Using grounded theory to research parent participation

TLDR: This paper offers exemplars of the complex and often misunderstood processes of theoretical sampling and constant comparative analysis, as well as practical tips on memo writing and the use of diagrams, which is a model of good practice for conducting Glaserian grounded theory.

Abstract: While the purpose of most empirical research papers published in academic journals is primarily to present findings, there is a small but growing number that aim to inform us about methodology. This paper falls into the latter category, and while the writers do in fact present some of their data, the aim is to illustrate various points about the process of designing and conducting a grounded theory study rather than to tell us about parent participation in their children’s healthcare. The writers are quite explicit about their aim, pointing out that they are not offering a blueprint, that is, a plan to be followed by other prospective grounded theorists, but rather ‘just one example of how grounded theory may be used’. In my opinion, they are perhaps being over-modest in this claim: their paper provides us not merely with an example but an exemplar, a model of good practice for conducting Glaserian grounded theory. Nevertheless, their point about blueprints is well made, since any writer who uses their own work to illustrate a particular research methodology inevitably treads a thin line between (to shift metaphors) providing directions to a particular destination and describing the view once the destination is reached. What is required of a useful exemplar of good practice is neither of these. On the one hand, a set of directions provides a step-by-step list of instructions which seemingly guarantees a successful outcome if followed correctly. In many ways, this is exactly what Glaser was accusing Strauss and Corbin of doing in setting out a procedural approach to grounded theory that forces the data in a certain direction rather than letting it find its own way. On the other hand, a description of the view focuses too much on the final destination without providing any instructions as to how it was reached. Between these extremes lies the difficult path trodden in this paper of providing a clear, detailed and (most importantly) singular account of many of the key issues involved in conducting a grounded theory study. In particular, it offers exemplars of the complex and often misunderstood processes of theoretical sampling and constant comparative analysis, as well as practical tips on memo writing and the use of diagrams. Furthermore, it never extends its reach by claiming that this is the only (or even the best) way to do Glaserian grounded theory. The reason why this paper works so well where others have failed is that the authors never lose sight of the fact that research, like nursing, is a practice in Schön’s meaning of the term. Doing research is a messy business; there are no inviolable rules or guidelines, no directions which guarantee success and no real alternatives to getting your feet muddy in the swampy lowlands of real-life, everyday practice. To