Grounded theory and grounded

theorizing: pragmatism in research

practice 1st Edition Antony Bryant
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/grounded-theory-and-grounded-theorizing-pragmatis
m-in-research-practice-1st-edition-antony-bryant/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Brain Grounded Theory of Temporal and Spatial Design In

Architecture and the Environment 1st Edition Yoichi
Ando (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/brain-grounded-theory-of-
temporal-and-spatial-design-in-architecture-and-the-
environment-1st-edition-yoichi-ando-auth/

Peace from Anxiety Get Grounded Build Resilience and

Stay Connected Amidst the Chaos 1st Edition Hala Khouri

https://textbookfull.com/product/peace-from-anxiety-get-grounded-
build-resilience-and-stay-connected-amidst-the-chaos-1st-edition-
hala-khouri/

Operations Research-Operations Research: Theory and

Practice 1st Edition N.V.S Raju (Author)

https://textbookfull.com/product/operations-research-operations-
research-theory-and-practice-1st-edition-n-v-s-raju-author/

Electricity in fish research and management : theory

and practice Second Edition Beaumont

https://textbookfull.com/product/electricity-in-fish-research-
and-management-theory-and-practice-second-edition-beaumont/
Theorizing Curriculum Studies, Teacher Education, and
Research through Duoethnographic Pedagogy 1st Edition
Joe Norris

https://textbookfull.com/product/theorizing-curriculum-studies-
teacher-education-and-research-through-duoethnographic-
pedagogy-1st-edition-joe-norris/

Behavioral Operational Research: Theory, Methodology

and Practice 1st Edition Martin Kunc

https://textbookfull.com/product/behavioral-operational-research-
theory-methodology-and-practice-1st-edition-martin-kunc/

Indigenous Ways of Knowing in Counseling Theory

Research and Practice Lisa Grayshield

https://textbookfull.com/product/indigenous-ways-of-knowing-in-
counseling-theory-research-and-practice-lisa-grayshield/

Extramural English in Teaching and Learning: From

Theory and Research to Practice 1st Edition Pia
Sundqvist

https://textbookfull.com/product/extramural-english-in-teaching-
and-learning-from-theory-and-research-to-practice-1st-edition-
pia-sundqvist/

Psychology of Retention Theory Research and Practice

Melinde Coetzee

https://textbookfull.com/product/psychology-of-retention-theory-
research-and-practice-melinde-coetzee/
i

Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing

ii
iii

Grounded Theory and Grounded

Theorizing
PRAGMATISM IN RESEARCH PRACTICE

Antony Bryant

1
iv

1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Bryant, Antony, 1953– author.
Title: Grounded theory and grounded theorizing : pragmatism in research
practice / Antony Bryant.
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2017]
Identifiers: LCCN 2016023441 | ISBN 9780199922604 (hardback : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Grounded theory. | Social sciences—Research.
Classification: LCC H61.24 .B79 2017 | DDC 300.72—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016023441

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
v

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments vii
Introduction: Not Another Book on Grounded Theory ix

PART ONE Research and Research Methods

1. Research: Why (Do) Research? 3
2. Research Methods 13

PART TWO The Grounded Theory Method in Practice

3. 1967 And All That 63
4. The Grounded Theory Method: An Overview 83

PART THREE Grounded Theorizing: ​The Gerunds of the Grounded

Theory Method
5. Coding: Terminology and Clarification 117
6. An Example of Coding and a Coding Exercise 133
7. An Abbreviated Example: Research Pitching 141
8. Process and Procedure: Getting Started and Moving Forward 147
9. Coding Strategies: Tales from the Front Line 175
10. Reflecting and Recording: Memoing and Reflective Research 197
11. Moving On: ​Later Sampling, Coding, and Analyzing 217
12. Getting to an End-​point: Theoretical Saturation 249
13. Abduction—No Longer an Alien Concept 265

PART FOUR Grounded Theory—​Themes and Variations

14. A Grounded Theory of Grounded Theory Journal Articles 283
15. Another View of The Grounded Theory Method: Another Way of Modeling 299
16. It’s All in the Big Data: Data, Big Data, and the Grounded Theory Method 317
vi

vi Contents

17. The Grounded Theory Method and Pragmatism: Instrumental Theorizingâ•… 335
18. Grounded Theory as a Guide to Good Research Practice:
A Method for Enacting Abstraction and Abductionâ•… 353
19. Four Accounts of Grounded Theorizingâ•… 365
20. Charles Darwin: The Survival of the Grounded Theoristâ•… 383

Referencesâ•… 389
Indexâ•… 401
vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

You read the pragmatists and all you know is: not Descartes,
not Kant, not Plato. It’s like aspirin. You can’t use aspirin to give
yourself power, you take it to get rid of headaches. In that way,
pragmatism is a philosophical therapy. It helps you stop asking the
unhelpful questions. (Richard Rorty)

My first encounter with the writings of Glaser and Strauss came during my
undergraduate studies in social and political sciences in the 1970s. But the
main point of discussion was their substantive work on dying, with little or
little or no attention to the innovative methodological aspects. In the 1990s,
as a member of various university research committees, I was occasionally
confronted with PhD proposals referring to Grounded Theory, which usually
went on to use this as the justification for an absence of clear research aims
or questions, also a brief or non-​existent literature review. On most occasions
my colleagues and I gave short shrift to such submissions, and requested that
the proposal be revised and resubmitted. At one point, however, one of my
own PhD students, Kobus Smit, proposed to use grounded theory, and when
challenged on these issues responded with a clear and cogent account of the
method, justifying his starting point and overall strategy. This prompted me
to undertake a closer scrutiny of the topic and resulted in my paper ‘Re-​
grounding grounded theory’. Soon after it appeared I came across the work of
Kathy Charmaz, whose insights and experience of the method far outweigh
mine, and from that date have benefitted enormously from her collaboration
and friendship.
Our collaboration has been marked in particular with the The Sage
Handbook of Grounded Theory which broadened my familiarity with the
method, and gave me the opportunity to work with many of the leading writers
on grounded theory and qualitative methods in general. Prior to the prepara-
tion of that book I participated in a grounded theory event hosted by Barney
Glaser, and later I attended one of his workshops where I was fortunate enough
to see him in action, offering guidance and support to an international range
of grounded theory researchers including doctoral candidates and highly expe-
rienced professional practitioners. I am fairly sure that there will be parts of
the chapters that follow with which he will disagree, but I hope he will also
appreciate my attempt to adhere to Rapoport’s Four Rules, and also to note
the many points on which we do agree and where I express my admiration for vii
viii

viii Acknowledgments

the pioneering work that he and Anselm Strauss, together with Jeanne Quint,
began in the 1960s.
My wife, Griselda Pollock, and I can attest to the ‘grab’ and ‘fit’ of their
early studies with our experience caring for my mother in the last few years of
her life. In the months leading up to her death at the age of 97, through various
stays in hospital and care homes, her awareness was virtually non-​existent, but
my wife and I both found comfort in our understanding of what was going
on derived from Barney and Anselm’s insights. In many cases we were several
stages ahead of the medical and nursing staff, and able to cope with develop-
ments accordingly.
In the past twenty years or so I have supervised many PhD students, and
since 2000 a significant number of them have used the grounded theory method
in their research. I am sure they all learned a great deal about the method, but
I know that I have learned even more in guiding and supporting them, in
discussing their work as it progressed, and in gaining deeper insights from
their innovative research strategies. I have drawn on many of their insights and
findings in this book, and am particularly grateful to Andrea Gorra, Premila
Gamage, Transmissia Semiawan, and Stella Walsh for preparing such eloquent
overviews of their experiences. The work of these four, together with that of
Gerhard Drexler and Ibraheem Jodeh, provided a rich source of examples to
illustrate many key points in the chapters that follow.
This book was in preparation for several years, initially in response to
an invitation from Patricia Leavy to contribute a short volume of around five
chapters to a series on qualitative research methods. When I finally submitted
a far longer text to OUP, both she and Abby Gross were fully supportive in
continuing with publication, and Abby and her colleagues have provided guid-
ance and insight as this has progressed. Courtney McCarroll saw through the
initial stages of preparation, and Susan Hannan produced a thorough copy-​
edited version. My thanks to all at OUP; any errors or ambiguities that remain
are entirely my responsibility.
Tony Bryant
July 2016
ix

Introduction
NOT ANOTHER BOOK ON GROUNDED THEORY

The twentieth century mathematician and systems theory pioneer. Anatol

Rapoport offered a set of four rules regarding how to write a successful critical
commentary on an opponent’s work.
1. First, he said, you must attempt to re-​express your opponent’s position
so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your opponent says “Thanks, I wish
I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. Then, you should list any points of agreement (especially if they are
not matters of general or widespread agreement),
3. Third, you should mention anything you have learned from your
opponent.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or
criticism.1
If you have got this far, or are just idly looking through this book in a shop, or
library, or online, you may well be thinking, “Not another book on grounded
theory!” Indeed, many other potential readers, having had the same thought,
may not have bothered getting even this far. So, why persevere with this partic-
ular book? First of all it needs to be stressed that the various books and articles
on grounded theory do not exist as some disordered, amorphous resource;
there are various patterns and relationships between the various items—​
books, articles, Web sites, and the like; in many cases, they were written as
rejoinders or restatements in the light of other sources. The grounded theory
method (GTM) itself first came to researchers’ attention in the 1960s when
Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss published their initial detailed grounded
theory study Awareness of Dying (1965), soon followed by the more generic,
methods-​oriented book The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967). They
supplemented this with a further, related study Time for Dying (1968). These
three volumes have come to be seen as the core texts for the method and are
referred to throughout this book in abbreviated form as the trilogy, Awareness,
Discovery, and Time.
ix
x

x Introduction

Various other grounded theory books followed, including Anguish (Strauss

and Glaser, 1970), Status Passage (Glaser and Strauss, 1971), Theoretical
Sensitivity (Glaser, 1978), and Negotiations (Strauss, 1978). Together with the
initial trilogy, these can be seen as an extended presentation of the founding
ideas of the method, including discussion of and justification for the method
itself (specifically Discovery and Theoretical Sensitivity), as well as profound
and highly important and influential exemplars of substantive grounded theo-
ries (Awareness and Time), and formal grounded theories (Status Passage, and
Negotiations), with Anguish offering a case history, interweaving detailed nar-
rative with a “theoretical commentary.” This astonishingly rich and still evoca-
tive body of work can be thought of as the foundation of GTM, although as
explained later in this book, does not really provide the basis for a tutorial
guide for the methodologically perplexed or inexperienced researcher.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, primarily as a response to demands for
a more student-​centered account, the method was the central theme of
Strauss’s solo work, Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (1987); his co-​
authored book with Julie Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures and Techniques (1990); and Glaser’s response to the lat-
ter work, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis (1992). It has been argued
that Strauss was persuaded to produce his two titles in response to repeated
requests from students keen to learn more about the method, given that
the initial trilogy and later works were not really aimed at the novice audi-
ence. Strauss incorporated large sections—​verbatim—​of Glaser’s Theoretical
Sensitivity in Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, so linking it clearly to
the earlier works. But when his book did not quiet or dispel the clamor for
a more detailed account of the method, Strauss joined forces with Corbin to
produce Basics of Qualitative Research. Although there is significant continu-
ity between the two books, Glaser took issue vehemently only with the latter
text, going as far as asking that Strauss withdraw the book from publication
(Glaser, 1992, c­ hapter 1). In addition, Glaser published a response, Basics
of Grounded Theory Analysis, in which he explicitly distanced himself from
Strauss and Corbin, arguing that the only valid thread from the early works
lay through his own writings. Strauss, who died in 1996, never responded to
Glaser’s criticisms. A second edition of Strauss and Corbin’s book appeared in
1998, with two further editions appearing since, and Glaser has continued to
publish prolifically. The result is two parallel and contending threads tracing
the evolution of the method; one is centred on Glaser’s publications and the
related writings of those who largely follow his ideas, and the other follows
and develops from Strauss and Corbin’s work. The actual nature of the dif-
ferences between the two threads, however, is itself a matter of debate, as is
explained in some of the chapters in this book.
In the 1990s the method continued to evolve in other ways, most nota-
bly with the development of what has been termed Constructivist grounded
xi

Introduction xi

theory, introduced and articulated in the work of Kathy Charmaz, most nota-
bly in Constructing Grounded Theory (2006 and 2014). As a consequence,
there are now three broad strands of the method, all taking their lead from the
founding trilogy but differing in their methodological and philosophical bases
and orientations. Figure 1 illustrates these three strands, indicating the key
texts explicating each in what some researchers might consider a controversial
or questionable manner. nb: The early writings are labeled “canonical” because
they form the body of work that is universally recognized as the basis of the
method. Glaser’s insistence on claiming the mantle of “Classical Grounded
Theory” implies that he would include his writings as canonical, with those
of the other variants labeled departures from the method itself. This aspect of
grounded theory is discussed at various stages in Parts Two and Three of this
volume.
In what follows I offer an account of the method, largely anchored in
the constructivist camp, but seeking to adhere to Rapoport’s rules while tak-
ing cognizance of alternative orientations. In so doing I have drawn upon
another aspect of Strauss’s intellectual formation—​Pragmatism—​with the
aim of articulating a view of GTM that draws on the insights and strengths
of all three strands, locating the method as a clear exemplar of good research
practice, and a set of heuristics that promote grounded theorizing of the
Pragmatist kind.2
The topic of Pragmatism is taken up in later chapters, but in the words
of William James it centers on a view of a theory as an instrument “designed
to achieve a purpose—​to facilitate action or increase understanding” (James

Strauss & Glaser Charmaz &

Corbin Classical or Bryant 2000
Variants Coding Objectivist Constructivist
and onwards
Paradigm & Pragmatist
Further
Articulations

1990s

Glaser & Strauss

Theoretical Sensitivity, Status Passage, Anguish,
Negotiations
CANONICAL
Glaser, Strauss & Quint
Awareness, Discovery, Time, The Nurse and
the Dying Patient 1960s

FIGURE 1 The Grounded Theory Method: Canonical Basis and Main Variants.
xii

xii Introduction

1907). Pragmatists treat our concepts and theories as instruments, applying

and judging them in terms of how well they achieve their intended purpose.
As is made clear in this book, this perspective on knowledge, action, and appli-
cation also lies at the heart of GTM; hence my use of the phrase grounded theo-
rizing in the title of this book. Until recently, however, this has been a largely
unacknowledged and poorly articulated aspect of the method.
It should be noted that most current accounts of the method offer expla-
nations of the three variants, often incorporating very different accounts and
perspectives on each of the threads. Such accounts should be judged in terms
of their usefulness and the light they shed on the central issues of the applica-
tion and value of the method itself. The varying ways in which people char-
acterize the different forms of the method can be seen as a microcosm of
differing views concerning the “emergence” of models, theories, and concepts
from the data. Clearly the same data provides the basis for disparate views of
the core concept of what I term grounded theorizing. This is something that
might be disturbing to some investigators, because it appears to permit and
even encourage a free-​for-​all agenda for research. Yet, as shown in later chap-
ters, adopting a Pragmatist perspective on the method tempers and grounds
GTM against these potentially unruly and chaotic tendencies, leading to its
characterization as a method for enacting abstraction and abduction (see
Chapter 18).
As noted at the beginning of this introduction, the method was initially
developed and articulated in the 1960s, a time of several major upheavals, some
of which laid claim to being revolutionary or world-​changing. Universities,
particularly across Europe and the the United States, were the sites of mass pro-
test movements and innovations such as the sit-​in, the teach-​in, and eventu-
ally the love-​in. Within the academies themselves there were other significant
forms of revolt or change, not perhaps as newsworthy but to some extent more
far-​reaching and with greater long-​term significance. Thus the period from the
late 1950s to the end of the 1960s marked the publication of several important
works, including Karl Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery (first published
1959) and Conjectures and Refutations (1963), Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions (1962), and Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s The
Social Construction of Reality (1966). The issues that these authors raised are
discussed in more detail in the relevant chapters of this book, but at this stage
it must be noted that, taken together, these works presented a range of chal-
lenges to orthodoxies relating to the nature of knowledge, scientific research,
and distinctions between science and other forms of claims to knowledge,
enquiry, or belief. In many respects the core arguments were not entirely new,
but they did represent novel and extended forms of older arguments, provid-
ing a serious critique to the universality and ubiquity of the scope of reason
and rationalism.
xiii

Introduction xiii

In the midst of these challenges to academic orthodoxy, Anselm Strauss

and Barney Glaser, working in conjunction with Jeanne Quint, published their
three founding texts for the Grounded Theory Method,3 Awareness, Discovery,
and Time. As I argue later in this book, their ideas can and should be located
against these other features of the time, although neither Glaser nor Strauss
ever sought to do so in any explicit fashion. Kuhn’s work is actually referred to
in footnote 15, page 28, of Discovery, where it is linked to the comment, “A the-
ory’s only replacement is a better theory.” The footnote continues, “this is a basic
finding in [Kuhn’s book]… . [W]‌e believe that this applies more to a grounded
theory than a logico-​deductive one.” This is a highly ambiguous statement, and
in many senses an incorrect reading of Kuhn’s ideas, but at the time it passed
largely unnoticed. Nevertheless there may well be a case for grounded theories
to be more amenable to change or replacement than logico-​deductive ones, but
neither Glaser nor Strauss ever took up this aspect of Kuhn’s work directly.
Looking back it can be seen that some of the upheavals of the period had
an immediate and lasting impact, whereas some had only a momentary place
in the spotlight. Others may not have had any major impact at the time but
have grown in reputation over the years. The grounded theory method (GTM)
certainly has some claim to being in the first category, particularly with the
publication of Discovery, and it has an even stronger claim to the third.
My intention in writing this book is to offer a series of chapters that deal
with the background to the method, details of the techniques it encompasses,
and some examples of how it has been used, drawing on the experiences of
some of my successful and highly accomplished doctoral students who have
used the method as part of their research. Readers will, however, have to be
patient with respect to many issues brought to their attention in the opening
chapters, as in many cases once they have been mentioned later discussion will
have to be postponed to a later section or chapter.
The chapters are presented in four main sections. Part One covers general
research issues and situates GTM against them. Part Two consists of one
chapter that deals with the background to the development of GTM, and
another that offers an overview of the method as a whole. Part Three com-
prises nine chapters that look in detail at what I term grounded theorizing—​
that is, what is involved in doing GTM research. Finally, Part Four offers a
series of chapters summarizing the key arguments in this book, and also
taking these further with regard to issues such as “Big Data” (Chapter 16)
and an alternative approach to coding and modeling in GTM (Chapter 17).
There then follows a capstone discussion that draws together the claims
that GTM needs to be understood as a Pragmatist method. This is then
followed by a chapter that presents the ways in which GTM can be seen
as a model of good research practice (Chapter 18).4 Chapter 19 comprises
four verbatim accounts of the use of GTM in PhD research. A brief final
xiv

xiv Introduction

chapter (Chapter 20) examines the ways in which a famous theorist of yore
can now be seen unwittingly to have been a highly effective grounded theorist.
At each stage, a range of different perspectives and audiences will have
been kept in mind: research students, supervisors or promoters, evaluators,
editors, and reviewers—​that is, the practitioners, the potential practitioners,
and the gatekeepers. Within the academic community people’s understand-
ing of GTM has been based on what might be best referred to as a “mixed
press.” To some extent this is a result of the widely varying uses of GTM that
can be found in many publications invoking use of the method, where, all
too often, there is little more than a cursory use of “coding” that is sometimes
accompanied by a mantra-​like justification. In the light of this kind of repre-
sentation, many reviewers and assessors are highly skeptical when faced with
a proposal or paper reporting GTM-​oriented research. Such submissions are
often regarded as under-​prepared and lacking in academic rigor and robust-
ness. The result is that many students presenting their dissertation topic and
their intention to make key use of GTM have a great onus placed on them to
justify their approach. In contrast,their colleagues and peers who use other
methods, whether quantitative or qualitative, will not be required to justify
their approach. Fortunately, there is now a burgeoning effort to rectify this
inequity, with books and publications aimed at explaining the intricacies of
GTM to academic gatekeepers, as well as to potential practitioners (see Bryant
2012 and Chapter 18 in this book).
The sequence of the 20 chapters that follow, and their segmentation into
four parts, represents what I consider to be the most coherent manner in
which to present the characterization of grounded theorizing as Pragmatism
in research practice. They begin with engaging with general issues about
research before moving on to an account of GTM in general, and only then
offering detailed discussions and examples of the method-​in-​use; finally pre-
senting chapters that reiterate and develop key themes, including one specifi-
cally focusing on Pragmatism and GTM.
Not all readers will wish to or need to follow this sequence; instead, they
will dip in and out of the text or focus on specific chapters. Furthermore some
aspects of my position can only be articulated in later chapters, requiring that
readers take certain points on trust until they can be developed in an explicit
manner. Reviewers of selected chapters in draft form have confirmed this: In
some cases they pointed out that novice readers might be best served by early
presentation of examples of GTM in use, prior to the chapters concerned with
the background to the method. In contrast, readers with more experience in
the method, but reading the book to gain a different perspective on GTM,
might want the Pragmatist aspects to be dealt with early on.
There is no way of reconciling these different standpoints and orienta-
tions, but I can indicate ways in which different readerships might approach
the chapters that follow. These are only suggestions, and readers will have to
decide on their own route through the text.
xv

Introduction xv

I assume that anyone reading this far already has some understanding of
research methods in general, but perhaps with only the vaguest idea about
GTM and a keen desire to learn more. Such readers might wish to jump
straight to Chapter 4 and then proceed through the chapters in Part Three for
examples of the method and detailed discussions of key features. Alternatively,
they could start with the example and exercises in Chapter 6, followed by the
further example in Chapter 7, and then go back to the overview presented in
Chapter 4, before reading the rest of Part Three. As I suggest at several points
in these chapters, however, readers should also refer to other GTM texts, par-
ticularly Charmaz’s Constructing Grounded Theory (2006 & 2014), to supple-
ment their understanding of the method.
The material in Part One covers topics that are addressed in many texts
and edited collections on research, several of which are referred to in those
chapters. In my experience with research students, however, they often gain a
great deal from engaging with these discussions from different angles, and in
Chapters 1 and 2 I seek to do this in a distinctive fashion, supplementing the
standard “textbooks” and collections. The discussion goes further, however, in
linking the key ideas about research methods to GTM and providing the basis
for the later chapters on the method itself.
Researchers with a fairly firm understanding of GTM, perhaps consid-
ering their final doctoral submission or a journal paper, should pay partic-
ular attention to Chapters 14, 17, and 18. Similarly, PhD examiners, as well
as journal editors and reviewers, should turn to Chapter 18, particularly the
summary tables. The section in Chapter 4 under the heading TheAccidents
and Essences of GTM, and Chapter 18 itself should provide useful guides to
GTM researchers at PhD level and beyond in pre-​empting some of the misun-
derstandings and misapprehensions that unfortunately are prevalent among
evaluators, examiners, and reviewers.
Everyone interested in GTM should read Chapters 19 and 20. Chapter 19
is particularly important for doctoral researchers, as the four accounts provide
answers to many of the typical questions that students raise when first consid-
ering adoption of GTM, and later as their research develops. Chapter 20 might
seem quirky, but it should elicit a range of responses from readers, including
a spur to read or reread other sources on GTM, including papers detailing
GTM-​oriented research findings and analyses.

A Note on Terminology

It has already been pointed out that the term grounded theory is something of
a misnomer if applied to the method as opposed to the outcome; hence my
preference for grounded theory method and the acronym GTM.
A further issue arises in discussing GTM in use. There are numerous exam-
ples of research publications that claim use of GTM in a highly questionable
xvi

xvi Introduction

manner. Nevertheless it is important to avoid any attempt to impose a tight

methodological orthodoxy on GTM which, after all, was developed as a flex-
ible alternative to counter prevailing orthodoxies and associated constraints in
social science research in the 1960s. As the later chapters illustrate, there are
many ways in which GTM can be and has been used imaginatively to good
effect, while retaining core features of the method. Consequently I have cho-
sen to coin the term GTM-​oriented research to incorporate these features of
GTM-​in-​use.
Prior to a consideration of GTM in detail, it is worth taking some time
to consider a number of fundamental issues such as “What is research?”
and “What is a research method?” Such considerations will provide a con-
text against which GTM can be understood while its chief characteristics
and innovative features are being brought to the fore. The first two chapters
then offer an opportunity to relate the later discussion to the burgeoning and
very rich literature on research methods in general and qualitative research in
particular.

Key Points

¤ Rapoport’s four rules for a successful critical commentary—​I leave it

to readers to determine the extent to which I have managed to adhere
to these rules in the chapters that follow.
¤ Grounded theory method—​GTM
¤ Three progenitors of GTM—​Glaser, Strauss, Quint
¤ Canonical texts for GTM—​underlie all the major variants; the
appendices to Awareness, Time, and Status Passage are key sources for
the method as a whole.
¤ Three key variants—​plus other articulations
¤ GTM-​ oriented research
¤ Characteristics of GTM in the light of challenges to the basis of
knowledge claims 1960s onward

Notes

1. I have not been able to locate the original source, but Daniel Dennett has used it
in recent years and so it is now linked to his work, although always clearly attributed to
Rapoport—​ see for instance http://​schoolofthinking.org/​2013/​06/​daniel-​dennetts-​seven-​
tools-​for-​thinking/​ nb: All URLs were checked in mid-​April 2015.
2. This phrase echoes the title of the famous film Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
You may also have noted earlier use of the phrase “guide for the methodologically per-
plexed,” which echoes Moses Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed. Examples in a similar
vein occur throughout this book—​for instance in endnote 4!
xvii

Introduction xvii

3. Although the term grounded theory has the most currency, the more appropriate
term is the Grounded Theory Method (GTM), the term used throughout this book where
reference is to the method as opposed to the anticipated output—​that is, a grounded theory.
4. As mentioned in endnote 2, here is another play on an established term; the original
phrase is to be found in Thomas the Tank Engine—​A Very Useful Engine. http://​en.wikipedia.
org/​wiki/​Thomas_​the_​Tank_​Engine
xviii
1

PART ONE

Research and Research Methods

When my son was at primary school he was always given homework to do,
and the deal was that it had to be done before he could go out and play, or
watch TV, or suchlike. One day he came home and announced that he had
no homework that day and so he could go and amuse himself without delay.
I asked him what the teacher had actually said at the end of class, and, as it
turned out, she had told the class that because they had exams in the next few
days there was no homework, but they should “do some revision.” So I asked
him if he knew what revision was. He told me he had no idea what it was, but
it wasn’t homework!
In a similar fashion students embarking on research projects, whether as
part of their undergraduate studies or for postgraduate qualifications, are con-
fronted with the prospect of doing something whose meaning might seem
“obvious,” but which is actually complex and often misunderstood. When
I moved from an undergraduate course to start my PhD, it was assumed that
students knew what was meant by “research,” and there were few if any texts or
courses on research methods. This state of affairs has since changed, and stu-
dents are offered courses and texts on a wide variety of research topics. Many
books devoted to specific methods or techniques assume that readers will have
encountered introductory discussions on the nature of research. In this book
I have chosen to offer two introductory chapters, one of which (Chapter 1)
discusses the nature of research itself and another that offers a framework
for discussing and assessing methods. This latter chapter—​Chapter 2—​also
encompasses a consideration of two topics that continue to perplex doctoral
students: epistemology and ontology.
2
3

Research
WHY (DO) RESEARCH?

It is assumed that people know about research: what it involves and how it is to
be carried out. After all, research is a widely used term, both within specialized
contexts and in more general and less specialized areas of study. For students
embarking on a research degree it might be thought that there is, or ought to
be, some well-​regarded and consensual understanding of the term, yet in the
course of many years of teaching, it has become apparent to me that, like many
other common terms—​for example, time, space, or quality—​everyone knows
what research means, until someone asks for a definition or a clear description.
Suddenly, the complexities of the concept obstruct attempts to express one’s
ideas clearly and cogently. Just asking for a definition of the word research is
itself ambiguous, as one might be referring to a verb or a noun; respectively, to
a process or a product.
The noun form itself can also be both the object and the subject of a sen-
tence. For example in the sentence “[Barney] Glaser and [Anselm] Strauss
undertook their research partly as a result of their own recent family bereave-
ments,” research is the object. Whereas the word is the subject in the sentence
“Research has shown that many journal editors have an antipathy towards
submissions that report the use of GTM [grounded theory method].” As is
explained at greater length in Chapter 8, this latter form seemingly attributes
agency to the term research, which can be highly misleading. In the example
given, it is reasonable to infer that the word research is shorthand for a phrase
along the lines of “the research that was carried out”—​that is, attributing
agency to the people who carried out the research. But for GTM, invocation
of phrases such as “the theory emerges from the data” implies that the action
emanates from and somehow resides in the theory and the data rather than
with the researcher. In some cases these issues are related primarily to the style
of writing, but it is important that some care be taken if there is any danger of
introducing ambiguity or a risk of misleading the reader.
3
4

4 Research and Research Methods

In recent years there has been in many ways a welcome plethora of acces-
sible and well-​articulated books on research and research methods, includ-
ing excellent overviews such as that by Loraine Blaxter and colleagues (2006).
There are also many edited collections of articles by researchers and other
contributors with methodological expertise—​for example, Norman Denzin
and Yvonna Lincoln’s Handbook of Qualitative Research (2005). Many of these
­volumes open with general reflections on the nature of research, different types
of research, and discussion of what constitutes “doing research” for everyone
from undergraduates through to doctoral students and senior researchers. So
at this point, before reading any further, you might want to take a moment to
respond to the question: “What is research?” (nb: I would not recommend that
you spend too much time at this stage on similar considerations of time, space,
or quality. Of the three time is certainly the most challenging. Some people
might claim that space can be defined as “the final frontier,” but that would
only satisfy fans of the original, classic series of Star Trek.)1
Here are some examples of the ways in which research is discussed in well-​
regarded and widely used texts on research methods. Easterby-​Smith et al.,
in their book Management Research (2012) do not actually define research,
but they make the point that it is not something done only by experts. “Most
people spend a lot of time trying to make sense of everyday experiences …”
(p. 3). Robson, in Real World Research (2002), notes that the term has negative
connotations; “research … puts people off … another word for enquiry …”
(2002, p. xv). Blaxter et al., in their book How to Research, interestingly do not
include an item in their index for the term, but on page 63 they provide an
illustrative box titled “Research families, approaches and techniques.”2 Phillips
and Pugh, in How to Get a PhD, devote a whole chapter (­Chapter 5, p. 46 et
seq., 3rd edition, 2000) to the topic, explaining that research certainly involves
“finding out about something you don’t know.” But they immediately point
out that this is both too wide and too narrow a characterization. It is too wide
in the sense that if, for instance, you don’t know the time of the next train to
London, finding out about this would hardly qualify as research. In contrast, it
is also too narrow because research also includes “finding that you don’t know
something.” So the authors try to distinguish between intelligence gathering
(“what” questions) and research (“why” questions).
Many key texts do not define or even try to characterize research, per-
haps assuming that readers already have a fairly good idea of what is involved.
David Silverman, an authority on research methods, as demonstrated by
extensive authorship and editorship of numerous key texts and resources over
many years, exemplifies this. No doubt, and with some justification, he would
argue that anyone seeking out books such as his Interpreting Qualitative Data
(5th edition, 2015) or Qualitative Research (3rd edition, 2011) already has
some idea of what is involved in doing research. But that does not help cast any
light on the present discussion.
5

Research 5

It is worth noting at this point that most, but not all, titles relating to quan-
titative research employ the term “quantitative methods” rather than “quan-
titative research,” thereby avoiding this issue—​something that will be taken
further in the later discussion on methods and tools in Chapter 2. A quick
search using Google books resulted in around 5 million hits for both “quanti-
tative methods” and “quantitative research,” but most of the items in the latter
list contained the term “method” rather than “research” in their titles.
From the above discussion it can be concluded that research involves
enquiring, gathering of data or information, and taking specialized approaches
to analyzing what has been gathered. Using a very wide understanding of the
term, it might be argued that to some extent everyone is “doing research,” but
taken at face value this is not really very useful or enlightening. Monsieur
Jourdain, in Molière’s Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme,3 was delighted to discover
that he had been talking prose for his entire life. Perhaps his false flatterer,
Dorante, could similarly have persuaded him that he had also been engaged in
research. If that is all there is to it, however, what is the point of all the learned
tomes on research methods, tools, practices, and the like?
Research must be more than a generic form of enquiry; there must be
something more robust and formal about the activity. Donna Mertens offers a
succinct and clear statement to this effect in her text on educational and psy-
chological research (2010):
Research is one of many different ways of knowing or understanding. It is
different from other ways of knowing, such as insight, divine inspiration,
and acceptance of authoritative dictates, in that it is a process of system-
atic inquiry that is designed to collect, analyze, interpret, and use data.
Research is conducted for a variety of reasons, including to understand,
describe, predict, or control an educational or psychological phenomenon
or to empower individuals in such contexts. (p. 2)
Note the term systematic and the verb forms referring to the actions carried
out by researchers; these echo the ones used in the previous paragraph—​e.g.
enquiring, gathering, analyzing.
If you took the time earlier to respond to the question “What is research?”
perhaps you included ideas along the lines of collection of evidence or data,
critical analysis, review of literature, dissemination and publication, engage-
ment with peers and others; also quality criteria such as reliability, credibil-
ity, replicability, and relevance. In this sense “doing research” comes to be
seen as involving a series of inter-​linked activities, with inputs, outputs, and
constraints. Enquiry is certainly involved, but so too are motivation, critical
insight, interpretation, and other activities that require skill, expertise, and
experience. Texts on research methods indicate the sorts of skills that are
required, and we shall see later ­in Chapter 4 that the grounded theory method
(GTM) places these skills at center stage in the form of theoretical sensitivity,
6

6 Research and Research Methods

as well as various forms of coding, theoretical saturation, and the like. In so

doing GTM immediately raises the idea that consideration of research activi-
ties cannot simply be seen in an abstract and immaterial sense but must relate
to the development of research skills by researchers themselves. This aspect
is all too often obscured when these topics are discussed with disembodied
terms and/​or passive locutions. For instance, phrases such as “the research was
carried out,” “a number of questions were posed,” “the following results were
obtained,” all evade the issue of who actually did the research, posed the ques-
tions, and obtained the results. This is unhelpful and misleading, giving the
impression that the person or persons carrying out the research are somehow
unimportant or at least interchangeable with other researchers.
Given that many texts assume that the reader knows something of what
research involves and means, their authors move on to a consideration of
the different types or forms of research. This involves partitioning “research”
into subcategories based on various criteria. In some cases these criteria are
centered on the aim or topic of the research—​pure, applied, emancipatory,
policy-​based, and so on. In other cases the key aspect of research refers to the
approach to be taken, starting with the top-​level distinction between quantita-
tive and qualitative approaches.
The qualitative/​quantitative distinction aligns research in terms of the
main form of the data and subsequent modes of analysis and manipulation,
while criteria such as pure, applied, emancipatory relate to the over-​arching
aim of the research. These different alignments are not mutually exclusive,
and so applied research might be qualitative or quantitative, or both. In recent
times it has not been uncommon to find that writers refer to the distinction
between hypothesis-​oriented research and non-​hypothesis-​oriented research,
a result of Glaser and Strauss’s pioneering work, which offered the latter alter-
native as a valid and systematic option.
The outcome of all of this is that researchers need to have some aware-
ness of the different ways in which the idea of research—​in terms of both the
verb and the noun forms—​that is, process and product—​can be subdivided
and classified, perhaps necessitating each research project to be characterized
in some manner aligning with these sorts of issues. But exactly how this is
decided and explicated will depend on the background to the project and the
audience being addressed. What needs to be borne in mind, however, is that
there is no single, coherent way in which the research domain can be classified
and subdivided; each attempt to do so will, in some manner, depend on the
idiosyncrasies of the classifier, the motivations behind such classification, as
well as the nature of the research activity itself.
Researchers must also be clear that the terms qualitative research and
quantitative research refer to the methods used, and not necessarily to the
data. Those investigators using qualitative methods may still use quantitative
data, and those using quantitative methods may use qualitative data. The latter
7

Research 7

group will certainly incorporate non-​quantifiable assumptions and reason-

ing, which themselves can become the source of major controversies. Anyone
doubting this need look no further than the work and the website of Ben
Goldacre, who offers numerous examples of “Bad Science.”4 Admittedly, many
of his examples emanate from journalists and politicians; groups of people who
have a tendency to exhibit a poor or nonexistent understanding of numeracy
and statistics. But many other of Goldacre’s examples relate to issues found in
and around academic research domains, with neuroscience being a favorite
(Goldacre, 2009). Conversely, researchers using qualitative methods are often
found wanting in their use of basic mathematical concepts; for instance, using
the term average without understanding the distinctions between mean, mode,
and median. (Note to readers: make sure you are aware of these distinctions
before reading any further!)
It must be understood that qualitative research can and should make use
of quantitative data, indicating and discussing various interpretations and
ramifications of such data. Also, researchers using quantitative approaches
need to recognize and understand a range of issues around such research,
including the nature and quality of the data used, robustness of sampling, test-
ing, significance, and eventual interpretation of the results, even if they are
calculated to several significant figures. (I have yet to see any research reports
consisting solely of quantitative findings—​there is always considerable textual
explanation and explication, adding further complexities of potential ambigu-
ity and differing interpretations.)
Another key issue with regard to research relates to the various forms of
evaluation and scrutiny that need to be undertaken as part of the process of
doing research—​a key factor that differentiates research from mere enquiry.
No one is his or her own best critic, so the image of the lone researcher is only
a very small part of the picture of the research process: at best, only a partial
and unilluminating one; at worst, a downright misleading representation. It
is far better to understand the process as involving a research community of
practice or several overlapping communities of practices (plural in both cases)
constantly interacting in various forms of dialogue, including conferences,
seminars, peer review, and the like. This idea undermines limited conceptions
of research that focus only on a project or an outcome. Researchers always
have to encounter forms of evaluation and scrutiny. At the outset these will
include submission of proposals to review boards or funding committees, as
well as discussions with teachers and supervisors. Later in the process, there
will be various interim checkpoints, progress indicators, upgrade reviews, and
the like. Eventually there will be examinations, peer review and, possibly, sub-
mission for review and later publication. All of these procedures are part of
the research process, and many research methods fail to address some of these
important aspects of enquiry, or they explicitly focus only on some selected
facets. The grounded theory method, to the credit of its progenitors and later
8

8 Research and Research Methods

authors, has a good deal to offer with regard to most, if not all of these aspects
of study, as discussed in the chapters that follow. Moreover, the method itself
must be seen as offering a series of important challenges to taken-​for-​granted
tenets of research practice as they existed in the United States and elsewhere
in the 1960s.
Barney Glaser has stressed the importance of publication for researchers,
and he has done so consistently since his early research in the 1960s, when
access to publication was restricted to the printed page—​journals or books. He
has a long-​established record of publication and self-​publication, particularly
in the form of his Sociology Press,5 which he started in the 1970s. With the
advent of the Internet, blogs, Web pages, and the like offer far more possibili-
ties for dissemination and self-​publication. The massive extent and continued
growth of such opportunities has a major downside, however, as it militates
against any individual publication’s gaining attention in a sea of contending
materials and sources. Anyone and everyone can now put research reports on
personal Web pages, but will anyone read them or take notice?
At this point, you might wish to return to, and revise, earlier attempts to
respond to the challenge of answering the question: “What is research?” My
view is that this is a question that should be side-​stepped, and replaced by ask-
ing instead, “What is involved in doing research?”6 This immediately raises the
issues of the processes and activities involved, including the necessity for dis-
semination and dialogue in some form of research community, without which
investigation of a topic amounts to no more than a pastime or hobby. If some-
one undertakes even a detailed and rigorous investigation of a topic, it cannot
be considered a full-​fledged research activity until it has been disseminated
among those most capable of evaluating the findings and outcomes, offering
critiques and relevant insights.

A Note on Quantitative versus Qualitative Research

“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that
can be counted counts.” (a sign in Albert Einstein’s office at Princeton
University)

Glaser and Strauss, in developing GTM, set out to challenge the prevail-
ing orthodoxy in many ways, seeking to undermine the view that qualita-
tive research is inferior to quantitative research, with the former seen at best
merely as a preparatory step toward the “real work” of quantitative research.
The grounded theory method was designed to offer a rigorous basis for doing
qualitative research, putting it on a par with quantitative approaches. Glaser
and Strauss saw the field of social sciences in the United States in the 1950s and
1960s as characterized by this hierarchy of approaches; a stance encapsulated
9

Research 9

in the maxim, “If you cannot measure it, you cannot (control) improve it.” In
some fields this view still predominates, so that for many researchers and—​
perhaps more important—​for many disciplinary and research domain gate-
keepers, valid research ought to be quantitative. The saying is attributed to
Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thomson, the first Baron Kelvin). A more extended
version runs as follows:
In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any
subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable meth-
ods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when
you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers,
you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you
cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatis-
factory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely
in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter
may be. [Popular Lectures and Addresses {PLA}, vol. 1, “Electrical Units of
Measurement,” 1883-​05-​03] available at http://​zapatopi.net/​kelvin/​quotes.
Kelvin/​Thomson was a physicist and engineer of renown, and his work
included the calculation of absolute zero.7 Kelvin also argued, however, that
“radio has no future” and “X-​rays will prove to be a hoax,” while he warned
the Niagara Falls Power Company that it should “avoid the gigantic mistake of
alternating current,” and stated in his address to the British Association for the
Advancement of Science in 1900, that “There is nothing new to be discovered
in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” (The
attribution of this last statement to Kelvin is disputed, because the original
source cannot be confirmed.) So much for Lord Kelvin’s prognostications!
Researchers have regularly made the mistake of measuring what can be
measured, rather than attending to an investigation of the key issues—​whether
or not they are amenable to simple, or not-​so-​simple, quantification. Glaser
and Strauss could have counted the number of patients who died in the various
hospital wards they investigated; they could also have looked at the number
of days or hours that elapsed between admission to the hospital, the various
stages of the deteriorating condition of patients, and their eventual demise.
This data might have produced some meaningful outcomes, but the concepts
of “awareness” and “time” would not have emanated from such studies. Their
qualitative and conceptual work has had enormous practical significance
for the care of the terminally ill, undermining any argument that qualitative
research results merely in impressionistic, vague, and inconsequential out-
comes. In many respects, however, the practical application of their early work
owed a great deal to Jeanne Quint.
Kelvin’s longer quotation cited above expresses the view that nonquantita-
tive studies are “at best” a preliminary to true knowledge, which must always
be quantitative, but the results of the burgeoning of qualitative research that
10

10 Research and Research Methods

has developed at least since the 1960s indicate something very different. The
outcomes of qualitative research can be poor, ill-​defined, lacking in rigor, and
of little practical use; but so too can the outcomes of quantitative research.
Many papers replete with statistical results to several places of decimals, in
even the most prestigious journals, elicit nothing more than a “so what?”
response. Thanks to the efforts of Glaser and Strauss—​as well as many others
who have contributed to innovation in research practice in many disciplines—​
qualitative research can be carried out in accord with clear and coherent crite-
ria, laying a foundation for rigorous claims to knowledge and conceptual and
theoretical innovation. The writings of Denzin and Lincoln (2005), Silverman
(2011, 2015), and Uwe Flick (2014), among many others, attest to this. This is
not in any way meant to invert the position and claim that qualitative research
is superior to quantitative research, but it is important that people realize that
different approaches to the process of doing research offer different outcomes
and may be used for different purposes, many of which can be highly practical
and effective.
The grounded theory method has had something of a “bad press” among
certain groups of research authorities. There are various issues and weaknesses
in the ways in which some researchers have sought to use the method or claim
its use in their publications. But it is unfair to use these findings to demean all
and any GTM-​based research. Because such criticisms and failings are all too
common across all research approaches, it would seem to be better to argue
that the level of concern regarding quantitative research is too low, rather than
that the concern with qualitative research is too high. Goldacre has done much
to expose the misuse of statistical research (2008), and there is now consider-
able evidence of questionable practices with regard to publication of medical
research and deliberate misreporting or even suppression of some “inconve-
nient” findings (e.g., Bad Pharma, Goldacre, 2013); but this should never be
taken to imply that all research of this kind should fall under suspicion.
Research has to be understood as a social activity—​doing research—​with
constant reminders that it is almost always something done by more than
just one investigator. Researchers get involved in certain subjects or topics
for a variety of reasons, and the process in which they engage proceeds as a
social activity; including grant applications and funding, hierarchies, mentor-
ing, appeal to authorities, publication, and dissemination. (This last aspect is
stressed as the basis for the ability of research findings to be replicated, corrob-
orated, or questioned. But in terms of “getting published,” there is little or no
kudos awarded for replicating other people’s results. Therefore, many research
findings are not, perhaps, as strong as might appear at first sight, and they may
even be incorrect or invalid.) This activity, or series of related activities, leads
to a strong focus not only on the outcomes of a research project but also on the
methods employed to arrive at those outcomes. And it is to this topic that we
turn in Chapter 2.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Anni, onko se minun Annini? Etkö sinä edes vastaa minun
kysymykseeni…? Anni, vastaathan sinä minulle. Missä sinä olit,
Anni?

(Äänettömyys.)

Anni — mitä tämä…

(Yhtäkkiä Anni heittäytyy parahtaen Kaarlon eteen syleillen hänen

polviaan, ja hänen hengityksensä korisee kuin näkymättömän käden
puristuksessa.)

KAARLO

Voi Anni raukka, mitä nyt on tapahtunut?

ANNI vaikeroiden.

Oi Kaarlo älä kysy, älä kysyi — Annetaan olla… älä.

KAARLO hiukan lujemmin.

Ei Anni — minun täytyy saada se tietää!

ANNI hätääntyneenä, tolkuttomasti.

Sanoinhan minä jo… äsken.

KAARLO lempeän surullisesti.

Eihän minun pikku Annini voi tuollaisia sanoessa katsoa minua

silmiin — sillä ne ovat vielä kirkkaat, rehelliset sinisilmät.

(Aikoo suudella.)
 ANNI parahtaen.

Ei Kaarlo, et saa, et saa!

KAARLO pysähtyy ja tuijottaa hetken kuin jähmettyneenä, kuin

aavistaen totuuden. Sitten hänen äänensä yhtäkkiä muuttuu
lyhyeksi, käskeväksi.

Anni — sano heti missä olet ollut?

ANNI katsahtaa häneen pelokkaasti.

Oi älä kysy Kaarlo, älä kysy! Olenhan pyytänyt.

KAARLO kiihtyen.

Anni, sinun täytyy sanoa totuus.

(Anni vaikeroi nyyhkyttäen eikä vastaa.)

KAARLO jyrkästi.

Sinun täytyy sanoa totuus — minä en voi elää, ellet sano totuutta!
Anni, olitko sinä siellä, siellä…

ANNI parahtaa epätoivoisesti ikäänkuin keskeyttääkseen.

Voi Kaarlo, miksi sinä kiusaat minua! Olenhan jo sanonut…

KAARLO ikäänkuin ei olisi kuullut Annin sanoja.

Anni, olitko sinä äsken tehtaalla — mestarin luona?

ANNIN ruumis vavahtaa, hän vääntelee tuskaisesti käsiään, muttei

vastaa.
 KAARLO nostaa hänet tylysti.

Katso minua silmiin! Minun täytyy tietää totuus! Kuuletko?

ANNI itkien.

Mitä, mitä minun pitää sanoa?

KAARLO karjaisten.

Mitä? - (HHiljemmin, uhkaavasti.) — Ellet sinä paikalla sano

totuutta, niin me emme enää milloinkaan näe toisiamme.

ANNI parahtaen.

Kaarlo…

KAARLO armottomasti.

Onko se totta?

ANNI huohottaa raskaasti ja katsahtaa ympärilleen kuin tahtoisi

paeta; vihdoin kuiskaa värisevin huulin.

On…

KAARLO hypähtää ylös kuin käärmeen puremana ja hänen

kätensä puristuvat nyrkkiin. Pitkän äänettömyyden jälkeen kuiskaa
hän oudolla, käheällä äänellä.

Sinä, sinä! Etkö, etkö sinä huutanut… koettanut vastustaa…?

ANNI häpeän ja tuskan valtaamana.

 Kaikki tein… mitä voin… Se peto uhkasi huomispäivänä toimittaa
sinut vangituksi ja suoraa päätä Siperiaan. Ja kiristi kurkustani,
painoi kädellään suutani… olin tukehtua…

KAARLO tarttuu päähänsä, ja hänen kurkustaan tunkeutuu

kummallinen koriseva ääni — ikäänkuin haavoitetun pedon
karjahdus.

Ooh!

ANNI on tuskallisesti tarkastanut hänen kasvojaan; parahtaa äkkiä

käheästi.

Kaarlo…! hylkäätkö sinä nyt minut…? Etkö voi enää antaa

anteeksi?

KAARLO

Eihän minulla ole mitään anteeksi annettavaa… Ethän sinä ole

mitään rikkonut, Anni parka… Mutta miksi menit sinne?

ANNI

Niin, en aikonut mennä, mutta se oli niin kamalaa ajatella että sinä
joutuisit… Niin lue itse…

(Hakee vapisevin käsin hameensa taskusta rypistyneen kirjeen ja

ojentaa sen Kaarlolle.)

KAARLO lukee kiihkeän jännityksen vallassa; loppupuolen lausuu

huomaamattaan ääneen.
 "Tahdon siis vielä kerran varottaa, viimeisen kerran: ellet saavu
huomenna selittämään, miksi olet minua narrannut niin monta
kertaa, lähtevät isäsi, veljesi ja sinä itse seuraavana päivänä iäksi
täältä, ja rakastajasi tulee katoamaan kokonaan maastamme.
Minulla on kirje jo valmis. Minun kanssani ei enää leikitellä. Muista
nyt: tämä on viimeinen kerta!

Mutta jos sinä selität syyn petolliseen menettelyysi ja käyttäydyt

toisella tavalla, niin pidän huolta, ettei sinulta puutu mitään
tällaisenakaan aikana. Eikä palkanalennus tule myöskään
koskemaan sinun omaisiasi.

Isällinen ystäväsi."

KAARLO hurjalla vimmalla.

Voi tuota kirottua konnaa! Kyllä minä sen… Odotappas, —

odotappas sinä "isällinen ystävä!"

ANNI tarttuu hänen käteensä, sopertaen levottomana,

Mitä sinä ajattelet, Kaarlo…? Kuule, sinä et saa vain tehdä mitään!
Lupaa se minulle…

KAARLO hurjasti, aivankuin syyttäen.

Mitä sinä sanot! Puolustatko sinä tuota… tuota roistoa?

ANNIN kasvoilla kuvastuu vaikea taistelu, mutta lopulla leimahtaa

hänen silmissään tulinen viha.

En! Tahtoisin nähdä hänet kuolleena! Se on niin kauan ahdistanut

ja kiusannut minua… ja nyt vielä…
 KAARLO mutisee uhkaavasti, hammasta purren.

Hyvä on, hyvä on… Se on hänen viimeinen pahatyönsä täällä…

ANNI uudestaan hätääntyen.

Ei, ei, Kaarlo! Älä sentään ajattele mitään sellaista… Katsos,

kaikkihan olisi hukassa, jos, jos… — (Tarttuu Kaarlon kaulaan ja
painaa itkien päänsä hänen rinnalleen.)

Oi rakas, minä olen niin onneton…

(Äänettömyys.)

KAARLO puristaa häntä lujasti rintaansa vasten ja hänen

suustaan kuuluu terävä hammasten kiristys, sitten käheä kuiskaus.

Anni…

(Äänettömyys.)

(Aikoo suudella, mutta jäykistyy yhtäkkiä liikkumattomaksi niinkuin

olisi koskettanut jotain kylmää ja kosteata.)

ANNI kääntyy poispäin, koettaa irroittautua ja voihkasee

sydäntäsärkevästi.

Jumala jumala! Ei, ei häntäkään ole…

KAARLO

Anni, Anni, voitko vielä antaa anteeksi?

ANNI nyyhkytystensä lomassa katkonaisesti.

 Voi Kaarlo parka… älä sinä… pyydä anteeksi. Ei sinulla…

(Emil tulee sisään ja he erkanevat hämmentyneinä.)

(Äänettömyys.)

EMIL masentuneesti.

Voitko sinä ymmärtää, miksei isälle anneta jauhoja velaksi?

KAARLO
 Tiedäthän sinä sen ennestään, ettei lakkolaisille mitään velaksi
anneta.

EMIL

Kyllä minä sen tiedän, mutta heti kun lakko oli päätetty lopettaa,
olivat monet jo taas saaneet… Sentähden minäkin menin pyytämään
kaksi kiloa velaksi, mutta kauppias ei antanut.

KAARLO jännittyneenä.

Mitä hän sanoi?

EMIL

Ei paljo mitään… näytti vain omituisen salaperäiseltä. Ja kun

kysyin uudelleen miksei hän meille anna niinkuin toisillekin, niin
mutisi jotakin, että mestari oli toistaiseksi kieltänyt antamasta isälle…

KAARLO aivankuin käsittäen.

Mitä se merkitsee…? Aikovatkohan ne…?

(Vaikenee, katsahtaen Anniin.)

ANNI tuskallisesti.

Niin, niin… mestari vihaa niin kauheasti isää… Jospa se nyt

toimittaa isän pois tehtaasta…?

KAARLO synkästi.
 Vaiti! Ole huoletta, Anni. — (Päättävästi.) — Ei — sitä hän ei tule
tekemään. Ei, se on liikaa!

ANNI yhä tuskallisemmin.

Voi, voi… Kaikki, kaikki on nyt hukassa… Kävitkö sinä kylälläpäin,

Emil…? Tiedätkö sinä jo…?

EMIL katkerasti.

Kyllä minä sen tiedän, että nyt saadaan oikein komeasti kuolla
nälkään ja mestarilla on taas täydellinen vapaus riiata!

KAARLO hitaasti, raivosta värisevin äänin.

Sitä hän ei myöskään enää täällä tee. Ei, jumalauta! Sen täytyy
loppua!

EMIL väsyneesti, hartioitaan kohauttaen.

Minkä sille voit! Et mitään! — (Ivallisesti.) — Ja kun sinä olet tullut

niin järkeväksikin…

ANNI varoittaen.

Emil…

KAARLO kähisee hammasta purren.

Älähän viitsi ilkkua Emil… jospa minä sittenkin voin…?

(Huomaa Annin pelästyneen ilmeen ja hillitsee vihansa ankaralla

tahdonponnistuksella, vieläpä koettaa hymyilläkin, mutta hänen
kalpeat, vapisevat huulensa vain vääntyvät surkeaan irvistykseen.
Ovella hän kääntyy ja sanoo kokonaan toisellaisella äänellä.)

No niin… täytynee kai lähteä tästä kotiin — nukkumaan…

Hyvästi….

(Menee.)

ANNI hätääntyneesti.

Kaarlo…

(Tämä ei enää kuule. Anni jää jähmettyneenä seisomaan.)

KORPI tulee sisään ja sanoo synkästi.

Ei Halonen enää tule avustustahoja pyytämään. Ja meidän pikku

Aune ei myöskään taida tarvita enää maitoa… Hengittää niin
vaikeasti… Mutta miksi Kaarlo oli niin kummallinen? ei vastannut
minullekaan mitään. Mistä te väittelitte? Ethän vain mitenkään
suututtanut häntä…?

EMIL epäröiden.

Enhän minä…

ANNI keskeyttää tuskallisesti moittien.

Voi Emil… sinä suorastaan ärsytit häntä! Miksi, miksi niin teit…?

KORPI levottomasti.

Mitä sinä sanoit hänelle?

ANNI

Ettei Kaarlo voi mitään… ettei hän voi estää… mestaria

elämöimisestä… Voi jospa hän nyt tekee jotakin…

KORPI ankarasti.

Emil, mitä sinä teit? Etkö sinä ymmärrä, että hän on kaikesta
kiihottunut ihan äärimmilleen! Ja vielä kuumeessa, nälässä.

EMIL mutisee katuvasti.

En taas tuota ymmärtänyt. Tässä ei muista muuta, kun ruokaa —

aina vaan ajattelee, kun saisi pienen palan leipää. Ja minä kun
luulin, että saadaan jo tänä iltana jauhopuuroa. — Ajatelkaa, mitä
lapset olisivat sanoneet! Eikä mitään — kaikki on kuin kamalaa
unta…

(Purskahtaa rajuun itkuun.)

KORPI lähenee Emiliä, silittää hellän kömpelösti hänen tukkaansa,

änkyttää särkyneesti.

Älä nyt… poikaparka… Kyllä vielä saadaan…

EMIL koettaen hillitä itseään.

Ei se mitään…. isä… En minä mitään… Mutta jos se mestari

toimittaa teidät, meidät kaikki pois… Ja kun se sitten vielä…

ANNI keskeyttää hätkähtäen, ja nyyhkyttää.

Ja minä onneton sanoin vielä hänelle sen… voi, voi…

 KORPI havahtuen.

Mitä sinä sanoit?

ANNI vältellen.

Tuota… en minä…

KORPI kiivaasti.

Sano paikalla… mitä olet puhunut! —

ANNI kuiskaa häpeän valtaamana.

Sanoin, että… että… se oli… Se koski mestaria.

KORPI astuu askeleen Annia kohden niin uhkaavan näköisenä

kuin aikoisi iskeä tyttärensä kuoliaaksi ja sähähtää raivokkaasti.

Sinä, sinä… Koskiko se mestaria ja sinua…? Voi sinua!

ANNI seisoo kasvojansa peittäen, nyyhkyttäen.

Voi isä, jos tietäisitte, mitä se… Ja uhkasi ajaa kaikki pois työstä…
teidätkin… ja… ja…

(Koskettaa vaistomaisesti kaulaansa.)

KORPI huomaa sen ja tarkastaa Annin kaulaa, mutisee.

Anni, Anni-parka… vielä sekin! Voi sitä, voi sitä konnaa! Se ei ole
ihminen!

EMIL voimattomalla uhkalla ja samalla masentuneena.

 Voi tuota kirottua! Onko, saako se tehdä nyt sitte mitä vaan!
Saako, saako… se?

ANNI nyyhkyttäen.

Voi, isä, minun täytyy lähteä pois, jonnekin kauas… tai kuolla… En
voi olla täällä… niinkauan kuin se on! En voi… Isä-kulta… älkää…
antakaa anteeksi…

KORPI

Voi lapsi parka…

(Anni juoksee itkien hänen syliinsä. Hän silittää tyttärensä tukkaa

ja kuiskaa hiljaa, surullisesti.)

Voi lapsi parka, pikku Anni raukka…

(Näyttää taas kuin havahauvan ja lausuu kolkosti, vaivoin hilliten

itsensä.)

Se mies on tehnyt liian paljon pahaa! Sille täytyy tulla huono

loppu, sillä…

(Vaikenee äkkiä kuin sanojaan pelästyen, tarttuu päähänsä

änkyttäen hätääntyen.)

Herra jumala! Mitä, olenko minä jo hullu, kun en muista mitään?

Lörpöttelen tässä… ja Kaarlo ehtii, ehtii.. Voi…. jos nyt tapahtuu
jotain… kamalaa. Missä on takkini…? Pian, pian…

ANNI kauhistuen.

Voi isä, mitä tapahtuu…? Tarkoitatteko, että Kaarlo…

KORPI

No ei mitään Anni… tuo takkini nyt vaan…

ANNI

… minä tulen teidän kanssanne!

LIISAN ÄÄNI

Voi, nyt ymmärrän… Minä tulen teidän kanssanne.

LIISAN ÄÄNI

Vilho, Vilho… tule tänne!

KORPI

En ehdi! Minun täytyy lähteä…

LIISA ilmestyy kamarin ovelle, hätäisenä, kalpeana.

Minä pelkään, että Aune rupeaa nyt kuolemaan… Hän on kamalan

näköinen… Älä vain lähde minnekkään, Vilho…

KORPI mutisee tolkuttomasti.

Mitä, mitä tämä on…? Minunhan pitäisi heti…

LIISA on aivan suunniltaan ja vaikeroi epätoivoisesti.

Voi minua! Aune kuolee — minun syntieni tähden… Minä

ansaitsen vaikka minkä rangaistuksen, mutta kun pikku Aunen täytyy
kuolla minun syntieni sovitukseksi, niin se on liian kamalaa. Vilho,
minä en kestä sitä yksin, ole minun kanssani, tule…

(Poistuu nyyhkyttäen.)

KORPI on raatelevan tuskan ja ristiriidan vallassa. Ähkyen

puristaa hän kaksin käsin päätään niinkuin luulisi sen halkeavan,
kaikki entinen päättäväisyys on kadonnut, hän aikoo juosta kyökkiin,
mutta pysähtyy epäröiden.

ANNI hätäisesti, tarjoo päällystakkia hänen ylleen.

Isä kulta… meidän täytyy mennä…

KORPI astuu askeleen Annia kohden, mutta pysähtyy vieläkin ja

mutisee hiljaa.

Mutta jos Aune?

ANNI rukoillen.

Isä… Aune voi parantua… mutta jollemme pian mene, niin kaikki
on myöhäistä…

KORPI nopeasti, päättävästi.

Niin, minun velvollisuuteni on mennä — meidän asiamme täytyy

pelastaa.

(Anni auttaa parhaillaan takkia hänen ylleen, kun epäselvästi

kuuluu)

LIISAN ÄÄNI
 Tule pian, pian…

KORPI

En voi sentään lähteä, mene sinä Emil, juokse…

EMIL

Kyllä… isä…

KORPI

Niin — et sinä voi mitään… ei hän sinusta välitä… Minun täytyy itse
mennä… Missä on takkini?

(Napittaa hermostuneesti takkiaan.)

ANNI käsiään väännellen.

Kiirehtikää… isä… juostaan hänen kortteeriinsa. Hän lupasi

mennä sinne… Minä pelkään… pelkään…

LIISAN ÄÄNI käheänä, kauhun valtaamana.

Isä… isä… tule… Jumalan tähden… Hänen kasvonsa vääntyvät…

muuttuvat sinisiksi… Pieni rinta korisee… korisee…

KORPI näyttää miltei mielettömältä, kun hän kohottaa vapisevat

nyrkkinsä ilmaan, hänen laihoilla, nääntyneillä kasvoillaan ja
koleassa, soinnuttomassa äänessään kuvastuu kiduttava
neuvottomuus ja epätoivo ja leuka vavisten huutaa oudolla, kolealla
äänellä.
 Mitä minä teen? Mitä teen…? En enää ymmärrä… Täytyykö
minun tulla hulluksi… hulluksi…?

Esirippu.

Kolmas näytös.

Sama paikka kuin ensimmäisessä näytöksessä. On ilta; seinäkello

näyttää olevan jo kahdeksan. Mestari istuu kirjoituspöytänsä ääressä
ja pikkupomo seisoo keskellä lattiaa, pidellen kädessään suurta
koneenavainta.

MESTARI hieman äreästi.

Menkää nyt ja koettakaa laittaa sitä konetta, niinkuin päivällä

neuvoin, ettei se pilaantuisi!

POMO raapaisten päätään.

En oikein ymmärrä, miten saan sen yksin toimeen, se on kovin

vaikea tehtävä… Sitäpaitsi menee tehtaassa paljon piloille, ellei jo
pian aleta töitä…

MESTARI äkäisesti.

En suinkaan minä niitä rupea korvista tänne raahaamaan — kun

eivät kerran tahdo työtä tehdä.

POMO arasti.
 Mutta eiköhän mestari voisi vaikuttaa siihen, että lakko loppuisi,
että palkat tulisivat entiselleen…

MESTARI kiivaasti.

Ja antaisin niiden rauhassa järjestää uuden lakon, yllyttää koko

tehtaan työväenyhdistykseensä ja vaatia minua pois…

POMO

Minä pelkään, että tästä ei seuraa hyvää… Mitä enemmän kurjuus

kasvaa, sitä suuremmaksi paisuu myöskin katkeruus ja viha…

MESTARI

Mitä te tarkoitatte? Pitäisikö minun jättää paikkani, ilmoittaa

patruunalle, että kyllä minä lähden koska ne tahtovat… ja antakaa
niille enemmän palkkaa… Ne vaativat minut maantielle ja nyt minä
en hellitä ennenkuin nuo yllyttäjät lähtevät itse. — Sitäpaitsi te tulette
jo toisen kerran tarjoamaan minulle neuvojanne ja sosialistisia
oppejanne! Antakaa sen nyt myöskin olla viimeinen kerta…

POMO pelästyneenä.

En minä sellaista ole tarkoittanut enkä mitenkään tahdo neuvoa…

enkä minä sosialistisia oppeja hyväksy… en…

(Menee.)

(Eteisessä tulee häntä vastaan Kettunen ja astun mestarin

huoneeseen. Kävelee hiukan vaivaloisesti, mutta hymyilee kuitenkin
nöyrästi ja mielistelevästi.)
 MESTARI menee kiittelemään.

Jaha, hyvää iltaa, Kettunenkos sieltä tuli! Käykää istumaan!

KETTUNEN

Kiitos, kiitos! — (Aikoo istua, mutia hypähtää älähtäen ylös,

niinkuin tuoli olisi ollut täynnä neuloja käret ylöspäin ja hänen
hymynsä muuttuu hassunkuriseksi irvistykseksi.)

Minä tuota, mieluummin seison… tuota, herra mestari…

MESTARI ihmetellen.

Miksi niin? Istukaa nyt vaan, Kettunen!

KETTUNEN änkyttäen.

Niin, tuota, tuota… minä olen tänään tuota, istunut liian paljon… —
(Nöyrästi.) — Mutta jos herra mestari tahtoo, niin kyllä minä, tuota…

(Taas ilmestyy Kettusen kasvoille tuo tuskallinen irvistys

sekaantuen hänen nöyränimelään hymyynsä, kun hän varovasti
istuutuu ihan tuolin reunalle.)

MESTARI

No, vastakos se kokous nyt loppui?

KETTUNEN puolustellen.

Ei, kyllä se loppui jo seitsemän aikana — mutta minä en tuota,

usk… minä en voinut tulla tänne suoraan yhdistykseltä, tuota… Sillä
ne olisivat voineet epäillä jotakin, ja tuota… karata minun päälleni…
Ne ovat sellaisia kauheita roistoja… niinkuin se Korpikin — ja sen
poika! — (Raivosta kihisevällä äänellä.) Niin, minä pyydän nyt herra
mestarille ilmoittaa, että se hunsvotti, se poikalurjus hyökkäsi minun
kimppuuni, tuota… Ja ihan kepillä, tuota… — (Koskettaa
vaistomaisesti housuntakapuoltaan ja lisää sähisten.) — Niin, aivan
niin se ryövärin penikka teki! Enkä minä sitä unohda — en, e—n!

MESTARI ei voi pidättää naurahdusta, vaan kääntyy toisaalle;

hetken kuluttua.

Kas vaan tuota lurjusta! Kun uskaltaakin!

KETTUNEN kuin haltioissaan.

Jaa! Sanokaas muuta. Kun uskaltaa… senkin…

MESTARI maltittomana.

No niin, oliko siellä kysymys…

KETTUNEN ei huomaa mestarin kärsimättömyyttä, vaan jatkaa

innostuneena.

Sellaisia ne ovat! Vaikka ei herra mestarin sentään tarvitse luulla,

että minä, tuota, niitä pelkäisin. Ei! — (Viekkaasti.) — Mutta minä
voin paremmin hyödyttää herra mestaria, kun ne eivät tiedä
mitään…

MESTARI hyväksyvästi.

Kyllä se oikein on, Kettunen! No, kuinkas siellä nyt kävi?

KETTUNEN