Glaser, Where to Begin? Issue vs. Problem

Where to begin a grounded theory study can be confusing, especially when one is advised to avoid bringing in ideas from a existing theory and literature. We are told that even the research problem itself should emerge. We are allowed an "area" of research, but we should go in without a preconceived problem:

In vital contrast, the grounded theory researcher, whether in qualitative or quantitative data, moves into an area of interest with no problem. He moves in with the abstract wonderment of what is going on that is an issue and how it is handled. Or, what is the core process that continually resolves the main concern of the subjects. He discovers that truth is stranger than fiction. If he moves into an area with an interest in studying people in pain, he will discover what problem pain produces and how it is resolved or processed. The social structure of each substantive area can make this resolution quite different. The grounded theorist keeps his mind open to the true problems in the area. (Glaser, 2021, p. 9)

How well do studies held up as exemplars of a strict grounded theory approach fair against these standards of methodological purity? Take two examples:

1) In their seminal work, Glaser and Strauss (1967) analyze the methods of several studies to describe more fully what does and does not count as grounded theory. The last of the series, a study by Strauss and others, is said to have utilized an approach "identical with that advocated in these pages" (p. 158). Where did that study begin? Well, not from nothing:

The starting point of the earlier research was an observation: not all psychiatrists seemed to share the same beliefs about the etiology or treatment of mental illness. A previous investigator had suggested two professional "psychiatric ideologies" ... The general problems to be investigated were whether different ideologies did exist among the various psychiatric professionals ... and their lay assistants, and how these ideologies affected their work in mental hospitals. A comparative method was quickly hit upon. ... (pp. 156-157)

So, a research project praised as a good example of the methods of grounded theory began with inspiration from previous research, a causal framework, and "general problems to be investigated." Is this all just simple "abstract wonderment"?

2) Awareness of Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1965) is another quintessential study in the history of grounded theory, showing again that no study can begin ex nihilo:

This approach reflects our sociological perspective, for we have attempted to channel our reforming impulses into an inquiry not at all medical in character. If increasingly Americans are dying within medical establishments, surrounded more by nurses and physicians than by kinsmen, then how do these representatives of wider society manage themselves and their patients while the latter are dying? How is the hospital's organization capitalized upon in the process? What forms of social action, transitory or more permanent, arise while handling dying people? What are the social consequences for the hospital and its staff, as well as for the patients and their families? To answer these kinds of questions, we did intensive field work ... (p. vii)

While there is no explicit mention of a problem, we are told the authors we spurred on by "reforming impulses." What other motivation could there be for researchers, if not solving problems?

We are therefore to begin quizzically, focusing on a particular "area" and "issue." Perhaps there is indeed a difference between an "issue" and a "problem." If hospital staff notices there is unequal treatment of patients, is the unequal treatment an issue or a problem? Is the reason why there is unequal treatment the true problem, to be revealed by a grounded theory study? If so, we might say the issue is too broad for effective action. What are we to do, simply enjoin hospital staff to treat everyone more equally? Better to drill down, past the observable issue, into an actionable problem underneath.

References

Glaser, B. G. (2021). Getting Started. Grounded Theory Review, 20(1), 8–11. Retrieved from https://groundedtheoryreview.org/index.php/gtr/article/view/343

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. Aldine Publishing Company.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (1st ed.). Aldine Publishing Company.

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning and Levels of Abstraction

Describing the methodology of grounded theory, Glaser and Strauss (1967) imply a helpful distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning:

This is an inductive method of theory development. To make theoretical sense of so much diversity in his data, the analyst is forced to develop ideas on a level of generality higher in conceptual abstraction than the qualitative material being analyzed. (p. 114)

"The abstraction of grounded theory from data" (Glaser & Holton, 2004, p. 21) is a clear demonstration of an inductive process. It moves from low abstraction (data) to high abstraction (theory).

Deduction works in the other direction. Take the famous example:

• All men are mortal.
• Socrates is a man.
• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

After the "therefore" is a statement of low abstraction, about a particular property of a particular individual.

If we phrase a similar line if inquiry inductively, notice how the statement after the "therefore" is higher in abstraction than anything before it:

• This man is mortal.
• That man is mortal.
• These men are mortal.
• Those men are mortal.
• Therefore, all men are (likely) mortal.

Inductive reasoning results in higher abstraction; deductive reasoning results in lower abstraction. Inductive reasoning creates abstraction; deductive reasoning uses abstraction.

References

Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 4(01), 1–24. Retrieved from https://groundedtheoryreview.org/index.php/gtr/article/view/94

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (1st ed.). Aldine Publishing Company.

The Talent Code, by Daniel Coyle

Coyle, Daniel. The Talent Code: Greatness Isn't Born. It's Grown. New York, Bantam, 2009.

page 5:

Myelin's vital role is to wrap those nerve fibers the same way that rubber insulation wraps a copper wire, making the signal stronger and faster by preventing the electrical impulses from leaking out.

pages 14-15:

The conventional way to explain this kind of concentrated talent is to attribute it to a combination of genes and environment, a.k.a. nature and nurture. ... Add up all the factors and--viola!--you have the ideal factory for soccer greatness.

The problem is that "all the factors" encompasses too many things to be useful. We are left mystified and helpless.

page 18:

Deep practice is built on a paradox: struggling in certain targeted ways--operating at the edges of your ability, where you make mistakes--makes you smarter.

We need safe places to fail and learn.

page 24:

Link's trainer permitted pilots to practice more deeply, to stop, struggle, make errors, and learn from them.

page 27:

Futsal players touch the ball far more often than soccer players--six times more often per minute, according to a Liverpool University study.

page 33:

Skill is myelin insulation that wraps neural circuits and that grows according to certain signals. The story of skill and talent is the story of myelin.

page 104:

When long-term commitment combined with high levels of practice, skills skyrocketed.

page 114, on "ignition":

Losing a parent at a young age was not what gave them talent; rather, it was the primal cue--you are not safe--that, by tripping the ancient self-preserving evolutionary switch, provided energy for their efforts...

page 147, on KIPP students:

"Every single detail matters," Feinberg says. "Everything they do is connected to everything else around them."

page 153:

What's striking in the end, however, is not how hard KIPP students work, but rather how swiftly and completely they take on the KIPP identity that provides the fuel for that hard work.

Climate and culture.

page 188:

Patience is a word we use a lot to describe great teachers at work. But what I saw was not patience, exactly. It was more like probing , strategic impatience.