FLI05040 Nerilee Flint University of South Australia Nerilee.Flint@unisa.edu.au Methodological Conundrums: Confessions of a latent grounded theorist. ABSTRACT This paper has been developed from a study that is investigating undergraduate tertiary students perceptions of the fairness of educational assessment. Whilst most academics have an idea of what they think constitutes fairness in assessment they possibly do not know or appreciate what the students think. Indeed, what are the students perceptions? More than this, how do you take such varied opinions and make sense of them? Grounded theory, Glaserian style (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser 1978, 1996, 1998, 2003) has helped me to make sense of what students are saying about fairness in assessment. This paper focuses on the methodological approach I have used in addressing the topic. It makes explicit what grounded theory is and is not. The paper describes the convoluted process I went through as a researcher attempting grounded theory for the first time and what I would do if beginning again. The presentation provides some suggestions for people wishing to avoid the pitfalls and work in the exciting world of grounded theory. Those interested in grounded theory, fairness in educational assessment, and the confessions of an at times very bemused PhD candidate might find this paper interesting. INTRODUCTION A grounded theory approach based on the work of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser (1978; 1992; 1996; 1998; 2001; 2003) is used in my investigation of undergraduate tertiary students perceptions of the fairness of educational assessment. The purpose of this paper is to identify and explain the methodology chosen. This paper supports the presentation where I outline some of the specific issues I faced using this methodology for the first time. It is hoped that this information might assist other people who wish to use grounded theory methodology. SELECTION OF A QUALITATIVE DESIGN: USING A GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH The study for which this methodology is used aims to investigate understandings, meanings, and peoples perceptions therefore an interpretive, qualitative method is the most appropriate (Berg 1989; Minichiello et al. 1995; Mertens 1998; Taylor & Bogdan 1998; Bogdan & Biklen 2003). It was Stern s (1980 p20) suggestion that the strongest case for the use of grounded theory is in investigations of relatively unchartered waters, or to gain a fresh perspective in a familiar situation that first led me to considering grounded theory for this study as whilst initially contradictory both of these conditions fit my area of investigation relatively unchartered yet familiar. There is an absence of literature on the topic of undergraduate students perceptions of fairness of educational assessment 1
whilst at the same time the topic seems to be one that many educators feel knowledgeable about. The topic of assessment in universities is a complex and often emotive one with many interrelated issues, variables and concerns that can be viewed from extremely different perspectives. The method of constant comparison used in grounded theory methodology offers strategies to deal with this complexity. By using grounded theory I have been able to produce a conceptual theory which has helped me to understand the core problem for students related to assessment and how they go about resolving that problem. BUT WHAT IS GROUNDED THEORY? The methodological and theoretical underpinnings of grounded theory arise from the collaborative work of Anselm Strauss from the Chicago school of qualitative research and Barney Glaser who was trained in quantitative research, methodology and theory generation at Columbia University (Glaser 1998). They were sociologists with different philosophic and research backgrounds who worked together to develop a technique for analysing qualitative data called grounded theory which was published in 1967 in The Discovery of Grounded Theory. The key disciplinary tradition that helped inform grounded theory was symbolic interactionism and even though it is neither homogeneous nor monolithic in orientation (Meltzer, Petras & Reynolds 1975) some understanding of the meaning of symbolic interactionism in relation to grounded theory is necessary but beyond the scope of this paper. There has been considerable adoption of grounded theory research in disciplines outside its originating domain of sociology including management, business, health, education, social welfare, marketing, health sciences, psychology, political science, and art (Glaser 1978; 1998; 1999; Locke 2001). This was initially due to the students of the co-originators taking up the approach, along with the continual but separate work of Glaser and Strauss. The methodology was designed to allow a researcher to arrive at theory suited to its supposed uses (Glaser & Strauss 1967 p3). This went against the dominant functionalist approach to research whereby quantitative studies were viewed as the only form of systematic social scientific inquiry. Also distinguishing grounded theory from other forms of research at the time was the emphasis on generating rather than verifying theory and the emphasis on achieving a theory that is relevant, works, fits, and is modifiable (Glaser & Strauss 1967; Glaser 1978). The latter four criteria will be discussed later in the paper. Grounded theory differs from other methodologies in a number of ways (Glaser & Strauss 1967; Glaser 1978). These can be summarised as the following: Rather than adhering to a series of linear steps the researcher collects and analyses data simultaneously. Constant comparison between data is done in a systematic and continuous effort to check and refine emerging categories. 2
The data shapes the processes and products of the research rather than preconceived logically deduced theoretical frameworks. This means that grounded theorists begin with general research questions rather than tightly framed hypotheses. In grounded theory research literature is read once the theory is well developed and it becomes apparent what form of literature needs to be read. It is incorporated into the theory if relevant. This relies on the researcher having and developing a theoretical sensitivity to what might emerge. Traditional quantitative canons of verification are not followed, rather developing ideas are checked with further specific data collection or theoretical sampling and the advancing theory determines the data collection. Grounded theorists study process and assume that making theoretical sense of social life is itself a process. They seek to discover a core category which all other categories revolve around or a basic social process so that ultimately they develop a theory which explains behaviour rather than a description of the situation. In essence grounded theory research is a method for discovering theories, concepts, hypotheses, and propositions directly from data rather than from a priori assumptions, other research, or existing theoretical frameworks (Taylor & Bogdan 1998 p137). Amongst many other things Glaser (1992) says the research question should not predetermine the study, rather the focus is determined by the problem which emerges as data is collected and analysed. In Glaser s (1992 p22) terms you move into an area of interest without a problem in your mind and instead you have abstract wonderment of what is going on that is an issue and how it is handled. You identify the area of inquiry but not the research problem (MacDonald 2001 p139). My study began with an area of interest, the fairness of assessment in terms of undergraduate tertiary students perceptions, and from this the research problem developed. The research question did not define the parameters of the study and the data collection and analysis determined what I focused on. The results of the analysis determined the boundaries of the study, not the research question. EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF GROUNDED THEORY Within the grounded theory ranks there are disputes with different interpretations of what it is being promoted (Glaser 1992; Strauss, A & Corbin 1998). Until recently the evolution and development of grounded theory could be viewed as taking one of two paths. One path was further elaboration by Glaser of the original works Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss 1967) and Theoretical Sensitivity (Glaser 1978) by Glaser in numerous publications (1992; 1993; 1994; 1996; 1998; 2001; 2003). This path also includes other authors such as Stern (1994b) who offered clarification of the terminology used in an attempt to demystify the method. 3
The second path could be viewed as the development of a more formulaic and procedural approach with alignment to more generalised qualitative analysis (Strauss, AL 1987; Strauss, A & Corbin 1998). Stern (1994a) believes that Strauss and later Strauss and Corbin were responding to critics of grounded theory, as described in the Discovery book, who saw it as loose, lacking verification, and having a tangled description. This resulted, according to Stern (1994a p220), in a modification of the description of grounded theory from its original concept of emergence to a densely codified strictured operation. Glaser maintains a purist or orthodox position on grounded theory and he has generally remained faithful to the original propositions. His viewpoint is quite simple, if you do something different to this you cannot call it grounded theory. He has consistently claimed that if you follow the total methodological package outlined in the original works and subsequent publications you may call your work grounded theory (Melia 1996; Glaser 1999). More recently the question of what grounded theory is has taken a different slant (Greckhamer & Koro-Ljungberg 2005) and for many the debate is now broader than whether one is Straussian or Glaserian aligned. At the centre of the recent debate is the social constructivist version of grounded theory proposed by Kathy Charmaz (1994; 2003). She critiques the objectivist leanings of both Glaser and the now deceased Strauss, and his more recent co-author, Corbin, and suggests that their positioning is at times close to positivistic. Charmaz (2003 p269) proposes researchers can use grounded theory methods to conduct constructivist studies derived from interpretive approaches, that is, to further their knowledge of subjective experience and to expand its representation while neither remaining external from it nor accepting objectivist assumptions and procedures. This constructivist orientation resonates with many grounded theorists who see it as adopting a position part way between positivism and post-modernism, the inference of Charmaz being that if one does not claim the constructivist position then one must be labelling oneself objectivist and positivist. As a beginning researcher in grounded theory the confusion brought about by the complexity of discussion about what grounded theory is and is not can be quite frustrating. This is further complicated by the fact that Glaser (2002) does not articulate his epistemological beliefs when he criticises the constructivist approach of Charmaz. Glaser s (2002) main argument with Charmaz is that her version of grounded theory is in fact another type of research which he calls Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA). According to Glaser this has accurate description as its main goal, something his version of grounded theory does not. It is at this level that I am in agreement with Glaser as I am not claiming to have developed a theory which is a mutually constructed interpretation of the data. I have raised the perspectives of the students to an abstract level of conceptualisation in an attempt to see an underlying pattern. GLASERIAN GROUNDED THEORY: THE TERMINOLOGY AND THE PROCESS Drawing from Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser (1978; 1992; 1998) this section maps out the terminology and process involved in conducting Glaserian grounded theory. It explains how the constant comparative method of coding and analysis generate an inductive theory which describes the behaviour of the substantive group. 4
Coding data The purpose of coding is to move from having a set of data to developing a theory. It is to get the analyst off the empirical level by fracturing the data, then conceptually grouping it into codes that then become the theory which explains what is happening in the data (Glaser 1978 p55). The conceptual code is the essential relationship between data and theory. As Glaser (1978 p55) states, in generating a theory by developing the hypothetical relationships between conceptual codes (categories and their properties) which have been generated from the data as indicators, we discover a grounded theory. Data collection and analysis occur simultaneously which allows the researcher to identify gaps in the data and data sources to fill those gaps. Data are collected by whichever means is relevant to the study. This could include observations, conversations, reports, newspapers, letters, videotapes, biographies, documents, autobiographies, journals, interviews (structured, semi-structured, unstructured), or focus group interviews. Multiple data sources are often sought as are a wide range of perspectives and understandings of the phenomenon of study. In this study interviews with undergraduate students of a semi-structured and at times unstructured nature were the main source of data. Twenty four interviews have been conducted to date and at this stage I envisage perhaps another three or four might be needed to complete my analysis. Substantive coding: open The initial coding of data is called open coding. It is the fracturing of data into analytic pieces which can then be raised to conceptual level (Glaser 1978 p56) and it starts when data collection begins. The analyst does not wait for all data to be collected, as the results of the coding influence the collection of the data. The analyst codes the incidents into categories and properties of categories. A category is a group of codes, a conceptual element of the theory whilst a property is a conceptual aspect or element of a category. Whilst looking at the data the analyst has three types of questions in mind (Glaser 1978; 1998): What is this data a study of? What category does this incident indicate? What category or property of a category, of what part of the emerging theory, does this incident indicate? What is actually happening in the data? Or, what is the chief concern or problem of the people? These types of questions are asked while constantly comparing incident to incident and coding and analysing. The coding can be done by noting in margins, writing on cards, using a computer software program (although not Glaser s recommendation), as long as the researcher can keep track of them. 5
The basic, defining rule of the constant comparative method of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss 1967 p106) is applied, that is while coding an incident for a category, compare it with the previous incidents in the same and different groups coded in the same category. Open coding initially happens very quickly with the creation of an enormous amount of codes but as they are compared and it is determined if they fit, eventually they are saturated and their true relevance is found among the other codes. This will result in theoretical properties of a category emerging and eventually a core category, which the majority of other categories seem connected to, becomes obvious. To assist the analyst in deciding on a core category Glaser (1978 pp95-96) lists criteria that must apply, including that a core category must be related to as many other categories and their properties as possible, it must reoccur frequently in the data, it therefore will take more time to saturate, and the connection with the other categories will be meaningful and not forced. A core category may be a particular type that deals with process in some way, and if it has two or more clear emergent stages it is referred to as a Basic Social Process (BSP). Glaser (Glaser 1978 p97) explains that a BSP is labelled by a gerund, it ends with an ing, and this gives it a feeling of process, change and movement over time. Examples are seeking, cultivating, highlighting, becoming, and demonstrating. Substantive coding: selective Once the analyst has found a variable that meets the criteria of a core category, selective coding begins. To selectively code for a core variable means that the analyst delimits his coding to only those variables that relate to the core variable in sufficiently significant ways to be used in a parsimonious theory (Glaser 1978 p61). The analyst is guided by the core variable and in turn the core variable determines further data collection through theoretical sampling to maximise differences in the data and to help saturate the categories. The researcher in selective coding looks for the conditions and consequences that relate to the core process. Theoretical coding Theoretical coding often occurs simultaneously with substantive coding. Whilst substantive coding is the greater focus when discovering codes within the data, theoretical coding tends to happen more when the researcher is theoretically sorting and integrating memos. According to Glaser (1978) theoretical codes conceptualise how the substantive codes may relate to each other as hypotheses to be integrated into a theory, they weave the fractured story back together (p72). Substantive codes could be related without theoretical codes but often the result is confused and unclear theoretically. In addition to helping with the analysis, theoretical codes also assist the analyst to maintain a conceptual level in writing about concepts and their interrelations. Glaser (Glaser 1998 p164) suggests that the grounded theorist should talk substantive codes and think theoretical codes when writing. As for substantive codes, theoretical codes must earn their way into the data. Glaser believes researchers find it hard to grasp theoretical codes and that many rely on one 6
code rather than consider a range. To assist analysis Glaser (1978) provides details of eighteen coding families and in Glaser (1998) additional codes are presented with further explanation of some of the original ones. Glaser (1978 p74) refers to the coding family of the 6Cs as the bread and butter theoretical code, it comprises Causes, Contexts, Contingencies, Consequences, Covariances, and Conditions, as it is the first general code to keep in mind when coding data. He suggests most studies fit into either a causal, consequence or condition model however warns not to force a pet code onto data as this pre-conception can force data a particular way. Theoretical completeness Theoretical completeness is when the researcher has been able to account for as much variation in a pattern of behaviour with as few concepts as possible thereby maximizing parsimony and scope (Glaser 1978 p93). It is the aim of the constant comparison process, the goal of grounded theory. The key to achieving theoretical completeness is in the memoing process. Theoretical completeness is also dependent on the theoretical sorting of the memos to achieve saturation. Further explanation of the memoing process, saturation and sorting follows. Memos and memo writing Memos are the theorizing write-up of ideas about substantive codes and their theoretically coded relationships (Glaser 1998 p177). It is not grounded theory without memo writing. Memoing is a constant process throughout the study, beginning when first coding data and continuing until the paper or thesis is written. The analyst writes memos of her or his ideas prompted by coding, collecting data, reading literature, reading earlier memos, or sorting memos as it will accomplish one or more of the following aspects of generating theory: It raises the data to a conceptualisation level It develops the properties of each category which begins to define it operationally It presents hypotheses about connections between categories and/or their properties It begins to integrate these connections with clusters of other categories to generate the theory It begins to locate the emerging theory with other theories with potentially more or less relevance Memos are the vehicle by which concepts and ideas pour out, are saved and grow (Glaser 1998 p178) so they may be a line, a sentence, a paragraph or pages long. Any time the analyst has an idea it gets written down, it does not need to adhere to correct grammar or form but needs to be noted before it is lost. The theoretical memos form the basis of the final writing and that is when they are rewritten into an acceptable form for public viewing. 7
To enable sorting Glaser (1978 p87) advises having more than one copy of a memo so an original is always kept if the copy is cut up and reordered with another one (this applies to handwritten and computer memos); introducing the memo by a title or caption which is the category or property that the memo is about; highlighting the mention of the category or property in the memo; and, if more than one category or property are mentioned ensuring a discussion of the relationship is included in the memo and highlighted in some way. Saturation and sorting Glaser s (1978 p62) concept indicator model which is based on constant comparing of indicator to indicator, and then when a conceptual code is generated comparing the indicators to the emerging concept, results in a category becoming saturated. This is when new data does not add anything new to the category or its properties. Once a category is saturated the researcher does not need to keep coding incidents for that category as it does not develop the theory in any way (Glaser & Strauss 1967 p111). Ultimately by integrating the codes, identifying the core variable and then coding those incidents that relate to the core variable, the codes and categories reach a point where they explain the behaviour of the substantive group. All the way through this process the researcher has amassed a pile of memos. At some point the researcher begins sorting the pile, Glaser (1998) suggests entering the pile anywhere, working through the pile seeing how one memo compares with another. Just keep sorting, comparing and resorting and the integration of the theory emerges (Glaser 1998 pp189-190). Some memos are culled during this process for although they will all fit in some way they may not work or have sufficient relevance to the theory. These are three of the four criteria related to the quality of a grounded theory inquiry which will be discussed next. JUDGING THE QUALITY OF A GROUNDED THEORY INQUIRY The goal of a grounded theory inquiry is to explain the underlying social processes occurring within a substantive area. Glaser and Strauss (1967) established the criteria of fit, work, relevance for evaluating a grounded theory and assessing its integrity and later Glaser (1978; 1992) added modifiability to the list. Does it fit? Theoretical categories are developed from analysis of the data and must fit them. If a grounded theory is carefully induced from the substantive area its categories and their properties will fit the realities under study in the eyes of the subjects, practitioners and researchers in the area (Glaser 1992 p15). This means that a theorist cannot begin with preconceived concepts and impose the data onto those concepts. Does it work? The theory should explain, predict, and interpret what is happening in the substantive area in terms of the studied phenomena. If a grounded theory works it will explain the major variations in behavior in the area with respect to the processing of the main concerns of the subjects (Glaser 1992 p15). 8
Is it relevant? If it fits and works the grounded theory has achieved relevance (Glaser 1992 p15). This means that it will offer explanations of the problems or basic processes in the substantive area thereby having relevance. Is it modifiable? Because a grounded theory accounts for variation it is durable. If conditions change or further data is gathered the theory is flexible enough to take this into account without losing what has already been generated, that is it should be readily modifiable when new data present variations in emergent properties and categories. The theory is neither verified nor thrown out, it is modified to accommodate by integration [of] the new concepts (Glaser 1992 p15). This modifiability as new data emerges means that the theory continues to fit, work and be relevant as time passes and conditions change. When these four criteria are met the theory provides a conceptual approach to action and changes and accesses into the substantive area. In this sense it provides control because it fits in the real world, works in predictions and explanations, and is relevant to the people concerned (Glaser 1978; 1992). SUMMARY In this paper I have presented my arguments for the use of a Glaserian grounded theory approach as a suitable research methodology for this investigation of undergraduate tertiary students perceptions of the fairness of educational assessment. I wanted to understand what the main problem was for students in relation to assessment. After the initial three interviews with students I could see how complex and often emotive the topic was and how extremely different the perspectives were. I needed to find a methodology that would give me strategies to deal with this complexity. Grounded theory allowed me to develop a conceptual theory which explains what the core issue is for students and how they go about resolving that issue. I have described this method based on the work of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser (1978; 1992; 1998) and explained how it is that a grounded theory is judged. This paper supports the presentation where I address issues I faced when using grounded theory methodology for the first time. REFERENCES Berg, BL 1989, Qualitative Research Methods For The Social Sciences, Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Bogdan, RC & Biklen, SK 2003, Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods, 4th edn, Allyn and Bacon, Boston. 9
Charmaz, K 1994, 'The Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and Interpretation', in More Grounded Theory Methodology: A Reader, ed. BG Glaser, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, pp. 95-115. Charmaz, K 2003, 'Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods', in Strategies of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, eds. NK Denzin & YS Lincoln, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 249-291. Glaser, BG 1978, Theoretical Sensitivity, Sociology Press, Mill Valley. Glaser, BG 1992, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing, Sociology Press, Mill Valley. Glaser, BG (ed.) 1993, Examples of Grounded Theory: A Reader, Sociology Press, Mill Valley. Glaser, BG (ed.) 1994, More Grounded Theory Methodology: A Reader, Sociology Press, Mill Valley. Glaser, BG (ed.) 1996, Gerund Grounded Theory: The Basic Social Process Dissertation, Sociology Press, Mill Valley. Glaser, BG 1998, Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions, Sociology Press, Mill Valley. Glaser, BG 1999, 'The Future of Grounded Theory', Qualitative Health Research, vol. 9, no. 6, 1999, pp. 836-845. Glaser, BG 2001, The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with Description, Sociology Press, Mill Valley. Glaser, BG 2002, 'Constructivist Grounded Theory?' Forum: Qualitative Social Research [on-line journal], vol. 3, no. 3, available at: http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm [accessed 20 October 2005. Glaser, BG 2003, The Grounded Theory Perspective II: Description's Remodeling of Grounded Theory Methodology, Sociology Press, Mill Valley. Glaser, BG & Strauss, AL 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine de Gruyter, New York. Greckhamer, T & Koro-Ljungberg, M 2005, 'The erosion of a method: examples from grounded theory', International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 729-750. Locke, K 2001, Grounded Theory in Management Research, Sage Publications, London. 10
MacDonald, M 2001, 'Finding a Critical Perspective in Grounded Theory', in Using Grounded Theory in Nursing, eds. RS Schreiber & PN Stern, Springer, New York, pp. 113-157. Melia, KM 1996, 'Rediscovering Glaser', Qualitative Health Research, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 368-378. Meltzer, BN, Petras, JW & Reynolds, LT 1975, Symbolic Interactionism: Genesis, varieties and criticism, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Mertens, DM 1998, Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Minichiello, V, Aroni, R, Timewell, E & Alexander, L 1995, In-depth Interviewing: Principles, Techniques, Analysis, 2nd edn, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne. Stern, PN 1980, 'Grounded Theory Methodology', Image, vol. XII, no. 1. Stern, PN 1994a, 'Eroding Grounded Theory', in Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, ed. JM Morse, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 212-223. Stern, PN 1994b, 'Grounded Theory Methodology: Its Uses and Processes', in More Grounded Theory Methodology: A Reader, ed. B Glaser, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, pp. 116-126. Strauss, AL 1987, Qualitative analysis for social scientists, Cambridge University Press, New York. Strauss, A & Corbin, J 1998, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Taylor, SJ & Bogdan, R 1998, Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource, 3rd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York. 11