PHENOMENOLOGY & GROUNDED THEORY

Phenomenology & Grounded Theory

Phenomenology & Grounded Theory

Background

This paper developed from the experience of learning to use grounded theory to carry out a study, still in progress, about post-registration professional development of nurses. Novice qualitative researchers are often unsure of how to analyse their data, particularly in relation to grounded theory and differences that have developed between the approaches of Glaser and Strauss, who first jointly described the method ([Glaser and Strauss (1967)]).

Awareness of the methodological mistakes in many published grounded theory studies ([Becker (1993)]; [Skodal-Wilson and Ambler-Hutchinson (1996)]) adds to the level of anxiety. [Morse (1991)] recommends that only experienced researchers mix methods, but does that apply to the two different approaches espoused, respectively, by Glaser and Strauss? A tension exists between a need to understand grounded theory by reading about it and a recognition that the novice researcher must find out “about the process of researching through learning in the process of carrying out the research” ( [Freshwater (2000)]).

Grounded theory: roots and divergences

Grounded theory's roots lie in symbolic interactionism, which itself stems from pragmatist ideas of James, Dewey, Cooley and Mead ([Hammersley (1989)]), most notably the concept of the looking glass self ( [Cooley (1922)]). Individuals are self aware, able to see themselves from the perspective of others and therefore adapt their behaviour according to the situation ( [Mead (1934)]). Social interactions create meaning and shaping of society via shared meaning predominate over the effect of society on individuals.

Induction, deduction and verification

There is a tension at the heart of the qualitative research between presentation of data and its interpretation. While the role of interpretation varies with different approaches some interpretation will always be present, even if confined to the selection of events and details relevant and the way a narrative account is presented ([Poirer and Ayres (1997)]).

No one would claim to enter the field completely free from the influence of past experience and reading. Even if this were possible, ignorance is not synonymous with generating insider understanding ([Morse (1994)]). Attending to the data cannot ignore prior understandings and it could be claimed that the phenomenologist's concept of bracketing or holding preconceptions, values and beliefs in abeyance is fundamentally flawed. Analysis will always be filtered through one's tradition and cultural position ( [Ashworth (1997)]). Furthermore, symbolic interactionism and thus grounded theory sees researchers as social beings whose experiences, ideas and assumptions can contribute to their understanding of social processes observed ( [Baker et al (1992)]). There are two issues involved here: the extent to which pre-understanding is enhanced by early reference to the literature and ongoing use of self during analysis, i.e. the role of induction, and emergence vs. deduction and speculation.

[Cutcliffe (2000)] suggested that decisions about the literature depend on two factors. The first decision related to whether the researcher has little knowledge about the phenomena and process of interest and remains unsure about the most suitable approach, or is already aware that there is a lack of knowledge and has decided on a grounded ...