DEL RECURSO ADMINISTRATIVO DE REVOCACION

This research was initiated based on a general topic of interest as opposed to attempting to address a specific problem, research question or goal. As the author’s interest was not primarily to describe what is going on, but was more concerned with discovering what is going on, an emergent methodology in the form of a grounded theory approach was taken with reference to Glaser and Strauss (1967), Glaser (1998) and Eisenhardt (1989).

The origination of grounded theory has been accredited to Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, as presented in their book The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967) as a reaction to the dominance of positivism in social research. They contend the lack of theory to cover all the necessary areas of social research and introduced the general comparative method to allow for ‘the criteria of judging the worth of all theory’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 8).

They posit that the approach facilitates the study of complex entities due to its ability to produce a multifaceted account of organisational action in context. It has also been identified that grounded theory is particularly useful for organisational members to gain a perspective on their own work situations (Glaser & Strauss, 1964), underscoring

the importance of accessing the tacit knowledge of organisational members (Partington, 2000).

This classical version of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) has been described as a rigorous but flexible method to generate theory from a detailed analysis of a sociological phenomenon. It facilitates the explanation in the commonality of results which come about from the consequences of common behaviour or situations (Miller & Salkind, 2002).

Following a split between the two original theorists, a subsequent version of grounded theory by Strauss and Corbin (1990) was developed with the ‘paradigm model’ at its core. Glaser (1992) refers to this approach as being too prescriptive, ‘keeping all of the problems of forcing data’ (p. 122), and continued to independently stress the importance of allowing theory to emerge from the data. A constructionist variant also emerged under the authorship of Charmaz (2000) with more focus on the views, values, feelings and assumptions of the individuals than on collecting facts or describing phenomenon (Miller & Salkind, 2002).

As this research concerns an in-depth case study, particular reference is made to Eisenhardt (1989) who synthesised work on qualitative methods, case study research design and grounded theory building. She presents a highly iterative process which is

closely linked to data for building theories from case studies. Three strengths of the process are asserted:

1. its likelihood of generating novel theory;

2. the emergent theory is likely to be testable with constructs that can be readily measured and hypotheses that can be proven false;

3. the resultant theory is likely to be empirically valid (pp. 546-547).

Recogising the variety of grounded theory approaches, the author chose to adopt that of Strauss and Corbin (1990). Although this approach has been described as ‘fractured, detailed, cumbersome and over-self-conscious’ (Glaser, 1992, p. 60) the author feels that a more structured approach would be appreciated by the practitioner community to which the results of this research is expected to be disseminated at a later date.

The use of an emergent methodology invokes data interpretation in an iterative process which is linked to the researcher’s own worldviews. The principle is such that any preconceptions are avoided. This is hoped to facilitate the researcher to enter the study arena with an open mind and to be ‘theoretically sensitive so that one can conceptualise and formulate a theory as it emerges from the data’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 46).

There are discussions on whether one should undertake a preliminary literature review prior to the investigation where Locke (2001, p. 25) states ‘The researcher should enter the research process with as few advance assumptions as possible’. Dey (1993) advises, however, that one needs to find a focus without making premature assumptions and that ‘…there is a difference between an open mind and empty head. To analyse data, we need to use accumulated knowledge, not dispense with it. The issue is not whether to use existing knowledge, but how.’ (p. 65).

Goulding (2005, p. 296) advises that there has been a common misconception that ‘the researcher is expected to enter the field ignorant of any theory or associated literature’, but quotes Glaser and Strauss (1967, p. 253) that ‘no sociologist can possibly erase from his mind all the theory he knows before he begins his research. Indeed the trick is to line

up what one takes as theoretically possible or probable with what one is finding in the field’.

Eisenhardt (1989) recommends an initial research question be defined irrespective of how broad it may be. This is so as to facilitate the initial design of the theory building research and determine the kind of data that needs to be collected. It is, however, noted that ‘most importantly, theory-building research is begun as close as possible to the ideal of no theory under consideration and no hypotheses to test…attempting to approach this ideal is important because preordained theoretical perspectives or propositions may bias and limit the findings’ (p. 536).

With respect to data analysis, a method of constant comparison is utilised that requires the researcher to code and analyse at the same time rather than coding first and then analysing (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This promotes the emergence of theoretical categories based on the evidence gathered and selective approach to cases and data gathering. Constant comparison has four purposes:

1. verifies the concept as a category denoting a pattern in the data; 2. verifies the fit of the category nomenclature to the pattern; 3. generates properties of the category;

4. saturates the category and its properties by the interchangeability of indicators.

(Glaser, 1998, p. 139)

It is believed that the gaps in the emerging theory will guide the researcher, as one will observe the gaps and direct the research accordingly to address the gaps (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Theoretical sampling and constant comparison should continue until one believes that theoretical saturation has been achieved by staying in the field until similar incidences occur over again, and no new evidence emerges which can inform or underpin the development of an emerging theory (Goulding, 2002). Theoretical sampling aims to ‘generate categories and their properties’ (Glaser & Holton, 2004, p. 7) and ‘to maximize

opportunities to compare events, incidents, or happenings to determine how a category varies in terms of its properties and dimensions’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 202). Resultant theory which is deficient of theoretical sampling ‘tends to be thin, lacking in both density and variability, in the sense that property development and the discovery of moderating variables tend to be underplayed due to the fact that both saturation and extensive memoing are not pursued’ as posited by Jones and Noble (2007, p. 97).

‘Grounded theory, seeks not only to uncover relevant conditions, but also to determine how the actors respond to changing conditions and to the consequences of their actions. It is the researcher's responsibility to catch this interplay’ (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 5).