Introduction to Grounded Theory

1. Introduction to Grounded Theory Hilary Engward Grounded Theory

2. Objectives • To give you an informed overview of Grounded Theory. • To demonstrate the relevance of Grounded Theory. • To show working examples of how Grounded Theory works. Grounded Theory

3. Grounded Theory

4. Grounded Theory

5. Why use Grounded Theory? • You may be in an area where there is little or no theory in existence • You may not agree with existing theory • You may want to evolve and take ownership of a theory • You may not want to test existing hypothesis • You may want to collect a broad range of data beyond more structured methods Grounded Theory

6. Grounded Theory • ‘generate(s) a theory that accounts for a pattern of behavior which is relevant and problematic for those involved’ (Glaser, 1978: 93). • Provides a set of methods and analytical procedures that the researcher follows in order to explain that social phenomena (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) • The purpose being to locate understandings about patterns of behavior as grounded in social contexts • And not the individual perspectives of the social actors: Basic Social Processes Grounded Theory

7. Methodology • Seeks to develop theory that is grounded in data. • Data is systematically gathered and analysed using grounded theory methodology: • Continuous data collection, • Simultaneouscoding • Constant comparison • Saturation In order to • Explain patterns in the data - theory building Grounded Theory

8. Grounded Theory Traditional Grounded Theory Literature Alternative Case/s Grounded Theory

9. Core Philosophical Principles of Grounded Theory (to tussle with) • Does not sit in a philosophical/conceptual framework - frameworks limit scope of inquiry • Does not fit ‘neatly’ into doctoral inquiry - no pre framed research q., no prior literature review etc.) But it does demonstrate (see ARU academic Regs): • Creation and interpretation of new knowledge, original research, forefront of discipline, merits publication: • Systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge at the forefront of an academic discipline/professional practice • Ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project for generation of new knowledge and adjust design as needed • Detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced academic enquiry And (importantly): • Empowering • Critical Grounded Theory

10. Type of Grounded Theory: • Glaser (Glaserian, original) (1978) onwards • Strauss and Corbin (Straussarian) (1990) • Charmez constructivist All have something to offer, its up to you to choose and justify in relation to your research question/purpose. Whichever you choose, be clear why and stick to it. Grounded Theory

11. Types of Grounded Theory Glaserian • Begins with a general idea of where to begin • Neutral questions • Development of conceptual theory • Theoretical sensitivity (the ability to perceive variables and relationships) from immersion in data • Theory grounded in data • A basic social process should be identified • The researcher is passive exhibiting disciplinary restraint • Data reveals theory • Coding of data and the constant comparison of data enable patterns to emerge. • Two coding phases: simple (fracture the data and group) and substantive (open or selective to explore emergent patterns) to develop concepts that explains the phenomena • Regarded as the ‘true’ grounded theory Straussian • Begins with a general idea of where to begin • Structured questions • Conceptual description (description of situations) • Theoretical sensitivity from methods/tools • Theory as interpreted by the observer • Basic social processes need not be identified • The researcher is active • Data is structured to reveal the theory • Coding is defined by technique leading to micro analysis of word by word data • Three types of coding: open (identifying, naming, categorizing, describing phenomena); axial (the process of relating codes to each other) and selective (choosing a core category and relating others categories to it) • Regarded as a form of qualitative data analysis (QDA) rather than grounded theory Grounded Theory

12. Data Collection • Early entry into field. • Interviews, observation, grey literature, statistics, field notes, memos – anything…. • All is data, data is data • You can use both qualitative/quantitative • Start with ‘grand tour’ type questions: • How do you know about ????? • What do you do when???? • How does?????? • Field notes/memo’s – v. important Grounded Theory

13. Data Collection and Analysis Stage Grounded Theory

14. Example: Open Coding Examples of Data Across Transcripts • I set the plan and then we divvy it out between us • I do as I’m told to really. You know its set by [name] so we get on with it. It seems to work really, so why change it? • I’m not aware of any plan, you know a master plan ,as to how we teach ethics across the 3 yrs, so we just get on with it • There is no lead. It’s mapped to the modules, but no one really takes charge of it • It’s one of those subjects, people are assumed to know it so it’s just meant to happen. Anyone appears to be able to teach it. No, there’s none. Code Properties ? Organisation of teaching? • Explanation: •  Hierarchical •  Flat •  None Open (explanatory) Code • Organising ethics? • (Maintaining )status quo? • Invisible ethics? Grounded Theory

15. Things to look out for in the data: ‘properline/partyline data’ • “For the record, if I move away from what is the party line from the [organisation name] and give my personal views ‘cos obviously some things might not be representative of the [organisation name], so if I do, I’ll try to differentiate it”. Memo: This excerpt highlights that participants may feel some constraint being interviewed in their organisational environments and that they need to clarify their perspective as an individual as well as those of the organisation. It could alternatively be said that what I collected and have analysed is simply the ‘party line’ of the organisation as opposed to the views of the participant. It is not clear however, if this would occur whether or not the interview was being recorded, but it does highlight difference between, on the one hand, the personal perceptions of the participant, and on the other hand their perceptions as an employee of an organisation. This led me to question later participants if what they actually do (for example, concepts they teach) is what they personally believe should be doing. Grounded Theory

16. More examples of Party Line data • The following excerpt is from an interview with the subject lead: • “You see, I’m an analytical philosopher so I come at it very much from the philosophy angle, as does my team” And the following from a lecturer on her team: • “We also use deontology and utilitarian theories, and I give a key lecture on ethics of care. I sometimes feel I’ve been given it because, erm, I hope this is OK to say this but [name] is very pure” (laugh) • “Yes, she said that earlier” • “Did she? Oh, OK then” • Memo: ? possible power relations between team member and the team lead. Grounded Theory

17. And: • Do you use virtue ethics at all?” • P: Not really. I mean we hear of it, but it’s not anything we particularly put up in lectures” • I: Why is that?” • P: I don’t really know. We’re all comfortable with what we do. But, yeah, we have meeting down in [name of organisation] down the road which is the ethics national – you know the one? Sometimes there are meetings and lectures and virtue ethics comes up, but I’m afraid I don’t know much about it. I don’t think we’re overly encouraged to know much about it really, if you know what I mean (laugh)” Memo: a team member suggests they are not ‘overly encouraged’ to teach something different. This is interesting because it highlights possible perceptions of a hierarchical authority. But referring to my field notes post interview with the subject lead, I noted: Grounded Theory

18. Plus Field Note: • (excerpt) [subject lead] was very welcoming. She met me in the main reception of an old and grand foyer in the building where her office is. She welcomed me by name, holding her hand out to shake mine. I was impressed, considering we had not met before and there were others in the foyer – I wondered how she knew I was me. When we reached her office, her door was open. She said she has an open door policy and only shuts if meeting people and she likes to keep in contact with what is going on outside and for anyone to come in. Combining the transcript data, memo’s and field notes together presents a picture of an ‘open door’ hierarchy in a team, a status quo and that alternatives could be suggested if wanted. If I had not taken notes after the interview, I might not have identified the ‘open door’ nature of the leadership of the team, and that the team members were not overly encouraged to know about different concepts to teach. Action Point: To ask future participants how teaching is organised and allocated in teams, and how participants feel about such allocations. Grounded Theory

19. Early Memo Memo written after interviewing academics in a pre-1992 university setting  There is a named ethics leader who structures the content to be taught (structured organisation). Organization is led by one person (top down leading?). Academics in the team are comfortable with this, there is no need to change, they are comfortable with the content they teach. The ethics leader has a publication record and has a developed academic profile in the field of healthcare ethics. The team members have developed profiles in aspects of ethics, such as end of life, political philosophy. These participants were from a philosophy background (disciplinary background). The concepts focused on are philosophically driven. This is because the purpose of healthcare ethics is to develop critical thinking about ethics in relation to healthcare. This was in a pre-1992 university setting (type of university). What is the main concern? Developing critical thinking What is this memo about? •   1) Leading/organising healthcare ethics in a pre 1992 university setting (are there differences between university types?) • 2) The academic profile of the academics (developed) • 3) The disciplinary base of the academic? How is this managed? • Individual Structure is acceptable – it enables individual focus on disciplinary knowledge? • Structure is accepted in relation to disciplinary background and ideas about purpose of healthcare ethics? Grounded Theory

20. Early Memo • Flat styles were found in post-1992 university settings (type of university). There is no identified lead and no identified structure “I don’t think there is a plan?” The participants described themselves as “jobbing lecturers” – they teach what is required across the courses. These participants all come from a health professional background (disciplinary background) with a developing profile. The content of ethics is mapped across to generic modules but there is no specific content to be covered (unstructured content/preset ? embedded outcomes), what might interest the student (student interest) and what the academic sees the purpose of the content to be (individual preference).That’s Ok though because the purpose is to get students to think about their experiences of ethics and what it is to be a professional (purpose of healthcare ethics). What is the main concern? Developing thinking about healthcare. What is this memo about? • 1) leading/ organising healthcare ethics in a post-1992 university? • 2) The developing academic profile of the academics (developed/developing)? • 3) the disciplinary base of the academic? – past? Previous? Prior? • 4) the purpose of healthcare ethics? How is this managed? • Structure is accepted in relation to disciplinary background and ideas about purpose of healthcare ethics? Grounded Theory

21. Leads to Focussed Questioning What do you do? • a) Some participants have referred to what they teach/write about as ‘standard medical ethics’. What do you think they mean by this? • b) What do you think is the underpinning rationale for this way of thinking about ethics in healthcare? • c) Is this what you do? If so, why or why not? Or do you do it differently? If different, what is it that you do? How do you conceptualise ethics in healthcare? What do you call it? What do you think? • a) Is there any particular thinking about ethics to which you particularly ascribe? Why? • b) What has informed you about this way of thinking? •  What knowledge base have you used to inform your thinking? Can you provide examples? •  What experiences have informed your thinking? Can you provide examples? (Specific to one participant) When we were having dinner at the [name removed] conference, you inferred that you might be having second thoughts about your ideas relating to ethics in healthcare. Can you elaborate on what you meant by this and why you might be reconsidering these ideas. How do you know? • a) How did you come to be interested in ethics in healthcare? • b) How did you learn about the discipline? • c) What motivated you to make this discipline your career? • d) How do you keep up to date? What sources do you use? •  What do you know about where this information comes from? •  Do you ever think about how information about HCE is produced? •  Is it relevant to ask these kinds of questions? If so, what relevance does it have? What is the purpose? • a) What do you think is the purpose of HCE? • b) What do you think is the purpose of teaching HCE? • c) What do you think is the purpose of HCE for practitioners in the healthcare context? • d) Do you think there is any relationship between how HCE is taught and its function in practice? Can you provide any examples of this? Grounded Theory

22. Next stage: More data Grounded Theory

23. Mid Memo • Relationship between being up to date and a disciplinary knowledge base • It is impossible to keep up to date because “knowledge is slippery”. The transient nature of knowing is problematic. To manage this: • Participants with a developed academic profile keep up to date with specific issues in which they are interested. This is informed by academic interest. The foundational issues of healthcare ethics stay the same; therefore these are applied in line with changes in the contemporary. Because the foundation principles of healthcare ethics remain the same, and the academic keeps up to date with current developments in the healthcare context. This was the perspective of participants whose disciplinary knowledge base is philosophy. • Participants with a less-developed academic profile were generic and guided by current affairs or general interest. The practice context was described as static and similar to when they were in practice. Because practice is seen to be similar, academics keep up to date with ethical theory. This was the perspective of participants whose disciplinary knowledge was in the health professions. • What is this memo about? This memo is about managing knowledge and disciplinary focus. This is managed in accordance with or through: • Ideas from a prior disciplinary knowledge • Ideas about the purpose of that knowledge • This memo is about understandings being based in a prior disciplinary base onto which participants reflect back. It is a prior knowledge base that forms a point of reference, from which ideas about the purpose of ethics are understood. Understandings are reflected back onto – a retrospective knowledge base. Grounded Theory

24. What you are looking for: • Abstract of time, place and people: • For GT, the emergent theory needs to grounded in the data, not the people, places or time of data collection. • The important distinction here is that it is the behaviour that is conceptualised, not the people. Grounded Theory

25. 2) Grab • Have multiple examples that are abstract of time, place and people. • Be able to be described in multiple incidents or patterns in the data • Or challenge accepted reified concepts but which are accepted and researched Grounded Theory

26. Conceptual Memo • Main concern: How to convey the purpose of healthcare ethics • Concepts: retrospective disciplinary knowledge + personalising/depersonalising + negotiating ethics in organisations = core category - selecting for the purpose of healthcare ethics • The main concern of the participants was how to develop the purpose of healthcare ethics. To address this, academics select content in relation to ideas about what the purpose of healthcare ethics ought to be. The purpose of healthcare ethics is to develop critical thinking and/or to develop professionalism. In order to develop critical thinking and/or professionalism, academic actively select content about healthcare ethics in relation to ideas about the purpose. The process of selecting is informed by the academics' retrospective disciplinary knowledge. Retrospective disciplinary knowledge refers to how academic know about the discipline of healthcare ethics: it is through a prior disciplinary knowledge base that understandings about the purpose of healthcare ethics are known. Two retrospective disciplinary knowledge bases were identified: a philosophical knowledge base and a health professional knowledge base. Academics from a philosophical knowledge base use the tools of philosophy to develop critical thinking and reasoned decision-making. Academics from a health professional background use their previous situated experiences of being a health professional to develop critical thinking and to develop professionalism. • The process of selecting the purpose of healthcare ethics in relation to a retrospective disciplinary knowledge is mediated through the personalisation or de-personalisation of content. Personalisation of healthcare ethics refers to how academics use personal insight and experience to develop understandings about the purpose of healthcare ethics, and has both empowering and regulatory concerns. De-personalisation refers to how academics use theory objectively to develop objective understandings about healthcare ethics in order to facilitate critical thinking and reasoned decision-making. It is through the personalisation and de-personalisation of healthcare ethics that implicit and explicit ideas about the purposes of healthcare ethics are mediated. • The selecting of content in relation to ideas about the purpose of healthcare ethics occurs within organisational settings. Organisational settings present sets of conditions within which the academic negotiates content in relation to ideas about the purpose of healthcare ethics.Whilst the organisational conditions are important, they do not change how the individual selects the content of healthcare ethics in order to develop ideas about the purpose of healthcare ethics. Grounded Theory

27. Theoretical coding • Occurs when the core category becomes saturated • To test the core category and emergent grounded theory • Specific questions about the concepts and core category: • Can you explain how your knowledge base of philosophy/health professions informs how you know about healthcare ethics? (retrospective knowledge base) • Does this knowledge inform how you talk about healthcare ethics with students? Can you give any examples/counter examples? (personalisation/depersonalisation) • Does the organisation you work in affect how ethics is conveyed? (negotiation in organisations) Grounded Theory

28. Theoretical Memo • Main concern: How to mediate the purpose of healthcare ethics • Concepts: retrospective disciplinary knowledge + personalising/depersonalising + negotiating ethics in organisations = core category - selecting for the purpose of healthcare ethics • The main concern of the participants was how to develop the purpose of healthcare ethics. To address this, academics select content in relation to ideas about what the purpose of healthcare ethics ought to be. The purpose of healthcare ethics is to develop critical thinking and/or to develop professionalism. In order to develop critical thinking and/or professionalism, academic actively select content about healthcare ethics in relation to ideas about the purpose. The process of selecting is informed by the academics' retrospective disciplinary knowledge. Retrospective disciplinary knowledge refers to how academic know about the discipline of healthcare ethics: it is through a prior disciplinary knowledge base that understandings about the purpose of healthcare ethics are known. Two retrospective disciplinary knowledge bases were identified: a philosophical knowledge base and a health professional knowledge base. Academics from a philosophical knowledge base use the tools of philosophy to develop critical thinking and reasoned decision-making. Academics from a health professional background use their previous situated experiences of being a health professional to develop critical thinking and to develop professionalism. • The process of selecting the purpose of healthcare ethics in relation to a retrospective disciplinary knowledge is mediated through the personalisation or de-personalisation of content. Personalisation of healthcare ethics refers to how academics use personal insight and experience to develop understandings about the purpose of healthcare ethics, and has both empowering and regulatory concerns. De-personalisation refers to how academics use theory objectively to develop objective understandings about healthcare ethics in order to facilitate critical thinking and reasoned decision-making. It is through the personalisation and de-personalisation of healthcare ethics that implicit and explicit ideas about the purposes of healthcare ethics are mediated. • The selecting of content in relation to ideas about the purpose of healthcare ethics occurs within organisational settings. Organisational settings present sets of conditions within which the academic negotiates content in relation to ideas about the purpose of healthcare ethics.Whilst the organisational conditions are important, they do not change how the individual selects the content of healthcare ethics in order to develop ideas about the purpose of healthcare ethics. Grounded Theory

29. Codes, Concepts and Overarching Category Explanatory Open Codes (Chapter 5 Analysis) • Learning about ethics; uncertainty about ethics; disciplinary identity; professional identity; academic profile; transient knowledge; currency of knowledge Concept that explains the coding groups • Retrospective disciplinary knowledge Overarching category: How participants manage their main concern (Basic Social Process). • Selecting to meet the purpose of health care ethics. • Explanation: Understandings about healthcare ethics are based in a prior discipline. Academics select content to mediate purpose as based in a prior disciplinary knowledge. Literature referents to emergent category (Discussed in Chapter 6 Grounded Theory and Discussion) • Chambers, T. (2003 and 2005) • Davis (2004) • Finlay (2002) Grounded Theory

30. Theory: (Chapter 6: Theory and Discussion of) • This grounded theory identifies three main emergent concepts that explain how academics mediate understanding about healthcare ethics. These are: • Retrospective disciplinary knowledge + the personalisation or de-personalisation of content + negotiating content within organisations = selecting for the purpose of healthcare ethics. • The following presents an overview about how the concepts work together to explain how academics mediate healthcare ethics in health professionals' education. For readability, the concepts have been underlined: • The main concern of the participants was how to develop the purpose of healthcare ethics. To address this, academics select content in relation to ideas about what the purpose of healthcare ethics ought to be. The purpose of healthcare ethics is to develop critical thinking and/or to develop professionalism. In order to develop critical thinking and or professionalism, academics selectively frame content about healthcare ethics in relation to ideas about the purpose. The process of selecting is informed by the academics' retrospective disciplinary knowledge. Retrospective disciplinary knowledge refers to how academics know about the discipline of healthcare ethics: it is through a prior disciplinary knowledge base that understandings about the purpose of healthcare ethics are known. Two retrospective disciplinary knowledge bases were identified: a philosophical knowledge base and a health professional knowledge base. Academics from a philosophical knowledge base use the tools of philosophy to develop critical thinking and reasoned decision-making. Academics from a health professional background use their experiences of being a health professional to develop critical thinking and to develop professionalism. The process of framing the purpose of healthcare ethics in relation to a retrospective disciplinary knowledge is mediated through the personalisation or de-personalisation of content. Personalisation of healthcare ethics refers to how academics use personal insight and experience to develop understandings about the purpose of healthcare ethics, and has both empowering and regulatory concerns. De-personalisation refers to how academics use theory objectively to develop objective understandings about healthcare ethics in order to facilitate critical thinking and reasoned decision-making. It is through the personalisation and de-personalisation of healthcare ethics that implicit and explicit ideas about the purposes of healthcare ethics are mediated. The selecting of content in relation to ideas about the purpose of healthcare ethics occurs within organisational settings. Organisational settings present sets of conditions within which the academic negotiates content in relation to ideas about the purpose of healthcare ethics. Whilst the organisational conditions are important, they do not change how the individual centres the content of healthcare ethics in order to develop ideas about the purpose of healthcare ethics. Grounded Theory

31. Evaluating Grounded Theory Studies • Is there a clear chain of evidence linking the findings to the data? • Are there multiple instances in the data which support the concepts produced? • Has the researcher demonstrated that they are very familiar with the subject area or, as Glaser puts it, are steeped in the field of investigation (Glaser, 1978)? • Has the researcher suggested theoretical generalizations that are applicable to a range of situations? • Have they considered the alternative case? Grounded Theory

32. Advantage of Grounded Theory • Advantages: • It has intuitive appeal for novice researchers - it allows them to become immersed in the data at a detailed level • Early data analyses • It encourages systematic, detailed analysis and provides a method for doing so • It gives researchers ample evidence to back up their claims • It encourages a constant interplay between data collection and analysis • It is especially useful for describing repeated processes e.g. the communications processes between doctors and patients, or the communications processes between information systems analysts and users Grounded Theory

33. Disadvantages of Grounded Theory • Felt by some to be wishy-washy ( especially if a type of grounded theory is not followed) • Difficult to gain funding/approval, as each project has no specific beginning or end. • A relatively young and developing method. • Can be inadequate for projects with specific aims, such as evaluations • Not always compatible with doctoral thesis requirements Grounded Theory

34. Grounded Theory

35. Grounded Theory References • Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss - founders of grounded theory • Books and papers • Bryant, Antony (2003). 'A Constructive/ist Response to Glaser' [25 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 4(1), Art. 15, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0301155. [Date of access: Dec 5th 2009] • Bryant, Antony. (2002) 'Re-grounding Grounded Theory'. The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4, 1, 25-42. • Charmaz, Kathy. (2000). 'Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods'. In Norman Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd. edition, pp.509-535). Thousand Oaks: Sage. • Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage. A constructivist approach to grounded theory: data are not just found (or 'discovered'), they are constructed. • Charmaz, K. and Bryant, A (Eds) (2007) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: Sage. This is now available in a paperback version. Contents: • PART ONE: ORIGINS AND HISTORY GT in Historical Perspective Antony Bryant & Kathy CharmazAn Epistemological Account Discovery of GT in Practice Eleanor KrassnerCovanLegacy of Multiple Mentors Living GT Susan Leigh StarCognitive & Emotional Forms of Pragmatism PART TWO: GTM AND FORMAL GT Doing Formal Theory Barney GlaserEssential Properties for Growing GT Phyllis SternEvolution of Formal GT Margaret KearneyOrthodoxy versus Power Jane HoodPART THREE: GT IN PRACTICE Grounding Categories Ian DeyDevelopment of Categories UdoKelleAbduction Jo ReichertzSampling in GT Janice MorseMemo-writing in GT Lora LempertCoding Judith HoltonPART FOUR: PRACTICALITIES Making Teams work in Conducting GT Carolyn WienerTeaching GT SharleneHesse-BiberGT as a Tool for IS Research Cathy UrquhartPART FIVE: GT IN THE RESEACRH METHODS CONTEXT GT and Situational Analysis Adele Clarke & Carrie FrieseGT and Action Research Bob DickIntegrating GT and Feminist Methods Virginia OlesenAccommodating Critical Theory Barry GibsonGT and the Politics of Interpretation Norman DenzinGT & Diversity Denise O'Neil Green, John W. Creswell, Ronald J. Shope, Vicki L. Plano ClarkEthnography Stefan Timmermans & IddoTavoryPART SIX: GT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES GT and Reflexivity KatjaMruck & GuenterMey Grounded Theory

36. Mediating Structure and Interaction Bruno HildenbrandTensions in Using GT Karen LockeGT & Pragmatism JoergStruebing • Clarke, A.E. (2005) Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. • Corbin, J and Strauss, A. (1996). Analytic ordering for theoretical purposes. Qualitative inquiry, 2(2), pp. 139-150. • Dey, Ian (1999) Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry Academic Press. • Glaser, Barney. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. • Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, California: Sociology Press. • Glaser, Barney G. (2002). 'Constructivist Grounded Theory?' [47 paragraphs]; <http://www .qualitative -research.net/fqs -texte/3-02/3 -02glaser-e.htm> [Date of access: Dec 5th 2009]. September, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3, 3. • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine. The original text on the grounded theory approach. • Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. London: Sage. • Clarke, Adele E. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. Illustrated edition. Sage Publications, Inc, 2005. • Kools, S, McCarthy, M, Durham, R and Robrecht, L. (1996) Dimensional analysis- Broadening the conception of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), pp. 312-330. • May, K A. (1996) Diffusion, dilution, or distillation?- The case of grounded theory method. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), pp. 309-311. • Miller, S I and Fredericks, M. (1999) How does grounded theory explain? Qualitative Health Research, 9(4), pp. 538-551. • Morse, J.M., Noerager Stern, P., Corbin, J.M., Charmaz, K.C., Bowers, B.J. and Clarke, A.E. (2009) Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press. Chapters are: • 1. A History of Grounded Theory, Phyllis Noerager Stern2. The Straussian Perspective, Juliet M. Corbin3. The Glaserian Perspective, PhllisNoerager Stern4. Leonard Schatzman and Dimensional Analysis, Barbara Bowers5. Situational Analysis, Adele E. Clarke6. Constructivist Grounded Theory, Kathy C. Charmaz7. Issues and Future Directions in Grounded Theory Research, Janice M. Morse Grounded Theory

37. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for developing Grounded Theory. (3rd. ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Good, clear, step-by-step introduction to the interpretivist version of grounded theory. The Third Edition includes real data to practise with qualitative software, such as MAXQDA as well as student exercises. • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded Theory in Practice. London: Sage. • Strübing, Jörg (2008) Grounded Theory: Zursozialtheoretischen und epistemologischenFundierung des VerfahrensderempirischbegründetenTheoriebildung. 2nd Ed. VS VerlagfürSozialwischenschaften. In German, but some of the material on pragmatism can be found in English in Strübing's chapter in the Sage Handbook. • De Vreede, Gert-Jan, Jones, Noel & Mgaya, Rabson J (1998). 'Exploring the Application and Acceptance of Group Support Systems in Africa'. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15, 3, 197-234. • Turner, Barry. (1983). 'The Use of Grounded Theory for the Qualitative Analysis of Organizational Behaviour'. Journal of Management Studies, 20, 3, 333-348. Grounded Theory

38. Good articles/texts on coding • Coffey, A. and Atkinson, P. (1996) Making sense of Qualitative Data Analysis: Complementary Research Strategies. London, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. See chapter 2. • Langdridge, D. (2004) Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. Harlow: Pearson Education. Chapter 14. • Mason, J. (1996) Qualitative researching. London: Sage. See chapter 6. • Maykut, P. and Morehouse, R. (2001) Beginning Qualitative Research: A philosophical and practical guide. London: RoutledgeFalmer. See part III. • Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Chapter 4. • Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (eds) (2003) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage. Chapters 8 and 9. • Ryan, G.W. and Bernard, H.R. (2003b) 'Techniques to Identify Themes', Field Methods, 15(1): 85-109. • See also: • Ryan, G.W. and Bernard, H.R. (2003a) 'Techniques to Identify Themes in Qualitative Data', • Smith, J.A. (ed) (2003) Qualitative Psychology: A practical guide to research methods. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage. See especially chapters 4 and 5. • Strauss, Anselm and Corbin, Juliet (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. (2nd Ed. 1998) Grounded Theory

39. Thank you • Any (easy) questions • hilary.engward@anglia.ac.uk Grounded Theory