18.6 Grounded theory analysis

What are you trying to accomplish with grounded theory analysis

Just to be clear, grounded theory doubles as both qualitative research design (we will talk about some other qualitative designs in Chapter 22) and a type of qualitative data analysis. Here we are specifically interested in discussing grounded theory as an approach to analysis in this chapter. With a grounded theory analysis, we are attempting to come up with a common understanding of how some event or series of events occurs based on our examination of participants’ knowledge and experience of that event. Let’s consider the potential this approach has for us as social workers in the fight for social justice. Using grounded theory analysis we might try to answer research questions like:

• How do communities identity, organize, and challenge structural issues of racial inequality?
• How do immigrant families respond to threat of family member deportation?
• How has the war on drugs campaign shaped social welfare practices?

In each of these instances, we are attempting to uncover a process that is taking place. To do so, we will be analyzing data that describes the participants’ experiences with these processes and attempt to draw out and describe the components that seem quintessential to understanding this process.

Variations in the approach

Differences in approaches to grounded theory analysis largely lie in the amount (and types) of structure that are applied to the analysis process. Strauss and Corbin (2014)^[1] suggest a highly structured approach to grounded theory analysis, one that moves back and forth between the data and the evolving theory that is being developed, making sure to anchor the theory very explicitly in concrete data points. With this approach, the researcher role is more detective-like; the facts are there, and you are uncovering and assembling them, more reflective of deductive reasoning. While Charmaz (2014)^[2] suggests a more interpretive approach to grounded theory analysis, where findings emerge as an exchange between the unique and subjective (yet still accountable) position of the researcher(s) and their understanding of the data, acknowledging that another researcher might emerge with a different theory or understanding. So in this case, the researcher functions more as a liaison, where they bridge understanding between the participant group and the scientific community, using their own unique perspective to help facilitate this process. This approach reflects inductive reasoning.

Coding in grounded theory

Coding in grounded theory is generally a sequential activity. First, the researcher engages in open coding of the data. This involves reviewing the data to determine the preliminary ideas that seem important and potential labels that reflect their significance for the event or process you are studying. Within this open coding process, the researcher will also likely develop subcategories that help to expand and provide a richer understanding of what each of the categories can mean. Next, axial coding will revisit the open codes and identify connections between codes, thereby beginning to group codes that share a relationship. Finally, selective or theoretical coding explores how the relationships between these concepts come together, providing a theory that describes how this event or series of events takes place, often ending in an overarching or unifying idea tying these concepts together. Dr. Tiffany Gallicano^[3] has a helpful blog post that walks the reader through examples of each stage of coding. Table 18.13 offers an example of each stage of coding in a study examining experiences of students who are new to online learning and how they make sense of it. Keep in mind that this is an evolving process and your document should capture this changing process. You may notice that in the example “Feels isolated from professor and classmates” is listed under both axial codes “Challenges presented by technology” and “Course design”. This isn’t an error; it just represents that it isn’t yet clear if this code is most reflective of one of these two axial codes or both. Eventually, the placement of this code may change, but we will make sure to capture why this change is made.

Constant comparison

While ground theory is not the only approach to qualitative analysis that utilizes constant comparison, it is certainly widely associated with this approach. Constant comparison reflects the motion that takes place throughout the analytic process (across the levels of coding described above), whereby as researchers we move back and forth between the data and the emerging categories and our evolving theoretical understanding. We are continually checking what we believe to be the results against the raw data. It is an ongoing cycle to help ensure that we are doing right by our data and helps ensure the trustworthiness of our research. Ground theory often relies on a relatively large number of interviews and usually will begin analysis while the interviews are ongoing. As a result, the researcher(s) work to continuously compare their understanding of findings against new and existing data that they have collected.

Developing your theory

Remember, the aim of using a grounded theory approach to your analysis is to develop a theory, or an explanation of how a certain event/phenomenon/process occurs. As you bring your coding process to a close, you will emerge not just with a list of ideas or themes, but an explanation of how these ideas are interrelated and work together to produce the event you are studying. Thus, you are building a theory that explains the event you are studying that is grounded in the data you have gathered.

Thinking about power and control as we build theories

I want to bring the discussion back to issues of power and control in research. As discussed early in this chapter, regardless of what approach we are using to analyze our data we need to be concerned with the potential for abuse of power in the research process and how this can further contribute to oppression and systemic inequality. I think this point can be demonstrated well here in our discussion of grounded theory analysis. Since grounded theory is often concerned with describing some aspect of human behavior: how people respond to events, how people arrive at decisions, how human processes work. Even though we aren’t necessarily seeking generalizable results in a qualitative study, research consumers may still be influenced by how we present our findings. This can influence how they perceive the population that is represented in our study. For example, for many years science did a great disservice to families impacted by schizophrenia, advancing the theory of the schizophrenogenic mother^[4]. Using pseudoscience, the scientific community misrepresented the influence of parenting (a process), and specifically the mother’s role in the development of the disorder of schizophrenia. You can imagine the harm caused by this theory to family dynamics, stigma, institutional mistrust, etc. To learn more about this you can read this brief but informative editorial article by Anne Harrington in the Lancet.^[5] Instances like these should haunt and challenge the scientific community to do better. Engaging community members in active and more meaningful ways in research is one important way we can respond. Shouldn’t theories be built by the people they are meant to represent?