Psychology

© RCN PublishiNg / NuRsE REsEARChER January 2013 | Volume 20 | Number 3 17

Nurse Researcher Grounded theory

Introduction Grounded theory (Gt) is a research methodology used for developing theories that are derived from data and explain human interaction. rather than a strict set of procedures, it is a way of thinking about and conceptualising research information. Since its first incarnation in 1967, Gt has undergone significant variation in the way it is interpreted and executed.

this paper explores the evolution of Gt from the early influences of darwin and other scholars to the recent constructionist approaches. It begins with an overview of the theoretical paradigms and perspectives common in research discourse. this is followed by a discussion of the origins of the methodology and its philosophical foundations. next, the paper traces the developments of Gt from its positivist beginnings through to the contemporary

constructionist perspective and concludes with a brief critique of the evolving methodology.

Gt has expanded well beyond its sociological roots and is now used widely in a variety of research fields including nursing and midwifery. the aim of this paper is to assist the reader in gaining an insight into the dynamic nature of Gt and to appreciate the variation in the conceptual positioning of Gt studies.

Theoretical paradigms and perspectives to understand and interpret Gt studies requires an appreciation of the different paradigm positions taken by researchers. A ‘paradigm’ of enquiry describes a general perspective of how the world is viewed and provides a framework that explains how reality is understood by the researcher. Qualitative and quantitative approaches originate from different paradigms and from diverse assumptions about the nature of reality (ontology), the relationship

From darwin to constructivism: the evolution of grounded theory

Cite this article as: hall h, Griffiths d, McKenna L (2013) From darwin to constructivism: the evolution of grounded theory. nurse researcher. 20, 3, 17-21.

Accepted: August 17 2011.

Correspondence to Helen Hall [email protected]

Helen Hall RN, ND, MMid, PhD, is a lecturer

Debra Griffiths RN, RM, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD is a senior lecturer

Lisa McKenna RN, RM, PhD is associate dean (learning and teaching)

All at Monash University, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Victoria, Australia

Peer review This article has been subject to double-blind review and checked using antiplagiarism software

Author guidelines www.nurseresearcher.co.uk

Abstract Aim To explore the evolution of grounded theory and equip the reader with a greater understanding of the diverse conceptual positioning that is evident in the methodology.

Background Grounded theory was developed during the modernist phase of research to develop theories that are derived from data and explain human interaction. Its philosophical foundations derive from symbolic interactionism and were influenced by a range of scholars including Charles Darwin and George Mead.

Discussion Rather than a rigid set of rules and procedures, grounded theory is a way of conceptualising data. Researchers demonstrate a range of perspectives and there is significant variation in the way the methodology is interpreted

and executed. Some grounded theorists continue to align closely with the original post-positivist view, while others take a more constructivist approach. Although the diverse interpretations accommodate flexibility, they may also result in confusion.

Conclusion The grounded theory approach enables researchers to align to their own particular world view and use methods that are flexible and practical.

Implications for practice/research With an appreciation of the diverse philosophical approaches to grounded theory, researchers are enabled to use and appraise the methodology more effectively.

Keywords Grounded theory, constructionist perspective, post-positivism, symbolic interactionism

NR Jan 2013 p17-21.indd 17 03/01/2013 11:57

January 2013 | Volume 20 | Number 3 © RCN PUBLISHING / NURSE RESEARCHER18

Nurse Researcher Grounded theory

between the inquirer and the subject of research (epistemology) and how the knowledge should be obtained (methodology). Although there is an ongoing discussion in the research community, the most commonly cited paradigms are positivism, post-positivism, critical theory and constructivism, as described by Guba and Lincoln (1994). differences between the assumptions of different paradigms reflect differences in philosophical ideals, and have a significant effect on the process and interpretation of research. Appreciating the paradigm used by researchers is therefore an important aspect of interpreting their studies.

Gt studies are situated in various paradigms, including positivist, post-positivist and constructionist.

Positivism Positivism underpins the philosophical approach traditionally taken by researchers in the physical and social sciences. Positivist researchers use deductive reasoning to generate hypotheses that emphasis rational, objective and logical thinking. Positivists assert that the world is ordered and predictable and a true reality is ‘out there’. they hold a dualist and objectivist epistemology, assuming that the focus of an enquiry exists independently of human interaction. Positivist researchers attempt to avoid contaminating studies with their personal biases. the methods used to collect and analyse data are orderly, systematic and focus on the confirmation of predetermined hypotheses. the ability of findings to predict and generalise is an important criterion of this paradigm (Annells 1996, Lincoln and Guba 2005, Polit and tatano Beck 2006).

Post-positivism Post-positivists have a critical realist ontology. they claim that although a true reality exists, we can never fully understand it. they also use a modified dualist/objectivist epistemology. According to the post-positivist view, perfect objectivity will never be fully obtained but it is possible to discover knowledge of the world and that it is separate from our minds. research methods are modified from the positivist approaches: prediction and control remain important but research is conducted in more realistic settings and there is an increased use of qualitative methods. the emphasis is on disproving rather than verifying a hypothesis by using a version of triangulation, where data are collected from different sources. the domination of the positivist paradigm in research has, to some extent, been passed to the post-positivists in recent decades (Guba and Lincoln 1994, Annells 1996, Polit and tatano Beck 2006).

Constructivism the constructivist paradigm has a relativist ontology in which reality is believed to have multiple constructions. Knowledge is highly contextualised by political, historical, cultural and other influences. reality is assumed to be local and specific. It is the product of human intellects and changes as the individual constructor evolves. the epistemological position of constructivism is transactional and subjectivist; the researcher and the focus of the enquiry are linked. Findings are believed to be created from the interaction between the enquirer and the focus of the study, and to occur in the natural world. this perspective implies that humans do not discover knowledge so much as they make or construct it. these constructions are then interpreted (Lincoln and Guba 2005).

The birth of grounded theory Grounded theory was developed by two social scientists, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, during the ‘modernist phase’ (the post-war years to the 1970s). research during this period was characterised by a conviction that human advancement is possible through the search for knowledge and ‘truth’ (Macdonald 2001). the positivist paradigm, with its emphasis on logically deduced hypotheses and validated evidence, dominated. Qualitative research was generally considered anecdotal, unsystematic and biased by the broader scientific community (Boychuk duchscher and Morgan 2004, Charmaz 2006). Glaser and Strauss challenged the positivist methodological assumptions and proposed that, with the use of systematic methods, qualitative inquiry could move beyond descriptive studies and develop theoretical explanations about human behaviour.

they also addressed a problem not considered by positivists: how theories could be constructed directly from the data. rather than deducing a hypothesis from existing theories and then testing it, they advocated using an inductive approach to develop theories that emerge from the data (Glaser and Strauss 1967). their seminal text, uniting Glaser’s analytical abilities and Strauss’s philosophical views, and provided a powerful argument that raised the credibility of qualitative research (Annells 1997a, thomas and david 2006, denzin and Lincoln 2008).

Glaser and Strauss’s collaboration resulted in the merging of two contrasting approaches of sociology. Glaser aimed to design a structured approach to naturalistic interpretive methods that used rigorous analytical guidelines to codify qualitative data. Strauss, by contrast, reflected the philosophical tradition of the Chicago school and was informed by symbolic interactionism (Charmaz 2006).

NR Jan 2013 p17-21.indd 18 03/01/2013 11:57

© RCN PublishiNg / NuRsE REsEARChER January 2013 | Volume 20 | Number 3 19

Nurse Researcher Grounded theory

The philosophical foundations Symbolic interactionism asserts that people are active and dynamic, giving meaning to their environments rather than simply responding to them (Charon 2007). It originated with George Mead, an American philosopher, sociologist and psychologist, who was influenced by Charles darwin, the American pragmatists (in particular John dewey) and behaviourists.

Like darwin, Mead regarded humans in naturalistic terms, asserting that our development was part of an evolutionary process. But, he went further than darwin, claiming that language and reason allows us to interact socially to benefit us (Charon 2007). Mead focused on behaviour, reflecting the pragmatists’ view that knowledge is created through the action and interaction of self-reflecting beings (Corbin and Strauss 2008). hence, behaviour starts with reflection on a problem and options to deal with it are tested. the consequences of these actions direct future interactions. Beneficial behaviour is repeated, while behaviour that does not achieve the required result is modified. this notion echoes darwin’s theory of evolution in which traits that benefit individuals are naturally selected and repeated, while those that are not useful become less common over time.

In the 1960s, herbert Blumer, a student of Mead’s, further developed this approach to understanding human behaviour and coined the term ‘symbolic interactionism’ (Annells 1997a). Blumer held three basic premises: that the meaning things have for people will determine what actions they perform with those things; that meaning is derived from social interactions; and that an interpretive process is used to direct and modify the meanings as the situation is dealt with (Blumer 1969).

Blumer (1969) proposed that the meaning is attached to the experience of the situation rather than intrinsic to any particular object, situation or person. hence, people interpret social situations and derive meaning that affects their behaviour. the process of interaction is symbolic because symbols, most commonly words (written and spoken) but also objects (for example, a red traffic light) and actions (for example, a smile), are used.

Symbolic interactionism underpins the philosophical beginnings of Gt. however, sociologists who identify as symbolic interactionists are not necessarily grounded theorists and not all Gt studies are aligned to this conceptual position.

Paradigm shifts in grounded theory Although Glaser and Strauss rebuffed the dominance of the positivist approach at the time, it has been argued that Gt was originally a positivist paradigm

(Annells 1996). Indeed, it was considered a rigorous method and quantitative researchers sometimes used the techniques in mixed-method studies (Charmaz 2006). In recent times, academics have asserted that classic Gt is more aligned with post-positivism (Annells 1997a, Charmaz 2006), but newman (2008) argued this is essentially the result of a reinterpretation of ‘objectivity’ by researchers. denzin and Lincoln (1994) claimed that Glaser and Strauss’s original work asserted that a definitive reality does exist but that it can never be fully captured and explained, which reflects the post-positivist ontology of critical realism.

After the publication of Glaser and Strauss (1967), a methodological split occurred and nothing else was published on Gt until Glaser (1978) and Strauss (1987). these and other publications revealed a conceptual divide between Glaser and Strauss. By the 1990s, two schools of Gt were evident: one influenced by Glaser, the other by Strauss in collaboration with nurse academic Juliet Corbin. these divergent approaches reflect differences in ontological, epistemological and methodological perspectives (Annells 1996, Charmaz 2006, Morse 2009).

Contemporary grounded theorists demonstrate a range of philosophical viewpoints and situate their studies in a variety of paradigms. Classic (Glaserian) Gt persists in the post-positivist paradigm; however, other scholars have moved towards a constructionist world view. While debate continues regarding the most appropriate conceptual positioning, some academics have asserted that Gt can be legitimately positioned in a variety of qualitative paradigms and that this flexibility is one of the benefits of the methodology (Birks and Mills 2011).

Glaserian (classic) GT Glaser focused on methods rather than any underpinning theoretical position (Birks and Mills 2011). he is generally considered a critical realist and his work continues to align closely with the original approach. Glaser’s emphasis on emergence reflects the belief that the relationship between the researcher and the focus of the study should (ideally) remain objective. hence, the voice of the ‘other’ (participants) is represented but objectified (Annells 1996, Charmaz 2006).

Glaser (1992) encouraged the researcher to look for ‘true meaning’. he also echoed the post- positivist view when he warned the researcher against searching the literature before collecting data to avoid contaminating them with preconceived ideas. he claimed: ‘It is hard enough to generate one’s own ideas without the “rich” derailment provided by the literature in the same field’ (Glaser 1978).

NR Jan 2013 p17-21.indd 19 03/01/2013 11:57

January 2013 | Volume 20 | Number 3 © RCN PUBLISHING / NURSE RESEARCHER20

Nurse Researcher Grounded theory

Glaser’s version of Gt assumes categories emerge from the data and a tentative theory is discovered. this is the first step in generating a grounded hypothesis, which will inform an eventual grounded theory after verification (Annells 1997b). the assumption of this approach is that theory arises directly from the data, the data are then used for verification and what emerges is devoid of bias or interpretation on the part of the researcher.

Strauss’s background as a pragmatist and symbolic interactionist shaped the evolution of his approach in collaboration with Juliet Corbin. Strauss and Corbin (1994) claimed a feature of Gt is the ability to respond to change. they demonstrated a shift towards a relativist approach with constructionist leanings and asserted ‘multiple perspectives must be systematically sought during the research inquiry’ (Strauss and Corbin 1998). they rejected the positivist view that theory is ‘out there’, waiting to be discovered, and instead assumed reality is a product of interpretation and construction by the enquirer. Strauss and Corbin (1998) insisted that ‘analysis involves interpretation’.

the epistemological stance is non-dualist and subjective; the researcher and the focus of the enquiry develop the theory together. the voice of the other and the enquirer are made explicit. the researcher is actively involved, not separate from the method, and is encouraged to draw on his or her experiences (Strauss and Corbin 1994, 1998). the lack of generalisability and reproducibility is not considered a flaw because of the relativist view that reality is constructed rather than found.

But some parts of Strauss and Corbin’s approach that continued to reflect post-positivist leanings. this includes the structural, systematic coding framework known as the ‘paradigm model’ (criticised by Glaser as ‘forcing’ the data into preconceived ideas) and their use of the concept of ‘fit’ as a criterion for evaluation of a theory. But, Lomborg and Kirkevold (2003) claimed that the word ‘fit’ is a simple way to convey the idea that the theory should match the social reality, rather than reflect the realist position.

Strauss and Corbin also moved Gt towards verification (Charmaz 2006). yet while verification usually reflects a positivist/post-positivist attempt to establish ‘truth’, Strauss and Corbin used the word to mean evaluating for trustworthiness and seeking support throughout the project, rather than finding ‘proof’ with follow-up studies (Strauss and Corbin 1994). Annells (1997a) asserted that despite maintaining some post-positivism terminology and tendencies, the intent of Strauss and Corbin’s Gt shifted towards ontological relativism in a constructionist paradigm.

Post-modern interpretations of grounded theory Post-modernism, a reaction against the scientific, objective modernist viewpoint, asserted that reality is a social construct and therefore subject to change. the concept of social construction was introduced by Peter Berger and thomas Luckmann (1966), and has its roots in phenomenology and the work of Alfred Schutz (1967). the sociologists Berger and Luckmann were also heavily influenced by Mead and other symbolic interactionists and believed that all knowledge is constructed from social interactions. Berger and Luckmann asserted that people form impressions of the behaviour of individuals and respond in mutual roles. As others engage in these roles habitually, the associated meaning becomes entrenched and the interactions institutionalised. hence people’s understanding of reality is constructed and becomes embedded in society over time.

during the post-modern period, there was significant contention among qualitative researchers about how best to represent the other (representation), how to effectively evaluate research (legitimisation) and whether research ever really changes the world (praxis) (denzin and Lincoln 2008). Many researchers rejected ‘truth’ or reality, except as it is locally constructed (Macdonald 2001).

denzin and Lincoln (1994) challenged grounded theorists to evolve Gt to reflect post-modern sensibilities. Although Strauss and Corbin demonstrated signs of a paradigm shift, Kathy Charmaz was the first grounded theorist to unequivocally name her work as constructionist (Mills et al 2006). her version maintained much of Glaser and Strauss’s approach except she asserted that rather than discovering data and theories, the researcher constructs them. Charmaz (2006) aligned herself with symbolic interactionism, putting an emphasis on ‘examining process, making the study of action central and creating abstract interpretive understandings of the data’. She contended that research offers an interpretation of what is happening, rather than unveiling an absolute reality. Charmaz’s Gt offers a constructionist approach that emphases multiple realities and local complex situations, rather than identifying a core category (thomas and david 2006, Creswell 2007).

Following Strauss’s death in 1996, Corbin has continued to develop Gt, describing the methodology as ‘a living thing’ (Corbin 2009). She has taken an analytical journey that has evolved her thinking and she now considers herself as a ‘mixture of philosophical orientations’ (Corbin 2009). Although she has retained most of the characteristics of

NR Jan 2013 p17-21.indd 20 03/01/2013 11:57

© RCN PublishiNg / NuRsE REsEARChER January 2013 | Volume 20 | Number 3 21

Nurse Researcher Grounded theory

Strauss’ approach and insists that pragmatism and symbolic interactionism are fundamental to Gt, Corbin now identifies with a constructionist’s view. She agrees with the notion that the researcher is the analytical instrument and encourages the use of memos to reflect on interactions and findings (Corbin 2009).

Confusion with evolving grounded theory Grounded theory is a valuable methodology for developing theories directly from the data. It is held in high regard by qualitative researchers and is very much part of contemporary enquiry. however, while the diverse interpretations have accommodated flexibility, they may also result in confusion. For example, Macdonald and Schreiber (2001) asserted that when using Strauss and Corbin’s approach, researchers can claim support for any ontological position they desire. Furthermore, while some adaptations of the methodology have gained credibility, scholars have warned that the different interpretations may erode the theoretical underpinnings of Gt (Boychuk duchscher and Morgan 2004). Strauss and Corbin (1994) expressed concern that some researchers fail to understand the fundamental characteristics of the methodology and warned that it ‘runs the risk of becoming fashionable’. While some of the modifications have gained credibility, combining different approaches is difficult and may not be realistic or appropriate.

In defence of its evolution, Macdonald and Schreiber (2001) claimed any confusion may simply be due to a focus on method, rather than methodology. With this in mind, researchers are encouraged to align with the foundational tenets of Gt and define their conceptual approaches clearly to maintain Gt’s reputation as a credible and practical research method.

Conclusion Grounded theory focuses on human interaction and social process to explain phenomena. rather than a static set of strategies, it is an evolving methodology capable of change. debates regarding ontology, epistemology and methodology persist in the qualitative research community, and are reflected in the continuing development of this popular approach. this paper has provided a discussion of Gt’s philosophical evolution from its earliest roots in pragmatism and the influences of Charles darwin to the constructionist approaches taken by some contemporary researchers. Gt methodology provides researchers with the opportunity to align to their philosophical approach, and use methods that are flexible and practical.

A comprehensive understanding of the philosophical foundations and the variety of conceptual positioning equips researchers with a greater ability to use and appraise the methodology effectively.

References Annells M (1996) Grounded theory method: philosophical perspectives, paradigm of inquiry, and postmodernism. Qualitative Health Research. 6, 3, 379-393.

Annells M (1997a) Grounded theory method, Part I: Within the five moments of qualitative research. Nursing Inquiry. 4, 2, 120-129.

Annells M (1997b) Grounded theory method, Part II: options for users of the method. Nursing Inquiry. 4, 3, 176-180.

Berger PL, Luckmann T (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise In The Sociology of Knowledge. Allen Lane, London.

Birks M, Mills J (2011) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. Sage Publications, London.

Blumer H (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives and Method. Prentice hall, englewood Cliffs nJ.

Boychuk Duchscher JE, Morgan D (2004) Grounded theory: reflections on the emergence vs. forcing debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 48, 6, 605-612.

Charmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage Publications, London.

Charon JM (2007) Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration. Pearson Prentice hall, englewood Cliffs nJ.

Corbin J (2009) taking an analytical journey. In Morse J, noerager Stern P, Corbin J et al (eds) Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek CA.

Corbin J, Strauss A (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research. third edition. Sage Publications, thousand oaks CA.

Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Second edition. Sage Publications, thousand oaks CA.

Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (1994) Introduction: entering the field of qualitative research. In denzin nK, Lincoln yS (eds) Handbook Of Qualitative Research. First edition. Sage Publications, thousand oaks CA.

Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (2008) Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: denzin nK, Lincoln yS (eds) Strategies Of Qualitative Inquiry. Sage Publications, thousand oaks CA.

Glaser BG (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press, Mill Valley CA.

Glaser BG (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press, Mill Valley CA.

Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, new york ny

Guba E, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In denzin nK, Lincoln yS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. First edition. Sage Publications, thousand oaks CA.

Lincoln YS, Guba E (2005) Paradigmic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In denzin nK, Lincoln yS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. third edition. Sage Publications, thousand oaks CA.

Lomborg K, Kirkevold M (2003) truth and validity in grounded theory – a reconsidered realist interpretation of the criteria: fit, work, relevance and modifiability. Nursing Philosophy. 4, 3, 189-200.

MacDonald M (2001) Finding a critical perspective in grounded theory. In Schreiber rS, noerager Stern P (eds) Using Grounded Theory In Nursing. Springer Publishing Company, new york ny.

MacDonald M, Schreiber R (2001) Constructing and deconstructing: grounded theory in a postmodern world. In Schreiber r, Stern P (eds) Using Grounded Theory in Nursing. Springer Publishing Company, new york ny.

Mills J, Bonner A, Francis K (2006) the development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 5, 1, 25-35.

Morse J (2009) tussles, tensions, and resolutions. In Morse J, noerager Stern P, Corbin J et al (eds) Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek CA.

Newman B (2008) Challenging convention: symbolic interactionism and grounded theory. Collegian. 15, 3, 103-107.

Polit D, Tatano Beck C (2006) Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal, and Utilization. Sixth edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia PA.

Schutz A (1967) The Phenomenology of The Social World. northwestern university Press, evanston IL.

Strauss A (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge university Press, Cambridge.

Strauss A, Corbin J (1994) Grounded theory methodology – an overview. In denzin nK, Lincoln yS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. First edition. Sage Publications, thousand oaks CA.

Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures For Developing Grounded Theory. Second edition. Sage Publications, thousand oaks CA.

Thomas G, David J (2006) reinventing grounded theory: some questions about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal. 32, 6, 767-795.

Conflict of interest None declared

online archive For related information, visit our online archive of more than 7,000 articles and search using the keywords

NR Jan 2013 p17-21.indd 21 03/01/2013 11:57

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.