Charmaz, 2000).

In their defense, Strauss and Corbin proclaimed that each step and the overall process itself as being critical to helping dispel researcher's prejudices and preconceived ideas (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Though the many steps might seem complicated at first, sticking to them will ensure a "rich, tightly woven, explanatory theory that closely approximates the reality it represents" (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 57).

It is important to note that after Strauss's death in 1996 Corbin continued to publish on grounded theory and has since altered some of the strict coding requirements she and Strauss formed in their early iterations of grounded theory. That said, she always notes where her own thoughts deviate from those of Strauss (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

3.5 Use of Literature

“Insights do not just occur haphazardly; rather, they happen to prepared minds during the interplay with the data”
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 47)
"An open mind does not mean an empty head"
(Seidel & Kelle, 1995, p. 56)

Unlike Classic Grounded Theory, Straussian Grounded Theory advocates for an early literature review, viewing the literature as a valuable source of "sensitizing concepts" that can be used by the researcher to guide the data gathering process (CITE). Literature can become a way, “to formulate questions that act as a stepping off point during initial observations and interviews” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 51).

Literature is also used as a constant comparison method during the data analysis process. During this time the researcher uses the literature to compare and contrast data coding, looking for patterns and checking emergent themes. The researcher's main goal is to become sensitive to meanings within the data, not imposing or forcing explanations but allowing them to emerge.

3.6 What makes a Good Theory?

Strauss and Corbin see a successful grounded theory as one that can be judged by the product or theory that it produces (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Theoretical significance is ultimately proven by "...theory's relative importance for stimulating further studies and explaining a range of phenomena" (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 19).

Though acknowledging that grounded theory cannot be judged in the same measure as quantitative or even other qualitative methods, there are seven criteria that can establish the adequacy of a theory (1990):

  • Criterion #1
    Are concepts generated?

  • Criterion #2
    Are the concepts systematically related?

  • Criterion #3
    Are there many conceptual linkages and are the categories well developed? Do the categories have conceptual density?

  • Criterion #4
    Is there much variation built into the theory?

  • Criterion #5
    Are the broader conditions that affect the phenomenon under study built into its explanation?

  • Criterion #6
    Has "process" been taken into account?

  • Criterion #7
    Do the theoretical findings seem significant and to what extent?

In addition, Corbin and Strauss identify the importance of the researcher's own intuition in generating data as the researcher ultimately must not only go through the routine or prescribed steps of grounded theory but also understand the what the ideas indicate and the data reflects. Creativity guides the integration of data and theoretical sensitivity and a researcher who lacks a certain "feel" (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Thus, in the combination of closely guided criterion and creativity, Straussian grounded theory finds its stride and its ultimate connection and impact.

3.7 Straussian Grounded Theory Summary

  • Theory is created.
  • Key Originator: Anselm Strauss & Juliet Corbin
  • Key Idea: Grounded theory is a prescriptive form of qualitative research that, "...allows for identification of general concepts, the development of theoretical explanations that reach beyond the known, and offers new insights into a variety of experiences and phenonmenon (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 6).
  • Coding process: Open/Initial Coding + Axial Coding + Selective Coding + Conditional Matrix
  • Existing Literature: Should be consulted throughout the research process