Nicos I have read all of the responses and here is a definition of a Basic Sociall Process with some commentary that I trust you will find useful:

BSP"s are pervasive, fundamental patterned processes in the organisation of social behaviours which occur over time and go on irrespective of the conditional variation of place (Glaser 1978). They do not have to solve the problem they only have to process it, see below.

When undertaking GT using Glasers method the aim is to identify and develop the core category (ies) that best explains the problem that the participants in the study are grappling with and how they are attempting to resolve it. It should be noted and Glaser discusses this at length that not all core categories are BSP"s nor do they need to be. We are not always searching for BSP's when doing GT. BSP's must be durable over time as well as be relevant and patterned in the data as seen from the perspective of the participants. Thus it is vital not to force the data by endeavouring to generate gerunds that would indicate that a process exists when it does not or may not and also code to look for BSP's. Rather they should arise from the data.

I find it easier to understand BSP's by looking at examples:

Lets assume that you are looking at Information is managed and dealt with by individuals in organisations and that you undertake interviews aimed at trying to understand how individuals process information. You have the open ended interviews, open code and reach saturation and see that a core category/ code arises called information gaining. This has a temporal nature and is seen in the data as coded in different interviews as stages: playing completely naive, playing mildly informed but needing correction, and lastly playing knowledgable each resulting in a different interaction pattern. Thus "information gang" is a BSP as each incident of the category results in a process from the point of view of social organisation.

In terms of understanding BSP I have found doing reading in Symbolic Interaction a useful arena in that it highlights the micro interactions that take place between actors in social settings. This can be a useful source of BSP's and also a means of understanding how to identify them.

I find the whole Glaser, Strauss and Corbin and Charmaz debate pointless when the issues being discussed are related to procedural matters and seem to be pointing out the benefits of one method versus another. At the end of the day, GT is emergent not only in terms of the theories developed but also in terms of the method. As we look at the world through alternative lenses be it constructivist, post modernist or others we will develop our theories with these world views in mind. At the end of the day we all need to be true to the GT tradition of staying close to the data, being open to new and possibly radical ways of looking at this and this may include techniques as long as we do not force the data- otherwise we end up with Qualitative description not GT. The former is of course equally valid but we should recognise it as such and not portray something as GT when it is not.

Hope all this helps.

Andrew

Hello Cayetano,

Everything depends on the level of theorizing reached. If you want a categorization to explain only the nature of the phenomenon then the concepts / major categories can be 3-5. But if the process of theorizing evolve until the emergence of the explanatory hypothesis of the phenomenon is achieved one central concept or core category, that aggregates all categories.

Since the purpose of GT is to achieve a Middle Range Theory, the core category is crucial and usually names the theory.

I agree with Paula Diogo. I think when you are developing a Strauss and Corbin Grounded Theory you will have a core category. The Charmaz's perpective is more constructivist and you can have more core categories. We have been developing studies on Grounded Theory in Brazil at Federal University of Santa Catarina in the last couple of years. It will be nice sharring experiencies about this methodo.

As Paula rightly points out, the aim of GT is in the develop of a theory that explains a social phenomena. As such data analysis should lead to the development of a central point (core concept) through which all catagories can be explained. GT researchersw are seeking to reveal the 'thing' that binds all the aspects identified in the data together. As Charmaz points out, we are trying to revel the social process that expain the area being studied. To do this we need to seek out through theoretical abstraction the core domain which can be used to explain the phenomena.

The transition phase of the process, and their characteristics, for explanatory hypothesis or theory can be achieved through: a) find a core category whose explanation responds to the research question; b) connect the emerging categories to this core category in a schematic representation; c) writing a text from b) to explain the phenomenon under study; d) conclude with a brief explanation of the core category by way of theoretical synthesis.

Kathy Charmaz (2012):

- The Power and Potential of Grounded Theory, Medical Sociology Online, Volume 6 | Issue 3 | October 2012

Hi Nicos,

In fact with regard to the GT method I understand your question and perspective.

However, abstraction and poor definition of the Glaser explanation and application of the method led to a progressive evolution to which Charmaz has made a very important contribution. The mobilization of other authors, eg Charmaz, does not invalidate the pioneering concepts of GT. It is perfectly acceptable to use the different principles that led to the evolution of the method since clarify its mobilization in ongoing research.

Sorry can not help more!

Nicos I have read all of the responses and here is a definition of a Basic Sociall Process with some commentary that I trust you will find useful:

BSP"s are pervasive, fundamental patterned processes in the organisation of social behaviours which occur over time and go on irrespective of the conditional variation of place (Glaser 1978). They do not have to solve the problem they only have to process it, see below.

When undertaking GT using Glasers method the aim is to identify and develop the core category (ies) that best explains the problem that the participants in the study are grappling with and how they are attempting to resolve it. It should be noted and Glaser discusses this at length that not all core categories are BSP"s nor do they need to be. We are not always searching for BSP's when doing GT. BSP's must be durable over time as well as be relevant and patterned in the data as seen from the perspective of the participants. Thus it is vital not to force the data by endeavouring to generate gerunds that would indicate that a process exists when it does not or may not and also code to look for BSP's. Rather they should arise from the data.

I find it easier to understand BSP's by looking at examples:

Lets assume that you are looking at Information is managed and dealt with by individuals in organisations and that you undertake interviews aimed at trying to understand how individuals process information. You have the open ended interviews, open code and reach saturation and see that a core category/ code arises called information gaining. This has a temporal nature and is seen in the data as coded in different interviews as stages: playing completely naive, playing mildly informed but needing correction, and lastly playing knowledgable each resulting in a different interaction pattern. Thus "information gang" is a BSP as each incident of the category results in a process from the point of view of social organisation.

In terms of understanding BSP I have found doing reading in Symbolic Interaction a useful arena in that it highlights the micro interactions that take place between actors in social settings. This can be a useful source of BSP's and also a means of understanding how to identify them.

I find the whole Glaser, Strauss and Corbin and Charmaz debate pointless when the issues being discussed are related to procedural matters and seem to be pointing out the benefits of one method versus another. At the end of the day, GT is emergent not only in terms of the theories developed but also in terms of the method. As we look at the world through alternative lenses be it constructivist, post modernist or others we will develop our theories with these world views in mind. At the end of the day we all need to be true to the GT tradition of staying close to the data, being open to new and possibly radical ways of looking at this and this may include techniques as long as we do not force the data- otherwise we end up with Qualitative description not GT. The former is of course equally valid but we should recognise it as such and not portray something as GT when it is not.

Hope all this helps.

Andrew

Nicos almost forgot the references and commentary are based on Glaser (1978) " Theoretical Sensitivity"pp.109-113 also give us examples of BSP's versus units of analysis.

regards

Andrew

To go back to the original question about the possibility of multiple core categories, my reading of Charmaz is that she does not insist on one and only one core category (nor does she pay much attention to "basic social processes").

From my own experience, the insistence on having only a single core category restricts our ability to theorize about the kind of complex situations that typically draw the attention of qualitative researchers. I've always liked the idea that a theory explains the relationship between concepts, which implies a network of relationships that may or may not be organized around one central concept.

Here's a short summary of Glaser and Strauss (1967). Would be of help.

http://www.slideshare.net/pavan7soni/the-discovery-of-grounded-theory-glaser-and-strauss-1967

To my mind the purpose of GT is to achieve a Middle Range Theory. Therefore, the core category is crucial; the core category leads to building theory.

My previous experience motivates me to say that the insistence on having only a single core category restricts the analysis. It constrains our ability to theorize about the kind of complex situations that typically draw the attention of qualitative researchers as they generally deal with mid range theory. IIf you have to explain only the nature of the phenomenon, then the concepts / major categories can be 3-5 as stated earlier by Paula. .

I think the answer of this question depends mainly on which version of grounded theory the researcher use. I have employed Strauss and Corbin version grounded theory in my study and following their ways in data analysis and using the paradigm model, the core category was easily identified which entirely reflect the phenomenon of the study.