======= Date Modified 28 Feb 2010 08:47:18 =======
This thread has the whole debate skewed - Classic grounded theory analysis can take any epistemological and ontological stance - it is a methodology of data analysis, it is not a theory and it does not matter whether you are a transcendental critical realist or a social constructionist - the analysis method takes all this in its stride.
Also, although it is not recommended to read extensively in the literature directly related to the topic, it is highly recommended to read in related areas. I read extensively in my topic area, and once I went out to do interviews, guess what, it was not the main concern of my participants, so all the reading was interesting but 75% of it was irrelevant. Glaser makes this clear in his later books - this is why it is recommended to wait - get a general area of interest, talk with some people, see what their main concern is, analyse some of the data, and then gently start to read - but not too soon, so you do not get pre-conceived ideas that you accidently 'force' onto the next set of data...
I tried Corbin and Strauss, and Charmaz, and finally got a grip and went to the source - Classical GTA, as it is directed to be used in the 6 books Glaser has written since he wrote G&T1967 - yes, there are papers which show that he developed the method himself before meeting Strauss - perhaps it was on the strength of this that he was behind the scenes analysing the Dying data, while Strauss was out front collecting data... As for their 'debate', the two methods (Glaser, and Corbin) are different, I know because I ended up with conceptual description and no theory using Corbin and Strauss and Charmaz (unless I wanted to force a theory onto my work, which I was perfectly capable of doing). I also got all tangled up in reflexivity - which is simply navel gazing in service of what? Reflexivity goes only so far - we have a few 'pet' things we are hoping to find, a few 'pet' experiences we want to see confirmed - list them and get on with your work... Everyone knows by now that the entire culture is socially constructed, even our bodies as we experience them are social constructions (Gergen's latest idea), so this is just a given and does not need endless discussion in a PhD.
Anyway, as I wanted a theory that actually emerged from the data, I went back to square one and did the analysis exactly by the Glaserian book, and hey presto - work, fit and relevance are there built into it, as it is emerging straight from the 'mouths of babes' (and not from one of the extant theories which did not come from talking with people first, but came from someone's ideas or some positivist quantitative data collection exercise which was forced on people from the start in the form of a pre-conceived questionnaire).
I think one of the problems I had in the beginning was trying to deal with the total confusion not only in the literature but also in fora like these. Now it is obvious that contributors to this thread have not even read Glaser's work, never mind gone to one of the GT Institute workshops to learn how to do the analysis and to work with others who are using the same method.
Artinian's recent work - on the use of Glaserian GTA in nursing - is a start, but if you really want to know how to actually 'do' the method, check out sociologypress.com and read the books. Using the method appropriately means you can do from start to finish in 18 months - I wasted 2 years, but according to my supervisors, I 'learned' something - hmmmm.....
By the way, saturation and theoretical sampling are NOT about people and incidents, they are about concepts - so someone in this thread has that idea wrong, too...