Working Through Preconception: Moving from Forcing to Emergence
Main Article Content
Abstract
Much has been written about grounded theory and the processes of theory generation. Less is written about managing the problem of preconception, which has the potential to undermine the openness and emergence that are fundamental to classic grounded theory. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the practical realities of managing preconception, and to draw attention to less well recognised factors that contribute to forcing. The topic interest, tactical innovation in rugby, is introduced. Researcher motivation and the management of preconception are discussed. The example used is the theory of developing, which explains how rugby coaches in New Zealand manage the problem of winning games. The research demonstrates how the novice grounded theory researcher who is prepared to follow the method and trust the process can produce a rigorous grounded theory that makes a meaningful contribution to rugby coaches, players and their administrators.
Downloads
Article Details
The Grounded Theory Review is an open access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the international Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.
References
Astrom, T. (2006). Moral positioning: A formal theory. The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 6(1), 29-60.
Christiansen, O. (2008). The rationale for the use of classic GT. The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 7(2), 19-38.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualisation contrasted with description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2005). The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2010). The future of grounded theory. The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 9(2), 1-14.
Gynnild, A. (2006). Growing open: The transition from QDA to grounded theory. The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 6(1), 60-78.
Holton, J. A. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. I n A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 265-289). London: Sage.
Kwok, K. R. (2011). Tactical innovation in New Zealand representative rugby: A grounded theory of developing (Master’s thesis). Available from AUT University Theses and Dissertations (10292/ 2543)
McCallin, A. M. (2006). Grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study. The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 5(2/ 3), 11-27.
Robson, C. (2011). Real world research (3rd Ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Roderick, C. (2009) Learning classic grounded theory: An account of the journey and advice for new researchers. The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 8(2), 49-63.
Xie, S. L. (2009). Striking a balance between program requirements and GT principles: Writing a committed GT proposal. The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 8(2), 35-47.