Dr
Neil Béchervaise
NB
Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd
Researching organisational behaviour: An
Introduction to grounded theory
Bourke, S,, Cikoratic, J. & Mack, G
©1999
Abstract
Focuses on the role of grounded theory in qualitative research
method. Clarification of the methodÕs meaning; Promotion of consistency
in grounded theory usage; Suggestion of reasons for misunderstanding
grounded work aspects of qualitative research.
Overview
Traditionally, qualitative research methodologies have been developed
for and largely restricted in application to the social science
fields of social work, nursing and education. Research into organisational
behaviour has traditionally been restricted to the investigation
of those phenomena that could be reliably researched using scientific
empirical methods. More recently qualitative research methods, such
as grounded theory, have been finding favour with researchers interested
in exploring, understanding and explaining organisationally contexted
human interaction. In this article we offer a brief introduction
to grounded theory as research methodology. We identify its historical
origins and defining features and then highlight some of its potential
strengths and limitations in both theory and application. In conclusion,
we offer some thoughts on grounded theoryÕs suitability for the
researcher of organisationally contexted human interaction as an
alternative to the more common methodologies of case study, content
analysis, discourse analysis, systems theory and the various scientific
empirically based approaches.
What is grounded theory
Grounded theory describes a methodological approach to the discovery
and generation of "adequate sociological theory" (Wells 1995) directly
from qualitative data, was originated and most fully articulated
by Glaser & Strauss in their seminal work ÔThe Discovery of Grounded
Theory: strategies for qualitative researchÕ (1967). The objective
of the grounded theoretical approach, as interpreted by Wells (1995),
is an explanation of the variability in social interactions, the
social structural conditions that support the interactions, the
consequences of the interactions and the conditions that support
changes in interactions over time. Whilst there are a variety of
applied interpretive assessments of what constitutes grounded theory,
it would seem that the one developed by Strauss and Corbin (1990)
is referenced most commonly by researchers as being essentially
"the clearest theoretical exposition of this important research
tradition" (Miller & Fredericks 1999). Strauss and Corbin define
a grounded theory as one that is; ".......inductively derived from
the study of the phenomenon it represents. That is, it is discovered,
developed and provisionally verified through systematic data collection
and analysis of data pertaining to that phenomenon. Therefore, data
collection, analysis and theory stand in reciprocal relationship
with each other." (Strauss & Corbin 1990 p23)
In an historical context, grounded theory is generally regarded
having evolved from and continues to be compatible with the symbolic
interactionist approach to the study of human behaviour (Robrecht
1995, Wells 1995) which characterised the work of sociologist George
Herbert Mead and later that of Blumer (1969). Symbolic interactionism,
as articulated by Blumer, is based on three key premises: "Human
beings act toward things based on the meaning that the things have
for them; the meaning of such things is derived from the social
interaction that the individual has with his fellows; and meanings
are handled in, and modified through an interpretive process and
by the person dealing with the things that they encounter." (Blumer
1969 p2) It has been suggested by a number of authors that grounded
theory has been and continues to be the research methodology of
choice in the qualitatively oriented research fields of medicine,
nursing, social work and education (Wells 1995, Miller & Fredericks
1999). The common socio-behavioural foundation that these human
science research fields share with the study of organisationally
contexted human interaction suggests that grounded theory may also
be a useful methodology for application in the investigation of
phenomena in this later domain . It is the extent of grounded theoryÕs
practical and theoretical suitability as a form of qualitative inquiry
into organisationally contexted phenomena that we are seeking to
evaluate.
The generation of grounded theory
The foundation of the grounded theory process is the requirement
for a constant comparative analysis of the qualitative data which
has been collected and, in turn, the dynamic interrelationship that
this has with hypothesis development and ultimately, theory generation.
In grounded theory, data collection and theory generation are considered
as "two parts of the same process" (Robrecht 1995; Glaser 1978;
Glaser & Strauss 1967). The original derivation of grounded theory
(Glaser & Strauss 1967), which focused critically on the generation
of theory from data without reference to the researcherÕs prior
knowledge of the phenomena under investigation, arguably lacked
clarity and precision in defining the methodological procedures
or steps required of the researcher in correctly undertaking the
process (Schatzman 1991). The procedural stages Glaser & Strauss
(1967) outlined were reflective of a rather "parsimonious structure"
(Miller & Fredericks 1999). Recent attempts to overcome this lack
of procedural clarity (eg. Strauss & Corbin 1990) have been criticised
on the basis that the operational procedures prescribed by the authors
implicitly require application of the researcherÕs prior knowledge
(Robrecht 1995) - a violation of the underlying premise of the methodology.
Bearing in mind that a fine balance between prescription and generality
is required, based on Glaser & StraussÕs lean structure, the following
is an interpretation of the steps to the generation of grounded
theory:
a) Data collection - As grounded theory is a tool for qualitative
investigation, the commonly referenced forms of data collection
are social interaction, field studies, participant observation and
semi-structured interviews. This is not to suggest that other techniques
for capturing qualitative data on human interaction may not be as
or more appropriate in a given situation. b) Data analysis - Grounded
theory focuses on the constant comparison of the data leading to
coding and then categorisation of the data. Hypothesis formulation
can (and is perhaps expected to) occur before, during and after
the initial process of data collection has occurred. Constant comparison
focuses on "the simultaneous conceptualisation and assessment of
the similarities and differences in social interactions" in search
of a "core idea that could explain variability in interactions"
(Wells 1995). This process of data collection, data analysis and
hypothesis is interrelated and cyclical in that each may influence
the other. To assist the researcher in coding/categorisation of
data and the selection of the core idea that explains the phenomena
under investigation, Schatzman (1991) proposed a new model of naturalistic
qualitative research as an alternative to, and an extension of,
grounded theory that he called dimensional analysis. SchatzmanÕs
model, taking very much the symbolic interactionist approach, arguably
offers greater operational guidance to the researcher in categorising
or dimensionalising the data through a process of inductive and
deductive reasoning. c) Theory delimitation - once the core ideal
has been identified, new data on interaction is sought to "confirm
and disconfirm the elaborated concepts and the relationship among
them" (Wells 1995). This process is continued until no new insights
into these relationships in terms of the core idea or dimension
are revealed. d) Theory definition - Definition of the theory is
the final stage of the process. The resulting grounded theory is
intended to be a rich, "powerful and parsimonious explanation" of
the investigated phenomenon (Wells 1995). The better view seems
to be that, as it is a form of inductive reasoning, once a theory
has been arrived at, the process itself is complete and testing
of the theory is not required to confirm its status as a validly
grounded (Miller & Fredericks 1999).
A more detailed discussion of the qualities, which define true
grounded theories in terms of the Glaser & Strauss (1967) conception,
follows.
Judging grounded theory
Assuming then that the researcher can understand and satisfactorily
resolve the methodological mysteries of grounded theory and is able
to generate a theory from qualitative data, judging the applicability
of the resulting theory to the investigated phenomenon becomes the
final stage of the process. How does one determine at the conclusion
of the process that a ÔgroundedÕ theory has been arrived at? What
are the tests invoked to judge the applicability of the theory to
the phenomena under investigation? In answer to these questions,
Glaser & Strauss (1967 p237-250) and Glaser (1978) propose four
criteria for judging a theory as grounded - fit, understanding,
generality and control. The concept of ÔfitÕ suggests a theoryÕs
applicability to, or coverage of, the data that in turn delimits
the boundaries. Understanding is directed to and linked with practical
application by researchers and laymen. Generalisation suggests the
necessity of balancing theory abstraction and flexibility in application
to ensure that the theory is "a general guide to multi-conditional,
ever changing daily situations" (Glaser & Strauss 1967 p242). Control
refers to the capability that the theory provides to the practitioner
to in the assist development of hypotheses regarding how the practitioner
should act in particular situations that they may face (Wells 1995).
Collectively, the guidelines for theory judgement suggested by Glaser
& Strauss (1967) seem directed to ensuring that the resultant grounded
theory is able to be readily applied in practice by both laymen
practitioners and academic researchers. Robrecht (1995 citing Glaser
1978) suggests "...that the goal of the discovery process is a theoretical
description of the basic social process that is most central or
problematic to participants involved in the investigation". It appears
that the ÔrichnessÕ of this "running theoretical discussion", as
Glaser & Strauss (1967) refer to it, is one of the key determinants
as to whether one has a grounded theory which credibly explains
and gives meaning to the phenomena which has been the subject of
the investigative process (Miller & Fredericks 1999).
Conclusion
Grounded theory has, since its inception, been accepted as an
important research methodology in the investigation of complex social
interactions in the social science fields. Given the obvious similarities
in human interaction that occur in these social areas and in organisations,
grounded theory should conceivably be a potentially useful methodology
for the exploration and examination of organisationally contexted
human interaction. The problematic issues that have been identified
in the generation of grounded theory, being the lack of clear methodological
procedures and the danger of violation of the underlying premise
in the data analysis process, are now well acknowledged. This awareness
and the solutions offered by Schatzman (1991) should assist in overcoming
them. However, what is clear to us from our literature review is
that production or generation of grounded theory is a complicated
and time consuming process. It is of greatest value when the researcher
has little knowledge of the subject field of qualitative inquiry
that is likely to be the case in relation to the investigation of
many organisationally contexted phenomena. Grounded theoryÕs greatest
strengths are two-fold. First it permits the investigation of higher
level and lower level factors of causation which is critical when
investigating and seeking to explain variability in complex human
interactions (Miller & Fredericks 1999). Second, as arguably an
extension of MillÕs (1970) methods of inductive reasoning, grounded
theory is a unique form of theory construction (Miller & Fredericks
1999).
References
Annells, M. (1996). Grounded theory method: Philosophical perspectiveÕs,
paradigm of inquiry and
postmodernism. Qualitative Health Research Vol. 6 p379.
Analyses the ontological, epistemological and methodological
stance of grounded theory method. Movement of the grounded theory
method from a postpositive inquiry paradigm toward the constructivist
inquiry paradigm; Evolution of the post-modern status of the
method; Symbolic interactionism.
Cornett-DeVito, M.M. & Friedman, P.G. (1995). Communication
processes and merger success.
Management Communication Quarterly Vol. 9 p46.
Analyses the process of communication involved in mergers of
companies throughout an exploratory study of mergers in four
financial institutions in the US through the research methodology
of grounded theory.
Glaser, G.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley,
CA. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York. Aldine.
Kools, S. & McCarthy, M. (1996). Dimensional analysis: Broadening
the conception of grounded theory.
Qualitative Health Research Vol. 6 p312.
Describes the process of dimensional analysis proposed by Schatzman
as an alternate method for the generation of grounded theory
in research. SchatzmanÕs criticism of the original grounded
theory method for its lack of structural foundation that would
allow for the explicit articulation of the analytic process;
Explanatory matrix; Data collection and management.
Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory
after 25 years? Journal of Management
Inquiry Vol. 5 p239.
Mill, J.S. (1970). A system of logic. London. Longman.
Analyses the process of communication involved in merger of
companies through an exploratory study of mergers of four financial
institutions in the United States. Hypotheses; Testing, Identifying
communication contingencies; Merger stages; Data analysis and
interpretation.
Miller, S.I. & Fredericks, M. (1999). Qualitative Health Research.
Vol. 9 p538.
Argues that the concept of grounded theory, widely used in
research in the human sciences, has not been adequately analysed
as to its structure as a theory. Concerns with the grounded
theory approach; Issues related to the classification of grounded
theory; Notable advantage of grounded theory.
Robrecht, L.C. (1995). Grounded Theory: Evolving Methods.
Qualitative Health Research Vol. 5 p169.
Examines the methodological issues raised by the attempts to
refine the process of generating grounded theory. Historical
context of grounded theory; Problematic methodological issues;
Use of dimensional analysis as an alternative method.
Schatzman, L. (1991). Dimensional analysis: Notes on an alternative
approach to the rounding of
theory in qualitative research. In D.R.Maines (Ed.), Social
organisation and social process: Essays
in honour of Anselm Strauss (pp303-314). New York, Aldine.
Strauss, A & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:
Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wells, K. (1995). The strategy of grounded theory: Possibilities
and problems. Social Work Research Vol. 19 Issue 1 p 33.
Websites
developed - Academic index
- Biography - Contact
|
