CLASIFICACIÓN DE LAS METÁFORAS COGNITIVAS

The original intent of grounded theory was as a methodology for sociologists (Goulding, 1998). It has since been used and adapted in a range of disciplines and

fields such as, health, education and management. It has been criticised because of its 'bewildering complexity' and not being 'universally applicable' (Partington, 2000). This criticism has a level of merit as the researcher undertaking a grounded theory approach must be prepared for a non-linear journey. That is, research questions evolve during the research process. There is not a set formula to follow, rather 'a set of fundamental processes that need to be followed' (Goulding, 1998: 53).

In undertaking a grounded theory approach, it has become necessary, and in some cases essential for researchers to decide and declare the approach taken (Skodol- Wilson and Ambler-Hutchinson, 1996). The reason for this declaration is that each version offers quite differing philosophical orientations. They are: the Glaser and Strauss (1967) original, Glaser's (1978, 1992) subsequent interpretations of grounded theory application or the contrasting Strauss and Corbin (1990) version. Rather than engage in specific details of the differences and or professed strengths and

weaknesses of each version and ultimately, to 'avoid being distracted by [the]

extraneous invective' between Glaser and Strauss that have ‘create[d] confusion over the assumptions, logic and research methods in grounded theory generation' (Parker and Roffey, 1997:213) a brief synopsis of the key differences is provided in a generalist overview. As stated by Goulding:

Not only are there differences in style and terminology, but Strauss' (1987) version of the method has been reworked to incorporate a strict and complex process of systematic coding…a point of departure between Glaser, who argues that the theory should only explain the phenomenon under study, and

Strauss, who insists on excessive use of coding matrixes to conceptualise beyond the immediate field of study (1998:52).

In simple terms, Glaser advocated that the aim of grounded theory is to generate good ideas and latent creativity on the part of the researcher (Partington, 2000). The 'drugless trip' is the term used by Glaser (1978:24) to describe the analytic process in grounded theory. Strauss and Corbin (1990) on the other hand, have set techniques and a prescriptive set of procedures that the researcher must follow (Goulding, 1998, 2000; Locke, 2001; Partington, 2000; Douglas, 2003). As with any naturalistic inquiry, theory is inductive and the design of the study emergent in response to the data that is constantly reviewed and sorted. Theory is not 'hammered' into the research; rather it emerges from the direct sources of the data. Theory is therefore generated from the ground up - from the actual data, rather than overlaying the research or inquiry with a theoretical model that must be tested.

In grounded theory:

The researcher, rather than commencing with a theory which he or she attempts to verify, commences with an area of study and allows relevant theoretical constructs to emerge from that process of study (Parker and Roffey, 1997: 214)

The grounded theory approach used in this study is derived from the original and aligns more closely with the views of Glaser (1978, 1992) as the researcher found Strauss’s (1990) coding approach ‘too strict and complex’. She believed that

incorporated the principles of naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln and Guba, 1985), despite Glaser (2004:5) claiming that their fourteen characteristics of naturalistic inquiry are 'simple, redundant and trite'.

This study has adapted the original methodology and aligns it with the construction and principles of naturalistic inquiry as an ethnographic study.

4.5 THE ORIGINS OF GROUNDED THEORY

Grounded theory acknowledges the role of the researcher as part of the research but also demands 'minimal researcher intervention' (Douglas, 2003:44) in the direction of the inquiry. Grounded theory allows for a systematic yet creative approach to

inquiry. It can be described as inductive research and sits within qualitative research paradigms as the data is a combination of observation and direct fieldwork. It should be noted that in its original form, the principles of grounded theory could be applied in quantitative research (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). However, it is more often used in naturalistic inquiry based on qualitative data collection. In sum, grounded theory explores the perspectives of human interactions and processes within a social context.

Glaser and Strauss developed grounded theory while conducting field-based research on the observations of how hospital staff dealt with terminal patients (see: Glaser and Strauss, 1965; 1968). The resultant publication: The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967), 'was specifically aimed at developing social scientists' capacities for

(Parker and Roffey, 1997:214). In grounded theory the researcher starts with an interest in, and seeks to explore and find out more, about a particular social

phenomenon. The researcher also brings a level of knowledge and experience to the area in question. This extant knowledge is vital, as the researcher must use her/his skills in order to analyse and generate theory rather than obvious or incidental and non-informative narrative (Glaser, 1992).

Studies using grounded theory 'require the researcher to have a creative imagination informed by significant personal and professional experience' (Parker and Roffey, 1997:225). Glaser (1978) described this as 'theoretical sensitivity'. This means that the researcher must be able to interact with the data during its collection rather than at the end of the study. She/he must also have the capacity to think about the data in terms of its theoretical meaning. Theoretical sensitivity 'can also be derived from sources outside of the researchers' disciplinary domain' (Locke, 2001:89) and can include personal experiences not restricted to the research environment and incorporate the experiences of others.