26 Theoretical Sampling, Saturation, and Grounded Theory

Rajeev Dubey

1. Objective

The basic objective of this module is to introduce learner to the use of the grounded theory method in sociological research. This would include introduction to the origin and development of grounded theory method. It will also describe the processes involved in conducting grounded theory research.

2. Learning Outcome

After reading this module, you will have an understanding of:

·         the origin and development of grounded theory

·         the methodological influences on grounded theory as an approach to research

·         the different versions of grounded theory

·         processes involved in conducting grounded theory research

·         criteria for evaluating grounded theory studies

·         limitations of grounded theory

3. Grounded Theory and its Origin

Grounded theory is a method of qualitative enquiry in which researchers develop inductive theoretical analyses from the empirical data and subsequently gather further data to check these analyses (Charmaz and Bryant 2012). Therefore, grounded theory, in contrast to theory obtained by logico-deductive methods from a priori assumptions, is theory grounded in data which have been systematically obtained through research. And, as the name grounded theory reflects, researcher can and should develop theory from rigorous analyses of empirical data.

The development of grounded theory was an attempt to avoid highly abstract sociology and was a part of an important growth in qualitative analysis in the 1960s and 1970s. The main thrust of this movement, Brargues Goulding, “was to bridge the gap between theoretically ‘uninformed’ empirical research and empirically uninformed’ theory by grounding theory in data. It was part of a reaction against extreme empiricism, or ‘Grand Theory’, a term coined by Mills (1959) to refer pejoratively to sociological theories couched at a very abstract conceptual level. Mills similarly criticised abstracted empiricism or the process of accumulating quantitative data for its own sake” (Goulding 2002: 41).

Grounded theory was first put forward by Glaser and Strauss when they studied the social organisation of dying in hospitals. They articulated grounded theory as a specific methodological approach in their seminal work, The Grounded Theory (1967). One of the important reasons for propounding grounded theory by Glaser and Strauss was that previous books on methods of social research have focused mainly on how to verify theories. This suggests ‘an overemphasis in current sociology on the verification of theory and a resultant de-emphasis on the prior step of discovering what concepts and hypotheses are relevant for the area one wished to research … in social research generating theory goes hand in hand with verifying it; but many sociologists have diverted from this truism in their zeal to test either existing theories or a theory that they have barely started to generate’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 1–2). Therefore, Glaser and Strauss believed that qualitative enquiry could make significant theoretical and empirical contributions in its own right, rather than merely act as a precursor to quantitative research. And grounded theory, as a specific methodological approach, can provide a set of systematic guidelines for gathering data, coding, categorizing and integrating concepts to generate middle-range theory. The Key components of original version of grounded theory outlined by Glaser and Strauss (1967) are summarised by Hood (2007: 154) in the following manner:

Key Components of Grounded Theory

1.      A spiral of cycles of data collection, coding, analysis, writing, design, theoretical categorisation, and data collection.

2.      The constant comparative analysis of cases with each other and to theoretical categories throughout each cycle.

3.      A theoretical sampling process based upon categories developed from ongoing data analysis.

4.      The size of sample is determined by the ‘theoretical saturation’ of categories rather than by the need for demographic ‘representativeness’, or simply lack of ‘additional information’ from new cases.

5.      The resulting theory is developed inductively from data rather than tested by data, although the developing theory is continuously refined and checked by data.

6.      Codes ‘emerge’ from data and are not imposed a priori upon it.

7.      The substantive and/or formal theory outlined in the final report takes into account all the variations in the data and conditions associated with these variations. The report is an analytical product rather than a purely descriptive account. Theory development is the goal.

(Source: Hood 2007: 154)

4. Historical Development of Grounded Theory

Strauss recruited Glaser to aid him in the study of patients dying in hospitals. As the study progressed, these researchers formulated a new approach to scientific inquiry based on systematic qualitative procedures designed to generate theory grounded in data, formally introduced in The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967). Glaser, trained in quantitative methods at Columbia University aimed to codify qualitative methods as his teacher Paul Lazarsfeld codified quantitative methods. Glaser, argues Charmaz, ‘developed the language of grounded theory from his quantitative background and imported certain positivist objectives and assumptions into the method. Hence the logic of grounded theory relied on discovery, externality, neutrality, and parsimony’ (Charmaz 2007: 2023-2024). Strauss, whose training was permeated by symbolic interactionism and the ethnographic influences of the Chicago sociologists, emphasized on first-hand data, viewed social life as open ended, and in line of symbolic interactionist highlighted the role of language, symbols and cultures in shaping individual and collective meanings and actions.

However, the combination of positivism emphasized by Glaser and pragmatism emphasized by Strauss in grounded theory produced tensions in method. Charmaz argues that ‘Glaser stresses objectivist analyses based on variables, a concept-indicator approach, and context-free theoretical statements’ (Charmaz 2007: 2024). Strauss, on the other hand, ‘emphasises rich contextual analyses of meaning and action and the development of substantive and formal theories of action’ (ibid. : 2024).

The first major bifurcation among the grounded theorists occurred after Strauss and Corbin published Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory, Procedures and Techniques (1990), which split grounded theory into two camps, each subtly distinguished by its own ideographic procedures. On the one hand, Glaser stresses the interpretive, contextual and emergent nature of theory development, while, on the other, the late Strauss appeared to have emphasised highly complex and systematic coding techniques (Goulding 2002). This overemphasis on the mechanics of the research has been criticised by Glaser (1992) for reducing the degree of theoretical sensitivity and insightful meaning. Glaser (1992) challenged Strauss and Corbin’s innovations because he saw them as preconceived procedures that forced data into categories. According to Glaser, Strauss and Corbin’s approach resulted in conceptual descriptions, not grounded theories.

Charmaz (2006, 2007) has enunciated the second major division by distinguishing between constructivist and objectivist grounded theory. Hence, there are two versions of grounded theory: Constructivist and Objectivist.

The main features of constructivist grounded theory outlined by Charmaz (2006), and Charmaz and Bryant (2012) are –

·         It views research as occurring within specific social conditions and thus attempt to learn how these conditions influence studies;

·         Takes reflexivity and research relationship into account;

·         Views data and analysis as social construction;

·         Studies how participants create meanings and actions;

·         Acknowledges that analyses are contextually situated in time, place, culture, and situation.

Similarly, the main features of objectivist grounded theory outlined by Charmaz (2006), and Charmaz and Bryant (2012) are –

·         It seeks discoveries in an external, knowable world;

·         Assumes neutral, passive observer but active analyst;

·         Studies phenomenon from the outside as an objective external authority;

·         Treats representation of research participants as unproblematic;

·         Regards complete analysis as objective reports.

Therefore, from the constructivist grounded theorist point of view, ‘researchers and their participants produce data through interaction and, therefore, construct the meanings, actions, and situations that researchers observe and define’ (Charmaz 2006: 2026). In short, constructivist moved grounded theory further into interpretive social science. Whereas, objectivist grounded theorists ‘learn the parameters of the worlds they study and analyse processes within them, but they do not become immersed in these worlds’ (ibid. :2026).

Despite the further development and, proliferation and debates in the field of grounded theory over these years, Bryant and Charmaz (2007, quoted in Flick 2009: 429) have identified the following aspects as integral for using grounded theory methodology irrespective of which variant of grounded theory one follows-

·         data gathering, analysis and construction proceed concurrently;

·         coding starts with first interview and/or filed notes;

·         memo writing also begins with the first interview and/or field notes;

·         theoretical sampling is the disciplined search for patterns and variations;

·         theoretical sorting of memos sets up the outline for writing paper;

·         theoretical saturation is the judgement that there is no need to collect further data;

·         identify a basic social process that accounts for most of the observed behaviour.

Self-check Exercise- 1

1.   What is grounded theory?

It is a method of qualitative enquiry in which researchers develop inductive theoretical analyses from the empirical data and subsequently gather further data to check these analyses.

2.   What do you understand by constructivist grounded theory?

It is a version of grounded theory research which views research as occurring within specific social conditions and thus attempts to learn how these conditions influence their studies. It takes reflexivity and research relationship into account and view data and analysis as social construction.

3.   What do you understand by objectivist grounded theory?

It is a version of grounded theory research which seeks discoveries in an external, knowable world and studies phenomenon from the outside as an objective external authority.

5. Processes involved in conducting Grounded theory research

5.1. The Identification of a Research Problem

In order to begin, as it happens in any research, the process starts with an interest in an area one wishes to explore. But, as Goulding put forward, ‘usually researchers adopt grounded theory when the topic of interest has been relatively ignored in the literature or has been given only superficial attention. Consequently, the researcher’s mission is to build his/her own theory from the ground’ (Goulding 2002: 55). Uwe Flick (2009: 429) sums up following motivations for taking up grounded theory study-

·         Firstly the point of departure can be based on lacks and gaps in a particular discipline – research questions resulting from earlier research, the lack of theoretical models, theories or explanations for a certain problem.

·       Secondly, researchers’ curiosity can lead them into taking something as a research problem for developing a grounded theory – for example, as Charmaz (2006) highlights how researchers’ curiosity led them into taking a research problem of how the process of recovering from addiction works without treatment.

·       Thirdly, personal experience or concern of the researcher can also be a motivation for taking up a research problem – for example, in case of Glaser and Strauss when the researchers experience with how their parents’ dying was ‘managed’ in hospitals made them study this process.

·         Fourthly, the emergence of a new phenomenon or discovery of a new problem can be a motivation for doing grounded theory study.

This process of identification gives the issue a specific shape. Identification of an issue as a topic for study is followed by developing research questions which may be revised as the study progresses.

5.2. Identifying Relevant Contexts, Persons or Events

After identifying a research problem, for which a lack of empirical analysis or theoretical explanation can be noted, the next step will be to identify the suitable context in which the researcher can start the study. For example, Flick (2009) illustrates how chronic illness among the homeless adolescents is an issue which has not been adequately analysed empirically or theoretically. After identifying the research problem, Flick writes that the next question was where to find this situation more systematically: where to locate the potential participants; what kind of chronic illness would be most instructive as a starting point for developing a first understanding of this phenomena etc.? In this phase of the research, argues Flick, ‘the identification of participants and contexts to begin with is not yet a question of sampling but a question of discovery, exploration and creativity, and imagination’ (Flick 2009: 432).

5.3. Theoretical Sampling

Once the research problem, context and people have been identified, the next step is sampling. Sampling has a profound effect on the quality of the research, regardless of what methodological perspective and approach the researcher adopts. With grounded theory, sampling is directed by theory; therefore, it is termed theoretical sampling. It is an ongoing part of the process of data collection and analysis which in turn directs the researcher to further samples. Charmaz points out that –

Theoretical sampling means seeking pertinent data to develop your emerging theory. The main purpose of theoretical sampling is to elaborate and refine the categories constituting your theory. You conduct theoretical sampling by sampling to develop the properties of your cateogary(ies) until no new properties emerge (2006: 97).

Theoretical sampling, in other words, is the purposeful selection of a sample according to the developing categories and emerging theory. At times researcher confuse theoretical sampling with purposeful sampling. While a qualitative project may contain both purposeful and theoretical sampling, purposeful sampling is not always theoretical. Glaser argues that purposeful sampling refers to the calculated decision to sample a specific locale according to a preconceived but reasonable set of dimensions (time, space, identity or power) which are worked out in advance of the study. The analyst who uses theoretical sampling cannot know in advance what to sample for and where it will lead. With grounded theory, groups are chosen when they are needed rather than before the research. Initially, the researcher will go to the most obvious places and the most likely informants in search of information. However, as concepts are identified and the theory starts to develop, further individuals, situations and places may need to be incorporated in order to strengthen the findings (Goulding 2002). Therefore, in words of Glaser and Strauss,

Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes and analyses the data and decides what data to collect next and where to find it, in order to develop the theory as it emerges. This process of data collection is controlled by the emerging theory, whether substantive or formal (1967: 45).

In practical sense while analysing studies based on grounded theory it has been found that the beginning of research is based on selection through convenience sampling, which allows the researcher to get in with the initial cases in the field. Then researcher goes on with purposeful sampling for locating the specific cases pertaining to the research questions. As Flick (2009) asserts, theoretical sampling, in the strict sense of the concept, will only start later in the process.

5.4.  Data Collection

Unlike other qualitative methodologies which acknowledge only one source of data, for example, the words of those under study as in the case of phenomenology, grounded theory research may be based on single or multiple sources of data. These might include secondary data, life histories, interviews, introspection, observations and memos. Glaser discusses the adaptability of the method, proposing that: ‘Grounded theory method although uniquely suited to fieldwork and qualitative data, can be easily used as a general method of analysis with any form of data collection: survey, experiment, case study. Further, it can combine and integrate them. It transcends specific data collection methods’ (Glaser 1978, quoted in Goulding 2002: 56). The strength of grounded theory is in its adaptability. It also transcends by inclusion and integration at a higher level previous descriptions and theories about an area and uses them to create a dense integrated theory of greater scope.

There is contention among the grounded theorists about the status of data collection in the process of developing grounded theory. There are scholars like Glaser (1992) who argue that data emerge in the field, whereas Strauss and Corbin (1990) would argue that data are collected by using specific methods; and for Charmaz (2006) data are constructed by the researchers in the field. However, no matter which view point one adheres to, grounded theorists emphasise on repeated field contacts to collect more data and to adapt collection to the needs and questions resulting from the analysis of the data so far.

5.5. Memo Writing

Memos in grounded theory are notes that researchers writes during the research. Memo writing is essential to the grounded theory practices and principles. Memo writing is not a standardized procedure rather it depends on the personal style of the researcher. ‘Memos serve as reminders about what is meant by the term being used and provide the building blocks for certain amount of reflection. Memos are potentially very helpful to researchers in helping them to crystallize ideas and not to lose track of their thinking on various topics’ (Bryman 2012: 573). It is a widely accepted belief among the grounded theorist that memo writing benefits a lot if research diary is written throughout the process. As Uwe Flick suggests researchers using grounded theory: ‘If you do interviews, you should write an extended context protocol including your impressions, description of the setting in which you did an interview, circumstances and intriguing events in relation to the field and the interviewee’(Flick 2009: 434).

Memo writing is an important tool in grounded theory that bridges coding and report writing. Memos are analytic notes covering all the researcher’s ideas and questions about the codes that occur at the moment (Charmaz 2007: 2025). They help map out the emerging theory, and are used to identify concepts and their properties. Essentially memos are ideas which have been noted during the data collection process and which help to reorient the researcher at a later date. Memos help to generate relationships, abstract integrative frameworks and more general problems. They are also an excellent source of direction for future theoretical sampling (Glaser 1978).

Miles and Huberman (1994: 74) advice on using memos is based on their own experiences and the work of Glaser (1978) and Strauss and Corbin (1990), which includes:

1.      Always give priority to memoing. When an idea strikes, STOP whatever else you are doing and write the memo. Your audience is yourself. Get it down; don’t worry about prose elegance or even grammar. Include your musings of all sorts, even the fuzzy and foggy ones. Give yourself the freedom to think. Don’t self-censor.

2.      Memoing should begin as soon as the first field data start coming in, and usually should continue right up the production of the final report. Memoing contributes strongly to the development/revision of the coding system.

3.      Keep memos ‘sortable’. Caption them by basic concept and mark or underline other concepts discussed in the text of the memo. Like coded data, memos can be sorted and retrieved by using a wide variety of methods.

4.      Once again, memos are about ideas. Simply recounting data examples is not enough. By the same token, memos are not chiefly about people or events or interactions; these are all used as indicators for an analysis that is set in a conceptual frame.

5.      Don’t standardize memo formats or types, especially in a multi-researcher study. Memoing styles are distinctive, and memo types are as various as the imagination can reach.

6.      Memo writing is fun. And it often provides sharp, sunlit moments of clarity or insight – little conceptual epiphanies

5.6. Analysis through Coding

Coding data is an important aspect of grounded theory. Coding, according to Bryman, ‘entails reviewing transcripts and/or field notes and giving labels (names) to component parts that seem to be of potential theoretical significance and/or that appear to be particularly salient within the social worlds of those being studied’ (Bryman 2012: 568). Coding in grounded theory is tentative and tends to be in a state of revision and fluidity.

Strauss and Corbin (1990) based upon their approach to grounded theory, argues that analysis in grounded theory is composed of three major types of coding. These are analyses below:

5.6.1 Open Coding

It is ‘the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and categorising data’ (Strauss and Corbin 1990: 61). Open coding is the part of analysis that pertains specifically to the naming and categorizing of the phenomena through close examination of data. Without this first basic analytical step, the rest of the analysis and communication that follows could not take place. During open coding the data are broken down into discrete parts, closely examined, compared for similarities and differences, and questions are asked about the phenomena as reflected in the data.

After identifying particular phenomena in data, researcher begins to group concepts around them. According to Strauss and Corbin, ‘this is done to reduce the number of units with which we have to work. The process of grouping concepts that seem to pertain to the same phenomena is called categorizing’ (ibid.).

5.6.2. Axial Coding

It is ‘a set of procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways after open coding, by making connections between categories’ (ibid.: 96). This is done by linking codes to contexts, to consequences, to patterns of interactions and to causes. It is termed “axial” because coding occurs around the axis of a category, linking categories at the level of properties and dimensions. The purpose of axial coding is to begin the process of reassembling data that were fractured during open coding. In axial coding, categories are related to their subcategories to form more precise and complete explanations about phenomena.

5.6.3      Selective Coding

It is ‘the procedure of selecting the core category, systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationships, and filling in categories that need further refinement and development’ (ibid.: 116). Selective coding is the process of integrating and refining categories. The first step in integration is deciding on a central category. The central category (sometime called the core category) represents the main theme of the research.

According to Charmaz (2007), there are basically two forms of coding: initial coding and focused coding. During initial coding researcher is interested in understanding the categories which a particular incident indicate and researcher compares lines of data or incidents to define the properties of what is happening, learn how it developed, and what it means. ‘Close examination of data combined with comparison between data prompts researchers to see their data in new ways. Initial coding also alerts the researcher to potential in vivo codes given in the setting or participants’ direct statements’ (Charmaz 2007: 2025). Focus coding emphasizes on search for codes which appear frequently and assume greater analytic power. Researchers, argues Charmaz, ‘select these codes as focused codes to sift large batches of data. Through focused coding, researchers can reassess tacit meanings and actions in earlier data and generate preliminary categories for the emerging theory. This coding also provides the grist to interrogate the data and to contemplate what’s missing in it’ (ibid.: 2025).

It has earlier been outlined in the section on historical development of grounded theory that there is controversy on the right way of doing grounded theory research. As coding is central in the process of doing grounded theory, there are different viewpoints on the way of doing coding. Glaser criticises Strauss and Corbin (1990) for forcing their categories upon the material and for obstructing the process of emergence rather than supporting it by their way of coding. Charmaz and Bryant (2012) question the whole idea of emergence of categories. They see the whole process including the process of coding as a way of constructing grounded theories rather than discovering them.

Uwe Flick (2009) rightly points out that different versions of conducting grounded theory research – Glaserian or Straussian or Charmazian version can be confusing for a researcher who want to use grounded theory as a tool in his research. However, as Flick suggests, ‘one could try to see the common core of methodological approach in the different versions of grounded theory methodology and see the differences in the detail more as alternative ways of how to proceed depending on your research questions’ (Flick 2009: 435).

Flick (2009: 435-436) sets out to delineate that common ground to analyse data in grounded theory as follows –

·         Coding means to develop categories, properties, and relation among them.

·         Coding is a process which includes at least three steps (or ways of coding) with different aims.

·         The starting point is always open coding, sometimes called initial coding (Charmaz)

·         Later, some form of more structured coding is included. The ways of how to structure this coding can vary between the approaches. This can be theoretical coding (Glaser), axial coding (Strauss and Corbin), or focused coding (Charmaz).

·         Selective coding is the last step (Glaser sees it as prior to theoretical coding), which means that data are scanned for more evidences for core categories.

·         Coding aims to identify structures in the material – like core categories (Strauss), basic social processes (Glaser), story lines (Strauss and Corbin).

·         The different way of coding should not be seen as a one-after-the-other logic. Rather the researcher will return to open coding if the other forms of coding raise questions that can only be answered by developing new categories.

·         The end point of coding is theoretical saturation, if continuing coding does not lead to new theoretical insights.

5.7. Constant Comparison

One of the fundamental features of grounded theory is the application of the ‘constant’ comparative method. By comparing where the facts are similar or different, we can generate properties of categories that increase the categories’ generality and explanatory powers. Constant comparison, according to Bryman, ‘refers to a process of maintaining a close connection between data and conceptualization, so that the correspondence between concepts and categories with their indicators is not lost. More specifically, attention to the procedure of constant comparison enjoins the researcher constantly to compare phenomena being coded under a certain category so that a theoretical elaboration of that category can begin to emerge’ (Bryman 2012: 568).

5.8. Theoretical Saturation

When do you stop gathering data? What criteria do you use? The standard short grounded theory answer to the criteria question dictates: stop when your categories are ‘saturated’. Theoretical saturation, according to Glaser and Strauss (1967), occurs after many rounds of coding where no new categories emerge from the process. Once this point is reached, further data collection no longer is productive. Theoretical saturation is a process that pertains to coding of data and collection of data. In terms of coding of data it refers to a stage when there is no further point for a researcher in reviewing their data whether they fit with their concepts or categories. In terms of collection of data, it refers to a stage when no longer new data are able to illuminate the concept or category. When similar incidences occur over again, the researcher may feel confident that the category is saturated. As Glaser and Strauss have rightly pointed out, ‘after an analyst has coded incidents for the same category a number of times, he learns to see quickly whether or not the next applicable incident points to a new aspect. If yes, then the incident is coded and compared. If no, the incident is not coded, since it only adds bulk to the coded data and nothing to the theory’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 111).

5.9. Identifying Structure and Developing a Theoretical Model

Uwe Flick highlights that the aim of coding are always twofold: (i) ‘to develop and unfold an understanding of the issue or field under study first, which demands an open access to what should be coded and how’; (ii) the aim is ‘to identify an underlying structure, an organizing principle, a basic social process, or core category’ (Flick 2009: 436). Similarly, Glaser (1978) distinguishes between substantive and theoretical coding. In case of substantive coding researcher can use either words/concepts from the language of the field (in vivo codes), or words/concepts drawn from the scientific or sociological terminology. Theoretical coding then aims at identifying relations among such substantive codes as next step towards formulating a theory.

Theory is ‘a set of well-developed categories…that are systematically related through statements of relationship to form a theoretical framework that explains some relevant social ….or other phenomena’

(Strauss and Corbin 1998, quoted in Bryman 2012: 570). Grounded theorists have pointed out two levels of theory – substantive theory and formal theory. Substantive theory relates to a theory in a certain empirical instance or substantive area. Whereas formal theory is at a higher level of abstraction and has a wider range of applicability to several substantive areas.

6. Criteria for Evaluating Grounded Theory Studies

Charmaz (2006: 182-183) although shows that expectations for grounded theory studies may vary, but acknowledges that the following criteria may be helpful in evaluating grounded theory research:

Credibility

·         Has your research achieved intimate familiarity with the setting or topic?

·         Are the data sufficient to merit your claims? Consider the range, number, and depth of observations contained in the data.

·         Have you made systematic comparisons between observations and between categories?

·         Do the categories cover a wide range of empirical observations?

·         Are there strong logical links between the gathered data and your argument and analysis?

·         Has your research provided enough evidence for your claims to allow the reader to form an independent assessment – and agree with your claims?

Originality

·         Are your categories fresh? Do they offer new insights?

·         Does your analysis provide a new conceptual rendering of the data?

·         What is the social and theoretical significance of this work?

·         How does your grounded theory challenge, extend, or refine current ideas, concepts, and practices?

Resonance

·         Do the categories portray the fullness of the studied experience?

·         Have you revealed both liminal and unstable taken-for-granted meanings?

·         Have you drawn links between larger collectivities or institutions and individual lives, when the data so indicate?

·         Does your grounded theory make sense to your participants or people who share their circumstances? Does your analysis offer them deeper insights about their lives and worlds?

Usefulness

·         Does your analysis offer interpretations that people can use in their everyday worlds?

·         Do your analytic categories suggest any generic processes?

·         If so, have you examined these generic processes for tacit implications?

·         Can the analysis spark further research in other substantive areas?

·         How does your work contribute to knowledge? How does it contribute to making a better world?

A strong combination of originality and credibility increases resonance, usefulness, and the subsequent value of the contribution.

7. An Illustration of application of Grounded theory method Identity Dilemmas of Chronically Ill Men

Charmaz (1997) did a grounded theory study of identity dilemmas of chronically ill men after locating the research problem in the hospital setting. The main steps in her analysis were –

·       Formulating the research questions like: ‘What is it like to be an active productive man one moment and a patient who faces death the next? What is it like to change one’s view of oneself accordingly? Which identity dilemmas does living with continued uncertainty pose for men? How do they handle them? When do they make identity changes? When do they try to preserve a former self?’(ibid.: 38).

·         Conducted interviews of chronically ill men and women for comparative purposes.

·         Sampling in the study focused on adult status (more than 21 years of age); a diagnosis of serious, but not terminal chronic illness; a disease with an uncertain course; effects of illness upon daily life (ibid.: 39).

·         Analysis of the interviews of chronically ill men and women for comparative understanding of gender differences.

·         Searching for themes in men’s interview and published personal accounts like autobiographies.

·       Building ‘analytic categories from men’s definition of and taken-for-granted assumptions about their situations’ (ibid.: 39). Charmaz’s focus was mainly on ‘identity dilemmas’ – that is the way in which men approach and resolve the challenge to their traditional self-images.

·         Further interviews for refining these categories.

·         Rereading the data and personal accounts of chronic illness with a gender perspective.

·         Making ‘comparison with women on selected key points’ (ibid.: 39).

·    Charmaz attempted to answer her research questions by looking at four major processes in men’s experience of chronic illness: first, awakening to death after a life threatening crisis; second, accommodating uncertainty once the lasting consequences of the illness were recognized by the men; third, defining illness and disability, and fourth, preserving a self to maintain a sense of coherence while experiencing loss and change (ibid.: 38).

Earlier researchers have not looked at chronically ill ‘men’s experience from the standpoint of gender-based conceptions of masculinity’ (ibid.: 38). Charmaz’s study provided a substantive theory which helps to explain the importance of notions of masculinity for the carving out of an identity for chronically ill men and argues that chronically ill ‘men’s efforts are founded on assumptions of preserving masculinity.

8. Limitations of the Grounded Theory

1.      Practical limitation-

·         In many cases researcher has to submit an elaborate research design for the proposed study and need to specify sample size etc., and possible implications of study before the research committee or a funding agency. But, in grounded theory research, many of these decisions are to be taken by the researchers during the process of research.

·         Grounded theory research is time taking. ‘The time taken to transcribe recordings of interviews, for example, can make it difficult for researchers especially when they have tight deadlines, to carry out a genuine grounded theory analysis with constant interplay of data collection and conceptualisation’ (Bryman 2012: 574).

2.      Presence of Competing Versions of Grounded Theory Research

Different versions of conducting grounded theory research – Glaserian or Straussian or Charmazian version can be confusing for a researcher who wants to use grounded theory as a tool in his/her research. However, as Flick suggests, ‘one could try to see the common core of methodological approach in the different versions of grounded theory methodology and see the differences in the detail more as alternative ways of how to proceed depending on your research questions’ (Flick 2009: 435).

Despite these limitations, which all methods have, grounded theory is considered to be an influential strategy for conducting qualitative data analysis. It is particularly useful when a topic of interest has been relatively ignored in the literature or has been given only superficial attention. In such a scenario, grounded theory research helps the researcher in systematically building his/her own theory from the ground.

Self-check exercise 2

1.      What is coding in grounded theory?

It is the process of defining what the data are about. Unlike quantitative researchers, who apply preconceived categories or codes to the data, a grounded theorist creates qualitative codes by defining what he or she sees in the data.

2.      What do you understand by theoretical sampling?

Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes and analyses the data and decides what data to collect next and where to find it, in order to develop the theory as it emerges.

3. What is meant by theoretical saturation?

Theoretical saturation refers to the point at which gathering more data about a theoretical category reveals no new properties nor yields any further theoretical insights about the emerging grounded theory.

9. Summary

While going through this module you would have acquired familiarity with grounded theory and its uses. In the process of reading the historical development of grounded theory, you would have become aware of different versions of conducting grounded theory research – Glaserian, Straussian or Charmazian. This module would have helped you in understanding the process involved in grounded theory and the criteria used for evaluating grounded theory studies.

10. Some useful links and e-resources

http://www.groundedtheory.com/	The official site of Dr. Barney Glaser and classic grounded theory.
http://www.jstor.org/		Digital library of academic journals and books.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
r6RpQelvS1k&feature=related				Dr. Barney Glaser audio-video on Jargonizing and grounded
					theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?N
R=1&v=OcpxaLQDnLk			Dr. Barney Glaser audio-video on Grounded Theory is the study of
					a concept
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=	Dr. Graham R Gibbs (21 audio-videos set on Grounded Theory)
4SZDTp3_New&list=PL8CB91CC
62C1C2C7E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=	An audio-video recording of  discussion with Prof. Kathy Carmaz
D5AHmHQS6WQ		on Grounded theory

12. References:

1. Bryman, Alan. Social Research Methods. New Delhi: Oxford, 2012.
2. Charmaz, Kathy. “Identity Dilemmas of Chronically Ill Men”, in Grounded Theory in Practice, edited by A. Strauss and J.M. Corbin. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997. p. 35-62.
   1. ____. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage, 2006.
   2. ____.  “Grounded  Theory”,  in  The  Blackwell  Encyclopedia  of  Sociology,  edited  by  George  Ritzer. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. p. 2023-2027.
3. Charmaz, Kathy and Antony Bryant. “Grounded Theory and Credibility”, in Qualitative Research: Issues of Theory, Method and Practice, edited by David Silverman. New Delhi: Sage, 2012. p. 291-309.
4. Flick, Uwe. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. New Delhi: Sage, 2009.
5. Glaser, B. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence v Forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press, 1992.
   1. ____. Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press, 1978.
6. Glaser, B. and A. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. . Chicago: Aldine, 1967.
7. Goulding,  Christina.  Grounded  Theory:  A  Practical  Guide  for  Management,  Business  and  Market Researchers. New Delhi: Sage, 2002.
8. Hood, J.C. “Orthodoxy vs Power: The Defining Traits of Grounded Theory”, in The SAGE Handbook of
9. Grounded Theory, edited by A. Bryant and Kathy Charmaz. New Delhi: Sage, 2007. p. 151-164
10. Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman. Qualitative Data Analysis. New Delhi: Sage, 1994.
11. Strauss, A. and J. Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage, 1990.