Introduction

A qualitative approach to research stipulates the purpose of the qualitative research, the role of the researcher(s), the stages of research, and the method of data analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Grounded Theory is a qualitative approach to research which refers to theory that is inductively developed from a mass of data (Glaser, 1998). This approach results in a theory that fits a dataset more precisely hence the term „grounded‟ (Glaser, 1998). Grounded theory is an iterative process as it is dynamic in nature. As defined by Strauss and Corbin (1990), "The grounded theory approach is a qualitative research method that uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived grounded theory about a phenomenon". The objective of Grounded Theory is to then generate theory „that accounts for the patterns of behaviour which is relevant and problematic for those involved‟ (Glaser, 1978, p. 93). The following discussion will outline the historical background of Grounded Theory, highlighting how and why this approach came about. Furthermore, Grounded Theory as a research method will be explained with a practical application of a social constructionist approach of grounded theory analysis in exploring a section of Lama Yeshes‟ Wisdom Archive (1998). Here the research question and aims, as well as the techniques that we utilised in our analysis will be illustrated. Lastly, a brief personal reflection on the research process is included, whereby the experience of conducting grounded theory research, its advantages and limitations and personal reflection as researchers are all discussed.

Part 1
Historical background of Grounded Theory: Grounded Theory has grown in importance and popularity since the work of sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (1967). Glaser and Strauss originate from different backgrounds and their collaboration demonstrates how those fundamental traditions within sociology overlap. Traditionally sociology made use of ethnographic fieldwork, interviews and case studies, however by the 1960‟s this tradition began to fall away as quantitative methods became predominant (Charmaz, 2001). These methods, engrained in positivism, held beliefs based on scientific logic whereby objectivity and truth are justified via quantifiable variables rather than the qualities of human experience (Charmaz, 2001). These quantitative methods were based on the assumption of an objective observer who remained passive; therefore it assumes that the external world is separate from the researcher
Page 1 of 14

and his/her methods that are employed to obtain knowledge of concerning this world (Glaser, 1998). During this period, quantitative methodologists disregarded anything that did not fit into the positivist research design and only acknowledged qualitative methods when claiming to refine quantitative tools (Charmaz, 2006). Theory began to inform research through the logico-deductive model, whereby hypotheses are deduced from existing theory and then tested (Charmaz, 2006). Glaser and Strauss noted that this type of research rarely produced new theory. Glaser and Strauss then set out to challenge the division of theory and research, the predominance of quantitative methods that were said to be more rigorous as qualitative methods, the belief that qualitative methods were unsystematic, the separation of the data collection phase and analysis phase within research, and those assumptions that qualitative research cannot generate any theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Strauss originated from a more qualitative background where he was trained in symbolic interaction at the University of Chicago. Here Strauss was influenced by the pragmatist traditions (Charmaz, 2001; Glaser, 1998). Glaser then originated from a more quantitative background as he was trained in quantitative methods at Columbia University by Paul Lazarsfeld (Glaser, 1998). Glaser received further training in theory construction, particularly in theoretical coding and in explication of text (Glaser, 1998). During the 1960‟s Glaser and Strauss collaborated to develop the constant comparative method, what is now known as Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The purpose of this theory was to generate theory that more systematically by using coding and analytical procedures (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Grounded Theory can therefore be noted to contain both positivistic and interpretive elements, therefore allowing researchers to use both positivistic and interpretivist methods. A while after their collaboration, Glaser and Strauss went their separate ways and continued to develop the method of Grounded Theory independently of one another. This then led to the development of Glaserian and Straussian versions of Grounded Theory. The publication of “Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques” by Strauss and Corbin (1990) and “The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with Description” by Glaser (2001) marked the emergence of Glaserian and Straussian version of Grounded Theory. Those accounts of Grounded Theory by Glaser and Strauss are classified as „discovery‟ accounts as they involve the „discovery of theory from data‟ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.1). This account of Grounded Theory suggests that theory is merely uncovered as it is already there. Kathy Charmaz then introduced a social constructionist
Page 2 of 14

account of Grounded Theory, whereby it is believed that theory does not simply emerge from the data, but instead theory is constructed via the interaction between the researcher and the data (Charmaz, 2001). With regards to the above, it can be noted that there is no single version of Grounded Theory, however for the purpose of this particular assignment the version provided by Charmaz will be utilized.

Part 2
About Buddhism: The word Buddhism is derived from the word „budhi‟, which means to awaken. Buddhism can be characterized as a philosophy and a way of life; and not a religion as it has been notoriously confused as being (Watts, 1999). This philosophy follows that one should lead a moral life, should be mindful and aware of thoughts and actions as well as develop wisdom and understanding (White, 1993). A lama is an honorific and respectful title given to a monk or teacher of Buddhism. Its direct translation is from the Tibetan language meaning „None Above‟. It is often commonly mistaken to only apply to Tibetan monks but it may refer to any teachers who are recognized spiritual masters who exemplify Buddhist teachings (Marcello, 2003). The Buddhist teachings under investigation in this grounded theory analysis were written by Lama Thubten Yeshe (1998). He was born in 1935 in Tibet before passing away at the age of 49 in 1984. He initially started his education at Sera Monastic University in Lhasa, Tibet, but fled because of Chinese occupation and continued his studies and practice in Tibetan refugee camps in India (Carus, 2005). With his chief disciple, Lama Thubten Zopa Rinpoche, Lama Yeshe began teaching Westerners Buddhism at their Kopan Monastery in Kathmandu, Nepal (Carus, 2005). However in 1974, some of their international students invited them to travel the world to spread their teachings of the Dharma. The Dharma is the Buddhists‟ beliefs about the universal law of nature, the teachings of Buddhism (Carus, 2005). In 1975 the two Lamas‟s established the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, and the foundation is still flourishing today. The organization is dedicated to the transmission of the Mahayana Buddhist values and traditions. The foundation operates worldwide in more than 30 different countries and makes use of community service, teaching and meditation (FPMT, 2011). The foundation is inspired by an attitude of universal responsibility to transform people‟s hearts and minds into their
Page 3 of 14

highest potential. The foundation does this by means of integrative education. The Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive, of which the extract we have studied is a part of, is one of the mediums of the integrative education experience that the foundation offers (Lama Yeshe Archive, 2011). The exact text we have studied is a chapter entitled Finding Ourselves Through Buddhism from the book Becoming Your Own Therapist published as part of the Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive (1998). It may be said that the book deals with the notion that Buddhism has therapeutic aspects and that everyone may find happiness if they adopted more of the Buddhist principles of being more self-aware of one‟s self and others. This statement is indicative when one looks at the much published quote of Lama Yeshe: “Without understanding how your inner nature evolves, how can you possibly discover eternal happiness? Where is eternal happiness? It's not in the sky or in the jungle; you won't find it in the air or under the ground. Everlasting happiness is within you, within your psyche, your consciousness, your mind. That's why it's important that you investigate the nature of your own mind.”
(Taylor, 2010 : p. 162)

Research question and aims: Grounded Theory researchers are in need of a research question before their investigation can commence. This is merely an initial question so as to focus the researcher‟s attention onto a particular phenomenon. This question serves to identify the phenomena of interest, however it should not make assumptions about that phenomena (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Our research question, which is informed from the extract is: Using a social constructionist approach to grounded theory analysis to explore Lama Yeshes‟ perceptions of the therapeutic aspects of Buddhism. Further research aims that we have used to guide our research include: 1. How has the types of discourse used influenced perceptions of Buddhism? 2. How is the nature of the mind linked to perceptions of Buddhism?

Page 4 of 14

Part 3
The basis of grounded theory research is the development or generation of a theory closely related to the context of the phenomenon being studies (Creswell, 1998: 56). As Charmaz (2001) suggests, grounded theory methodology provides systematic inductive guidelines for gathering, synthesising and conceptualising qualitative data to construct such a theory. This approach differs from other research methods in that the processes of data collection and data analysis are merged in an iterative relationship, whereby researchers move back and forth between the two to „ground‟ the analysis in the data (Willig, 2008: 36). In this section we discuss the various techniques used in developing our analysis. Data: textual analysis Grounded theory methodology is compatible with various data collection techniques (Willig, 2008: 38). As outlined in part 2, we set out to analyse an existing text from the Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive (1998). This type of text is referred to as an „extant text‟ as we as researchers had no part in shaping the data, which in fact was produced for very different purposes (Charmaz, 2006: 35). Due to the nature of our data, it is important to consider the limitations of our approach. Since this type of grounded theory analysis involves analysing the original data only, it is what Willig (2008: 39) refers to as the abbreviated version of grounded theory. This version like the full version follows the processes of coding and constant comparative analysis, however, in contrast theoretical sensitivity, theoretical sampling and negative case analysis are limited in that the researcher is confined to the original data, unable to broaden and refine the analysis further (Willig: 39). Noting our preconceptions (bracketing) and theoretical sensitivity Bracketing refers to the process by which grounded theory are encouraged to „bracket‟ their preconceptions (Creswell, 1998). Since the data is „constructed‟ by the researcher, it is crucial that the researcher be aware of their preconceived notions, biases and ideals that may affect the „construction‟ of the data and subsequent theory (Creswell, 1998). As a research team, we went about this process by reading through the text and noting our „feelings‟ toward the text in the margins, in doing this we were able to reflect on our own feelings toward the text in an attempt to separate our analysis from our initial impressions. This is of course a difficult endeavour and as such a social constructionist approach, which acknowledges the researchers active role in „constructing‟ theory, was adopted.
Page 5 of 14

Theoretical sensitivity refers to the process through which the researcher „interacts‟ the data (Willig, 2008). The level of theoretical sensitivity refers to the researchers‟ prior knowledge of the context in question. Grounded theory research often involves developing literature reviews during and after the analysis process in an attempt to limit researcher bias and preconceptions on the topic (Charmaz, 2006). As a research team we had little theoretical sensitivity at the onset of the analysis (as we knew little about Buddist ideals and in particular Lama Yeshes‟ Wisdom Archives), but were aware of our implicit preconceptions and tried to „bracket‟ these in order to aid in the credibility of the analysis. Coding Charmaz defines coding as “the process of defining what the data are about” (Smith, 2003: 93). Thus grounded theorists create codes by defining what is seen in the data, interacting with the data constantly, comparing and refining emerging codes and categories (Charmaz, 2006: 46). Open/initial coding Charmaz (2006: 47) suggests that initial coding be conducted in a way that researchers are open to any theoretical possibilities that the data may elicit, thus researchers should stay close to the data. This initial coding phase may seem tedious and time-consuming, but is imperative in the analysis process (Charmaz, 2006: 47). Line-by-line coding As a research team, we decided to use line-by-line coding as our initial coding technique. Glaser (1978) explains this process as naming each line of the data, which allowed for a critical and analytical look at the data (Charmaz, 2006: 51). Examples of our line-by-line coding can be seen in the note book provided. The codes were numbered and short summative notes written to elicit both explicit statements and implicit meanings (Charmaz, 2006: 50). For example; (1) we need to understand the nature of our own minds and (2) Buddhism emphasises practical matters are both codes of explicit statements. Whereas, (105) Judgement: ppl who don‟t follow this lifestyle are wasting their lives and (134) Judgemental: insulting of those who battle to visualise are codes which note judgemental implicit meanings within this text.

Page 6 of 14

In vivo codes Codes of participants‟ special terms/words are referred to as in vivo codes (Charmaz, 2006: 55). These codes concentrate on the specific language used, be they general terms that are known to point to certain meanings, innovative terms that capture an implicit meaning and/or insider terms that indicate a specific group membership which reflect a particular perspective (Charmaz, 2006: 55). Our research team made use of various in vivo codes; the reference to „Lord Buddha‟ (17), (45), (82), (86), (117) is a term that indicates a clear group membership. The use of the innovative term (3) „experiential knowledge-wisdom‟ indicates a perspective on the high status Lama Yeshe affords those who adopt his lifestyle ideas. Further, the simple use of the word (159)„sometimes‟ when Lama Yeshe describes when Monks (males) take teachings from Rinpoche‟s (females), implies a possible unequal status between men and women in this perspective. Focused coding Focused coding is the second phase of coding in grounded theory analysis and are thus more “directed, selected and conceptual” than the first phase of coding (i.e. line-by-line coding) (Glaser, 1978: 70). Focused coding involves sifting through the line-by-line codes to find the most frequent and significant codes to synthesise the data, grouping and explaining larger segments of data (Charmaz, 2006: 57). Within this process we compared codes to establish preliminary categories, which can be seen in the notebook provided. Examples of such coding include; polarised discourse, judgemental discourse, contradictory discourse, attachment, nature of our own minds, control in the sense world, mental attitudes, suffering, meditation and visualisation as a solution to suffering. These focused codes were developed by comparing the initial codes with one another, deciding which of these initial codes made the most analytical sense in terms of categorising the data and then grouping the initial codes into these broad preliminary categories (Charmaz, 2006: 57). Constant comparative methods Glaser and Strauss postulated that using „constant comparative methods‟, whereby analytic distinctions are established to make comparisons at each level of analysis, is integral to grounded theory analysis (Charmaz, 2006: 54). This process involves the “identification of similarities among and differences between emerging categories” (Willig, 2008: 36). This allows for the process of building higher-level categories by merging similar preliminary
Page 7 of 14

categories, as well as, the deconstruction of emerging categories into lower-level categories/subcategories (Charmaz, 2006: 54; Willig, 2008: 36). This process is evident in the provided notebook within the focused coding and theoretical coding sections. Examples of this process include; grouping judgemental discourse, polarised discourse and contradictory discourse into a higher-order category of types of discourse; further each of these lower-order categories was deconstructed to identify pertinent concepts, whereby judgemental discourse was seen to be apparent within concepts such as materialism, technology, east versus west distinctions and these concepts seemed to have a similar dimension within and between them that we termed stab at the West. Theoretical/selective coding Theoretical coding, as Charmaz (2006: 63) explains, is a sophisticated level of coding that builds on the codes selected in the focused coding process. Theoretical coding is an integrative process, involving drawing possible relationships between categories selected at the focused coding level, thus making the analysis more coherent (Glaser, 1978: 72; Charmaz, 2006: 63). Examples of this process have been discussed above in the constant comparison methods section and can be seen in the provided notebook. Further, this stage of sampling involved looking at relationships between the categories established at the focused coding level, whereby; a connection between mental attitudes, attachment and control in the sense world was observed, whereby they were grouped under the category dissatisfaction; further we built on this category by observing an opposite but equal category of satisfaction, and both these categories were grouped under the higher-order category nature of own mind, which was a code that was both built on and deconstructed from the line-by-line coding phase through to this phase, illustrating how we were able to draw more abstract theoretical categories that, importantly, are still „grounded‟ in the data. Memo-writing Memo-writing is both a unique and essential technique in grounded theory analysis (Charmaz, 2006: 72). Willig (2008: 37) suggests that „memoing‟ is done throughout the process of data collection and analysis and involves keeping a written record of theory development. Memo-writing aids the process of constantly comparing data, codes, concepts and categories from the initial coding phase through to the theoretical coding phase (Charmaz, 2006: 72). Since memo-writing documents the analysis, it is an important tool in reflexivity (Strauss & Corbin, 1997). Willig (2008: 37) discusses guidelines for memoPage 8 of 14

writing which include the necessity that all memos are dated, headed and indicate the section of data to which they refer. Our memos, contained in the provided notebook, are dated and refer to either the initial coding numbers or the preliminary categories. Strauss and Corbin (1997: 217) separate memos into three types, namely; code notes, theoretical notes and operational notes. Code notes are the actual products of the three phases of coding discussed above. Theoretical notes sensitise and summarise memos that contain a researchers ideas (Strauss & Corbin, 1997: 217), an example of this kind of memo is; (141) (142) Lama Yeshe says were unaware and unconscious of what we are doing, he also says we visualise every day: Contradictory discourse. This example illustrates how memoing aids in the analysis process by allowing researchers to jot down their thoughts, simultaneously comparing various codes and thus constructing categories. The third type of memo that Strauss and Corbin (1997: 217) consider are operational notes, which are memos containing procedural directions and reminders. Unfortunately, we did not make use of such memos and as such sorting and synthesis of our data was a difficult process, it is thereby important to stick closely to guidelines for all such techniques when conducting grounded theory research.

Integrative diagrams Integrative diagraming is an important tool in organising the categories, concepts and dimensions developed in the previous steps. Diagraming is a visual method that depicts the relationships between these categories, concepts and dimensions in a synthesised, coherent manner (Strauss & Corbin, 1997: 218). An example of our integrative diagram can be seen in Appendix 1. It is important to note that integrative diagrams can be re-developed and built on as new categories and ideas emerge from the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1997: 223), which is evident in the progression from our first integrative diagrams (in the notebook), to the subsequent newsprint diagram provided to the final diagram in Appendix 1. Examples of such progression include; a new sub-category was included; sex/gender polarisation under the higher-order category of polarised discourse; a new concept, egocentricity, was added under the attachment category; and the concepts under judgemental discourse were reorganised so as the dimension, stab at the west, was shown to run through all of these concepts. Our integrative diagram reflects the „final product‟ of our grounded theory analysis. Strauss and Corbin (1994) suggest that a theory is a plausible relationship among concepts and sets of concepts (Creswell, 1998: 56) and as such our integrative diagram shows the
Page 9 of 14

categories, concepts and dimensions developed and the relationship between them in the attempt to generate a theory about Lama Yeshe‟s perception of the Buddist approach to therapy. Limitations As with any method of quantitative enquiry, grounded theory research has limitations. Reflexivity is an important consideration in a social constructionist approach to grounded theory, where criticisms raise concerns that perhaps more than just the recognition of the active role of the researcher in the research process is necessary (Willig, 2008: 46). Since, in taking a social constructionist approach we, as researchers, „constructed‟ the categories and concepts from the data, rather than assuming these categories „emerged‟ from the data (Willig, 2008: 46). Further, our research was limited in terms of theoretical sampling, saturation and negative case analysis, due to our use of an abbreviated version of grounded analysis which stemmed from the fact that we were confined to our original data. Theoretical sampling and saturation Theoretical sampling involves collecting further data, based on categories that have emerged and the subsequent concepts deemed important (Willig, 2008: 37). As was mentioned previously, grounded theory analysis is an interactive process whereby data collection and analysis occur simultaneously. As such emerging categories inform the researcher in sampling incidents that that verify or negate these categories or concepts until the stage where no new categories emerge (Charmaz, 2006: 96). Thus, this refinement of your analysis leads to theoretical saturation, whereby categories are saturated to the point where new information, collected through theoretical sampling, does not expand on the categories or reveal possible new categories (Willig, 2008: 37). The benefit of these processes is that they prevent the researcher from getting stuck in unfocused analysis and aid in saturating categories to make for a coherent, comprehensive and credible analysis. Unfortunately, a major limitation of the grounded theory research we conducted, is that due to the use of an abbreviated version, whereby we only had access to the original data set, we were unable to do any theoretical sampling and thus could not saturate our categories. Had we had access to additional material and/or relevant participants, we would have conducted theoretical sampling by conducting an in-depth, focused interview with Lama Yeshe where

Page 10 of 14

we would have asked focused questions to confirm or negate our emerging categories which would have aided theoretical saturation. Reflexivity: reflection on research process Reflexivity is an important aspect of grounded theory analysis, whereby researchers reflect back on the research process as well as looking forward to assess the possible impact of such an analysis (Charmaz, 2006: 177). Charmaz (2006: 182) suggests some guidelines for grounded theory studies, which we discuss in reference to our research process; Credibility/validity The credibility or validity of grounded theory research is determined by reflecting on; whether the research is familiar within the context; are the data sufficient to validate claims made; are there strong logical links between the data and the argument put forward; is their enough evidence for the claims made (Charmaz, 2006: 182). In terms of these guidelines our research is very limited in terms of validity. While we believe our analysis stayed „grounded‟ in the data, we did not analyse enough material to validate claims we would want to make. Further, the lack of theoretical sampling and subsequently theoretical saturation greatly reduces the validity of our research. We do, however, feel that despite the obvious limitations in the study we conducted, our analysis shows strong links between categories and codes and is organised in a coherent and comprehensive manner. Originality The idea of originality that Charmaz (2006: 182) sets out as a guideline asks whether; categories are fresh, offering new insights; what is the social and theoretical significance of this work and does our analysis refine or challenge existing ideas. In answering whether our categories offer new insights, we can only compare our analysis to that our classmates. We think that the fact that our analyses and thus categories generated are so different is a good indication of how we did have new insights and fresh categories. Due to the brief nature of our analysis, we cannot say that our analysis has any social or theoretical significance, nor can we comment on whether our analysis refines or challenges existing knowledge.

Page 11 of 14

Resonance In terms of resonance, our study conforms to Charmaz‟s guideline of eliciting both explicit statements and implicit meanings (2006: 182). Our study also begins to draw links between the individual and his greater community and gives insights into the particular thoughts and feelings that Lama Yeshe holds. Again, our analysis is limited both in terms of its brief nature and the confinement to the original text. Usefulness The usefulness of the analysis cannot be determined as the study was too limited to deduce any beneficial information. However, in terms of our learning process, this particular study allowed for an in-depth and thorough look at grounded theory analysis in an interesting way and as a result we believe that such an analysis is good considering the brief time-period and limitations we faced.

Part 4
Personal Reflection: Prior to this particular course on Grounded Theory, any knowledge concerning the topic was in fact minimal. The benefits of Grounded Theory are that this approach tends to be quite limitless. A researcher is not confined to using pre-existing theory, but instead one can create or construct a new theory. This provides great opportunities in terms of contributing new knowledge to any field of study. In terms of conducting Grounded Theory, the approach provides rich data which is directly situated within the context. The use of in-vivo codes contributes to the provision of rich data by Grounded Theory. The way in which data is primarily reviewed, i.e. line by line, allows for no data to be ignored. Therefore the approach is such that no data is overlooked, which allows for researchers to have fully analyzed their data, adding to its richness. The iterative nature of Grounded Theory allows for the researcher to have flexibility during the research process. It is believe that this is useful in that it is often necessary to go back, review and refine. This flexibility allows for the researcher to make changes such that the research is more accurate. It is advantageous of having such an approach as it is often that a researcher will find other information that is interesting and relevant when analysing data, however within in a quantitative approach the researcher

Page 12 of 14

cannot then incorporate this as the approach stipulates what is to be found and included from the onset. Downfalls of Grounded Theory were experienced, as no theory or research tool is ever flawless. A disadvantage that was experienced was that the approach was rather time consuming. Reading the through the text line by line and then having to code this, took rather long. The process was rather cumbersome in that after reading the first few pages, the same codes kept emerging from the text. This then saw no new information that could contribute to the overall research. Also, a foreseen problem that could have occurred was that of differing opinions on the coding process which could have then resulted in conflict. In that this exercise was done on groups, it could have been that group members may not have reached consensus on coding. In addition to this, the fact that the exercise was done in groups, lengthened the time that it took to code as it was necessary that all group members were in agreement as to what code was to be given to corresponding lines. In conclusion, grounded theory analysis is a comprehensive method of qualitative analysis that uses a variety of tools to ensure valid and relevant research into the generation of theory (Charmaz, 2006). Our brief analysis was obviously limited in the sense that we could not begin to develop theory or draw conclusions due to the many restrictions we faced, however, we feel that our categories begin to detail an in-depth look at this text in particular and revealed some very interesting and unexpected categories, concepts and dimension.

Page 13 of 14

Reference List Carus, P. (2005). The Dharma: Or the Religion of Enlightenment: an Exploration of Buddhism. New York: Cosimo. Charmaz, K. (2001). „Grounded Theory‟, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds), The American Tradition in Qualitative Research, pp. 244-85, SAGE, London, UK. Charmaz, K. (2003). „Grounded Theory‟, in Smith, J.A. (Eds), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. London: SAGE. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative data analysis. London: SAGE. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative enquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. California: SAGE. FPMT, (2011). Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. Retrieved 10th April 2011, http://www.fpmt.org/ Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. California: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. California: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A, L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: de Gruyter. Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive, (2011). Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive. Retrieved 10th April 2011, http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php Marcello, P, M. (2003). The Dalai Lama: a biography. Westport: Greenwood Press. Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J.M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. California: SAGE. Strauss, A., & Corbin, L. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. California: Thousand Oaks. Taylor, C. (2010). Enough!: A Buddhist Approach to finding release from addictive patterns. New York: Snow Lion. Watts, A. (1999). Buddhism the Religion of No-Religion. Boston: Tuttle Publishing. White, B. (1993). A five minute introduction. Retrieved, 10 April 2011, from http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill OUP. Yeshe, L, T. (1998). Becoming your own therapist. USA: Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archives.

Page 14 of 14

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.