You are on page 1of 33

GT Evolution
 Developed by two sociologists Barney

Glaser and Anselm Strauss  Researched on dying hospital patients  Developed set of guidelines for managing and analysing qualitative data

Grounded Theory
 Systematic methodology involving

generation of theory from data  Consist of systematic inductive, comparative and interactive approach to inquiry with several key strategies for conducting inquiry  Provides flexible, successive analytic strategies for constructing inductive theories from the data  Requires comparisons and checks that enables shaping of emerging theoretical ideas about data collected

Reasons for adopting GT  Offers rigorous approach to     qualitative analysis Can be used in conjunction with numerous qualitative approaches Fosters viewing individual behavior as embedded in situations and social contexts Fits either constructionist or postpositivist epistemologies Can bridge qualitative and quantitative traditions .

GT Guidelines  Begin with open-ended research questions to explore  Initial coding – defines and designates what the data are about and indicate  What is happening  Of what process are these actions a part  What theoretical category does a specific datum indicate .

codes. and or emerging theory  Theoretical sampling – entails specific data to develop the properties of categories or theories  Theoretical sorting and integrating .GT Guidelines  Focused Coding – adopt the most frequent and/or significant initial codes  Memo-writing – encourages to stop and think about data.

How Youth Get Engaged – Dawes and Larson 2010  To understand the process through which youth engagement is developed .

How Youth Get Engaged – Analysis  Identify passages related to     motivation and engagement Identified youth with increased level of engagement (absorbed in tasks and are challenged) Focusing on the personal connection on the activities Coding for categories for personal connection Evaluation of the accounts .

Interview Question Guide  Tell me how you got started. what are the most interesting parts of the work to you? Why?  Are there aspects of the work that you find boring or dislike? Why?  Has there been any point when you thought you might not wantto continue with the program? .  What are your current reasons for participating?  So far.

what have been the main high points and low points for you in the program?  What happened for you that made your motivation change?  How do you think your experience in this program has affected or will affect your motivation in other areas of your life? .Interview Question Guide  Final Interview  I would like to start off by asking you to think back to the first time we talked back in [time of initial interview]. Since then.

and articulated two key areas of methodological concern:  The need to seek out and utilize holistic methods for understanding and representing clients and research participants’ lived experiences and actions and in their full complexity  The importance of fostering forms of theorizing within psychology which can satisfy the demands of those seeking to combine their clinical/practical interests and academic research. Phillips and Quartaro. 1988)  These psychologists worked primarily in the clinical psychology (mental health) research arena.The earliest grounded theory impetus: Clinical/practitioner psychology  The first psychologists who took up grounded theory principles and practices did so in the late 1980s (Rennie. .

at least interrupt. new demands significantly undercut. traditional priorities. found themselves outside the mainstream of an academic clinical psychology  Because the field was preoccupied with conducting controlled experimental studies It was emulating the standards and practices of a laboratory-based natural science However. .The earliest grounded theory impetus: Clinical/practitioner psychology Researchers such as Rennie et al.

Clinical psychology research must now show itself to be more directly relevant to patient’s expressed concerns. This latter situation has strengthened the advocacy to adopt more flexible. as well as applying itself to the development and evaluation of treatment regimes and psychological/mental health services. and contextualized methods. The earliest grounded theory impetus: Clinical/practitioner psychology . qualitative.

The earliest grounded theory impetus: Clinical/practitioner psychology They aim to afford a better fit between clinical psychologist’s theories and practices and the meanings their clients assign to their experiences and problems. in the contexts of their lives and worlds. .

Grounded theory is one of the most popular and widely well regarded of such methods (e. 1997. . qualitative research methodologies have gained acceptability. 2004. Slade and Priebe.g. Stephens and Lyons. 2006).The earliest grounded theory impetus: Clinical/practitioner psychology Hence. noticeably as part of clinical and health psychology’s development in the UK. Marks and Yardley. Chamberlain.

Burman. These are the following reasons: -as part of more general arguments for challenging scientific/methodological orthodoxy -to create a space for qualitative research within an experimentally. 1995) -major concern with unnecessary narrowness of psychology’s preoccupation with control. quantitatively and statistically defined discipline (Banister. Parker. Taylor and Tindall. prediction and measurement of human behaviour and individual cognition . expanding psychological methods: Critical groundwork for grounded theory in the UK Interest intensified in grounded theory from the early 1990s in the UK.Questioning scientific orthodoxy. 1994. Henwood and Nicolson.

1995) and critical psychologists (Stainton rogers.Questioning scientific orthodoxy. 2003) did the early groundwork. in the form of an approach called ‘ethogenic’ psychology were also put in place . -Proposals for an early progenitor of qualitative psychology. expanding psychological methods: Critical groundwork for grounded theory in the UK -Social constructionists (Burr.

stimulus-response ) sequences . and its predictability by positing ‘real’ generative psychological mechanisms and structures as opposed to abstract cause-effect or in behavioural terms.Questioning scientific orthodoxy. along with participants’ everyday understandings of subjective accounts. expanding psychological methods: Critical groundwork for grounded theory in the UK -Research following this approach would analyse meaningful activity. -Intelligibility and orderliness of conduct would be established in relation to normative expectations.

expanding psychological methods: Critical groundwork for grounded theory in the UK -Ethogenic psychology never really took hold. -It paved the way for the use of non-objectivist inquiry methods -These are factors that prepared the ground for the entry of GROUNDED THEORY into UK and later US psychology . 1978) but: -It did flag the possibility of psychologists refusing to privilege modernistic/dualistic practices such as measurement of behaviour over the study of meaningful conduct and people’s subjective accounts. Rosser and Harre. other than as an interesting but marginal set of theories with a few published studies using the methods (e. Marsh.Questioning scientific orthodoxy.g.

hypothesis testing. qualitative investigation so that inquiries produce outcomes wellgrounded in data. psychological mainstream as a means of beginning an in-depth. experimental. psychological studies as a set of research principles and practical methods for describing. While other complementary approaches and methods are used to complete theoretical explication and interpretation.Differing Approaches to Grounded Theory Implementation in Original Research Studies Grounded Theory ideas and practices have now been implemented and used in psychology. understanding and explicating substantive problems in less distinctive ways in its methodological approach to the quantitative. and in multi-disciplinary studies involving psychology in at least three different ways: as a methodological approach supporting research that distinctively differs from traditional quantitative. .

inductive research methodologies that are concerned with theory generation and the exploration of meanings.Grounded Theory as a ‘big Q’ qualitative methodology -Willig (2001a) and Stainton Rogers (2003). introduce the terms ‘big Q’ and ‘little q’ to highlight major differences brought to the tasks of designing. ‘big Q’ refers to open-ended. ‘little q’ refers to the incorporation of non-numerical data techniques into hypothetico-deductive designs -Grounded Theory cannot be ‘little q’ . executing and reporting psychological studies when working outside the canon of hypothetico-deductive method.

they are also much more because: they involve pushing forward the understanding and theorizing through the researcher engaging intensively with the data they investigate potentially varied and multiple contextual meanings they are exploratory and generative and a ‘flip-flop’ between data and its conceptualization investigative in nature. always seeking to find out answer to questions and never merely seeking to find out whether a single hypothesis is false or true when tested against a particular sample or quota of data .Grounded Theory as a ‘big Q’ qualitative methodology Grounded theory procedures and practices are inductive in the sense of not seeking to confirm extant theory.

.Hirst’s Research Hirst conducted a qualitative. grounded theory study of seven women who had experienced depression because extant research on the causes of depression had used androcentric models. It took men as the normative standard It is divorced from the perceptions of those who have actively experienced depression.

externally derived universally applicable theories might be censored for lacking critical reflexivity .Hirst’s Research Such circumstances necessitated grounded theory •Grounded theory’s methodological objective is to ‘create theory that is intimately linked to the reality of the individuals being studied’ Grounded theory studies showing a partial commitment to questioning the presumed value of prior.

Following from her methodological stance of gleaning theoretical explanation only through creatively and rigorously interacting with her (in this case interview) data.Hirst’s Research However. her emergent theory turned out to be surprising and quite different . Hirst’s study illustrates this practice when she writes reflexively about her expectation from a prior literature – the constraints operating on women’s self-perceptions through cultural constructions of the ‘good woman’.

Grounded theory forms outside ‘big Q’ psychology within psychology and related disciplines Medical sociology has had a long and vibrant history of major grounded theory studies in the social psychology of health and illness Emphasizes individual experiences and meaning construction in her studies of people with chronic illnesses Grounded theory strategies are used to plumb ordinary meanings and makes them interesting objects of study such as ‘being super normal’. . ‘having a “good” day’ etc.

Grounded theory forms outside ‘big Q’ psychology within psychology and related disciplines Grounded theory provides a lens for seeing beyond established professional concepts rather than only seeing through them Karp (1996). begins with self. Karp says that he ‘would rather stick with the verifiable lines of analysis that arise out of my interview materials’ (Karp. and illness career as sensitizing concepts and traces as how people with depression progressively reinterpret the locus of trouble from relationships and situations to having an impaired self When arguing against anti-psychiatry advocates who deny the existence of mental illness. Karp also writes about his data-collection methods of participation in a support group and six early interviews as preliminary to conducting 54 in-depth interviews . 1966). identity.

Grounded theory forms outside ‘big Q’ psychology within psychology and related disciplines In health and clinical psychology. grounded theory is the methodology of choice typically because: of the close attention it pays to articulating the categories of experience and meaning that make up people’s subjective/phenomenal worlds it tries to overcome poor conceptualizations of the term in a research literature dominated by notions it aims to describe the phenomenon of experiences that occur as a result of life events and as a consequence of exploring those events with a ‘therapeutic context’ .

grounded theory studies that report primarily descriptive findings have elicited criticisms from numerous different perspectives: .Grounded theory forms outside ‘big Q’ psychology within psychology and related disciplines  Conducting and reporting a detailed. Nonetheless. rich or ‘thick description can be a primary means for researchers to demonstrate that they have indeed. immersion and process of working with the data. ‘grounded’ any theoretical abstractions they make in familiarity.

Grounded theory forms outside ‘big Q’ psychology within psychology and related disciplines  merely presenting the details and structure of experience does not amount to articulating a theory arriving at categories of meaning and experience does not articulate or interpret their psychological meaning from the perspective of individual actors simply reporting categories of experience and meaning does not provide for an analysis of social dynamics or process. nor does it answer specific questions about or explore the theoretical and practical implications of the data .

shifting from an exploratory/generative to a verificationist study. For example: Using grounded theory data analysis with interview data as a pilot study to generate hypotheses about how people respond to predictive genetic testing ‘to be tested in a prospective. evolving. . quantitative study’ Used grounded theory. multi-phased design.Grounded theory forms outside ‘big Q’ psychology within psychology and related disciplines Different manifestation of grounded theory practice occurs when the method is no longer treated as a distinctively descriptive and analytical but rather as a stage in an overall research process adopting a verificationist approach to method. in an interview study of people receiving chiropractic treatment for back pain as a starting point of more complex. wider scale.

Grounded theory is not a standardized package It is instead a flexible toolkit of methods Grounded theory and discourse analysis have been used as cocontributors as psychologists have worked across methodological boundaries Final frameworks can be drawn upon range of ideas drawn explicitly from theory and extant literature. . integrating and explicating the varied. to assist researchers in interpreting. inconsistent and ambivalent meanings in their data.Grounded theory used in combination with other approaches to achieve theoretical explication and interpretation A further variation of grounded theory within psychology is its use in combination with other approaches.

Conclusion Grounded theory studies in psychology attest to the strength of the method for producing fresh ideas and challenging past truths It offers much more than coding strategies and data management Through grounded theory. psychologists can enjoy a privileged place of access to people’s concerns and experience and sensitivity to felt meanings Grounded theory holds much promise for new theorizing in psychology. and for innovative links between academic and clinical practice . for critical inquiry within the discipline.

943 1742 ..93 9 07 3 98 . 05.07 789 8 89:/ :897..3.398 4507.943 43 974: .0 /. 5747 907.43897:..93 43 4203 8 801 507.^_`¨_ W_WS^U 40.908 98 57.70.3/ 7474:8 3907.0 .9.9. 07 0207039 9047 9:730/ 4:9 94 -0 8:75783 .80 3907.0 03 80 7908 7010.:9:7..9.9.9:70 90 .43897.3.3/ 6:90 /1107039 . .33 904709.059438 974: .0 .-4:9 07 050.0 41 0.. 89.9438 41 90 44/ 42.3 443 1742 07 2094/44.

9008 .43897:. 58./ .808 3/.44 41 0.47 74:3/0/ 9047 89:/08 3 90 84. 050703. . 84.98 41 89:/ 8:. . 43 .8 .3 .9 .-7.44 .943 3 07 89:/08 41 50450 9 ../:..39 8947 41 2.7 20.8 -03 8:507 3472.3/ 20.3/ 2.^[aZVWV`W[^ X[^_[a`_VW§TY¨\_ U[[Y  c`Z\_ U[[Y SZV^WS`WVV_U\ZW_ 0/.3/ 3088 25. 44/ /.70 :80/ 94 5:247/3.08 .3/ .338 . 308808 74:3/0/ 9047 897. .743. 09.33 ..08 902 39070893 4-0.

08 .9 0 4:/ 7.0 2.39 58.40.-4:9 8 /.0 41 2039.907. 8:55479 74:5 .43.908 4 /03 90 08903.^[aZVWV`W[^ X[^_[a`_VW§TY¨\_ U[[Y  c`Z\_ U[[Y SZV^WS`WVV_U\ZW_ 74:3/0/ 9047 574.7007 .3/ 8 0.75  -038 9 801 /0399 .0 7039075709 90 4.8 4 50450 9 /05708843 5747088.08 .7 94 .84 7908 ./.943 3 . 038 147 8003 -043/ 089.4.3/ 3088 . 3088 .0598 .3 25.389 .0598 7.70/ 801 03 .071.907 9.907 89...8 803893 .79.-0 308 41 .3/ 97. .3 .8 ./08 .08 . ..943 2094/8 41 5.93  3 /059 3907.5.3. 9 90 .9 .943858 .9438 94 .75 .3 43 8003 974: 902 ..88 9.7 3907.9.780 4:9 41 2 3907.3/ 89:.8 57023.43.43/:.75  .75 8..97 .8 9.-80/ 574108843.:8 41 974:-0 1742 70.7:3 ..

93 90 ..904708 41 050703.^[aZVWV`W[^ X[^_[a`_VW§TY¨\_ U[[Y  c`Z\_ U[[Y SZV^WS`WVV_U\ZW_ 3 0.. 58.0 95.0 .480 .33 9.3/ .4.0.9903943 9 5.9 ...9 2.3.79.44 74:3/0/ 9047 8 90 2094/44 41 .:80 41 90 .3/ 20. -0.:.0 :5 50450 8 8:-0.9.8 94 .

:7 .5034203.0398 9 .7.28 94 /08.. 708:9 41 10 0.9438 41 90 9072 3 .08 9.059:. . 907.43806:03.7-0 90 503420343 41 050703.0398 .50:9.0 41 05473 9480 0. 907.9 4..3/ .90/ - 349438 9 . 47/8 9 9708 94 4.9:70 /423. 7080.43909 . .8 .07.8 .43.420 5447 .

..79.90 9.75943 . 47 9.3 904709..38 147 7080..3 -0 .078 94 /0243897. 43090088 74:3/0/ 9047 89:/08 9. ..93 .9 90 .^[aZVWV`W[^ X[^_[a`_VW§TY¨\_ U[[Y  c`Z\_ U[[Y SZV^WS`WVV_U\ZW_ 43/:.90/ .7.9. 572.9 705479 572.-897.2. /09.3/ 574.79 2207843 .3/ 7054793 .9.828 1742 3:2074:8 /1107039 507850.759.088 41 473 9 90 /. /08.0 3 1.7 20.9438 90 2.0 13/38 .0 3/00/ 74:3/0/ .7 /08.08 .0/ 7.0 0.

9047084120..0/408349..33174290507850.088 347/4089.3.9.6:089438..90470841050703.904739075709907 58...20.3/ 20.0.8.3/57..:./0147.93. 9047 .9.8841 84.9..3807 850.9:7041 050703.33/408349574.1.3.0/408349.79.:.44..-4:9470547090 904709.^[aZVWV`W[^ X[^_[a`_VW§TY¨\_ U[[Y  c`Z\_ U[[Y SZV^WS`WVV_U\ZW_ 20705708039390/09.77.. .3.94384190/.3/897:..847574.2.9.25.24:3994.79.3/ 050703.9478 8257054793./3.33.041 3/../:.

.7457.5574.90/ .^[aZVWV`W[^ X[^_[a`_VW§TY¨\_ U[[Y  c`Z\_ U[[Y SZV^WS`WVV_U\ZW_ 1107039 2. 5.0 6:.0 /07 8. 970..9.0 89:/ 41 50450 70. 574850..943 41 74:3/0/ 9047 57.07.9. -:9 7..9.31089.947. 90893 94 -0 90890/ 3 .94389 .8 . 94 2094/ 47 0.90 5490808 .759.8 ..250 &83 74:3/0/ 9047 /..4250 0.0 /08.0 /.0 0309.3 0547.9.0.071.9.8 . 89..3.4.088 .0 3 .8 . /893.88 9 3907. . .399.3 .7.3 4. 549 89:/ 94 0307.3 3907. 574.3 .92039 147 -.9. 89.3.3 2:9 5./4593 .9..0 4. 7080.0 .3/ .793 5439 41 2470 .907 .9.9.:78 03 90 2094/ 8 34 4307 970..-4:9 4 50450 708543/ 94 570/.80/ /083 8193 1742 .0 89:/ &80/ 74:3/0/ 9047 3 .

9..0307. .94389 89:/ .071.0 94 .

94394907.917429047..17.42-3.3.70/ 3..^[aZVWV`W[^ a_WVZU[TZS`[Zc`[`W^ S\\^[SUW_`[SUWbW`W[^W`USW \US`[ZSZV Z`W^\^W`S`[Z 1:7907.9.9434174:3/0/90479358.10-09449412094/8 74:3/0/9047. .8.88897080.3041/0.3383907/.0-003:80/.3/09..7...4 .4397-:9478.3/05.2-.74882094/44.708 3.43889039 .0783 390757093 3907.44898..858..0 983890..20478.44898 :803.93. -4:3/.3-0/7.8/7.4:780.3/./.39907.0470/.89..88..9390.3/..9:70 94.3//8..3 05.08 74:3/0/90478349.5574.03920.7/0/5.3:5437.7.

9008.02039 %74:74:3/0/9047 58.00/5..990899490897039 41902094/147574/:.44898...3.0 .9...9.57.3/80389.3.79.31708/0.3034...038-09003.3/050703.0335.44. 2.99410920.0738..041.44 147.[ZUa_[Z 74:3/0/904789:/08358.43.89 97:98 94110782:.3/147 334..3..338 74:3/0/90474/82:.530 .3/./02.36:79390/8.3//.4/3897.57428014730904733 58..8.24709.3/. 57.9.0889450450 8.0 ..