CRITIQUE OF GROUNDED THEORY AS A RESEARCH METHOD

A Critique Of Using Grounded Theory As A Research Method

A Critique Of Using Grounded Theory As A Research Method

Traditional research designs usually rely on a literature review leading to the formation of a hypothesis. This hypothesis is then put to the test by experimentation in the real world. On the other hand, GT investigates the actualities in the real world and analyses the data with no preconceived hypothesis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Data collection is usually but not exclusively by interviews. Analysis of interview data in qualitative research tends to result in descriptions of an interpretivist view of the events, whereas GT data analysis involves searching out the concepts behind the actualities by looking for codes, then concepts and finally categories. These are explained in the following section.

There were initial doubts about what a code was/is/should be. The literature tells us that coding should be performed with an open mind without preconceived ideas. Glaser & Strauss (1967) insisted that preconceived ideas should not be forced on the data by looking for evidence to support established ideas. Glaser (2001) recommended that if a researcher were uncertain about the process, just analyse the data in front of you and write what you see. Strauss & Corbin (1998, pp. 65-68) recommended coding by “microanalysis which consists of analysing data word-by-word” and “coding the meaning found in words or groups of words”. An example is given in the following section. The data in this case comes from an interview with the IT Manager of a medium sized UK company specialising in customer billing.

The interview text is shown in the left-hand column and the right-hand column shows the codes that the researcher used in this case. More than one code may emerge from the same text. The data were revisited many times looking and re-looking for emerging codes. Other issues will emerge, resulting in other codes from this and subsequent interviews.

This analysis technique of coding by microanalysis of the data, word-by-word and line-by-line, had two drawbacks. Firstly, it was very time consuming. The transcription of each interview contained a mass of data that had to be studied to locate the information relevant to the research topic. Secondly, it led to confusion at times. Dividing the data into individual words caused the analysis sometimes to become lost within the minutia of data. So many words being picked over individually led to confusion. There were times when the focus was lost. Doubts were experienced about what it was that we were looking for. Further reference to the grounded theory literature uncovered the rift between Glaser and Straus on this issue. Glaser (1992, p. 40) condemned this micro-approach as producing an “over-conceptualisation”. This encapsulated exactly what was being experienced and the analysis, from this point on, followed Glaser (1992). That is, identifying key points (rather than individual words) and allowing concepts to emerge. The selection of points key to addressing research questions is in line with qualitative coding analysis (Miles & Huberman, ...