Hello,

It is one of the "myths" related to grounded theory that you should avoid using existing theories and just interpret or listen to your data. The point of using literature is "when and how". A remarkable difference between theory-driven and data-driven approaches is that in the latter the role of literature is to challenge and deepen the model you are building with the data.

Tracey Giles, Linda King and Sherlyl de Lacey have addressed these issues in their article The Timing of the Literature Review in Grounded Theory Research An Open Mind Versus an Empty Head.

If you think, that you have made a methodological error, you can do a service to your readers by analyzing the process instead of giving apologies. You may also think that literature you have been using is a special set of your data.

Regards,

Hello Mohd Hafdzuan Bin Adzmi

I have just read Dr Juha Kamarainen's response; he and I must have been writing at the same time. His answer is excellent. If I have repeated anything, it is because I had not read it until I saved my response to you.

We used grounded theory when I carried out research on living with faecal incontinence. Although we were aware that - to quote from my thesis "in ‘The Discovery of Grounded Theory’, Glaser and Strauss stated that the researcher should: 'study an area without any preconceived theory that dictates, prior to the research, ‛relevancies’ in concepts and hypotheses' [p.33]".

However, we also looked at other sources, for example, (from Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory . 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.; 1998 and again quoting from my thesis): "Strauss and Corbin acknowledge that the researcher brings to a project 'a considerable background in professional and disciplinary literature' [p.48] and suggest that literature can: indicate unexploited areas of knowledge when choosing a research topic [p.37]; guide initial interview questions; and provide a useful analytic tool [p.51]. However, they discourage carrying out an extensive initial literature review, as it is not possible to foretell in what direction the research will progress and suggest that too much knowledge could constrain the researcher's creativity [p.49].

I had been working for a considerable time in the field of continence and couldn't deny my clinical knowledge of the field, but was less aware of the psychosocial literature that was now relevant. For example, that on adaptation, which I then studied. I wrote in my thesis: "However, after identifying more useful reading material, I continued to return to the data, to examine whether my analysis supported or differed from published sources, not being moulded by them, to fit a particular scheme. When I needed a model to express my findings, I could not find a suitable one, necessitating me to develop my own."

I'm sorry to have written so much in response to your question, but, yes, like you, I used the relevant available literature but we carried out our own research and identified new theory (as described in bold, above).

The grounded theory used was constructivist grounded theory. Even now, I feel that it was very appropriate, and feel that (to quote you) "use existing sociology theory to explain a phenomenon in the environmental field".

Very best wishes with this,

Mary

Thank you for all the answers and for recommending some good publications.

This is why I am interested in grounded theory in the first place, the iteration, going back and forth in the analysis is something that I found very helpful.

Helllo Mary C R Wilson,

I have just read your fine answer to Mohd Hafdzuan Bin Adzmi. As an information scientist interested in the relations between different concepts of knowledge, I would like to ask, how do you see the role of tacit knowledge in GT research. To me the phrase "open mind, not empty head" points at the idea that tacit knowledge is related to your readiness to turn toward your experiences but do it in a reflective way. This ability of course develops step by step.

Best regards,

Juha

Dr Juha Kamarainen

I have just read your above response. Thank you! Yes, 'off the top of my head', I think my previous nursing experience came in to help my research, even though this knowledge was very clinical, while my research was more psychosocial, because I was so used to talking to people about faecal incontinence. I carried out semi-structured interviews and my participants seemed to relax about the subject matter (as did those who I saw clinically) very quickly. They sometimes, later, commented about the fact that they soon felt ok about discussing personal and embarrassing facts with me. If I had gone into my grounded theory project with no previous knowledge about faecal incontinence, I don't think I would have developed the same rapport nearly as quickly and easily.

Looking back (I've been retired since 2012 but went into this field in 1988 and did my research at the start of the millennium), I don't think very much surprised me and I took what research participants / clinical clients told me very much in my stride. But I found what they told me, particularly if it was 'new knowledge' very interesting.

Is this what you meant by the question?

Dear Dr Mary,

You write in your response to me: "[My participants] sometimes, later, commented about the fact that they soon felt ok about discussing personal and embarrassing facts with me".

I see there an analogy with the work that educational information specialists and librarians do with their clients, when the clients are working with e.g. their theses or minor tasks, which still require information seeking. It may be embarrassing when you find that you feel uncertainty and your moods are changing during the task. Experienced library staff can tell that this is natural and belongs to the dynamics of learning.

Regards

Greetings everyone,

I have been contemplating this issue a lot, since my current study uses grounded theory (constructivist grounded theory, precisely). My research is heavily based on the work of Kathy Charmaz, which differs from the more "traditional" approaches to grounded theory. It has helped me to wrap my head around my research work, and I hope you'll find it also useful.

Charmaz (2006) argues that it is acceptable to be aware of the literature, theories, concepts, and hypothesis in the field of study, if we are careful enough to not start our research based on them, but allow for the theory to emerge from the interactions between a researcher and participants as part of the data collection process. She believes that researchers cannot undo their previous exposure to literature; but what they can do, is not use it as a basis of their research work.

Thank you,

Dea