Considering that in Grounded Theory Methodology the theoretical background has a different role than in most research studies, I can see that even many GTM researchers as Ramalho et al. (2015) defend that we should ignore the literature.
The question is: considering Ramalho et al. (2015) “But funding bodies usually expect that applicants will demonstrate knowledge in the field of inquiry through a literature review, and Ethics committees also often require a brief review of the topic of interest. “ If we choose GTM as a research strategy for a dissertation or a thesis for example, how do we convince our mentor or the examination board about this and other GTM peculiarities(for example that we should refine our data collect instruments during the research) if Grounded Theory is not a usual methodology within our department?
Dear Yves, there is a simple answer to your question (but I don't know if it will satisfy your department): there are two schools of thought in Grounded Theory: Glaserian and Straussian. The kind of GT you are describing is essentially the Glaserian school. Glaser (1992) believed that the only theory generated from GT should be that which emerges from the data.
The Straussian school, on the other hand, sees induction, deduction and verification are “absolutely essential” (Strauss, 1987). Strauss and Corbin (1998) later modified this to validation, which they defined as “a process of comparing concepts and their relationships against data during the research act to determine how well they stand up to such scrutiny”.
The Straussian approach is used quite commonly.
References
Glaser, B. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Strauss, A. (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (Eds.) (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. 2nd edn.
While researchers may want their research to come purely from their data without a literature search, this is often not desirable.
It is always useful for research to start by interrogating the literature. This is to find if the question has already been asked and answered. Also to find useful tools.
Since you are anyway compelled by convention to start your thesis-book with a chapter reviewing the literature, any formal reviewing will not be wasted work, but will work towards this chapter of your thesis-book.
I must warn you against collecting any sort of data and changing direction much during your research. This is the most efficient way to waste your time!
It is a pity that many researchers do their research under a mentor who may have a particular, fixed mindset about possibilities for research methods. You can use Google Scholar to see what methods a mentor has used. If the mentor is not open to new or different methods, then you will need to find another mentor, perhaps at another university.
With regard to the specific "requirement" that one should do a GT literature after the fact rather than prior to the study, I think this idea has been the subject of considerable reconsideration, In particular, I would recommend reading the Thornberg article which is cited by Ramalho et al.
I think Charmaz (2014) has a nice discussion of this general issue under the heading of "preconceptions." The point is that we always enter the research field with preconceptions, and we need (as much as possible) to avoid having those preconceptions guide our investigations. In this regard, doing a literature review will not only satisfy your committee but also serve as a "reflexive exercise" to increase your awareness of any assumptions that might affect how you ask your questions.
Dear Yves,
Probably one of the most important exercises before engaging on a GT research is the one of acknowledging one's ontological and epistemological stances. That is the main suggestion of the article, "as it is [your] positioning that will ultimately frame the usefulness and potential impact [of] a literature review conducted before data collection and analysis".
Now, as it emphasises on Constructivist GT, the article also provides another suggestion: to prioritise the data over the researcher's preconceptions and previously acquired knowledge, including any reviewed literature. It is quite reasonable to expect that you will have your own ideas regarding the research area you are looking into, and also that you might have done (or will do) some reading about it. In fact, it is very likely that this “previously acquired knowledge” is the one that drove you to that specific research area. So, rather than focusing on how to get rid of all that information you could focus on how to make a good use of it, for example, using certain ideas as sensitising concepts. And of course, during the research process you should always do your best to prioritise the data over any other input, including any previously done literature review.
Probably the best way to convince your mentor or the examination board would be for you to become very familiar with the methodology. This will enable you to see if this methodological approach is the best option to address your research question, which in return might make it easier to find the words to support your choice of methodology. However, keep in mind that having some guidance during you research is always a good idea, even while preparing it. So, be open to your mentor's suggestions, and if necessary, try to add someone who might be able to help you with methodological issues to your team.
Best of luck with your research.
Hi Yves
I think that you will first need to establish which school of GT you intend to engage with either Glaser or Strauss. For me I found the Strauss and Corbin, Corbin and Strauss texts 'easier' to understand, as they provided specific strategies for the various coding stages etc.
What I found particularly helpful when I was at the same stage as you was the paper by Hutchinson et al 2011.
Also have a look at some of the papers I have published on RG that have used GT
Good luck with your research.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Research Topics