`

2.1 Classic Grounded Theory

"All is data."
(Glaser, 2004)

2.2 History

Classic grounded theory comes from the original grounded theory work conducted by Strauss and Glaser (1967). As stated previously, grounded theory was developed in the 1960s by sociologists Anselm Strauss and Barney Glaser while working together at the University of California San Francisco (UCSD). Strauss and Glaser were convinced that the gap between theory and empirical research had become "embarrassing" (Strauss & Glaser, 1967) and sought to establish a methodological means by which social scientists could generate theory directly relevant to their own research and unique context. In The Discovery of Grounded Theory Strauss and Glaser outlined procedural steps for first beginning with a phenomenon or behavior and then distilling categories to describe behaviors and finally creating an abstracted predictive theory revealing an underlying pattern or framework. In grounded theory the research outcomes are theoretically tied to the needs of the subjects being studies (Thompson, 1997). The intention is to both provide explanation of social outcomes and provide deeper insight into the behaviors of those being studied (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Annells, 1996).

Though Strauss and Glaser developed grounded theory in tandem, their paths diverged in the 1970s when Glaser left UCSD to pursue writing, consulting, and seminar work while Strauss continued his teaching practice at UCSD. Glaser continued to practice and promote a version of grounded theory consistent with what he and Strauss had developed while Strauss in partnership with Juliet Corbin, one of his students, took grounded theory in a different methodological direction which will be overviewed in the Straussian section of this site. Glaser is thought to have retained the ethos of grounded theory as espoused by he and Strauss (Locke, 2001) thus when one refers to "classic grounded theory" it is referential to both the original ideas recorded by Glaser and Strauss and those ideas continued on by Glaser.

Classic grounded theory can be defined as "a general method of comparative analysis for the generation of theory from empirical data."
(Strauss & Glaser, 1967, p. 1)

Classic grounded theory is the version of grounded theory more closely aligned with the process overviewed in Strauss and Glaser's original 1967 publication. In this way, classic grounded theory can be defined as "a general method of comparative analysis for the generation of theory from empirical data" (Strauss & Glaser, 1967, p. 1) or as Glaser wrote in his 1992 book, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, "a general methodology of analysis linked with data collection that uses a systematically applied set of methods to generate an inductive theory about a substantive area” (Glaser, 1992, p. 16). Glaser says that grounded theory was "...discovered, not invented" (Glaser, 1992, p.7) and this ethos is what continues to infuse classic grounded theory.

2.3 Philosophical Position

Classic grounded theory calls itself a general research methodology, that is epistemologically and ontologically flexible (Strauss & Glaser, 1967). The researcher's own philosophy will have some influence on the chosen research area but the ultimate goal of classic grounded theory is to abstract concepts by divorcing them from the data/context and integrating them into a larger theory to explain the underlying social pattern in behavior (Locke, 2001).

Though Glaser has remained non-commital on the philosophical position of classic grounded theory, adherents to other grounded theory variations have contended that classic grounded theory is driven by positivism (Charmaz, 2006; Bryant, 2002) or "soft positivism" (Madill et al., 2000, p. 4) because supposing that a researcher can discover theory guiding social process/phenomenon means that first the researcher must believe that the world largely operates according to general latent social laws. In addition grounded theory, with it data collection methods of interviews, observations, etc. is most often described as a qualitative as opposed to quantitative research method (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

"Classic GT is a highly structured but eminently flexible methodology. Its data collection and analysis procedures are explicit and the pacing of these procedures is, at once, simultaneous, sequential, subsequent, scheduled and serendipitous, forming an integrated methodological "whole" that enables the emergence of conceptual theory."
(Glaser, 2007)

Glaser sees classic grounded theory, with its roots in inductive quantitative analysis as something that transcends the quantitative/qualitative debate (Glaser, 1998). Indeed, Glaser says, "Quantitative data is so closely associated with the current emphasis on verification that its possibilities for generating theory have been left vastly undeveloped" (Glaser, 2007, p. 1). For Glaser, grounded theory is a general methodology and an alterate to the either/or debate that pervades methodologies (Holton, 2008). For Glaser, grounded theory is as neutral and as "...issue free as research can get" (Glaser, 2003, p. 115).

Grounded theory gives qualitative researchers a systematic way to develop theory but if researchers want to create a theory that explains a phenomenon rather than merely describes a phenomenon they must be willing to "transcend the canons of the qualitative paradigm" (Holton, 2008). This transcendence occurs through abstraction, moving the theory from being something that describes a phenomenon and is thus concerned with accuracy in a particular context and interpretation on a personal level to a focus on concepts which have more universal application (Holton, 2008). By grounded theory being seen as exclusive property of qualitative methodology, Glaser says that the power of grounded theory as a general methodology is eroded (Glaser & Holton, 2004).

Grounded theory is amenable to any kind of data whether whether qualitative, quantitative, or a combination of both (Glaser, 2005). Glaser, in his class mantra proclaims, "All is data" (Glaser, 2004) opens the way for any and every element to be combined. The important factor is not what is used but rather how the researcher herself engages and abstracts the data through coding and constant comparison (Glaser & Holton, 2004).

how does each version of grounded theory define theory emergence?
2.1 Classic Grounded Theory Process

2.4 Coding Process

In classic grounded theory, coding is the core process of researcher activity (Holton, 2010.) The coding process is what transforms particular data from research participants into an abstracted format that is later reintegrated into the more generalized grounded theory. Coding occurs concurrently with data collection and unfolds in two main streams: substantive coding and theoretical coding. In substantive coding, the researcher looks for core categories to emerge that might explain or illuminate the phenomenon. Glaser recommends the following questions to guide substantive coding: ‘What is this data a study of?’, ‘What category does this incident indicate?’, What is actually happening in the data?’, ‘What is the main concern being faced by the participants?’, and ‘What accounts for the continual resolving of this concern?’ (Glaser, 1998, p.140). Substantive coding strives to give the researcher insight into the data to reveal patterns amongst actions (Holton, 2010).

how does each version of grounded theory define theory emergence?
2.1 Substantive Coding Questions

Within the substantive coding phase, both open coding and selective coding occur (Holton, 2010). As was previously stated, open coding allows the researcher to quickly engage the data, moving line-by-line or incident-by-incident. Selective coding occurs in tandem with theoretical sampling and constant comparison. Once core categories have been identified from open coding, sampling (or research data gathering) happens in a more targeted and directed manner with the goal of testing the validity of identified core categories. This is known as theoretical sampling. Theoretical sampling is "the process whereby the researcher decides what data to collect next and where to find them in order to continue to develop the theory as it emerges" (Holton, 2010).

Coding drives sampling which in turn feeds coding in a cohesive, iterative cycle until saturation occurs. Data is said to be saturated when no new insights emerge and instead new data further feeds existing categories. Theoretical coding forms the final process and the theory becomes increasingly abstracted as the researcher defines the inter-relationships between the substantive concepts which have emerged. By being drawn from the data itself, the grounded theory that emerges should account for relationships that were once latent in social process (Holton, 2010). Though there may be temptation to force data into categories, Glaser calls for researchers to “trust that emergence will occur and it does” (Glaser, 1992, p. 3-4; Glaser & Holton, 2004). Indeed, Glaser constantly calls for trust and creativity in the research process as Glaser largely remains silent on specifics prescriptive steps in the coding process. "Glaser was less keen to see grounded theorists following an orthodoxy of approach, preferring to direct his attention to ways of enhancing researchers' latent creativity" (Partington, 2000, p. 94).

2.5 Use of Literature

In classic grounded theory, existing literature is consulted only after all empirical data has been examined (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Early engagement with the literature is thought to influence research design and data interpretation negatively, leading to preconceptions and biases within the researcher rather than the ideal "tabula rosa" (Hirschman & Thompson, 1997; Thompson, 1997).

Tabula Rosa:
The mind in its hypothetical primary blank or empty state before receiving outside impressions.

In addition, classic grounded theory proposes that reading the literature early can result in "...forcing of extant theoretical overlays on the collection and analysis of data" (Holton, 2008) acting contrary to the core assertion in grounded theory that theory emerges from data as opposed to theory emerging from extant theory.

In classic grounded theory, the literature is consulted only after the core and related categories have emerged. The core categories guide the literature review and the literature becomes another data input, integrated into the constant comparitive process, ready to challenge or confirm emergent theory (Holton, 2008).

2.6 What Makes a Good Theory?

According to Glaser (1978), four criteria can be used to assess the quality of a grounded theory. These are: fit, work, relevance, modifiability.

Fit refers to the emergence of conceptual codes and categories from the data rather than the use of preconceived codes or categories from extant theory. Work refers to the ability of the grounded theory to explain and interpret behaviour in a substantive area and to predict future behavior. Relevance refers to the theory’s focus on a core concern or process that emerges in a substantive area. Its conceptual grounding in the data indicates the significance and relevance of this core concern or process thereby ensuring its relevance. Modifiability refers to the theory’s ability to be continually modified as new data emerge to produce new categories, properties or dimensions of the theory. This living quality of grounded theory ensures its continuing relevance and value to the social world from which it has emerged.

Classic Grounded Theory Guidelines
2.3 Assessing Classic Grounded Theory

2.7 Classic Grounded Theory Summary

  • Theory is discovered.
  • Key Originator: Anselm Strauss & Barney Glaser; Transitioned to Barney Glaser alone.
  • Key Idea: Grounded theory is, "...a general method. It is the systematic generation of theory from systematic research. It is a set of rigorous research procedures leading to the emergence of conceptual categories. These concepts/categories are related to each other as a theoretical explanation of the action(s) that continually resolves the main concern of the participants in a substantive area. Grounded Theory can be used with either qualitative or quantitative data ("What is GT?," 2014).
  • Coding process: Substantive Coding (i.e. Open/Selective Coding) + Theoretical Coding
  • Existing Literature: Should only be consulted once all empirical data has been gathered