84
The Grounded Theory Review (2009), vol.8, no.2
2
emergence tends to be skeptical and doubtful among the formed
in favor of forcing. (See: John Lofland, “Student’s Case Studies of
Social Movements: Experiences with an Undergraduate Seminar”
Teaching Sociology, 1996 vol 24, page 389–394).
I know and work with many, many of these beginners, quite
often as their external examiner for the dissertation. They are all
over the world in many diverse departments, but usually
business, nursing, education, social work and sociology. Make no
mistake about it, the best GT is done in the hands of beginners.
GT was written for beginners as it emerged FROM
beginners’ research, myself included, when we did Awareness of
Dyi, a resounding success. GT was not thought up based on ng
research maxims from positivism or symbolic interaction. IT WAS
WRITTEN FROM METHODOLOGICAL NOTES I did during the
research for Awareness of Dying and the methodological notes taken
during several years of my analysis seminar at Univ of Calif, San
Francisco. During each seminar, each week, a student was
assigned the task of doing methodological notes on what was
going on. Thus, GT is itself a grounded theory of methodology of
what went on in my seminars as we all painstakingly did our GT
of GT while doing GT, fitting names to patterns, being relevant to
participants and making sure it all worked.
In generating a GT methodology using this method, it was
clear that the question of not sufficient competence or the
beginning skill of the novice was not an issue. Using GT
methodology carefully brought its own skill development, and
brought it faster and better without previous training in
qualitative research. The novice need only have an ability to
conceptualize, to organize, to tolerate confusion with some
incident depression, to make abstract connections, to remain
open, to be a bit visual, to thinking multivariately and most of all
to trust to preconscious processing and to emergence. Many do
have these abilities at the advanced degree level. For many
novices these abilities come naturally.
Ingrid Hylander says regarding this natural bent: “I
recognize the main strategies of grounded theory as something I
unsophisticatedly, although not knowing it, had been doing for
years.” (Turning Processes: the Change of Representations
in Consultee-Centered Case Consultation, Linkoping Press,
2000, page 67.) Phyllis Stern also talks of this natural bent:
The Grounded Theory Review (2009), vol.8, no.2
3
“Students often find it hard to believe, as they begin the research
process, that they will develop a credible conceptual framework.
And yet students manage to learn to perform the magic of
creativity. Having transcended the creative process, the neophyte
becomes sufficiently proficient to conduct subsequent studies
independently and to teach other neophytes.” (“Eroding GT”, page
218 in Critical Issues In Qualitative Methods, Janice Morse,
editor.)
Miles and Huberman (p. 309, Qualitative Data Analysis,
Sage, 1994) talk of the essential requisites for qualitative
analysis which fit the novice. “You don’t need prolonged
socialization or arcane technologies. The core requisites for
qualitative analysis seem to be a little creativity, systematic
doggedness, some good conceptual sensibilities, and cognitive
flexibility — the capacity to rapidly undo your way of construing
or transforming the data and to try another more promising
tack.” These requisites fit the novice GT researcher perfectly.
They conclude, “We also don’t think that good qualitative analysis
necessarily calls for formal prerequisites.” Miles and Huberman
make these statements to help the novice offset the feeling of
data overwhelm. They are right. GT, of course, helps allay this
feeling with the knowledge that the GT methodology provides
constant delimiting of data collection thus reducing data
overwhelm immensely.
Please reread this section to reaffirm my contention that the
future of GT is in the hands of the novice high level degree
researcher who is still open. Soon after the dissertation the
experienced researcher will likely (for many) erode GT along QDA
lines as becoming formed increases. The blocking of good GT
increases as becoming formed takes on QDA requirements.
The Experienced View
he experienced have many views of the novice GT T
researcher. All these views tend to block the novice researcher by
taking GT out of his/her hands by talking of his/her inexperience.
The formed will try to force this conclusion on the unformed, new
novices to try to form them in their image. They will impose QDA
procedures of data collection and analysis which will preconceive
the novice’s research, hence block good GT. They will give a
misread of normal GT, as they say, in order to rescue the novice
from confusion, not knowing, depression, fear of not doing it, or
84
The Grounded Theory Review (2009), vol.8, no.2
4
data overwhelm, by saying these are ineptitudes that will be
solved by forcing preconceived interests and frameworks. They do
not advise the novice that their confusion and overwhelm is part
of the GT process which are to be tolerated for a short while. Nor
do they advice that these so called problems mean that they are
doing GT correctly. and should keep asking “what do I have in
this data, what is this a study of, etc”.
Mentoring
This misread comes from method loyalty. The formed are
unbendingly loyal to a QDA method, based on their experience
and build up of identity as a certified QDA researcher. Method
loyalty is impossible to give up and leads to competitive training
of novices. So when seeing the novice GT researcher going
through the confusing initial problems of doing GT, the QDA
trained supervisor will see a need to rescue the novice “from not
knowing” by suggesting and training in QDA preconceived
frameworks, categories and questionnaires etc. This block on the
novice and GT is great. The novice who happens to find a mentor
who is experienced in GT and has GT method loyalty is fortunate.
But most method loyalty is to a QDA method. Thus minus
mentoring is advisable if the mentor will, in effect, advise or even
force QDA requirements.
On the GT mentor, the right mentor, Rita Schreiber writes:
“One of the struggles in teaching and learning grounded theory is
that it is difficult to capture fully and in writing the ‘how to’ of
the method without sacrificing its more intuitive aspects. Part of
the difficulty is that getting a handle on the method involves
process learning: you learn as you do. The ‘doing’ however, goes
much more smoothly and is likely to have better results when the
novice is able to work with an experienced mentor who can guide
the way. In many programs mentors are in short supply.” (“The
GT Club,” in Using Grounded Theory in Nursing, Springer,
2001, page 109) Rita is quite correct, and in “the short supply”
bargain a mentor who professes GT experience many in fact bring
in QDA training such as in interview guides, sampling, taping
and preconceived analysis. Then GT blocking occurs. Mentored
novices should always maintain their autonomy in mentored
relationships, however confusing their initial foray may be. They
should trust to emergence and the eureka syndrome. I have seen
“eureka” happen so often.
The Grounded Theory Review (2009), vol.8, no.2
5
Listen to this student email (Hans Thulesius, Jan 02) at the
other end of the mentor continuum. “The other point that I would
like to discuss is the “minus mentor” issue. How did you deal with
it, if you had to. My supervisor is excellent and I have great
respect for him, however he is a 100% positivist of quantitative
background and thinks GT is “bullshit”. He is changing slowly
and appreciates what I’m doing, I trust knowledge will prevail
against prejudice....” I have written at length on changing the
formed in The Grounded Theory Perspective. This kind of
mentor is hardly worth the time and mentoring. A novice’s skill
grows in doing GT, and ends in a theory in a dissertation. His/her
skill in changing others is not the task at hand, nor the measure
of the novice.
Mentoring is the way of the world and who’s to say that
maybe QDA fits a particular novice better. But many novices
with the wrong mentor, who can do GT, are lost to it. Now let us
look at three aspects of experienced QDA views of the novice: skill
undermining, staying open and pattern finding.
Skill Undermining
The basic problem emanates from the simple fact that the
experienced QDA researcher does not understand the learning
curve and its properties of beginning to do GT. The experienced
QDA teacher blocks the novice with a formed view of QDA
training and with a given image to the novice of not skilled
enough. The experienced misread the novices confusion and
evolving self development as an ineptitude. Hence the beginning
“not knowing” quandary, confusion, data overwhelm and often
depression is rescued by training in forcing procedures varying
from structured data collection to framework analysis as the
anxious novice reaches out for help and solace and QDA
researchers rush to help.
I have written extensively in Doing Grounded Theory on
not reviewing the literature in the field before doing a GT.
Remember students at the PhD level have been institutionally
selected partly for reading ability. And they have read a lot which
makes them very sensitive to the conceptual style in their general
field. They also continue reading in their field, if not their
substantive area. To read in their area of research preconceives
them and also with GT, since one doesn’t know where it will take
them, they do not know what literature to read. Not reading the
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
