Grounded theory for undergraduates

1
Grounded theoryfor undergraduates

• Alasdair Gordon-FinlaysonSchool of Natural
  Sciences PsychologyLiverpool John Moores
  University

2
So - whos doing what?

• A quick data-gathering exercise

3
My context

• History
• Inherited from previous lecturer who had little
  experience of qualitative research
• Part of year-long research methods module
• Teaching
• Five 2-hour lectures
• Five 1-hour workshops
• GT (this year scrapped additional DA section)
• Assessment
• 2,500-word research report on any topic(plus
  proposal) approx. 6 weeks
• Two exam questions (1 hour total)

4
Why teach GT to undergraduates?

• A relatively common methodology (especially
  across disciplinary boundaries)
• Highlights some interesting epistemological
  debates
• Method perhaps more easily taught than some
  others
• Reflexive analytic
• Easy to tie in to subject areas (health, social,
  organisational)

5
Caveats?

• Current ongoing methodological debates might
  cause confusion
• Epistemological concerns (how positivist is
  grounded theory?)
• Difficult to teach solely via lectures, workshops
  a great boon (but resourcing issues of course)
• Ian Parker (2005) Beware the false promise of
  grounded theory! and other such misconceived
  criticisms

6
Teaching GT

• Ideal Hands-on sessions with real data
• Will always be slightly artificial given time
  constraints
• Can student have collected their own data?
• How far can students get with the analysis during
  workshops?
• Multiple workshop sessions with homework
• Assessment How real can you make it?
• Marking a coding exercise vs full research
  project
• Some early decisions need to be made

7
Characteristics of GT

• Production of theory that is grounded in the data
  gathered
• Data collection analysis undertaken
  simultaneously
• Theoretical sampling
• Memo-writing
• Constant comparison
• Delay of literature review

8
Describing grounded theory

• Theoretical
• Theoretical Sensitivity, Sampling, Saturation
• Analytical
• Analysis vs. description
• Constant comparison
• Cyclical
• Coding, data collection, coding, data collection
• Delayed lit review

9
Decisions, decisions (I)

• Glaser vs Strauss vs Charmaz or Clarke, or
  others
• Positivist vs Interpretivist vs Constructivist?
• To what extent are you actually going to address
  this?
• Glaser vs Strauss very bitter but interesting!
• Flicks combination of both G S (also C)
  perhaps easiest to teach practically
• Strauss Corbin clearest guidelines (Basics),
  but its this that Glaser objects to
• Also 3rd ed now out, quite different
• Difficulties getting hold of Glasers texts

10
Coding for grounded theory data (I)

• Open coding
• Descriptive labelling text
• Constructed vs. in vivo code titles
• Focused coding
• Conceptual building open codes
• Gathering more material for each idea
• Axial coding / Categorising
• Category a coherent group of concepts
• Properties of categories identified
• Relationships to other axial codes noted
• Memo writing vital here
• Diagramming helpful for some (me!)

11
Open coding
12
(No Transcript)
13
Diagramming categories
14
Coding for grounded theory data (II)

• Selective (Strauss) / Theoretical (Glaser) coding
• E.g. identifying a core category
• Central to the theory, present for all Ps,
  abstract, explanatory
• Modelling can be very useful here
• Theory building
• Substantive (makes sense in the context of the
  inquiry)
• Analytic explanatory, not just descriptive
• Answers the research question!
• Alternative ref cf Theoretical coding in
  Flick (2002)

15
Coding issues

• Confusion of terminology between various coding
  models need to be clear with students
• e.g. see Walker, D. Myrick, F. (2006) for
  clarification on terminology process btw Glaser
  and Strauss
• In vivo vs constructed code titles first step
  from description to analysis
• Balancing pedagogic ease vs. coding fetishism!!!
• researchers should be wary, for the
  significance of interpretation, narrative and
  reflection can be undermined in the procedures of
  grounded theory. (Thomas James 2006)

16
Memo Writing

• The key to grounded theory analysis
• If it doesnt get written down, its as good as
  gone
• Memos as developing of ideas across lifetime of
  project
• Students need encouragement and perhaps also
  practice in memo-writing
• Stress that memos are
• Tentative
• Private
• To be revisited re-worked

17
Early memo

• Open Code Memo 14 NovemberA few close
  confidants
• Shazia talks about close friends, which would
  also seem to imply distant friends (she says
  acquaintances) fits when she talks about
  actively keeping some people away from her.
  This idea of closeness vs distance doesnt
  seem unusual at all, its a fairly common
  metaphor, so interesting to keep an eye on where
  this goes.

18
Later memo

• Category Memo 9 JanFriendship careers
• I think here maintenance is where the link to
  defining friendship is made... because some of
  what a friend 'is' feeds in, I'm guessing, to
  this job of maintenance. Deborah talking about
  how she just picks things up with her old school
  friends even if she hasn't seen them for a while
  it sound very different to Louise. Is this
  contrast a property of maintaining old
  friendships? Was Deborah 'better friends' with
  her old mates than Louise with hers? I don't
  really think this is the case. So - what's the
  difference?
• Perhaps they expect friendship to be different
  things - that what Deborah is happy to call
  friendship is not what Louise would call
  friendship, so actually they're getting the same
  amount of relationship (ack! surely a better
  way of saying that?!) but interpreting it in
  different ways.
• My feeling right now is that this getting an
  amount of relationship is probably a blind
  alley. I'll keep an eye out for the way that
  they talk about it, see if it comes up

19
Even later

• Theory memo 12 Feb
• Our relationships with our friends form a
  taxonomy of types of friendship (bezzie
  mates, our posse, classmates, etc). These
  types vary specifically in regards to (a)
  personal proximity (e.g. close friends) and (b)
  frequency of contact. Maintenance of these
  relationships has to take this into account
  close friends that are now only seen during
  university vacations require maintenance in a
  different way to more distant but day-to-day
  relationships with people in our research methods
  workshop.
• Without active maintenance, less frequent types
  of friendship are likely to atrophy, while more
  frequent friendships that are not actively
  maintained can lead to inter-personal friction
  and falling out. However, the higher frequency
  contact of this type means that its more likely
  that one is going to attend to that relationship
  and not let it go too far.

20
Decisions, decisions (II)

• Full vs. Abbreviated
• Most important factor probably time available
• Abbreviated GT lends itself to undergraduate work
  because of time issues, mainly
• A priori sample selection
• Substantive, not formal, theorising
• However, abbr GT not well documented in the
  literature (but see Willig 2001)
• Is abbr GT still GT?

21
Things my students struggle with

• Not moving on from fine-grained coding (spending
  hours coding line-by-line)
• Not doing enough memo-writing
• Not fully explicating categories (properties,
  etc)
• Surface / descriptive work vs more in-depth
  analytic work in their research projects
• Time!!!

22
Things my students are good at

• Coming up with interesting research questions!
• Model-building
• Substantive theorising

23
Things my students love

• Interviewing!
• I feel like Im actually doing psychology for
  the first time in my degree
• The chance to explore (remember?) their passions
  in psychology

24
Resources Primary Texts

• Corbin, J. Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of
  Qualitative Research Techniques Procedures for
  Developing GT, 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks Sage.
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing GT A
  Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis.
  Thousand Oaks Sage.
• Strauss, A. Corbin, J. (1990,1998 2nd Ed).
  Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques
  Procedures for Developing GT. Thousand Oaks
  Sage.
• Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory
  Analysis. Mill Valley Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery
  of GT Strategies for Qualitative Research.
  Chicago, Aldine.

25
Resources Chapters

• Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded Theory. In Smith,
  J.A. (Ed.) (2003). Qualitative Psychology A
  Practical Guide to Research Methods, (Chapter 5).
  Thousand Oaks Sage.
• Willig, C. (2001). Grounded Theory. In
  Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology
  Adventures in Theory Method, (Chapter 3).
  Maidenhead OUP.
• Langdridge, D. (2004). Grounded Theory. In
  Introduction to Research Methods Data Analysis
  in Psychology, (Chapter 16). Harlow Pearson
  Education.
• and of course
• Gordon-Finlayson, A.R. (in press). Grounded
  Theory. In Forrester, M. (Ed.) Doing Qualitative
  Research in Psychology A Practical Guide.
  London Sage Publications.

26
Other Refs

• Flick, U. (2002). An Introduction to
  Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks Sage.
• Parker, I. (2005). Qualitative Psychology
  Introducing Radical Research. Maidenhead Open
  University Press.
• Thomas, G. James, D. (2006). Reinventing
  grounded theory Some questions about theory,
  ground and discovery. British Educational
  Research Journal, 32 (6), 767-795.
• Walker, D. Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded theory
  An exploration of process and procedure.
  Qualitative Health Research, 16 (4), 547-559.