GROUNDED THEORY

Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory

Discussion of the characteristics of different variants of grounded theory

As well as understanding the methodological issues involved in grounded theory? it is also important for the researcher to be aware of the existing variants of the method. The original version of grounded theory was developed as an inductive? theory generating method that differed from conventional deductive? hypothesis testing approaches (Martin? 1986). Since the original version of the method was developed two main variants have emerged that are based on different directions taken by its originators Glaser and Strauss. Babchuck? in a clear and succinct manner? summarises the essential differences between these variants. Essentially? the Glaser approach takes the view that the informant's world should emerge naturally from both data collection and analysis without being constrained with overly-prescriptive collection and analysis processes in the Strauss and Corbin model. Babchuck describes this as very much a 'laissez-faire' approach to process. In particular? it espouses total flexibility and advises the researcher against unnecessary constraints like tape-recorders for interviews or prior reading of relevant literature (for fear that it would cloud their analysis with preconceived constructs).

On the other hand? the Strauss & Corbin approach is characterized as a more prescribed approach that contains more formal models and procedures to generate theory appears to be 'concerned with producing a detailed description of the cultural scene' (p.3). In fact? Glaser refers to this as a 'contextual description'. This detailed description is achieved by using the paradigm model where the researcher attempts to describe a phenomenon in terms of its causal conditions? context etc (as depicted in table 1). Glaser is vociferous in his vehement objection to this paradigm model:

'In actuality it teaches the analyst to make a full conceptual description on data with no questions about whether the links are relevant to any emerging theory that really explains how the participants process their main concerns. And the more the analyst practices the use of this model? the more he will exclude forever his ability to respond to any theoretical code that may emerge and become relevant. He will always just see a condition or consequence irrespective of relevance and stake his professional identity on it' (p. 61) Glaser goes on to assert that the Strauss and Corbin approach is based on Strauss forcing the data into his own 'pet framework' (p.64). Furthermore? Glaser describes what he means by 'contextual description':' One concept is generated and then the researcher spends the rest of his time describing it and describing it with incident after incident. There is little or no constant comparative work to generate conceptual properties of the category based on the inter changeability of indices and conceptual saturation' (p.21). In this regard? Glaser presents the reader with his vehement distinction between conceptual description and conceptual analysis. In particular? he asserts that using the Strauss and Corbin model the researcher continually over-describes categories with a distinct absence of analysis and ends up with story after story being forced into the ...