Introduction to Grounded Theory

Introduction to Grounded Theory By Steve Borgatti

Source: http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/introtoGT.htm Discussion drawn from: Glaser and Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strauss and Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research.

Goals and Perspective

The phrase "grounded theory" refers to theory that is developed inductively from a corpus of data. If done well, this means that the resulting theory at least fits one dataset perfectly. This contrasts with theory derived deductively from grand theory, without the help of data, and which could therefore turn out to fit no data at all.

Grounded theory takes a case rather than variable perspective, although the distinction is nearly impossible to draw. This means in part that the researcher takes different cases to be wholes, in which the variables interact as a unit to produce certain outcomes. A case-oriented perspective tends to assume that variables interact in complex ways, and is suspicious of simple additive models, such as ANOVA with main effects only.

Part and parcel of the case-orientation is a comparative orientation. Cases similar on many variables but with different outcomes are compared to see where the key causal differences may lie. This is based on John Stuart Mills' (1843, A system of logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive) method of differences -- essentially the use of (natural) experimental design. Similarly, cases that have the same outcome are examined to see which conditions they all have in common, thereby revealing necessary causes.

The grounded theory approach, particularly the way Strauss develops it, consists of a set of steps whose careful execution is thought to "guarantee" a good theory as the outcome. Strauss would say that the quality of a theory can be evaluated by the process by which a theory is constructed. (This contrasts with the scientific perspective that how you generate a theory, whether through dreams, analogies or dumb luck, is irrelevent: the quality of a theory is determined by its ability to explain new data.)

Although not part of the grounded theory rhetoric, it is apparent that grounded theorists are concerned with or largely influenced by emic understandings of the world: they use categories drawn from respondents themselves and tend to focus on making implicit belief systems explicit. Methods

The basic idea of the grounded theory approach is to read (and re-read) a textual database (such as a corpus of field notes) and "discover" or label variables (called categories, concepts and properties) and their interrelationships. The ability to perceive variables and relationships is termed "theoretical sensitivity" and is affected by a number of things including one's reading of the literature and one's use of techniques designed to enhance sensitivity. 2

Of course, the data do not have to be literally textual -- they could be observations of behavior, such as interactions and events in a restaurant. Often they are in the form of field notes, which are like diary entries.

Open Coding

Open coding is the part of the analysis concerned with identifying, naming, categorizing and describing phenomena found in the text. Essentially, each line, sentence, paragraph etc. is read in search of the answer to the repeated question "what is this about? What is being referenced here?"

These labels refer to things like hospitals, information gathering, friendship, social loss, etc. They are the nouns and verbs of a conceptual world. Part of the analytic process is to identify the more general categories that these things are instances of, such as institutions, work activities, social relations, social outcomes, etc.

We also seek out the adjectives and adverbs --- the properties of these categories. For example, about a friendship we might ask about its duration, and its closeness, and its importance to each party. Whether these properties or dimensions come from the data itself, from respondents, or from the mind of the researcher depends on the goals of the research.

It is important to have fairly abstract categories in addition to very concrete ones, as the abstract ones help to generate general theory.

Consider what is implied in the following passage of text (Strauss and Corbin pg. 78):

Text Fragment 1

Pain relief is a major problem when you have arthritis. Sometimes, the pain is worse than other times, but when it gets really bad, whew! It hurts so bad, you don't want to get out of bed. You don't feel like doing anything. Any relief you get from drugs that you take is only temporary or partial.

One thing that is being discussed here is PAIN. Implied in the text is that the speaker views pain as having certain properties, one of which is INTENSITY: it varies from a little to a lot. (When is it a lot and when is it little?) When it hurts a lot, there are consequences: don't want to get out of bed, don't feel like doing things (what are other things you don't do when in pain?). In order to solve this problem, you need PAIN RELIEF. One AGENT OF PAIN RELIEF is drugs (what are other members of this category?). Pain relief has a certain DURATION (could be temporary), and EFFECTIVENESS (could be partial).

One can see that this sort of analysis has a very emic cast to it, even though I think that most grounded theorists believe they are theorizing about how the world *is* rather than how respondents see it.

The process of naming or labeling things, categories, and properties is known as coding. Coding can be done very formally and systematically or quite informally. In grounded theory, it is normally done quite informally. For example, if after coding much text, some new categories are invented, grounded theorists do not normally go back to the earlier text to code for that category. However, maintaining an inventory of codes with their descriptions (i.e., 3 creating a codebook) is useful, along with pointers to text that contain them. In addition, as codes are developed, it is useful to write memos known as code notes that discuss the codes. These memos become fodder for later development into reports.

Axial Coding

Axial coding is the process of relating codes (categories and properties) to each other, via a combination of inductive and deductive thinking. To simplify this process, rather than look for any and all kind of relations, grounded theorists emphasize causal relationships, and fit things into a basic frame of generic relationships. The frame consists of the following elements:

Element Description This is what in schema theory might be called the name of the schema or frame. It is the concept that holds the bits together. In Phenomenon grounded theory it is sometimes the outcome of interest, or it can be the subject. These are the events or variables that lead to the occurrence or Causal development of the phenomenon. It is a set of causes and their conditions properties. Hard to distinguish from the causal conditions. It is the specific locations (values) of background variables. A set of conditions influencing the action/strategy. Researchers often make a quaint Context distinction between active variables (causes) and background variables (context). It has more to do with what the researcher finds interesting (causes) and less interesting (context) than with distinctions out in nature. Similar to context. If we like, we can identify context with Intervening moderating variables and intervening conditions with mediating conditions variables. But it is not clear that grounded theorists cleanly distinguish between these two. Action The purposeful, goal-oriented activities that agents perform in strategies response to the phenomenon and intervening conditions. These are the consequences of the action strategies, intended and Consequences unintended.

In the text segment above, it seems obvious that the phenomenon of interest is pain, the causal conditions are arthritis, the action strategy is taking drugs, and the consequence is pain relief. Note that grounded theorists don't show much interest in the consequences of the phenomenon itself.

It should be noted again that a fallacy of some grounded theory work is that they take the respondent's understanding of what causes what as truth. That is, they see the informant as an insider expert, and the model they create is really the informant's folk model. 4

Selective Coding

Selective coding is the process of choosing one category to be the core category, and relating all other categories to that category. The essential idea is to develop a single storyline around which all everything else is draped. There is a belief that such a core concept always exists.

I believe grounded theory draws from literary analysis, and one can see it here. The advice for building theory parallels advice for writing a story. Selective coding is about finding the driver that impels the story forward.

Memos are short documents that one writes to oneself as one proceeds through the analysis of a corpus of data. We have already been introduced to two kinds of memos, the field note and the code note (see above). Equally important is the theoretical note. A theoretical note is anything from a post-it that notes how something in the text or codes relates to the literature, to a 5-page paper developing the theoretical implications of something. The final theory and report is typically the integration of several theoretical memos. Writing theoretical memos allows you to think theoretically without the pressure of working on "the" paper.

Process

Strauss and Corbin consider that paying attention to processes is vital. It is important to note that their usage of "process" is not quite the same as Lave and March, who use process as a synonym for "explanatory mechanism". Strauss and Corbin are really just concerned with describing and coding everything that is dynamic -- changing, moving, or occurring over time -- in the research setting.

How To Theorize

This material drawn liberally from Lave & March An Introduction to Models in the Social Science (some changes have been made)

Start with an observation. For example, think about being in college. You're in class, and the guy next to you -- who is obviously a football player -- says an unbelievably dumb thing in class. So you ask yourself: Why? And the answer comes thundering back:

 Football players are dumb.

This is a theory. It is not a very good one, but it is a start. What would make it better?

One thing would be to make it a little more general. Theories that are too narrow and specific are not very interesting, even if they are correct. So, we could say:

 Athletes are dumb 5

This is better, but the theory still has no sense of process, of explanation. It says, athletes have this property of being dumb, and that's why they ask dumb questions. Dumb begets dumb. Does that actually explain anything? Or does it just push the thing to be explained one step back? Why are athletes dumb? It's like when kids ask you 'Why is the sky blue?' and you say 'Because it is, that's why'.

There is also a circularity here. What do we mean when we say that a person is dumb? Practically speaking, it means that they consistently behave dumbly. We cannot perceive dumbness directly. The only way we can know whether people are dumb is by what they say and do. Yet what we are trying to explain is a dumb thing that they said. So in effect we are saying that they say dumb things because they say dumb things.

The really big problem with circularity is that it prevents theories from being falsifiable. For example, take the theory that if you perform the Rain Dance Ceremony and all the participants are pure of heart, it will rain the next day. This theory is not falsifiable because if you perform the ceremony and it rains, the theory is confirmed. If you perform the ceremony and it doesn't rain, that tells you right away that one of the participants was not pure of heart, and again the theory is confirmed.

A good theory has a sense of process. It describes a mechanism by which A makes B happen, like the way the gears in a car transfer the rotation in the engine to a rotation of the tires. For example, look at this explanation:

 To be a good athlete requires lots of practice time; being smart in class also requires study time. Amount of time is limited, so practicing a sport means less studying which means being less smart in class.

This has much more of a sense of explanation. When reading this account, we have a much greater sense of satisfaction that something is being accomplished by theorizing. Of greatest importance is that the focus of the story is a mechanism, not an enduring property of a class of people (athletes). This means that we can apply the same reasoning to other people and other situations. Let's rewrite it this way:

 [Limited Time Theory] There is limited time in a day, so when a person engages in a very time-consuming activity, such as athletics, it takes away from other very time- consuming activies, such as studying.

An implication of this theory is that we should also observe that good musicians (who practice many hours a day) should also be dumb in class. If we don't find this, the theory is wrong. This is in part what makes it such a good theory. It is general enough to generate implications for other groups of people and other contexts, all of which serve as potential tests of the theory. That is, the theory is fertile.

The essence of theorizing is that you start with an observation, and then imagine the observation as the outcome of a (hidden) process.

Here is another process that would lead to the outcome of a football player asking a dumb question in class: 6

 [Excellence Theory] Everyone has a need to excel in one area. Achieving excellence in any one area is enough to satisfy this need. Football players satisfy their need for accomplishment through football, so they are not motivated to be smart in class.

This theory also has implications for other groups of people, such as musicians or beauty queens.

Here's one last theory:

 [Jealousy Theory] We are jealous of others’ success. When we are jealous, we subconsciously lower our evaluation of that person’s performance in other areas. So we think football players ask dumb questions.

This theory has some interesting implications. For example, because we are jealous of rich people, we love soap operas which reveal how unhappy the rich really are. Similarly, perhaps really beautiful women get a lot of recognition and status, so others will feel that beautiful women are dumb. This would explain the widespread stereotype of the "dumb blonde" or "bimbo". Choosing Among Competing Theories

We can use the fertility and non-circularity of all these theories to help test and choose among them. If the theory is specified clearly enough, we can essentially present a situation to a theory and ask what it would expect as an outcome. The idea, then, is to collect a set of situations which the different theories would have different predictions or expectations about.

Consider, for example, how football players should behave (or appear to behave) in class out of season. Will they still be asking dumb questions? According to the first theory (Limited Time), football players should not ask dumb questions out of season, because there is plenty of time to study. [Whether or not there is ever a time when football players are not consumed by the sport is another question.] But according to the second theory (Recognition), members of the football team should continue to ask dumb questions because they are still football players and still getting recognition, so they still don't need to excel academically. The third theory (Jealousy) also yields the expectation of continued dumb questions, because we are still jealous.

So studying football player behavior out of season should help to distinguish between the first theory and the other two, no matter how the data turn out. If the football players appear smart, then the Recognition and Jealousy theories are wrong. If the football players appear dumb, then the Limited Time theory is wrong. [Of course, we can make the theory more complicated: having limited time during the season makes them dumb in class for those times, which erodes their confidence and interest, so they that even when they have the time, they still don't study effectively, so they don't do any better in the off-season. We'll deal with that some other time.]

Now, consider athletes who do not look like athletes -- they are not unusually big (like football) or tall (like basketball) or fat (like sumo wrestling). Will they appear to ask dumb questions? The Limited Time theory will again clearly say "yes" because practice time is unaffected by physique. The Excellence theory will also say "yes" because even if people can't recognize them on the street, they are still fulfilling their need to do one thing really well 7 so they will not feel the need to excel in class. The Jealousy theory would say "no" for most people because they just don't know that they are in the presence of an athlete.

Expectations Generated by Each Theory For Two Situations Limited Question Excellence Jealousy Time Football players ask dumb questions out of season? No Yes Yes Will athletes who do not look like athletes ask dumb Yes Yes No questions?

Once again, no matter how the data turn out, we will know which theories are wrong. Note that if the answer to both questions is No, that means that all the theories are wrong, since none predict a NO answer to both questions.

In practice, we would want to ask many other questions as well, even ones that more or less duplicate the expected answers for other questions. For example, consider how football players appear in schools where football is not important. Will they still be asking dumb questions? The Limited Time theory clearly says "yes" because they still have to practice even if nobody on campus cares about football. The Excellence theory also says "yes", because football is still satisfying their need for accomplishment. And the Jealousy theory would say "no" because we are not jealous unless football is a source of status. So this question has the same pattern of expected answers as question #2:

Limited Question Excellence Jealousy Time FB players ask dumb questions in schools where FB is not Yes Yes No important?

Every implication of one theory is potentially useful in choosing among all the theories. For example, we noted earlier that an implication of the limited time theory was that students studying music should also ask dumb questions, because of the time they spend practicing their instrument. So what would the other theories say about musicians?

Question Limited Time Excellence Jealousy Musicians ask dumb questions too? Yes Yes No

(I'm assuming here that people don't realize, just by looking at their classmates, who is a musician, and that it not terribly high status anyway.) 8

Example of Field and Code Notes From Strauss and Corbin (1990)

9/15/88 Field Note

You asked me to tell you about my experience with pain in childbirth. It's been quite a few years since I've had a baby. The funny thing about pain, whatever its source, is that once it's over, you kind of bury it deep in your subconscious somewhere. You can say that it was awful or not so bad, but this expression is filtered through a haze. You can't really feel it anywhere, you just have images of what you think it was like. Do you know what I mean?

Childbirth is weird. You kind of dread it because you hear so much about the pain of labor, on the other hand you look forward to it because you're tired of carrying the child and anxious to see it. The pain is seen as the only way of getting there so you know you have to go through it. You just hope that it won't be too bad. Or that they will give you something if it is. The pain is expected, you think about it, dread it, prepare for it by going to classes and learning how to control and tolerate it. In the beginning it's not too bad, toward the end though, it kind of overwhelms you. The force just kind of takes you over. But you do have moments of rest in between. And you know it is going to end, as soon as that baby comes out. And they can give you something to make it hurt less. I was lucky. I had short labors. So I didn't need any kind of medication. I just used my breathing and relaxing exercises. But I can see that if it goes on for hours and hours how you would get tired and need something.

10/10/89 Code Note

Analysis pertains to fieldnote Code #45, p.2, dated 9/15/88. PAIN, PAIN MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS, ACTION/INTERACTION STRATEGIES, CONSEQUENCES OR MANAGING THE PAIN OF CHILDBIRTH

We are talking here about a particular type of pain event-that associated with childbirth. This association gives the pain experience its specific properties or location along the dimensional continua. The pain of childbirth is expected (degree of expectancy), can be controlled (degree of controllability) grows more intense as the labor progresses (degree of intensity also denotes that there is phasing), has a known beginning, onset of labor, and an end, delivery of the child (course of trajectory), and it is intermittent with periods of no pain in between (degree of continuity). Oddly enough, the pain of childbirth has another quality or characteristic that is quite strange and difficult to express. Pain is* part of a labor process, labor of course serving an end-the end of pregnancy, the delivery of the awaited child. Hmm. How do I describe this property? The pain itself is not purposeful, but associated with a purposeful activity-labor. (**** I'll note this though I'm not yet sure what to do with this. It doesn't necessarily mean acceptance (though it might to some people), or tolerance, but perhaps it gives the pain a certain degree of predictability? This still doesn't quite capture this phenomenon.)

These specific properties of childbirth pain create the context in which the management of that pain takes place from the women's perspective. 9

From this fieldnote I can come up with the following potential relationships. Under conditions, where the pain (childbirth) is known beforehand, thus one can prepare; when it is intermittent rather than continuous; when its intensity varies over the course from mild at the beginning to more intense later; when labor is fairly short or at least follows a predictable course; and there are known techniques for controlling its intensity and these can be learned or negotiated for. Then, one can take action to control the intensity of the pain during labor through pain management techniques such as the use of relaxation and breathing techniques, pain medication, or anesthesia (caudal, pericervical). The consequences or outcomes of the use of these management techniques may not be absolute control but control of sufficient degree to get one through the labor.

One may enter labor with some predefined sense of what management techniques one is likely to use, such as breathing and relaxation techniques, however if the pain management context changes due to contingency such as labor becoming prolonged due to complications, then one may have to alter that predefined plan of management and use supplements or alternatives to those original techniques.

Other potential categories, properties to come out of this fieldnote to be explored in further memos are: pain consciousness or memory-this seems acute at first but dulls with time. Phases of pain trajectory-this bears examining. Predictability of the pain and how this acts as a condition for management.

This fieldnote suggests but does not address: What about the timing and amount of medication, anesthesia? What are their effects, potential risks? 10

Theoretical Note. Strauss and Corbin 1990. pp. 216-7.

AS/JC 7-22-88 (Telephone) ************IMPORTANT MEMO: ROUTINE/NOVEL

I posed the issue, long ago observed, that nurses encountered typical problems --- often costly of time and effort and sentiment --- but do not act to change institutional rules or procedures to prevent. Rather they go on with their institutionalized-routine ways of doing work. (Problematic dying patients for instance, or as in pain book). Rather they typify this patient as like one(s) they have had before. But afterward there is no institutional change. These I have thought for a long time are due to the way organizations get work done, their priorities, and perhaps structural strains that precipitate recurrent semicrises. But here is a much better and detailed set of answers.

1. When work processes break down, then there is a change of procedure.

2. If they don't change procedures, it's because the work associated with the problem is not of high priority. The nurses are SO BUSY doing the high priority work, that they don't have time and effort to do anything else. They will, in fact, if the problem (like a problem patient) gets bad enough call in specialists-social work- ers, chaplains, psychiatrists-because their own work has to go on. Or they will ignore the patient; perhaps making the problem worse, but...

3. If the work affected by the breakdown of work process is of high priority (like affect its efficiency or patient's safety), then they have to reflect on how to prevent this from occurring again.

1. If the change is easily done, then it is done through interactional processes: negotiation, persuasion, even some coercion.

2. If the change will be difficult organizationally, this essentially means a lot of additional work must be done but it must be done --- that is: figuring out what's to be done, planning decision making, persuading, negotiating, finding new resources, acting to raise motivation, additional supervising when the new routines are instituted, etc. And of course, an additional drain on the total articulation process until everything is acting smoothly again.

4. So, what we are saying is that THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR AND MECHANISMS THROUGH WHICH ACTION IS INSTITUTED TO REPLACE ROUTINES WITH NEW INSTITUTIONALIZED PROCEDURES. Notice: we have to look more closely at the meaning of routine procedures. At the lowest level, it means how tasks are done. But this can be done by staff agreement as well as by administrative rules.