Metodología y resultados

Following publication of the 1967 seminal work of Glaser and Strauss there

developed somewhat of a schism between the authors that manifested in two diverse approaches to grounded theory (Heath & Cowley, 2004; Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2008). The differences revolved around the appropriate application of methods and the function of a literature review. Glaser consistently adhered to a classical position that reflected the critical realist view of the nature of the world. The analysis of data in Glaser’s approach focused on concepts of reality, looking for “what is” not “what might be”, and searching for true meaning (Annells, 1996). Glaser’s realist view of truth assumed that there is a “real” reality out there waiting to be discovered

(Annells, 1996). This view echoes the pragmatic school which, as part of its project, appeared to view symbolic arrangements as related to truth. For the pragmatist Peirce, the arrest of doubt gave appearance to the truth (Reynolds, 2003, p. 47) and for Mead truth was “synonymous with the solution of the problem …[J]udgement must be either true or false for the problem is either solved or it is not solved” (Eames, 1973, p. 139). One tension that the realist position gave rise to was whether an approach to research that avoids the complexities of individual and contingent factors, in favour of a uniform statement of truth, could be capable of sufficient sensitivity to the objects of its study. Examples are personal worldviews and their interaction with social obligations and how those conflicts are resolved (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2009).

Glaser furthermore viewed induction, as opposed to deduction and verification, as the key component of analysis (Annells, 1996; Walker & Myrick, 2006). Glaser held that an inductive emergence of the relevant theory was based on the researcher’s role within that process (Heath & Cowley, 2004). In contrast, Strauss and Corbin’s

position (1990) shifted from a realist viewpoint to a more relativist perspective where the researcher was inevitably engaged in the construction of research outcomes albeit without forcing a world view or preconceptions on the objects of study. As Corbin (2009, p. 39) wrote;

…concepts and theories are constructed (they don’t emerge) by researchers out of stories that they are told by research participants who are trying to explain…their experiences and/or lives, both to the researcher and themselves. Out of these multiple constructions, analysts build something that they call knowledge.

Corbin also and controversially (for Glaser) placed emphasis on both the micro (those close to the individual) and macro (those further from the individual) aspects of reality to include structural, contextual, symbolic, and interactional influences on individuals and groups (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). As such, the authors stressed the importance of “putting process together with structure” (Corbin, 2009, p. 51).

Thus while still faithful to grounded theory principles, Strauss and Corbin arrived at a perspective that pays more attention to a systematic approach involving validity, which is demonstrated through the fitness, applicability, and capacity of

generalisation of the data in qualitative studies (Heath & Cowley, 2004). Strauss and Corbin (1998) later argued that their work represented a move from a purely

inductive stance to one that involves processes of both induction and deduction This allowed the researcher to address all possible conditions that may influence a

phenomena and not only those that may emerge from data. Furthermore, the authors stressed that in the process of analysis the role of induction should not be privileged because induction (working from data of specific cases to a more general conclusion) and deduction (drawing a conclusion from the premise of the research and

verification, the process of validating a claim) all perform inter-connected roles (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In other words, in the process of coding, researchers move between inductive and deductive thinking, which represents the interplay between proposing and checking (Duchscher & Morgan, 2004; Walker & Myrick, 2006). Heath and Cowley (2004) commented on Strauss and Corbin’s work in stating that:

Rather than emphasising deduction followed by verification, they talk of deduction followed by validation and elaboration from further data comparisons, which ensure emergence. The researcher shapes the data by their interpretations, which moves analysis beyond description; but they are also shaped by the data and validation prevents distortion (p. 145).

Glaser and Strauss also differed on the role of the use of literature in grounded theory research. Glaser (1978) held the view that specific reading in an area, before or during data collection, would consequently influence the emerging theory (Heath & Cowley, 2004). Moreover, Glaser argued that, by avoiding a literature review in the advanced stages of research and waiting until the theory had emerged from the data, any potential bias generated by literature would be overcome. In keeping with the perspective of maintaining an open mind and allowing the data to speak for itself, Glaser (1978) suggested examining relevant literature only after developing an emergent theory. The literature, then, becomes a form of additional data that supports the discovered theory. Grounded theory “must be free from the idea of working on someone else’s work or problems. It need make no bows to the existing literature…” (Glaser, 1992, p. 32).

Strauss and Corbin (1990; 1998) conversely articulated the view that background knowledge obtained from a literature review might help both to clarify a researcher’s thoughts and define the area within which the researcher intended to focus a study. The position here was that reviewing the literature in the early stage of research could help a researcher identify current gaps in knowledge and provide a rational for the proposed research. According to Strauss and Corbin (1998), an initial literature review conducted before launching a particular study could help the researcher attain a proper conceptual density and enhance the researcher’s theoretical sensitivity. Theoretical sensitivity is the ability to recognise what is important in data and imbue it with meaning. In other words, theoretical sensitivity is informed by the

he or she brings to the study, as well as his or her immersion in the processes of data collection and analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

An additional argument worth noting is that such background knowledge enables the researchers to contextualise their work within the broader knowledge base of a given phenomenon and thus assist in the identification of variations or new areas that might not have been explored in previous material (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). It flows from this argument that research questions are more likely to reflect the phenomenon under examination if more is understood about the relevant issues (Cutcliffe, 2000). A literature review may assist a researcher in preparing the initial interviews and in focusing on the appropriate emphasis required in the observations involved.

However, Strauss and Corbin (1990) categorise literature as either technical or nontechnical. While they claim both are equally useful, technical literature is to be used as background materials for comparison against the findings of other research studies that characterise the writing in professional disciplines (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Technical literature can be used to stimulate questions for the interviews or other data collection techniques. Furthermore, technical literature can help in providing supplementary validity (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). On the other hand, nontechnical literature which includes other materials such as reports, records, and manuscripts can be used either as “primary data or to supplement interviews and field observations in grounded theory studies” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 48).

In summarising the differences between the two approaches Stern (1994) noted that Glaser focused on asking “What do we have here?” in order to allow the data to tell

its own story without forcing preconceived ideas onto the emerging theory. Glaser allowed for more emergent theory development by relying on what is important to the respondents, without pre-determined constructs in the collection and treatment of data. Alternatively, Strauss and Corbin’s approach examined data and asked “What if?” because they aimed to consider every possible incident that could relate to data, whether or not they appeared in the data. By asking “What if”, the researchers have a chance to address issues that have not been covered. In applying this approach, however, data are still grounded in the participants’ natural setting.

Stern’s (1994) point was that Glaser’s perspective may actually limit the potential for theory development and interpretation of data. If a researcher lacks an understanding of the phenomena being investigated, he or she risks the chance of misidentifying phenomena or overlooking potentially relevant material. It is also idealistic to suggest that an investigation can be conducted without presumptions in whatever form influencing the interpretations that become part of the analysis. Consequently, a prepared approach (a literature review) involving an understanding of the paradigms and current status of knowledge generated by previous research, can be of assistance in identifying and recording phenomena.

The current study utilised the Strauss and Corbin (1990) approach and as s the first of its kind in Saudi Arabia, provides preliminary evidence for ongoing theory

development. The use of coding methods prepared on the basis of a review of the appropriate literature facilitated the construction of a theory with systematic rigour, as opposed to the emergent approach of Glaser. The study also sought to bring

process and structure together and to locate actions and interactions within social, economic and political contexts (Corbin, 2009).