Chapter 7: Orthodoxy vs. Power: The Defining Traits of Grounded Theory

Hood, J. C. (2009). Orthodoxy vs. Power: The Defining Traits of Grounded Theory. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, 151-164. doi:10.4135/9781848607941.n7

By Jane C. Hood

June 1, 2020

Power of GT method is lost when it is not done rigorously; else, it is just “generic inductive qualitative model” (GIQM) (152) – should I be feeling exhausted after this? How do you keep yourself sane?

In order for GTM to be used powerfully, it requires:

1. Constant comparative analysis
2. Theoretical sampling
3. Theoretical saturation of categories

The generic inductive qualitative model (GIQM)

• In order to generalize my theory (make it formal, more applicable), I need to know the core – “what is my case a case of?”
• Ex. Being recognized as an individual in tech industry? Competency? Perception of competency?
• Hood (author) identifies the key differences of GTM from GIQM
• Strauss and Glaser’s (1967) key components of GT has 7 points: (154)
  1. A spiral of cycles of data collection, coding, analysis, writing, design, theoretical categorization, and data collection
  2. The constant comparative analysis of cases with each other and to theoretical categories throughout each cycle
  3. A theoretical sampling process based upon categories developed from ongoing data analysis
  4. The size of sample is determined by the “theoretical saturation” of categories rather than by the need for demographic representativeness or simply lack of additional information from new cases
  5. The resulting theory is developed inductively rom data rather than tested by data, although the developing theory is continuously refined and checked by data
  6. Codes “emerge” from data and are not imposed a priori upon it
  7. The substantive and/or formal theory outlined in the right final report takes into account all the variations in the data and conditions associated with these variations. The report is an analytical product rather than a purely descriptive account. Theory development in the goal

Comparing the generic model to grounded theory

• Hood uses David Karp’s (1985) study of academic careers of aging professors as an example of a study claiming to be a GT study which is actually following GIQM
• Main difference between GTM and GIQM is how data collection if driven by theoretical relevance; even transcribing in GTM is only done for data that is relevant to the emerging theory
• GIQM vs. GT based on: (156)
  1. Question
  2. Sample
  3. Research Process
  4. Data Analysis
  5. Memos
  6. Criteria for ending data collection
  7. Generalizability
  8. Range of Theory
  9. Deisgn

1. Question
   • GIQM asks for a comparison while GT asks about a process; by explaining the process, researcher can identify categories that impact the process
2. Sampling
   • GIQM uses demographic categories to plan the sample. It uses descriptive information to inform the next category to collect data from. GT’s theoretical sampling requires data collection to be guided/connected by emerging theoretical codes. This can lead to more profound (hidden) variables to emerge rich theories.
   • Ex. GT considers “devotion of male’s career”, “costs of getting back into a career” vs GIQM looks at age, gender years of experience
   • I have to look at my sample by how they belong to a conceptual category, not demographics
3. Research Process
   • Must be led by emerging theories (theoretical codes) explicitly to be counted as GT
4. Data Analysis
   • Karp’s GIQM focused on comparing data to data as a start and end point of the study. In GT, you shold stay aligned to comparing new data to the theoretical code (emerging theory_.
   • Ex. in Karp’s GIQM, Karp compared women’s career trajectory to men’s to develop theories about men vs women. If this were done again in GTM, Karp could have analyzed men and women by how they compare against a common theory such as the cost of getting back into careers
   • Possible theoretical codes I may come across:
     • Perception of competency
     • Mastering software
     • Standardizing processes
     • Making sense of a new career identity
   • Avoid developing GIQM’s questions such as: how UX design compares other jobs, experienced vs inexperienced, male vs female; do not form / categorize data in this way
5. Memos
   • Existence of memoing is not enough to justify a study as GTM – it must be used purposefully to develop theoretical categories and properties
   • What is the difference between GT categories and properties?
6. Criteria for ending data collection
   • In GT, it’s when you’ve developed enough codes to support your core category
7. Generalizing
   • GT researchers focus on how to generalize formal theories in different settings. In GIQM, researchers only generalize to similar cases by the researcher
8. Range of Theory
   • Similar to above…
9. Design
   • GT is “driven by the developing theory”
   • GIQM is “driven by substantive import”

Orthodoxy and Power

• Hood claims many people identify they are conducting GT simply because they code data and don’t use statistics. But most are missing the key steps of theoretical saturation which involves theoretical sampling, constant comparative process.