Contribution of Grounded Theory and its Implications - Essay Example

Questions for Research Methodology Contribution of Grounded Theory and its Implications for Case Study Research Introduction Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1965, 1967) as a methodology of qualitative analysis during the process of conducting a field study on the way the hospitals treated the dyeing patients. The definition of Grounded Theory is given by Strauss and Corbin (1990) as “a qualitative research method that uses a systemized set of procedures to develop and inductively derive grounded theory about a phenomenon” Hence the approach is purported to be inductive rather than deductive. The objective therefore is to develop an account of a phenomenon that strives to identify the significant constructs or categories in grounded theory terms, their association and the context and the process and thereby providing a theory of the phenomenon that reveals much more than a descriptive account. (Mores & Richards, 2002) The basic purpose of grounded theory was to derive more ideas from an analysis of the available data. (Strauss, 1967) The theory was further extended by Strauss and Corbin (1990) by pointing out that the purpose of grounded theory was to build a theory “that was faithful to and illuminated the area under study”. However it was not considered necessary that such theories developed were to be exclusive but could still be related to the theories existing within any research area. The purpose of building up such theories was to amplify and extend the current understandings of the phenomenon in question. With this background this paper makes a crucial analysis of the contribution of the grounded theory to social research and its implications for Case Study research. Formation of Grounded Theory Baaed on the initial contribution to the theory, Strauss (1967) summarized the grounded theory procedures. These procedures represent the systematic analysis of documents, interview transcripts, or notes made on the field studies by a systematic and continuous coding for the purpose of comparison of data which are capable of producing a “well constructed theory”. Thus it can be stated that the grounded theory was derived from the studies conducted by the researchers of the phenomenon under their study, by using inductive method. There exists a reciprocal relationship between the data collected and analysed and the resultant theory established. Thus under the grounded theory the researcher has to commence the study and allow the relevant theoretical constraints to flow from that process of study instead of commencing the study with a preconceived theory which the researcher wants to verify. This way the researcher allows an intrinsic relationship to be developed between the data to be collected and analysed and the theories emerging from the process of study. The consequence of this kind of qualitative research was a theory that emerged from or ‘grounded’ in the data collected and hence this theory is termed as ‘grounded theory’. Although rich description was considered important but such detailed description was never concentrated by this kind of study. Strauss and Corbin (1994) point out that the emphasis on the development of a new theory distinguishes this methodology from other approaches. The basic assumption of grounded theory was that any unarticulated basic social problem was shared by any group and it is the researchers who discover this problem and resolve it through a social-psychological process. Thus the aims of the research include the identification of the social-psychological process, its relevant phases, and properties along with the relative strategies and consequences. The ultimate objective was the generation of a middle-range theory which is substantive and explains the issue under study in detail. (Wilson and Hutchison, 1991; Alston and Bowles, 2003) Rationale for Grounded Theory The major advantage of grounded theory is that it is capable of making a descriptive study of a micro study of a greater reality within a particular setting. (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) This enables the study to have the capability to develop detailed information with respect to a particular phenomenon and also to bear the impact of the context to which the study centers around. Thus grounded theory is largely influenced by contextual setting and the theory places a significant value on the influence of contexts. In any study utilizing grounded theory the aspect of gaining a detailed knowledge on the contextual issues affecting the day to day events in a particular context is of paramount importance. The grounded theory has the advantage of having a progressive nature. This is an important benefit of the approach as it gives an openness of the process in which there is the contribution from the participants. In grounded theory there is the collaboration of the researcher and the participants which gives rise to the generation of data which in turn forms the theory. (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) Glaser and Strauss(1965, 1967) advocated the significance of building of the theory within the research and as such the grounded theories had the origin during the process of the research out of the data collected and analysed, but were not deduced from some already existing general theories before beginning the research. (Yin 1991) Another advantage of the grounded theory is that under this approach the theoretical activities of coding and analysis and empirical activities of data gathering were not treated as distinct with each other but were on the contrary tightly intertwined with each other so that they can derive the benefit from each other. This in a way advances the growth of detailed insight into the study. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) Consequently the theory can at best be regarded as a process and entity which has an ever developing quality but not as a perfected product that could be used as such. Grounded Theory and Qualitative Research The grounded theory approach can be considered to be within the qualitative research tradition to a substantial extent although Glaser & Strauss (1967) advocate that the principles of the grounded theory could as well be used in quantitative research studies. However it needs to be appreciated that there were variations in the epistemological stance towards the application and usage of the grounded theory methodology. Charmaz (1990) is of the opinion that the original approach of grounded theory as advocated by Glaser and Strauss (1967) lacked in promoting both the aspects of positivistic and phenomenological approaches and emphasis. Recent contributions on the approach (Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) though retained the positivist premises, relied heavily on the phenomenology aspects of the study. Glaser (1994) however opined that these latest presentations has suffered from the erosion of the essential focus on the data, and hence is diluted to that extent. Stern (1994) suggested that the respective stands taken by Strauss (1987) and by Glaser (1994) signify two different approaches. Charmaz (1990) on the other hand uses a different approach to describe the grounded theory in its social constructionist aspects. Charmaz (1990) viewed the method as one that involves a dialectical and active process and the result of any research using this approach is to represent a social construction of different issues relating to social constructions observed and explicated in the data collected. Grounded Theory – whether an Inductive Theory or Deductive Hypothesis Glaser & Strauss (1967) considered the practicality of the grounded theory and suggested that the initial method of developing the theory from the data to be collected will make the theory developed fit and the theory will then work according to the situation that develops. They are of the opinion that it is necessary to understand and appreciate the way in which the theory was generated in order to judge the usefulness of the theory. This substantiates the statement that the inductively developed theory is more likely to be practical and useful as compared to the deductive theories based on logical approaches. Under inductive approach the hypotheses and concepts take their origin from the source data and remain connected to the data rather than getting treated in isolation from their original sources. However there was the argument that when the major hypothesis of a positivist empirical study undertaken by a researcher was not able to gain the necessary support from the source data, the researcher is left with no option and hence it would not be possible for the researcher to observe any more. There would be only little attempts taken by the researcher to look into other available alternative explanations or changed theories for solutions in assisting him/her for the interpretation of the actual data. The methodological emphasis of the grounded theory often forces the actors to use their own interpretations and meanings only with a minimum of prompting or any other predisposition by the researcher. Therefore there is always the potential shift in the control of the situation whenever there is a move by the researcher from the deductive to inductive methodology. This situation will allow only a lesser control to be retained by the researcher while it is possible for the persons being studied to gain more control than that of the researcher. (Alston & Bowels, 2003) Such a relationship often will have profound implications on the ethical aspects of the research. This is so because with the increase in the control of the participants in their own environments as against the researcher will cause a reduction in the moral and ethical risks involved in the research. Because of the nature of its generative methodology and inductive base, the grounded theory was made capable of handling more complex data relating to a number of variables dealt with by it as against the less volume of data handled by the traditional positivist models. It is for the limited applicability of the statistical feasibility that the traditional positivist research models put a restriction on the number of variables that can be included for consideration under the study. The traditional theories either assumed other major relevant variables or ignored such variables. It is the case with even some recently developed casual models which are considered to be sophisticated in nature had such complex restrictions on the volume and nature of data that can be considered by the models which made the reliability of the analysis highly questionable. But in contrast the grounded theory has the capability to handle variables of varied nature and high complexity using its inductive approach and as a result emerged as a reliable research approach. Thus the grounded theory approach provides more accurate reflections of the relationships involved in between the variables and also of the influences on each other and because of this distinct superiority of the theory it is being increasingly applied by the authors in their various research studies and projects. Effectiveness of the Grounded Theory Methodology The effectiveness of the grounded theory is increased due to its substantive nature. The grounded theory usually relies on a substantive rather than a formal or grand theory. The usefulness of the substantive theory is considered better as the theory is referent specific on the day to day world situations. The substantive aspect of the grounded theory is characterized by its specificity and s thus considered useful and practical which aspect is lacking in other traditional theories as they cover concerns of more global nature. The grounded theory when is well constructed complies with four central criteria. These criteria are useful in assessing the applicability of the theory to various phenomena. The four criteria are; fit, understanding, generality, and control. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) If the theory is found to be faithful to the everyday reality relating to the substantive area, following a careful induction from a diverse data collected then the theory would be considered to have fitted in to that substantive area. Since the theory represented an acceptable reality it can be considered as comprehensive and hence made sensible both the participants who are under study and also to those researchers practicing in the respective area. Similarly when the data upon which the theory is based is comprehensive and dependable and also the interpretations are made conceptual and broad then the theory is made automatically abstract enough. This abstractness and the sufficient variations included in the theory would make it applicable to different contexts which are related to the phenomenon under study. Finally in grounded theory there is the possibility that the researcher can have control with regard to the actions towards the phenomenon. This is made possible because under the theory the hypotheses which propose relationships among different concepts were to be derived systematically from the actual data related to that phenomenon and only to that phenomenon. These criteria discussed above with respect to the application of the grounded theory approach were put to test by asking the following questions: Whether the concepts have been generated from the original data that were examined for the purpose of research Whether the process of identifying the concepts was carried out effectively and the concepts were related to each other systematically Whether the linkages in between the concepts have been identified and the categories thereof were well developed Whether the conceptual density was examined and put to test Whether variations for different conditions have been built into the theory developed out of the data studied Whether the broader conditions that might have an influence on the phenomenon been studied and built into the explanation being brought out of the study Whether the question of processual change has been taken into account and Whether it has been considered that the theoretical findings have been significant. Strauss and Corbin (1990) were of the opinion that these criteria can not be considered as exhaustive and represent the hard and fast rules for evaluation of the hypotheses or the theory itself but can at best be regarded as suggested guidelines only. However these guide lines have proved themselves to be very useful on the application of the grounded theory to the data collected from a case study research. This gives rise to study the implication of the grounded theory on the case study research. Case Study Research Case Study was called as ‘interpretation in context’ by Cronbach (1975). There are other definitions of case study offered by different authors. Wilson (1979) has described case study as a process “which tries to describe and analyse some entity in qualitative, complex, and comprehensive terms not infrequently as it unfolds over a period of time”. Macdonald and Walker’s (1977) have defined a case study as “the examination of an instance action”. Guba and Lincoln (1981) have corroborated this definition by stating the purpose of case study was “to reveal the properties of the class to which the instances being studied belong”. “The purpose of a case study research is to gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and meaning of those involved. The interest was in process rather than outcomes, in context rather than a specific variable in discovery rather than confirmation.” The researcher uses the case study approach, as a qualitative research method in situations where it is not possible to control all the variables that are of particular concern to the researcher. Merriam (1988) states that the unique strength of the case study method is its ability to take into account a full variety of evidence supporting the phenomenon under study which may include “documents, artifacts, interviews, and observations” The use and applicability of the case study method is based on the following distinct elements which determine the reliability of the analysis: The nature and content of the questions underlying the research The extent and volume of control the researcher has over all the variables which are being investigated The end product that researcher wants to get out of the research The identification of a bounded system as the focus of investigation (Merriam, 1988) In a case study the questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ occupy prominence, because the central theme of the approach is to gain the specific knowledge that can be acquired from the single case. In some of the educational settings, where the researcher does not have the control over the variables, it becomes necessary for the researcher to adopt a holistic approach. This approach should be the one that is ‘grounded’ in the reality of the situation. In other words the approach should have the ability of illuminating the meaning of what is occurring as the end of the research. A case study often is based upon the tacit knowledge about the issues, and it also provides a detailed description of the case being investigated. (Merriam, 1988) In a research sometimes the end product may be the case being used in the case study, but still the case study is being used as an instrument for undertaking a broader phenomenon. (Stake, 1995) Thus in a case study the identification of the case may be treated as the most essential element. This allows a ‘bounded system’ to be identified with certain features occurring within the boundary of the case and other features outside it. (Stake in Denzin & Lincoln, 2002) The end result of a case study can be inferred and drawn from all or any of the following aspects that are associated with the case study: The nature of the case itself may become the end product of the research The historical background of the case which provides sufficient in-depth into the different aspects of the issue to be studied The physical setting in which the case is bounded The other contexts such as the economic systems, political and legal issues that have a bearing on the case The other cases through which some information or particulars about the case under study can be drawn The informants who contribute to the case study According to Merriam (1988) a case study represents an examination of a specific phenomenon that may be represented by an event, a process, an institution, or a social group. However, Stake (In Denzin & Lincoln 2002) differs from Merriam (1988) in saying that a case study may be construed as both the underlying process of an inquiry and also the end product of that inquiry itself. Yin (1994) provides a more comprehensive and technical definition for case study, by equating it with an empirical inquiry which has the purpose of investigating a contemporary phenomenon within the context of its real life situation. This investigation occurs when the boundaries in between the phenomenon and the context are not clearly evident and in cases where there are multiple sources of evidence are involved. Implications of Grounded Theory on Case Study Research The grounded theory approach fundamentally can well be considered as the basis of conducting a case study research because both the methodologies are qualitative in nature. The concept of proceeding on the basis of forming of new theories and ideas on the basis of the analysis of data being collected in the study is being followed by both the grounded theory and case study research. The end result of grounded theory approach is the theory that may emerge from, or was grounded in the data, and hence the approach is termed as grounded theory. On a similar analogy in the case of a case study the case being studied may become the end result of the case study and this aspect closely resembles, the idea being followed by the grounded theory approach. Moreover both the approaches follow a ‘bounded system’ that characterizes the study being conducted using the methodologies. Conclusion Both of the research methodologies discussed in the paper contributed to the breaking of new ground and providing new approaches to the researchers. (Laws & McLeod, 1997; McLeod, 2002) The combined cases study/Grounded theory approach through its flexible character has more than facilitated the research studies to draw more realistic and illuminated research product. In the case study the analysis of data from interviews, observations, learning histories, and written document mainly follow the traditional processes of data analysis methods. The result of the analytical process was to lead to a grounded theory where the emphasis is placed on building a new theory from within the analysis and research and that the theory was not the result of any deduction from a theory that exists before the commencement of the research. The new theory should have been discovered during the process of the study. As a consequence the grounded theory is regarded as an ever developing entity rather than a perfected end product. Reference: Alston M & Bowles W (2003) Research for Social Workers – An introduction to Methods2nd Edition Crows Nest Australia Allen & Unwin Charmaz K (1990) Discovering Chronic Illness: Using Grounded Theory Social Science and Medicine Vol 30 Cronbach L.J. (1975) Beyond the Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology American Psychologist Vol. 30 Glaser B.G. (1994) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence versus Forcing Mill Valley CA: Sociology Press Glaser, B.G & Strauss A. (1965) Awareness of Dyeing Chicago Aldine Glaser, B.G & Strauss A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory Chicago Aldine Guba E.G. & Lincoln Y.S (1981) Effective Evaluation San Francisco Jossey Boss Laws K & McLeod R.J (1997) Assisting Schools to become better Learning Organizations: Some suggested Methodologies Queensland Mac Donald B. & Walker R (1977) Case Study and the Social Philosophy of Educational Research In D. Hamilton (Ed) Beyond the Numbers Game London: Macmillan Education McLeod R J (2002) A Model for Cultural Change in Schools: An Evaluation of Some Learning Organization Methodologies A Paper presented at the 20th International Conference of the Systems Dynamics Society Palemo Italy Merriam S.B (1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education San Francisco Jossey Boss Publishers Morse J.M. & Richards L (2002) Read Me First for a Users Guide to Qualitative Research Methods Thousand Oaks. CA Sage Publications Stake R.E (1995) The Art of Case Study Research Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications Stern P.N (1994) Eroding Grounded Theory. In J.M. Morse (Ed) Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research New York Aldine Publishing Strauss A (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists New York Cambridge University Press Strauss A.L & Corbin J (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications Wilson S (1979) Explorations of the Usefulness of Case Study Evaluations; Evaluations Quarterly Vol 3 Wilson H.S & Hutchison S.A (1991) Pearls Pith and Provocation, Triangulation of Qualitative Methods: Heideggerain Hermenuetics and Grounded Theory Qualitative Health Research Vol. 1 No 2 Yin R.K.(1991)Advancing Rigorous Methodologies: A Review of ‘Towards Rigour in Reviews of Multi Vocal Literatures’ Review of Educational Research Vol. 61 No 3 Yin R.K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods 2nd Ed Thousand Oaks California Sage Publications Read More