The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with Description by: Barney G. Glaser, PhD, Hon PhD Table of Contents
Chapter 1- The Grounded Theory Perspective
Chapter 2- Conceptualization
Chapter 3- Conceptualization Contrasted with Description: Analysis
Chapter 4- Conceptualization Contrasted with Description: Data Collection
Chapter 5- Modification Contrasted with Testing
Chapter 6- Preconception: Dealing with the Formed
Chapter 7- Conceptual Generalizing
Chapter 8- The Conceptual Problem
Chapter 9- The Research Proposal: Doability
Chapter 10- The Research Proposal: Methodology, Etc.
Chapter 11- "All Is Data"
Chapter 12- Theoretical Sampling and Theoretical Interviewing
Chapter 13- Constant Comparison and Core Confusion
Chapter 14- Adopt and Adapt
Summary of Aim of This Book
GT may be the most widely employed methodology employed in the social sciences today. It gives the researcher a specific package of steps to follow that are closely aligned with the canons of "good science". GT came forward as an approach to qualitative data and quantitative data) at a time in the late 60's, as other QDA methodologies did also, in response to the extreme violations brought to data by quantitative, preconceived, positivistic research using forcing conjectured theory. The irrelevance and lack of fit was legion. Thus GT was just one counter effect to existing social psychological research and theoretical conjecture (or theoretical capitalism) . GT took hold as reputable and legitimate, because of its relevance, fit and workability and its rigorous systematic approach to generating theory that explains. But it is but one among many QDA methods. Comparative use is up to the researcher. GT does not preempt.
This book will set down a lot of ideas that the GT researcher will not have yet considered or realized. So he or she will experience the after the fact "but of course" realization, like they knew the idea before. But he or she did not realize these ideas to the point of consciousness and use, and now the researcher will be able to use them. Keep in mind that no one researcher captures all the meanings and ideas of GT in a short time. It has a delayed action learning curve stretching over, at minimum, a year and a half.
The whole GT package is hard to understand without much experience. The tedium of constant comparison is odious for many a researcher, so they may easily "jump" steps of the package, by using QDA techniques. Thus we get adopt and adapt (see chapter below). The power of GT is diluted and re-understood. Superthink preconception sets in, emergence is lost. This adoption and adaption of GT receives the support of those formed in other QDA methodologies, as well as those involved in a controversy if the researcher still reverts to the GT package.
The new GT researcher tempting a PhD research project must continually, quite often resolve their main concern: How to deal with the people formed in other QDA and Quantitative methodological perspectives in terms of the GT perspective. More experienced GT researchers will be better at handling other type of board's or committee's recalcitrance. All will be helped by using the distinction between conceptualization contrasted to description.
The topics I will consider to this end are:Conceptualization,
conceptualization compared to description,
descriptive capture, and conceptualization of theory,
modification compared to testing theory,
preconception,
adopt and adapt,
generalizability of GT and QDA,
the GT research proposal,
data collection and theoretical sampling,
the gt research problem,
"all is data" in the GT study,
accurate compared to bias data,
constant comparison and core confusion.Most of these topic will be chapters, the remaining will be included in chapters.
As I consider these topics I will weave in GT methodology concepts: constant comparison to get emergent categories and their properties, interchangeability of indices, conceptual saturation of the properties of categories, constant delimiting, theoretical sampling and the joint collecting, coding and analyzing of data, memo banking, theoretical completeness, core category, open and specific doing, sorting memos for emergent organization by theoretical codes, analytic rules, and writing GT. The reader will realize that most of these GT methodological concepts QDA researchers do not know how to use, miss them or are just unaware of them. The ones used are often legitimizing buzz words for a QDA research-result writing.Barney G. Glaser