Entering the Field: Decisions of an Early Career Researcher Adopting Classic Grounded Theory
Main Article Content
Abstract
Classic grounded theory methodology is a much-debated topic in research, especially when novice researchers are selecting classic grounded theory for their research or theses. There is a constant need to justify and defend certain processes of grounded theory, which often challenge other research methods. As a novice researcher, I have often found myself juggling between the need to follow specific procedures and regulations of the university while opting to support the views of Glaser and the application of classic grounded theory for my research. To tackle such difficulties, specific decisions were used to support and justify key choices that favoured classic grounded theory and the requirements of the research institute and my research process. This article provides a reflection on the decisions taken at different stages of the research process to help readers make informed decisions before entering the field.
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
Ball, M. J., Müller, N., & Nelson, R. L. (2014). Handbook of qualitative research in communication disorders. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Blaikie, N. (2009). Designing social research (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2010). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Charmaz, K. (1990). ‘Discovering’ chronic illness: using grounded theory. Social Scienceand Medicine, 30(11), 1161–1172. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(90)90256-R
Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constuctivist methods. In Y.
Denzin & N. K. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 249–291). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Clarke, A. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed., Vol. 25). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
El Hussein, M., Hirst, S., Salyers, V., & Osuji, J. (2014). Using grounded theory as a method of inquiry: Advantages and disadvantages. Qualitative Report, 19(27), 1–15. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/el-hussein13.pdf
Evans, G. L. (2013). A novice researcher’s first walk through the maze of grounded theory: Rationalization for classical grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review,12(1), 37–55.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. 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: Conceptualization contrasted with description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory ? FQS Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/757/1643
Glaser, B. G. (2003). The grounded theory perspective II: Description’s remodeling of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2005). The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.
Gynnild, A. (2011). Living the ideas: A biographical interview with Barney G. Glaser. In V. Martin, & A. Gynnild (Eds.), Grounded theory: The philosophy, method, and work of Barney Glaser (pp. 237–254). Boca Raton, FL: Universal-Publishers.
Hakim, C. (2000). Research design: Successful designs for social economics research (2nd ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Hennink, M. M. (2008). Language and communication in cross-cultural qualitative research. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Doing Cross-Cultural Research: Ethical and Methodological Perspectives (pp. 21–34). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media.
Hernandez, C. A., & Andrews, T. (2012). Commentary on “Constructing new theory for identifying students with emotional disturbance” ¡Grounded Theory Review, 11(2), 59–63.
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Johnson, B. (2015). The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Holton, J. A. (2009). Qualitative tussles in undertaking a grounded theory study. Grounded Theory Review, 8(3), 37–49.
Joinson, A., Katelyn, M., Tom, P., & Ulf-Dietrich, R. (2009). Oxford handbook of internet psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Markham, A. N. (2010). Internet research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research: Issues of Theory, Method and Practice (3rd ed., pp. 111–128). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Miller, H., Thebault-Spieker, J., Chang, S., Johnson, I., Terveen, L., & Hecht, B. (2016). “Blissfully happy” or “ready to fight”: Varying interpretations of emoji. Proceedings of ICWSM 2016. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(March), 25–35.