{"kind":"task","effective_mode":"full","benchmark":{"kind":"benchmark","effective_mode":"full","slug":"longbench-v2","formal_name":"LongBench v2","introduction":"LongBench v2 evaluates deep understanding and reasoning over long contexts through multiple-choice questions. Its official description lists 503 questions spanning tasks such as single-document and multi-document QA and code-repository understanding.","introduction_ja":"","introduction_en":"","category":"Category not supplied","task_count":null,"acquisition_status":"Acquisition status not supplied","official_url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/zai-org/LongBench-v2","indexing_mode":"noindex","profile":{"resources":[],"task_format":"","scoring":"","metric":"","size":"","answer_access":"","license":"","citation":"","maintainer":"","released":"","why_hard":"","related":[]}},"task_id":"7906f620-ca3a-5b67-a5e1-2e3194d5aabc","task_key":"train--66f2adaf821e116aacb2aca9","task_revision_id":"3","upstream_id":"66f2adaf821e116aacb2aca9","short_description":"In both The Varieties of Grounded Theory and Advancing Grounded Theory with…","config":"","split":"train","body":"{\"choice_A\":\"The combination of grounded theory and mixed methods often requires researchers to compromise on theoretical sensitivity, as mixed methods demand structured variables that can hinder emergent data.\",\"choice_B\":\"The synthesis of grounded theory and mixed methods often forces researchers to compromise on theoretical sensitivity, as mixed methods demand predefined categories that may not align with emergent theories.\",\"choice_C\":\"The challenge is balancing the emergent flexibility of grounded theory with the predefined coding frameworks of mixed methods, making it difficult to preserve theoretical sensitivity.\",\"choice_D\":\"The difficulty arises when researchers attempt to align grounded theory's emergent coding with the structured variables of mixed methods, which can dilute the focus on theoretical sensitivity.\",\"context\":\"THE VARIETIES \\nOF GROUNDED \\nTHEORY\\n\\n\\nIn 1976 SAGE published a series of short ‘university papers’, which led to the \\npublication of the QASS series (or the ‘little green books’ as they \\nbecame known to researchers). More than 40 years since the release of \\nthe first ‘little green book’, SAGE is delighted to offer a new series of swift, \\nshort and topical pieces in the ever-growing digital environment.\\nSAGE Swifts offer authors a new channel for academic research with the \\nfreedom to deliver work outside the conventional length of journal articles. \\nThe series aims to give authors speedy access to academic audiences \\nthrough digital first publication, space to explore ideas thoroughly, yet at a \\nlength which can be readily digested, and the quality stamp and reassurance\\nof peer-review. \\nswifts\\nsage\\n\\n\\nswifts\\nsage\\nTHE VARIETIES \\nOF GROUNDED \\nTHEORY\\nANTONY BRYANT\\n\\n\\nSAGE Publications Ltd\\n1 Oliver’s Yard\\n55 City Road\\nLondon EC1Y 1SP\\nSAGE Publications Inc.\\n2455 Teller Road\\nThousand Oaks, California 91320\\nSAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd\\nB 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area\\nMathura Road\\nNew Delhi 110 044\\nSAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd\\n3 Church Street\\n#10-04 Samsung Hub\\nSingapore 049483\\nEditor: Jai Seaman\\nEditorial assistant: Lauren Jacobs\\nProduction editor: Victoria Nicholas\\nCopyeditor: Sarah Bury\\nProofreader: Jill Birch\\nMarketing manager: Susheel Gokarakonda\\nCover design: Shaun Mercier\\nT\\nypeset by: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd, Chennai, India\\nPrinted in the UK\\n© Antony Bryant 2019\\nFirst published 2019\\nApart from any fair dealing for the purposes of \\nresearch or private study, or criticism or review, as \\npermitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents \\nAct, 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored \\nor transmitted in any form, or by any means, only with \\nthe prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in \\nthe case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance \\nwith the terms of licences issued by the Copyright \\nLicensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction \\noutside those terms should be sent to the publishers.\\nLibrary of Congress Control Number: 2018963668\\nBritish Library Cataloguing in Publication data\\nA catalogue record for this book is available from the \\nBritish Library\\nISBN 978-1-5264-7431-5\\nWeb PDF 978-1-5264-7976-1\\nAt SAGE we take sustainability seriously. Most of our products are printed in the UK using responsibly sourced \\npapers and boards. When we print overseas we ensure sustainable papers are used as measured by the \\nPREPS grading system. We undertake an annual audit to monitor our sustainability.\\n\\n\\nCONTENTS\\nAbout the Author\\b\\nvi\\nAcknowledgements\\b\\nvii\\n\\t\\nIntroduction and Rationale\\b\\n1\\n1\\t\\nGTM – A Family of Variants\\b\\n5\\n2\\t\\nThe Core Characteristics of GTM\\b\\n30\\n3\\t\\nGTM from a Logical Point of View\\b\\n57\\n4\\t\\nGTM Paradoxes\\b\\n81\\n5\\t\\nIndigeneity\\b\\n92\\n6\\t\\nStudent and Learning Issues\\b\\n104\\n7\\t\\nGTM, Pragmatism and Social Justice\\b\\n114\\n\\t\\nIn Conclusion\\b\\n121\\nAppendix A:  Key Resources and Recommended Reading\\b\\n123\\nAppendix B:  \\u0007\\nThe Sage Handbook of Current Developments in  \\nGrounded Theory – List of Chapters\\b\\n127\\nReferences\\b\\n131\\nIndex\\b\\n140\\n\\n\\nABOUT THE AUTHOR\\nAntony Bryant is currently Professor of Informatics at Leeds Beckett \\nUniversity, Leeds, UK.\\nHe has written and taught extensively on research methods, with a par-\\nticular interest in qualitative research methods, and the Grounded Theory \\nMethod in particular. His book Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: \\nPragmatism in Research Practice was recently published by Oxford University \\nPress (2017). He is Senior Editor of The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory \\n(Sage, 2007) and The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded \\nTheory – both co-edited with Kathy Charmaz (Sage, 2019).\\nHe has supervised over 50 doctoral students, and examined many others, \\nin topics including formal specification of software systems, development \\nof quality and maturity frameworks, new forms of business modelling, and \\nvarious aspects of e-government and e-democracy.\\nHe is currently working with Professor Frank Land, who worked on the \\nfirst commercial computer (LEO 1951), and was also the first UK Professor \\nof Information Systems, on a series of ‘conversations’ planned for publica-\\ntion that will cover issues in the development and impact of computer \\ntechnology since the 1950s.\\n\\n\\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\\nPublication of The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory and The Sage Handbook \\nof Current Developments in Grounded Theory would not have been possible \\nwithout Kathy Charmaz. The contributors were almost entirely her rec-\\nommendations, and almost all those approached readily accepted the \\ninvitation largely because of her involvement. She has worked with GTM \\nalmost since its inception, and her contribution to the development and \\nflourishing of the method is unique and incomparable.\\nThis discussion of the varieties of GTM was initially intended to be \\na joint editorial essay for Current Developments, and Kathy offered useful \\nadvice on earlier drafts. Her influence should be obvious throughout the \\ndiscussion, although I know there will be many aspects about which she \\nwill have reservations. It was at her suggestion that I publish this as sole \\nauthor. Given its length, Jai Seaman, Senior Commissioning Editor at Sage, \\nrecommended that the essay be published separately in the Swifts series, to \\nappear prior to Current Developments itself. Jai, Lauren Jacobs, and their col-\\nleagues at Sage have been enormously supportive in moving both Varieties \\nand Current Developments to publication.\\nI must also thank all contributors to Current Developments. Their chap-\\nters provided the starting point for much of what follows, affording me \\nthe opportunity for an idiosyncratic, but I hope informed and respectful, \\ndiscussion on GTM and several important and related topics. I have learned \\na great deal from all the chapters, and from extended email exchanges with \\nmany of the contributors. I look forward to these exchanges continuing in \\nthe future.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nINTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE\\nThis monograph was initially written as an introduction to what was envis-\\naged as a revised and updated version of The SAGE Handbook of Grounded \\nTheory (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007a). In preparation Kathy Charmaz and \\nI contacted contributors to the earlier volume, inviting them to submit \\nrevised versions of their work, or to consider new material, possibly but \\nnot necessarily related to their earlier chapter. We also invited submissions \\nfrom authors not included in 2007. The result is a volume comprising \\n \\n31 chapters with more than 75% of the material being substantively differ-\\nent from the 2007 volume. Since the material in the 2007 volume retains \\nits validity and importance, publishing the new volume as a ‘revised’ \\n \\nedition would have been misleading. Hence the decision to publish it as \\nThe SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory (Bryant and \\nCharmaz, 2019, hereafter Current Developments).\\nThe new chapters indicate the range and depth of writing on the \\nGrounded Theory Method (GTM), and the ways in which discussion of \\nresearch methods has developed and expanded in recent years. I felt that it \\nwas important to bring key aspects of all of this to the attention of readers; \\nalso to discuss the complexities, interrelationships, and contrasts between \\nthe submissions. This necessitated a detailed and considered overview of \\nthe material – something far more substantial than an editors’ introduc-\\ntion. As the work developed, I sent revised drafts to Kathy, who offered \\ninsightful responses and eventually suggested that the material, now over \\n40,000 words, appear as a chapter solely under my name.\\nGiven its length, and in discussion with Jai Seaman, Senior \\nCommissioning Editor at Sage, it was agreed that the ‘chapter’ should be \\nrevised and published as a separate monograph in the SAGE Swifts series, \\nto appear just ahead of Current Developments: A precursor heralding the \\nnew volume, but which can also be read as a stand-alone publication. (The \\noriginal title for this chapter/monograph was ‘The Varieties of Grounded \\nTheory Experience’, evoking William James’s The Varieties of Religious \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n2\\nExperience (1902), James being one of the founding figures of Pragmatism, \\na key component of GTM.)\\nThe rich variety of the contributions to Current Developments inevitably \\nresults in potentially or actually contradictory statements; some relating to \\nGTM itself, others having wider ramifications. I therefore saw my position \\nas Senior Editor as providing the opportunity not only to present some of \\nthe key concerns covered by the contributors, but also to take issue with \\nsome of them. (NB: References to chapters in Current Developments will be \\nindicated in this manner – i.e. CD:NN, where NN is the chapter number. \\nThe titles of the individual chapters are listed in Appendix B. In some cases, \\nthe actual quote may differ slightly from that in the published version \\nsince I have worked from the draft versions dating from mid-2018.)\\nMy discussion of these contributions might be regarded as idiosyn-\\ncratic, but I hope I have done justice to the nuances and details of the \\nchapters themselves. Some of my ideas developed from comments evoked \\nby early drafts, and were communicated to the contributors, allowing them \\nthe opportunity to respond and revise if they so wished. But many others \\nonly arose once I had the later versions, and so will come as a surprise to \\nthe authors concerned. If this is seen as taking unfair advantage of my role \\nas Senior Editor then I can only apologise, but trust that I have treated \\npeople’s arguments fairly and given them all due consideration. Moreover, \\nif these do evoke discussion and disagreement, I trust that we can find \\nreasoned and reasonable ways to develop our deliberations in the future.\\nGTM has always represented a challenge to research orthodoxy, and \\nthis shows no sign of abating. Current Developments exemplifies and contin-\\nues this characteristic tendency, offering readers rich insights into current \\nGTM thinking. Vivian Martin (CD:11) identifies a crucial point, noting \\nthat ‘Flick (2015) observed that many of the challenges that faced qualita-\\ntive research in the 1980s and 1990s, including concerns with rigor and \\nquality, remain’. But other concerns have arisen, for instance those ema-\\nnating from the development of computer-based tools, issues around the \\nrole of researchers and their interaction with their subjects/participants, \\nand the status of research findings and associated knowledge-claims. For \\nGTM these trends are evident in\\n•\\t\\ndiscussions about CAQDAS [Computer Assisted Qualitative Data \\nAnalysis Software];\\n•\\t\\nresearch in the age of Big Data;1\\n\\n\\nINTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE\\n3\\n•\\t\\nthe nature of abductive reasoning;2\\n•\\t\\nresearching across cultures and subcultures;\\n•\\t\\nand the ways in which researchers can and should relate to issues such \\nas inequality and social justice.\\nIn part, these developments provide opportunities to extend the repertoire \\navailable to researchers, but like all innovations they can sometimes side-\\ntrack or undermine good research practices. In this vein, Martin notes that \\nFlick ‘identified trends such as evidence-based research and the rise of big \\nsocial science projects, with collaborators across departments and institu-\\ntions, as a threat to small, individual qualitative studies’.\\nOur introduction to the 2007 volume offered an overview of GTM \\n(Bryant and Charmaz, 2007b), and we also contributed a chapter dis-\\ncussing its historical development, offering an epistemological account \\nof the method’s origins and later variants (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007c). \\nThe present discussion is designed to serve a different purpose, essentially \\nfocusing on the ways in which GTM has developed since 2007, integrating \\nand discussing key points raised in Current Developments. Some of these \\ndevelopments are specific to GTM, but many are bound up with issues that \\nimpact upon research in general and qualitative approaches in particular. \\nSo although closely linked to, and building upon, the chapters in Current \\nDevelopments, this discussion of the varieties of grounded theory offers a \\ncomplementary and supplementary perspective.\\nIn what follows I address the following issues, in most cases initially \\nrelating them to chapters in Current Developments:\\n•\\t\\nA restatement of my view that GTM is best regarded as a ‘family of meth-\\nods’, that has flourished and developed, leading to a number of variants \\nthat should be regarded as capable of enriching each other, providing \\nthe basis for more credible and rigorous research practice in general;\\n•\\t\\nDiscussion of the ways in which GTM can be related to earlier ideas \\nand research, particularly that associated with the Chicago School;\\n•\\t\\nClarification of terminology, including GTM-specific terms such as \\n‘code’, ‘category’, and ‘concept’;\\n•\\t\\nSome further clarification of the ways in which epistemological and \\nontological discussions relate to GTM, and vice versa;\\n•\\t\\nThe role of metaphors in characterizing and distinguishing between \\nvariants of GTM and researching generally;\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n4\\n•\\t\\nConsideration of the concept of ‘abduction’ and the ways in which the \\nterm is now generally understood, particularly within the context of \\nGTM;\\n•\\t\\nThe impact of technological advances on GTM – particularly CAQDAS \\nand Big Data;\\n•\\t\\nThe paradoxical relationship between GTM and sociology;\\n•\\t\\nThe ways in which writers have developed and enhanced the set of \\ninitial, open-ended questions that GTM researchers can consider at the \\noutset of their investigations;\\n•\\t\\nWhat is meant by the claim that GTM facilitates the development of \\na theory, particularly in the light of several criticisms of the method \\nthat pose the rhetorical challenge ‘Where is the theory in Grounded \\nTheory?’;\\n•\\t\\nWork within GTM that pays specific attention to ‘sensitizing issues’ \\nsuch as feminism, race, ethnicity, and indigeneity;\\n•\\t\\nGTM, Pragmatism and social justice.\\nThese topics should be of interest to anyone wishing to find out more \\nabout GTM with a view to using it as part of their research strategy. \\nIn general, I have assumed that readers already have some familiarity \\nwith GTM, hopefully including Charmaz’s Constructing Grounded Theory \\n(2014a); by far the best introduction to the method. But for one or \\ntwo topics, such as abduction, I offer a more detailed exposition, also \\n \\nsuggestions for further reading.\\nI encourage readers to consider the arguments offered here, while also \\nreferring to the relevant chapters in Current Developments, bearing in mind \\nthat my ‘reading’ may well differ from yours.\\nNotes\\n1\\t Big Data consist of enormous data sets that exceed traditional modes of analysis. \\nDespite multiple challenges in accessing, storing, and managing these data sets, \\nthey are increasingly mined for purposes such as improving business practices. \\nSee Bryant & Raja, 2014.\\n2\\t In brief, abductive reasoning occurs when a researcher cannot explain a finding \\nby invoking theories that account for other patterns in the data. The researcher \\nthen considers a range of theoretical explanations and infers what is the best \\nexplanation, which he or she then puts through some form of test or validation.\\n\\n\\n1\\nGTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS\\nThe first generation – Glaser, Strauss, and Quint\\nIn our introductory essay in 2007 (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007b), we described \\nGTM as a ‘family of methods’, a metaphor that can be construed in sev-\\neral ways, for instance, evoking Tolstoy’s opening to Anna Karenina: ‘All \\nhappy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way’. \\nCharmaz also uses the term ‘constellation’ (Charmaz, 2014a), and others \\nhave referred to GTM as an ‘umbrella term’ or ‘framework’ (unified or not, \\nas the case may be). Charmaz now avoids the term ‘family’ because of its \\nconnotations, ranging from unwavering commitment to conflict and abuse.\\nThe main rationale for my use of the term ‘family’ was derived from \\nWittgenstein’s discussion of ‘family resemblances’:\\nwe see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and cries-crossing [sic \\ncriss-crossing]: sometimes overall similarities. I can think of no better expression \\nto characterize these similarities than family resemblances; for the various \\nresemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, \\ntemperament, etc. etc. overlap and cries-cross [sic criss-cross] in the same way. \\n(Wittgenstein, n.d., extract from Aphorisms 66 and 67, emphasis in original)\\nA close reading of this section of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations \\n(2001[1953]) indicates that in addition to postulating the concept of ‘fam-\\nily resemblances’, he was also advocating something akin to the method \\nof constant comparison. Indeed, he uses a phrase that by complete coinci-\\ndence echoes a key sentiment of Glaser and Strauss.\\n66. Consider for example the proceedings that we call ‘games’. I mean board-\\ngames, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n6\\nto them all? – Don’t say: ‘There must be something common, or they would \\nnot be called “games”’ – but look and see whether there is anything common \\nto all. For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, \\nbut similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don’t \\nthink, but look! (Wittgenstein, n.d., extract from Aphorisms 66, emphasis added)\\nIn similar fashion, a discussion of the ways in which GTM has developed \\nsince the 1960s might be understood as a series of relationships and deri-\\nvations between and across different generations and offspring of the \\nmethod from its inception. This is not unique to GTM, but a common fea-\\nture of many methods, and usually a sign of healthy growth and engaging \\ndebate. Action Research (AR), for instance, originating in the work of Kurt \\nLewin and colleagues in the 1930s, has spawned numerous variants. Some \\nof these alternatives clearly derive from AR, incorporating the term itself \\n(e.g. Participatory AR, Community AR, and so on); others do not (e.g. Soft \\nSystems Analysis). Yet they co-exist and provide the basis for new method-\\nological insights, both for those using AR and for others among the wider \\nresearch community (see Reason & Bradbury-Huang, 2015). For exam-\\nple, Joyce Duckles, George Moses, and Robert Moses (CD:31) depict how \\n \\ncommunity-based participatory action research combined with construc-\\ntivist grounded theory can contribute to social transformation.\\nOur concern in 2007 was to explain that the various forms of GTM \\ntestified to its importance and vitality, albeit carrying the potential for \\nconfusion and raising issues regarding the core aspects of the method. \\nAs I will argue below, GTM proponents largely agree on some ‘core’ or \\n‘essential’ characteristics of GTM but differ regarding others. Nonetheless, \\nresearchers should never forget that the ultimate significance of a method \\nis how it facilitates developing new and critical insights; something that \\noften involves departing from the well-trodden paths of specific disciplines \\nand common procedures. This proviso should come as no surprise to those \\ninvolved with GTM, since the method itself grew from precisely these \\nmotivations.\\nThe metaphor of a family also evokes images of parentage and subse-\\nquent generations. The earliest GTM texts, Awareness, Discovery, and Time, \\n(Glaser & Strauss, 1965b, 1967, 1968) must be seen as products of various \\ninfluences and strands of thought and practice brought together through \\nthe work of three progenitors: Barney Glaser, Anselm Strauss, and Jeanne \\nQuint (later Jeanne Quint Benoliel). The contrasting backgrounds of Strauss \\n\\n\\nGTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS\\n7\\nand Glaser are now fairly well understood, although differing views have \\nbeen expressed regarding the impact and influence these formations had \\non GTM itself. (See Charmaz, 2014a; Gibson & Hartman, 2014; and below.)\\nThe role of Quint, on the other hand, has only recently become more \\nwidely acknowledged when GTM is discussed. Although her brilliant \\n \\narticle, ‘Institutionalized practices of information control’ (Quint, 1965), \\nconfirmed her analytic skill, her earliest contributions to the method \\nremain less visible. Quint learned field research from Anselm Strauss and \\nworked with Strauss and Glaser on their projects on death and dying \\nbefore she wrote her doctoral dissertation on identity among children with \\njuvenile diabetes, receiving her PhD in nursing in 1969. Quint’s role was \\ncritical in data collection for the death and dying project, but she seldom \\nappears in discussions of the development of GTM.1 She made various con-\\ntributions to the literature on GTM and qualitative methods in nursing \\nresearch throughout her career (see, for example, Benoliel, 1984, 1996).2\\nMore controversially, Phyllis Stern (2012), in her obituary for Quint, \\nargued that ‘[W]hen Glaser and Strauss treated her data as their own, she beat \\nthem to the punch by publishing first’ (emphasis added). The book in ques-\\ntion was The Nurse and the Dying Patient (Quint, 1967). Kathy Charmaz, \\ncontributing much of the detail here about Quint, has pointed out that \\nher book actually used some of Glaser and Strauss’s substantive concepts, \\npublished in earlier papers.\\nQuint’s book, appearing in 1967, offered a thorough description of \\nwhat student nurses learned about working with dying patients, and their \\nattitudes and actions towards them. The book contributed to monumental \\nchanges in the care of the dying, but was neither a methodological exegesis \\nnor a grounded theory.\\nGiven the important turn in GTM research, and research generally, to \\nquestion the position from which research is carried out (see below), it is \\nimportant that Quint’s critical if circumscribed role is acknowledged and \\nunderstood. For instance, one of the earliest papers resulting from this \\nresearch appeared in 1964 with the names of all three authors in the fol-\\nlowing order – Strauss, Glaser, and Quint (1964).\\nLooking back after 50 years, it might be hard to grasp the impact \\nthat Glaser and Strauss’s writings had on US social science. If research-\\ners in the 1960s did not realize it before, then Discovery made it clear \\nthat there was a dominant, if largely taken-for-granted and unexamined, \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n8\\nmode of doing social science research in the USA. As Adele Clarke points \\nout in her chapter (CD:1), Glaser and Strauss’s impact on conventional \\nconceptions and practices of research cannot be overstated. These con-\\nventions encompassed methodological-cum-procedural aspects, but also \\n \\ninstitutional-cum-hierarchical ones. All neatly evoked by Glaser and \\nStrauss’s imagery of ‘theoretical capitalists and proletarian research-\\ners’, the latter toiling hypothetico-deductively amid the minutiae of the \\nmost notable theorists – particularly the Parsonians and Mertonians: i.e. \\nTalcott Parsons and R. K. Merton. Discovery (1967), together with the two \\nparadigm examples of GTM-in-use – Awareness of Dying (1965b) and Time for \\nDying (1968) – offered new insights into existing research practices as well as \\na new way of doing research, particularly at doctoral level. Although at first \\nthis was only apparent to the fortunate few enrolled on the doctoral program \\nat the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), and to some of Glaser \\nand Strauss’s peers, who read and grasped the importance of Discovery. The \\nwider impact of GTM took some time to develop, led initially by Strauss \\nand the earliest generation of UCSF doctoral graduates. (NB: Not every soci-\\nologist agreed that grounded theory was new. For some Chicago school \\nethnographers, grounded theory restated strategies such as induction and \\ncomparative analysis, among other ideas that were common in that group.)\\nDiscovery gained a wider readership among graduate students and \\nresearchers who wanted to do qualitative studies. In the early years follow-\\ning its publication, both students and established scholars relied on the \\nbook more for legitimating inductive qualitative research than for provid-\\ning an explicit guide through the research process. Strauss’s 1987 book, \\nQualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, and Strauss and Corbin’s (1990 & \\n1998) Basics of Qualitative Research made grounded theory world-renowned. \\nClarke points out that the popularity of grounded theory derived from its \\nthoroughly empirical orientation. She places the appeal and development of \\ngrounded theory in its historical context. Most sociological research at the \\ntime was theory-driven. Clarke explicitly addresses the abductive, iterative \\nmovement between empirical materials and theory as part of the method \\nfrom its early beginnings. Although few researchers wrote about abduction, \\nit had always been part of the method for those who studied with Strauss.\\nKathy Charmaz debated whether to include a section on abduction \\nin an early paper (1983) but decided against it because the paper intro-\\nduced grounded theory to students and was intended to clarify a method \\nthat few researchers of the day understood. I now argue (Bryant, 2017) \\n\\n\\nGTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS\\n9\\nthat abduction, or our understanding of it, has come of age and is a vital \\npart of research discussions. Several chapters in both Handbooks (Bryant & \\nCharmaz, 2007a, 2019) provide vital discussions on abduction.\\nDiscovery proposed an alternative to classical hypothetico-deductive \\nresearch, where theoretical issues and hypotheses were derived from exist-\\ning ‘authoritative’ work, and then subjected to ‘verification’ in the field. \\nInstead, it was argued that researchers should immerse themselves in their \\nchosen research context from the start, and allow theories to ‘emerge’ from \\nthe data. I would argue that this metaphor was often taken too far, even by \\nGlaser and Strauss themselves (see below), who suggested that researchers \\ncould and should abandon their previous theoretical knowledge and expe-\\nrience before analyzing their data.\\nGlaser and Strauss, however, recognized that this naïve inductivism was \\nunrealistic and unworkable, arguing that researchers needed to develop \\ntheir ‘theoretical sensitivity’; the ability to conceptualize relevant data in \\ntheoretical terms, which can be only achieved by drawing on already exist-\\ning theories and models. Kelle (CD:3) argues that\\n[T]he development of Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) was characterized \\nby different attempts to elaborate the concept of ‘theoretical sensitivity’ and to \\ndescribe modes of a non-deductive use of theories and models in the process \\nof empirically grounded theory building. Thereby a variety of new and complex \\nconcepts were proposed like ‘theoretical coding’, ‘coding families’, ‘axial cod-\\ning’, ‘coding paradigm’, and many others.\\nIt might be an exaggeration to ask ‘who now reads Talcott Parsons and/or \\nRobert Merton?’,3 but it is certainly the case that, at least from the 1990s \\nonwards, far more researchers and students across many disciplines read, \\ncite, and use Glaser and Strauss – both individually and in concert – than \\ndo likewise for Parsons or Merton.4\\nA focus on methods has developed since the 1960s, itself in part an \\neffect of the publication of Discovery. From my experience as a doctoral \\nstudent in social science in the UK in the 1970s, the issue of ‘methods’ was \\nnot a priority; there were few, if any, support sessions on the topic, and \\nvery few texts particularly on qualitative methods. The situation in the \\nUSA, where doctoral programs – such as that at UCSF – included taught \\nqualitative methods courses and epistemological assessments, was mark-\\nedly different. In the interim, and with apologies to Jane Austen, it is now \\na truth universally acknowledged that a research student in pursuit of a \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n10\\ndoctorate must be in want of a clear and extended account of their research \\ndesign and method(s).5\\nAt least since the 1990s, a standard expectation is that all research reports \\ndevote a specific section to research methods, and researchers are expected \\nto justify their research strategy, either planned (for research proposals) or \\ncarried out in arriving at the results of the study in question. This expec-\\ntation is a welcome development since it ensures that research findings \\nare not reported in some mysterious or furtive manner. Rather, the over-\\nall process, including the trade-offs and decisions endemic to research, is \\nrendered visible and accountable. One downside occurs if such discussions \\nare untruthful or retro-fitted to the findings: what might be termed meth-\\nodological hindsight. Unfortunately, GTM, when deliberately or unwittingly \\nmisunderstood and misrepresented, has proved particularly ‘convenient’ \\nin these instances. This has led to credibility issues when assessors and \\nother ‘gate-keepers’ are confronted with GTM research proposals or out-\\nputs, often with at best only a tenuous connection to the method itself.\\nMis-application of methods, however, is not confined to GTM or quali-\\ntative methods, and some degree of methodological scepticism is essential \\nfor anyone evaluating research proposals or outputs. GTM suffers dispro-\\nportionately in this regard because it appears, erroneously, to offer a \\nlaissez-faire or ‘anything goes’ model of research. Also, since it is far-\\nand-away the most widely used method in many domains, there are \\nfar more examples of good, bad, and indifferent GTM-oriented research \\nthan any other. Writers on GTM need to take account of both issues – they \\nare two sides of the same coin: the flexibility and open-mindedness inherent in \\nGTM affords researchers the basis for investigative strategies that can lead \\nto novel insights and innovative outcomes. As a consequence, the method \\nhas widespread appeal to early-career researchers and others looking \\nfor ways in which they can move beyond the confines of specific disci-\\nplines or customary or ‘expected’ modes of investigation. The downside \\nof such popularity and widespread appeal is that, in some cases, invok-\\ning GTM amounts to little more than a methodological veneer, disguising \\ninadequate attention to research design. This observation is certainly not \\nrestricted to GTM, but it is compounded by its popularity, since there are \\nso many more research papers and other outputs than is the case for other \\nmethods. There is, consequently, more scope for ambiguities and misun-\\nderstandings in statements regarding GTM, particularly since advocates of \\n\\n\\nGTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS\\n11\\ndifferent variants do not always couch their arguments in the clearest and \\nmost respectful manner. Judith Holton (CD:20) quotes Nagel et al. (2015), \\nwho note that novice GTM researchers have to weave their way\\nthrough a myriad of paths in a landscape of varied and divergent perspec-\\ntives … differences of opinion … differing paradigmatic inclinations or lack of \\nagreement amongst established GT methods and procedures (p. 366) … [this \\nconfusion is compounded by the] … lack of respect for alternate approaches \\nwithin [the] GT community, terminology varied and fluid, slurring of methods \\nbetween approaches (p. 369).\\nIt must be noted, however, that the phrase ‘fluid, slurring of methods’ is \\nused here in a pejorative manner, which is unfortunate and unwelcome \\nsince it is important to respect alternative methodological positions, and to \\nencourage and foster methodological sensitivity as part of research practice – \\nsee Rapoport’s rules below.\\nIn too many cases, however, those assessing and evaluating research \\nproposals and publications appear to have little or no familiarity with \\nGTM. Often their assessments exhibit various prejudices that preclude \\nclear and cogent assessment and evaluation. Given that GTM has been \\nin use for more than 50 years, this is a severe failing on the part of aca-\\ndemic gate-keepers. There is now, however, a growing recognition of this \\nissue, with some GTM writers presenting guidelines to assist gate-keepers in \\ntheir deliberations, and advice for those submitting their work to pre-empt \\nwhat I have termed ‘a strange hostility’ to GTM. For instance, the summary \\ntables in my recent book (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 18) aimed specifically at \\nresearch students, GTM-researchers, research assessors, PhD examiners, \\njournal editors, and reviewers.\\nRapoport’s four rules\\nThe period immediately following publication of Discovery witnessed a \\ngradual advance in knowledge, use, and teaching of GTM as graduates from \\nthe doctoral program at UCSF moved out into the academic field, both \\nin the USA and elsewhere – particularly in Germany. But it was only in \\nthe 1990s that its influence grew by several orders of magnitude, largely \\nthrough publication of Strauss’s (1987) work, and his subsequent work \\nwith Juliet Corbin (Strauss & Corbin, 1990 & 1998). Since then GTM has \\ndeveloped, resulting in several variants of the method (see below), and it \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n12\\nbehoves all those writing about GTM to ensure that they offer clear and \\nbalanced accounts of these alternatives.\\nIf one’s position is largely derived from one specific perspective, this \\nshould be made clear, with respectful attention drawn to the ways in which \\nother accounts differ, ensuring that any rebuttal or criticism only takes place \\nafter the opposing position has been expressed clearly and accurately, together \\nwith key points that are common to both and anything that has been learned \\nfrom the differing view.\\nThis proviso is a critical concern, and all those writing about and teaching \\nGTM need to consider the impact their critical comments may have on those \\nseeking clarification and guidance. I deliberately opened my recent book on \\nGTM quoting Rapoport’s four rules regarding how to write a successful critical \\ncommentary on someone’s work. They are worth quoting in full.\\n1.\\t\\nFirst, he said, you must attempt to re-express your opponent’s position so \\nclearly, vividly, and fairly that your opponent says ‘Thanks, I wish I’d thought \\nof putting it that way’.\\n2.\\t\\nThen, you should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not \\nmatters of general or widespread agreement).\\n3.\\t\\nThird, you should mention anything you have learned from your opponent.\\n4.\\t\\nOnly then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or \\n \\ncriticism. (Bryant, 2017, p. ix)\\nI have sought to ensure that this monograph adheres to these precepts, \\nalbeit that I take issue with various writers, including some of those who \\nhave contributed to Current Developments (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019). I offer \\nmy apologies to anyone who feels poorly treated in this extended discus-\\nsion, but trust that any differences can be discussed if not resolved in a \\nfruitful and respectful manner.\\nAfter Discovery – first and second generations \\nand beyond\\nWriting in the early 1990s, 25 years after Discovery, Strauss and Corbin \\nobserved that\\n… no inventor has permanent possession of the invention – certainly not even \\nits name – and furthermore we would not wish to do so. No doubt we will \\nalways prefer the later versions of grounded theory that are closest to or elabo-\\nrate our own, but a child once launched is very much subject to a combination \\nof its origins and the evolving contingencies of life. Can it be otherwise with a \\nmethodology? (Strauss & Corbin, 1994, p. 283)\\n\\n\\nGTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS\\n13\\nTwenty-five years later, and given the popularity of the method, it is not \\nsurprising that there has been a burgeoning of texts and other resources \\non the method itself, together with an enormous number of completed \\nPhDs and larger research projects across a growing number of disciplines. \\nGlaser has continued to publish his own texts as well as establishing and \\nencouraging initiatives such as The Grounded Theory Institute,6 which offers \\nsupport \\nand \\nvisibility \\nto \\nGTM \\nresearchers, \\nincluding \\ndoctoral \\nstudents. \\nJuliet \\nCorbin has published two further editions of Basics of Qualitative Research \\n(Corbin \\n& \\nStrauss, \\n2008 \\n& \\n2015), \\nwhile \\nKathy \\nCharmaz \\nhas \\nproduced \\na \\nsecond \\n \\nedition of Constructing Grounded Theory (2014a, 3rd edition in preparation), \\nas well as significant writings that address issues of social justice from a \\nGTM perspective. I have published Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing \\n(Bryant, 2017), drawing on the work of many of my PhD students over the \\nyears, and explicitly addressing the Pragmatist orientation in the method. \\nOther developments in the method can be found in the work of Clarke’s \\nSituational Analysis (2005, 2015; Clarke et al., 2017), and Morse et al. \\n(2009 & 2016) have addressed the ways in which GTM has moved on to a \\nsecond generation, offering an account of GTM that includes contribu-\\ntions from six key grounded theorists who all worked with and/or studied \\nunder Strauss.\\nThese works, in many cases authored by contributors to the two \\nHandbooks, have developed and enhanced GTM since the 1990s, when \\nStrauss and Corbin made their point about the ‘evolving contingencies’. \\nThese variations and developments can be bewildering to those with lit-\\ntle or no familiarity with GTM, but they are testimony to the vitality and \\nimportance of the method. It would be a far more serious indictment if \\nGTM had failed to produce new variants and off-shoots since Discovery.\\nStrauss, Glaser, and Quint-Benoliel comprise the first generation \\nof grounded theorists; Morse et al. are key figures from the second gen-\\neration (see Morse et al., 2009 & 2016), together with their ‘cousins’ \\nin the German-speaking tradition. The situation now is significantly \\nmore complex and diverse, with several variants, leading to a situa-\\ntion where it is important to distinguish between the ‘essences’ and the \\n‘accidents’ of GTM (see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 4). Katja Mruck and Günter \\nMey (CD:23) argue that one can characterize GTM approaches in terms of \\ngeneration, background, and epistemology. Joanna Crossman and Hiroko \\nNoma (CD:29) note that Charmaz ‘has argued that the cultural, economic, \\nhistorical, political and geographic conditions of the United States have \\ndetermined the logic, values, epistemological assumptions and worldview \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n14\\nthat influence the kinds of problems investigated and the research ques-\\ntions posed within grounded theory’, and has also contended that the \\ngrounded theory method itself reflects the economic, social, and historical \\nconditions in the US in the early 1960s.\\nCrossman and Noma go on to argue that it is ironic that ‘few scholars \\nhave explored the cultural assumptions that underpin the methodology \\nitself’, given that GTM incorporates a call to study phenomena in situ. \\nThey see this as part of a wider strategy to investigate ‘the implications of \\nglobalization and more specifically, internationalization, for the teaching, \\nlearning, practice and development of grounded theory’. They also refer to \\nRalph, Birks, and Chapman (2015), who\\nargue that a contemporaneous interpretation of grounded theory is depend-\\nent upon prevailing forces that shape societal views about the world and \\nultimately, the ontological and epistemological assumptions of the researcher. \\nOver time, changing circumstances and the responsiveness of grounded \\ntheorists to them, affect methodological consumerism, or more specifically, \\nthe extent to which communities become receptive to variants of grounded \\ntheory.\\nThese early statements were further developed as part of the doctoral \\nprogram at UCSF. Given that this group of researchers and the first genera-\\ntion of students included Anselm Strauss, Barney Glaser, Virginia Olesen, \\nPatrick Biernacki, Kathy Charmaz, Phyllis Stern, Carolyn Wiener, Juliet \\nCorbin, and Adele Clarke, among others, it is not surprising that a rich \\nvariety of articulations and examples of the method-in-use arose in this \\nperiod. Taken together, they attest to the vibrancy and vitality that the \\nmethod engendered among a talented and articulate subgroup within the \\nlarger research community. Discovery itself had enormous impact on new \\nscholars, who embraced it as justification for conducting inductive quali-\\ntative research. A paucity of such developments would have indicated that \\nGlaser and Strauss’s manifesto had fallen on deaf ears or was ill-founded \\nand unworthy of further consideration.7\\nGrounded theory before Discovery\\nIt is important to stress the originality of GTM, but its precursors must also \\nbe recognized, albeit discussing them in no way diminishes the pioneer-\\ning work of Strauss, Glaser, and Quint. We need to understand how earlier \\n\\n\\nGTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS\\n15\\nwork was influential and, in some cases, re-fashioned and incorporated \\ninto GTM. This, together with re-evaluation of the importance of Quint’s \\nrole, amounts to a re-discovery or re-construction of the history and devel-\\nopment of GTM.\\nOne feature of this has been the increasing attention paid to studies \\nwith which Strauss was involved before he teamed up with Glaser (see \\nFlick, CD:6). For example, in Awareness (1965b) reference is made to the \\npioneering study of medical training, Boys in White (Becker et al., 1961), \\nwith a footnote on page 4 referring to the realization that the standard \\ntraining of medical students failed to address the issue of how to interact \\nwith dying patients and their relatives. (For younger readers, in those \\nunenlightened times boys became doctors, girls were, for the most part, \\nchannelled into nursing.) This realization was ‘the result of a secondary \\nanalysis of field-notes from a study of Kansas Medical School published \\nas Boys in White’ (Becker et al., 1961). Other examples include Psychiatric \\nIdeologies and Institutions (Strauss, 1964), and ‘The hospital and its negoti-\\nated order’ (Strauss et al., 1963).\\nStrauss’s background as a leading exponent of the ‘Chicago School of \\nSociology’ was key to his development, and that of GTM. Many writers \\nhave commented on this, but rarely go further in their analysis. Alvin \\nGouldner (1973), a colleague of Strauss, writing in the 1970s, made \\nsome important observations regarding Strauss’s intellectual formation. \\nStrauss is listed together with Howard Becker and Erving Goffman as \\nexemplifying ‘the purest vein of Romanticism8 in American sociology’. \\nFor Gouldner, Romanticism embodied a trend in thought that rebelled \\nagainst ‘disciplined conformity to … received and impersonal rules’ \\n(1973, p. 327). Initially this stance was purely dogmatic, lacking any \\n‘rationale of a new language or a new logic’. Gouldner traces this trend \\nthrough the development of European social thought, noting that the \\nRomantics and the Positivists shared an antipathy towards traditional \\nforms of authority. The former seeking a new basis in the imagination, \\nand the latter in science. Seeing a congruence between Romanticism \\nand Positivism is highly unusual, but Gouldner’s argument is notewor-\\nthy and persuasive.\\nHaving postulated this link between ‘imagination’ (Romanticism) and \\n‘science’ (Positivism), Gouldner characterizes GTM, through Strauss, as \\nseeking to combine the strengths of both. He argues that\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n16\\nStrauss (together with B. Glaser) [who] has spoken for the merits of ‘data-grounded \\ntheory’ [sic!] [the method being] primarily a polemic against deductive, formal \\nstyles of sociological theorizing and an argument for inductive theorizing – once \\nagain revealing the paradoxical but abiding affinity of certain forms of Positivism \\nand Romanticism. (Gouldner, 1973, p. 345, see online version)\\nGouldner quotes Strauss describing Romanticism in the hands of \\n \\nG. H. Mead, who stripped it of its ‘mysticism’ and gave it ‘biological and \\nscientific traits’, providing the basis for prying open ‘the deterministic \\nframework of modern science’ restating ‘problems of autonomy, freedom \\nand innovation’ (1973, p. 348).\\nHere is an intimation of the tension in early GTM, between imagination \\non the one hand, and a positivist view of science on the other, also drawing \\nattention to the Pragmatist and emancipatory predispositions in GTM that \\nare now more widely understood. All built upon Glaser and Strauss’s con-\\ncern to delegitimize the existing hierarchy in US social science. Charmaz’s \\n(2000) delineation between ‘objectivist’ and ‘constructivist’ forms of \\nGTM can be seen as a restatement and enhancement of Gouldner’s earlier \\nanalysis, but her demarcation necessarily places greater emphasis on the \\nimaginative aspects in the light of the critiques of ‘normal science’, posi-\\ntivism, and ‘scientism’ that have gained ground and significance since the \\n1960s. The incorporation of ‘imagination’ into social theorizing opens the \\nway for abduction, integrating Peirce (1986, 1992) and Mead (1934, 1959 \\n[1932]), and the Pragmatism of Dewey (1929, 1938) and James (2000), with \\nGTM (see below).\\nThere are then strong ties between Chicago School sociology and GTM. \\nBut GTM also encompasses Glaser’s contribution, and through him, aspects \\nof the social theorizing from Columbia University in New York in the \\nimmediate post-war period. Again, Gouldner offers useful insights, referring \\nto Paul Lazarsfeld, a key influence on Glaser. For Gouldner in the 1970s, \\nLazarsfeld was ‘surely the dean of social science methodologists in the \\nUnited States today’, yet his (Lazarsfeld’s) position was that social scientists \\nshould not be guided first and foremost by ‘formal canons of science’ but \\nby ‘the implicit rules and procedures which successful social scientists tacitly \\nemploy and embody in their researches’ (Gouldner, 1973, p. 355, emphasis \\nin original). Gouldner argues that Lazarsfeld viewed social science research \\nproceeding ‘on the basis of (at first) inarticulate operational rules and often \\nineffable information or experience’ (emphasis added). The ‘inarticulateness \\n \\n\\n\\nGTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS\\n17\\nof the creative … needs to be rendered articulate’. Gouldner concludes that \\nwhile the ‘sociological theorists at Chicago University were more Romantic \\nthat those at Columbia University, it may be that the statistical methodologists \\nat Columbia University were more Romantic than those elsewhere’ (p. 356). \\nGouldner effectively provides an outline lineage for GTM: Romanticism \\nreinterpreted by Mead, drawing on John Dewey and Pragmatism, combined \\nwith a methodological view of creativity via Lazarsfeld.\\nIt is crucial, however, to understand that, while making these associa-\\ntions, I am not arguing that such precursors explain, anticipate, or devalue \\nthe innovations of GTM. On the contrary, in many respects Strauss and \\nGlaser specifically turned against or re-invented key aspects of their respec-\\ntive intellectual influences. Strauss certainly built on the work of Mead and \\nother Chicago sociologists, often re-orienting or revising some key aspects. \\nFor instance, as Jörg Strübing argues (CD:2):\\nIn shifting the Blumerian emphasis from symbolic interaction towards a more \\nmaterial view of sociality as situated activity, and thereby blurring the somewhat \\nartificial separation of action from structure, Strauss both established a strictly \\nanti-dualistic view of the social and showed the dynamic tension between doubt \\nand belief to be the mover of human activity.\\nRe-constructing the history of GTM: Archaeology  \\nand genealogy\\nThis trend of re-invention or enhancement has continued as GTM has \\ndeveloped, producing a rich diversity. Thus, Strübing contends that Strauss \\nretained and strengthened the link to Pragmatism that Blumer had undone; \\nbut it is only in more recent times that this link and its ramifications for \\nGTM have been discussed and articulated.\\nIn similar vein, Gregory Hadley (CD:28) points out that Theodor \\nAdorno denounced Lazarsfeld’s preference for simply describing life as \\nit is, without also suggesting how it should be, resulting in ‘a bourgeois \\nsociology reinforcing the domination inherent in society’ (quoting \\nGibson, 2007, p. 438).9 Hadley notes that similar criticism was raised \\nagainst Symbolic Interactionism, and later directed at GTM itself by \\nLayder (1993) and Burawoy (1991), who argued that Grounded Theorists, \\nclaiming to let the data speak for itself, are merely supporting the status \\nquo. Hadely quotes Kincheloe and McLaren (2000) who explain that \\ntheoretical descriptions ‘are not simply about the world but serve to \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n18\\nconstruct it … language in the form of discourses serves as a form of reg-\\nulation and domination (2000, p. 284)’. The recent work relating GTM \\nto issues around social justice and inequality can then be understood as \\nconsciously remedying this omission or inattention in earlier grounded \\ntheories. Charmaz has led the way in attending to these concerns, and, \\ncontrary to the sorts of criticism of Layder and Burawoy, argues that \\nGTM, through its lineage with Symbolic Interaction and Pragmatism, \\ninherently encompasses issues of social justice and critical inquiry, a \\ntheme developed by Duckles et al. (CD:31), explicitly taking their lead \\nfrom recent work by Charmaz (2017a).\\nTaken together this provides the basis for a genealogy for GTM, under-\\nstood in Nietzsche’s philosophical sense, later developed by Foucault. \\nGenealogy is not the investigation of a glorious past culminating in the \\npresent, but rather something that is complex, mundane, and contingent. \\nThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) refers to this as follows:\\nFoucault intended the term ‘genealogy’ to evoke Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals, \\nparticularly with its suggestion of complex, mundane, inglorious origins – in no \\nway part of any grand scheme of progressive history. The point of a genealogical \\nanalysis is to show that a given system of thought (itself uncovered in its essential \\nstructures by archaeology, which therefore remains part of Foucault’s historiogra-\\nphy) was the result of contingent turns of history, not the outcome of rationally \\ninevitable trends. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d. – entry on genealogy)\\nSeveral chapters in both Handbooks (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007a & 2019) \\noffer accounts of how GTM developed, and, in many instances, they extend \\nits history to the period before publication of Awareness and Discovery. \\nThese accounts amount to an archaeology of GTM in Foucault’s sense, \\nwith different archaeologists coming up with differing accounts, albeit with \\nextensive areas of agreement and mutual support. In so doing, the gene-\\nalogy of GTM is further clarified. Gouldner offers an early example; later \\nones focus on what we now understand to be key issues for GTM – e.g. \\n \\nthe role and nature of what was meant by ‘induction’ in the early works, the \\n \\ninfluence of Pragmatism, the relationship to Symbolic Interaction, and \\n \\nthe contingencies that brought Quint, Strauss, and Glaser together at UCSF.\\nThis all contributes to a ‘re-construction’ of the history of GTM, with \\nthe proviso that all histories are understood to be constructions in one way \\nor another (see Bryant et al., 2013; Maines et al., 1983; Mead, 1959 [1932]). \\n\\n\\nGTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS\\n19\\nCritically this re-construction needs to incorporate the ways in which our \\ncurrent understanding of GTM differs from people’s understanding at the \\ntime of its first articulation, and at various points in the 50+ years since its \\nappearance. We can all benefit from engaging in a dialogue with those ear-\\nlier statements, building upon them and adding new insights. Inevitably \\nthis will involve some challenges to the ‘received wisdom’, just as Glaser \\nand Strauss’s original work challenged the orthodoxy of the 1960s.\\nOnce we move beyond the work of Quint, Glaser, and Strauss in the \\n1960s things get more complex. The initial corpus of work and teaching \\nof the method was located at UCSF, although not all those in the initial \\ncohort of the PhD programme completed PhDs using GTM, and of those \\nwho did, only a few later undertook GTM-oriented research. Quint went on \\nto build upon the work on dying, incorporating it into professional nursing \\npractices and helping to establish what we now understand as terminal/\\nhospice care. Glaser’s role at UCSF was confined to teaching the grounded \\ntheory seminars.10 He also produced his key text Theoretical Sensitivity \\n(1978) in this period. Only in the 1990s did he take on a higher GTM pro-\\nfile, including publishing, teaching, and mentoring – activities with which \\nhe continues to be deeply involved.\\nStrauss was the key promulgator of GTM in the 1970s and 1980s, lec-\\nturing and publishing widely. He ran several GTM studies with former \\ndoctoral students (e.g. Fagerhaugh, Suczek, and Weiner), and worked \\nwith Juliet Corbin in 1980 when she was a doctoral student in nursing. \\nShe collaborated with Strauss until his death in 1996. Corbin and Strauss \\npublished widely during the 1980s, including Unending Work and Care: \\nManaging Chronic Illness at Home (1988). Their collaboration led to pub-\\nlication of Basics of Qualitative Research in 1990. At the same time, the \\nGerman-speaking GTM tradition was flourishing – see below.\\nTogether with mention of Quint’s contribution, the ways in which \\nthe work of Strauss and his colleagues in Chicago can be seen as nascent \\nGTM studies has been noted, although this is in no way to disparage or \\nminimize Glaser’s contribution. Identifying the antecedents is at best a \\ncase of establishing the necessary but not sufficient conditions for the \\ndevelopment of GTM. On the other hand, in some of his recent writ-\\nings, Glaser seems to be offering his own re-construction of the history \\nof GTM. In an article that first appeared in The Grounded Theory Review in \\n2014, he wrote as follows:\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n20\\nIn this book I am writing about only the application of classic GT as I originated \\nit in 1967 in which the concepts of a GT theory are abstract of time, place, and \\npeople. (Glaser, 2014, emphasis added)\\nIt may be that this is overstatement rather than a claim to be the sole origi-\\nnator of the method, but as it stands it is highly misleading.\\nOne key statement re-constructing the history of GTM is the article \\nby Strauss and Corbin in the first edition of The Handbook of Qualitative \\nResearch in 1994. The authors noted that it had taken more than 20 \\nyears for the US sociological establishment to appreciate the ‘strong \\nrationale’ for qualitative research lying at the core of GTM from its \\n \\nearliest embodiments. For Strauss and Corbin there was the danger – in \\nthe mid-1990s – that GTM would become fashionable and ‘would later \\nbe seen as old-hat’.\\nGTM in Germany11\\nStrauss held many visiting posts in Europe from the mid-1950s onwards, \\nbut his first visit to Germany in the aftermath of publication of Discovery \\nwas in 1975, when he was invited, by Thomas Luckmann, to spend time \\nat the University of Konstanz as a researcher. There he met, among others, \\nHans Georg Soeffner. Soeffner spent time with Strauss at UCSF in the late \\n1980s and early 1990s, collaborating with Strauss and colleagues, including \\nJeff Froner, Susan Leigh Star, and Adele Clarke, on a research project about \\n‘illegals’ in the Bay Area.\\nIn the late 1970s Fritz Schütze visited Strauss in San Francisco; so too \\ndid Gerd Riemann (University of Kassel), Richard Grathoff (Bielefeld) and \\nBruno Hildenbrand (Konstanz). Udo Kelle (personal communication) \\nnotes, however, that at this time ‘Glaser and Strauss were more widely \\nknown among medical sociologists for their work on interaction with \\ndying patients than for their methodological writings’. Hence one of the \\nearliest references to Glaser and Strauss’s work in Germany appears in \\n \\nthe paper by Uta Gerhardt in 1976 ‘Krankenkarriere und Existenzbelastung’ \\n(‘Healthcare and the burden of existence’).\\nKelle also notes that the initial dissemination of Glaser and Strauss’s \\nmethodological work, in 1979, was the German translation of their \\n1965 paper ‘Discovery of substantive theory: A basic strategy underly-\\ning qualitative research’, originally published in American Behavioural \\n\\n\\nGTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS\\n21\\nScientist (Glaser & Strauss, 1965a). The translation appeared in Qualitative \\nSozialforschung, edited by Christel Hopf and Elmar Weingarten, with \\nthe title ‘Die Entdeckung gegenstandsbezogener Theorie’. Kelle points \\nout that throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s GTM was referred \\nto in Germany as ‘gegenstandsbezogene Theoriebildung or gegenstandsnahe \\nTheoriebildung (the original German translation for “substantive theory” \\nbuilding)’.\\nIn 1982 Soeffner, Grathoff, and Schütze invited Strauss to Germany for \\na study visit, where he met Jo Reichertz. During this visit he produced\\na Study Letter for the students of sociology of the FernUniversität Hagen with \\nthe title: Qualitative analysis in social research: Grounded theory methodology: \\nStudy Letter, University Hagen. It was an early version of Qualitative Analysis for \\nSocial Scientists (Strauss, 1987). For some years I used to be the tutor of this \\ncourse. (Reichertz, personal communication)\\nA German translation of Strauss’s 1987 book appeared in 1991, edited \\nby Hildenbrand, and a German edition of Strauss and Corbin’s book \\nfollowed in 1996. But as Strübing points out, Strauss’s work was already \\nwell known in Germany, based on the 1968 translation of ‘his early \\nmasterpiece’ Mirrors and Masks (Strauss, 1959). Among German sociolo-\\ngists Spiegel und Masken was the key text for understanding issues of \\nidentity and interaction, ahead of Goffman’s work Presentation of Self in \\nEveryday Life (1959).\\nConstructing grounded theories – GTM as a \\nmethod-in-use\\nOne aspect of the history of GTM that is critically unarticulated is the \\nway in which the progenitors worked. The early GTM research projects \\ninvolved all three, and Awareness, Discovery, and Time were produced \\ncollaboratively by Glaser and Strauss (1965b, 1967, 1968). Yet they never \\noffered any extensive discussion of how this collaboration developed and \\noperated. A brief hint appears in Status Passage, their only jointly pro-\\nduced formal grounded theory. Describing their method for ‘Generating \\nFormal Theory’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1971, Chapter 9, pp. 192–193), they \\nnote that:\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n22\\nBecause so much relevant data and theory was ‘in us’ from our previous work, \\nthe principal mode used to generate theory was to talk out our comparisons \\nin lengthy conversations, and either record the conversation or take notes. \\n \\nWe … studied relevant literature for more data and theory. These conversa-\\ntions went on almost five days a week for three months. At this time we gave \\nup in exhaustion, and with the realization that we could begin to write it all \\nup. (emphasis added)\\nIt would be interesting to know more about their working practices. \\nStrauss’s earlier experiences and observations, and later his six months of \\npreliminary fieldwork, shaped the initial analysis of the social organiza-\\ntion of death and dying (see Glaser & Strauss, 1965b, pp. 286–287). Glaser \\njoined the project five months after it received funding, and they soon \\nworked out concepts concerning death-expectations and awareness. The \\ndata relied on observations and interviews, and perhaps other resources, \\nalthough it is not clear how much of the data collection they did them-\\nselves. Moreover, there is little indication of how they worked on the data. \\nThey seem to have recorded their discussions in developing Status Passage, \\nso did they do likewise in developing Awareness and Time; if so, did this \\ninvolve only the two of them? How did they analyze their data? Did they \\neach code the same data separately and then meet to discuss their indi-\\nvidual findings, or did they work things out together from scratch? What \\nhappened if they differed in their analyses? Do their field-notes or memos \\nsurvive in any form?\\nIn the 2007 volume, the chapter by Carolyn Wiener (2007) focused \\nspecifically on team-working, offering an account of how some of the early \\ndoctoral graduates at UCSF worked with Strauss on several major projects. \\nHer account gives a glimpse of how Strauss worked with others, both aca-\\ndemic colleagues and former doctoral students.\\nAccounts and insights into how research is actually carried out are \\nfew-and-far-between, which is unfortunate since it gives free rein to the \\nstereotype of the lone, usually male, researcher, reinforced in films, books, \\nplays, awards of international prizes, and so on. Early-career researchers, \\nand PhD students in particular, often feel isolated and in need of guidance, \\nnot only from experienced advisors and supervisors, but also from those \\nwho are only a few steps ahead of them in their development. In recent \\nyears, students’ accounts have appeared (e.g. Bryant, 2017, Chapter 19), \\nand various forms of research workshop provide a forum for such interac-\\ntions. Yet it is ironic and unfortunate that the process of researching in all \\n\\n\\nGTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS\\n23\\nits various forms is itself so under-researched. In particular, wider recogni-\\ntion and understanding of the ways in which researchers work together \\nneed to be developed, undermining the mistaken assumption that research \\nis for the most part a one-man [sic] endeavour.\\nFor GTM specifically, there is the issue of the role of the supervisor/\\nadvisor at various stages of doctoral research. Glaser has made continu-\\nous use of Phyllis Stern’s term ‘minus mentoring’, i.e. where PhD students, \\naiming to use GTM, are supervised by staff with little or no understanding \\nof the method, or, even worse, a highly imperfect and ill-informed one. \\nThis applies across all methods, but with regard to GTM it seems to be par-\\nticularly problematic. I am aware of cases where students have been told \\nerroneously that (a) they cannot use GTM as ‘they have already read the lit-\\nerature’, (b) they need clear research questions and hypotheses at the start \\nof their research, (c) that their coding is ‘incorrect’, and that their advisor \\nhas a ‘better understanding’ of the data.\\nOne problem with the term ‘discovery’, coupled with an often unstated \\nbut influential objectivist epistemology, is that it can lead to a view that \\nthe grounded theory resulting from use of GTM in a research project could \\nindeed have been discovered by any researcher with the requisite skills. \\nThus, an advisor assisting, guiding or even correcting a doctoral student in \\ntheir coding might be thought to be acting legitimately and helpfully since \\nthe codes, concepts, and theory are already embryonically in the data.\\nAs Gouldner noted in 1973, GTM is at least as much about ‘imagina-\\ntion’ and creativity as it is about ‘science’. This tension between ‘discovery’ \\nand ‘creativity’ is a generic one. Charles Darwin is credited with the discov-\\nery of evolution via natural selection, but it is now understood that Alfred \\nRussel Wallace was an independent co-discoverer. Yet if neither Darwin nor \\nWallace had completed and published their research, someone else would \\nhave arrived at these conclusions. Similarly, Einstein is credited with dis-\\ncovering relativity, but had he not done so, others would have, based on \\nthe earlier and highly regarded work of Lorentz and other theoretical physi-\\ncists. Contrast this with Mozart’s music or Shakespeare’s plays; if neither \\nhad produced their various works, no one else would or could have done \\nso. Grounded theories are a balanced combination of ‘imagination’ and ‘sci-\\nence’. They should offer new and useful insights, the outcome of creative \\nimaginings, albeit ones produced rigorously and transparently – abductively.\\nConsequently, any research mentor should refrain from active engage-\\nment with GTM-researchers, over-mentoring, as they develop their codes \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n24\\nand later analysis, simultaneously ensuring that those being mentored \\nare aware of the intricacies of employing specific methods, and the need \\nfor all researchers to develop and constantly enhance their methodological \\nsensitivity (see below).\\nFrom a constructivist/interpretivist perspective, GTM-oriented research is \\na continuing and developing dialogue between researchers and the data. For \\ndoctoral and other early-career researchers, this dialogue also involves others, \\nsuch as advisors, a term that encompasses ‘promoters’, ‘Directors of Studies’, \\nand ‘supervisors’. But these exchanges need to avoid both minus mentoring \\nand over-mentoring. Recognition that GTM, or more correctly grounded theo-\\nrizing, demands this balance leads to the understanding that conceptualizing \\nis a skill that has to be learned, and can only be accomplished through exten-\\nsive practice and trial-and-error. The dialogue then includes mentors, but \\ntheir role is to facilitate the dialogue, and not intervene as a (full) participant \\nin their mentee’s work. Crossman and Noma (CD:29) focus on key aspects \\nof mentoring. In particular, they point to the need to research into the ways \\nin which ‘students of grounded theory navigate the tricky spaces of their \\nresearch’. Some are able to ‘learn their craft … in mentored relationships \\nwith other qualitative researchers and in the best of circumstances, seasoned \\ngrounded theorists’. But what can be done to assist those not so fortunate?\\nGTM and the interpretative turn\\nGTM appeared in the 1960s, coinciding with the interpretative turn, \\nalthough it was only with Charmaz’s writing in the 1990s that the two \\nwere brought together in any coherent, persuasive, and systematic man-\\nner. Clarke (CD:1) describes this orientation as follows:\\n•\\t\\nMeaning is re-located from ‘reality out there’ to ‘reality as experienced \\nby the perceiver’;\\n•\\t\\nAn observer is assumed to inevitably be a participant in what is observed, \\nmore or less reflexive;\\n•\\t\\nInterpretations are not universal but must be located and situated in \\nspace and time;\\n•\\t\\nCultures are best understood as unevenly changing assemblages of \\n \\ndistinctive symbols and signifying practices;\\n•\\t\\nInterpretation per se is conditioned by historic cultural perspectives \\nand mediated by symbols and practices.\\n\\n\\nGTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS\\n25\\nIn essence, using Rorty’s (1999) succinct paraphrase, for interpretivism/\\nconstructivism truth is made, whereas for positivists or objectivists truth \\nis discovered. Glaser and Strauss’s Discovery can now be seen perhaps as an \\nunfortunate misnomer, albeit that the title confronted the orthodoxy of \\nthe time: ‘discovery’ implying that the ‘proletarian researchers’ could and \\nshould develop their own concepts, challenging the ‘theoretical capital-\\nists’ in their academic redoubts. In contrast, by the 1990s Charmaz was \\ndeveloping and articulating the constructivist view of GTM, culminating \\nin Constructing Grounded Theory (2006), which can be seen as a cogent and \\ngenuinely innovative re-statement of the method, fully engaged with and \\nincorporating the interpretative turn.\\nThere were, however, premonitions of this even in the 1960s. \\nLeonard Schatzman, who worked with Strauss in Chicago and at UCSF, \\nwas responsible for the UCSF course on field methods. Students took \\nthis in preparation for the GTM courses taught first by Glaser and later \\nby Strauss. Schatzman interacted with the teachers and students at UCSF \\nfor many years, continuing the tradition of the Chicago School, offering \\nstudents the opportunity to discuss their work from its earliest stages \\nwith their peers and others.\\nJane Gilgun quotes Marianne McCarthy, who participated in a group \\nindependent study with Schatzman: ‘The group independent study was \\nwonderful. … We worked as a group, critiqued each others’ fieldnotes and \\neach others’ memos’ (Gilgun, 1993). Schatzman’s method of Dimensional \\nAnalysis was developed in response to GTM, partly to support students \\nwho found GTM hard going. ‘The method Strauss teaches and Glaser \\nteaches is very, very difficult. … It simply is not easy to grasp’ (Gilgun, \\n1993). Although to an extent Schatzman’s method might be seen as too \\nprescriptive, it encouraged students to work within an interpretive perspec-\\ntive, developing what I have termed methodological sensitivity.\\nMethodological sensitivity can be defined as the skill or aptitude required \\nby researchers in selecting, combining, and employing methods, tech-\\nniques, and tools in actual research situations. Researchers can and need to \\ndevelop this skill as a result of a combination of:\\n•\\t\\nguidance from and working with other researchers;\\n•\\t\\ninsightful study of available research methods, techniques, and tools;\\n•\\t\\nand learning from their own experience. (See Bryant, 2017, Chapter 2)\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n26\\nHadley (CD:28) argues that Schatzman developed Dimensional Analysis \\nas a partial form of GTM, but one that ‘nevertheless anticipated the next \\nturn that took place in GT, which was to understand social reality as more \\nelastic’, partly anticipating Charmaz’s constructivist form. Kearney (2007, \\np. 129) noted that Strauss described his first large-scale research ven-\\nture, Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions (1964), where Schatzman was a \\nco-author, as ‘virtually a grounded theory study, but only implicitly so’.\\nHadley (CD:28) echoes Gouldner in stating that this development \\ncharacterizes coding as ‘less a question of scientific technique and more \\nof an intuitive art developed according to the researcher’s individual tal-\\nents, worldview, and temperament’. Interestingly, he sees this development \\ntaken further in Clarke’s Situational Analysis, ‘a postmodern, relativist \\nGrounded Theory, similar to Charmaz (2006, 2014a), [that] highlights \\nthe process of theorizing over the product of theory’ (Hadley’s emphasis). \\nSchatzman commended Glaser and Strauss for their contribution in articu-\\nlating GTM, simultaneously challenging others to do likewise. ‘Their great \\ncontribution was to push us into making methodological commitments \\nwhich historically we did not do’ (quoted in Gilgun, 1993). But he also saw \\nhow these methodological statements could solidify and so become barriers \\nto researchers’ efforts at constructing theoretical insights; i.e. being treated \\nas algorithms rather than as heuristics (see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 2).\\nThere are various ways of describing the different forms of GTM, and \\nhow they relate to one another. For instance, we can identify the canonical \\nworks of Glaser and Strauss in the 1960s, from which three main variants \\nhave developed, exemplified by:\\n1.\\t\\nStrauss and Corbin’s writings, particularly those from the 1990s;\\n2.\\t\\nGlaser’s writings, particularly those from the 1990s;\\n3.\\t\\nThe constructivist writings of Charmaz (2000, 2006, 2014a) and later Bryant \\n(2002, 2017) beginning in the 1990s.\\nIn addition, and in many cases cutting across these three forms, or inter-\\nsecting with at least one of them, are approaches such as Clarke’s Situational \\nAnalysis (2005; Clarke et al., 2017).\\nJo Reichertz (CD:13), however, refers to ‘at least five different varieties \\nwhich are arranged consecutively, suggesting one may also talk about vari-\\nous phases of its development or about different generations of Grounded \\nTheory’. In order these are:\\n\\n\\nGTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS\\n27\\n1.\\t\\n‘Inductively oriented’ GT – i.e. as evidenced in Glaser and Strauss’s earliest \\nwritings in the 1960s, but also including Glaser’s later writings since they \\nmaintain the stance of ‘the researcher [remaining] passive … which leads to \\nthe reasonable objection that this approach is ingrained with Positivism’.\\n2.\\t\\n‘Classic’ GT – i.e. the work of Strauss in the 1980s, and later his earliest \\nempirical work with Corbin: ‘ingrained in American Pragmatics (Peirce, \\nDewey, Mead) … [with] similarities to a (non-reflective) sociology of knowl-\\nedge and to social constructivism’. Here Reichertz uses the term ‘American \\nPragmatics’ as a synonym for Pragmatism. He also deliberately uses the \\nterm ‘classic’ GT with regard to Strauss rather than Glaser, as the former \\nwas already in the early 1960s producing research that can be considered \\nembryonic GT. Glaser now claims the term ‘Classic’ for his variant.\\n3.\\t\\nPrescriptive positivistic ‘code-oriented’ GT – found in the 1990 and 1998 \\neditions of Strauss and Corbin’s Basics of Qualitative Research, and the con-\\nsiderably more open-ended and flexible third and fourth editions (Corbin & \\nStrauss, 2008 & 2015). Reichertz argues that ‘[T]his approach emphasizes \\nprecision, and strongly resembles qualitative analysis of content’. He argues \\nthat this ‘variety of Grounded Theory may most likely be linked to QDA-\\nsoftware, e.g. ATLAS.ti, MAXQDA (Strauss & Corbin 1998; Corbin & Strauss \\n2008 and 2015 – and especially Corbin 2011)’.\\n4.\\t\\nHis fourth type is ‘Constructivist grounded theory (Bryant 2002; Bryant \\n& Charmaz 2007b, 2007c; Charmaz 2006, 2014a; Charmaz & Keller \\n2016), which especially criticizes the inductive approach of the former \\ngrounded theory methodology and moreover critically scrutinizes the \\ncapability of coding routines. This approach (referring to Pragmatism \\nand the concept of abduction) considers research work as a search for \\npatterns and best explanations in making comparisons and interpretations – \\n \\nand hence as a process which is always bound to a perspective and \\nwhich is communicative.’\\n5.\\t\\nFinally, he identifies ‘Postmodern, situative grounded theory (Clarke 2005, \\n2007; Clarke & Keller 2014), which is explicitly not only concerned with \\npeople/social actors and their perspectives but also with artefacts, practices \\nand discourses’.\\nHadley (CD:28) refers to the ‘diversity of practice’ within GTM, which:\\nAn autopoietic perspective of grounded theorization frames is both a structured \\nproduct and an ongoing process. Metaphorically, it is similar to how two aunts \\nmight describe their nephew as ‘a growing boy’. There is a boy (product) who is \\na structured entity, and a boy who is steadily growing (process). In like manner, \\nGrounded Theories are constructions emerging from and supporting the process \\nof ongoing theorization. Each form of theorization energizes the other along the \\nlines of autopoiesis. All share the same genetic code. The value of such diversity \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n28\\nin the way GTM has been construed means that theorists have greater freedom in \\ndetermining which procedures fit best for their paradigmatic, theoretical, and meth-\\nodological perspective. In the process, theories will be generated, constructed, \\ndeconstructed, and reconstructed within a system of dynamic intellectual activ-\\nity. (emphasis added)\\nOne result of this diversity is a bewildering plethora of acronyms, made \\nmore confusing since the same acronym is often used for different variants. \\nFor instance, CGT was widely used in the 2007 edition, and elsewhere, to \\nrefer to Constructivist GT, but it is also now used to refer to Classic GT – i.e. \\nGlaser’s variant (although Reichertz uses the same term to refer to Strauss’s \\nwork in the 1980s) – and also to Critical GT.\\nNotes\\n  1\\t Early in 2017 I was involved in the examination of a PhD in a UK university. The \\ncandidate was a practising nurse, working and researching in a highly reputable \\nnursing department. The thesis was admirable in many respects, but failed to \\nmention Quint in any way, and at the viva voce it was apparent that neither the \\ncandidate nor the supervisory team had any realization of Quint’s importance. \\nNeedless to say, the mild set of revisions required for final award of the doctorate \\nincluded the necessity for inclusion of a clear statement about her role.\\n  2\\t The ways in which women are written out of history is now widely documented, \\nif still not generally acknowledged. Examples include women artists (Parker & \\nPollock, 1981/1995) and women engineers and scientists.\\n  3\\t Parsons posed the rhetorical question ‘Who now reads (Herbert) Spencer?’ in his \\nbook The Structure of Social Action (1937).\\n  4\\t But see Jeffrey C. Alexander (1985), who claimed and revised functionalism in \\nhis book, Neofunctionalism, which gained interest among scholars specializing \\nin sociological theory.\\n  5\\t ‘It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good \\nfortune, must be in want of a wife.’ The opening of Pride and Prejudice, Jane \\nAusten.\\n  6\\t www.groundedtheory.com\\n  7\\t Kathy Charmaz comments, ‘The doctoral program was very small and most of its \\ngraduates did not have academic positions. Jobs were few in Sociology. In con-\\ntrast, Nursing at the doctoral level was opening up and their doctoral students \\nwho were familiar with GT did get jobs.’ (Personal Communication)\\n  8\\t Romanticism is a somewhat vague and multifarious term. The entry in the \\nStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (n.d – entry on Romanticism) notes that \\n‘[D]istinguished scholars, such as Arthur Lovejoy, Northrop Frye and Isaiah \\nBerlin, have remarked on the notorious challenges facing any attempt to define \\nRomanticism. The English Romantic poet offered a succinct summation in Ode on \\na Grecian Urn: ‘“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”—that is all//Ye know on earth, and \\nall ye need to know’. Gouldner’s use of the term is largely rhetorical, contrasting \\n\\n\\nGTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS\\n29\\nRomanticism and Positivism with traditional, authoritative claims to knowledge \\nand insight. (His article is discussed in Bryant, 2017, Chapter 18.)\\n  9\\t The relationship between Adorno and Lazarsfeld was fraught in many respects – \\nsee D. E. Morrison, ‘Kultur and culture: The case of Theodor W. Adorno and Paul \\nF. Lazarsfeld’. Social Research, 45(2), Summer 1978.\\n10\\t Kathy Charmaz notes that earlier expectations for the formation of a School of \\nSocial and Behavioural Sciences at UCSF, with program expansion, never mate-\\nrialized. In the 1970s, Governor Ronald Reagan put sharp constraints on higher \\neducation in California, and sociology was declining nation-wide.\\n11\\t I am extremely grateful to Udo Kelle, Jo Reichertz, and Jörg Strübing for supply-\\ning the information on which this section is based.\\n\\n\\n2\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS  \\nOF GTM\\nDiscussing GTM variants inevitably leads to consideration of the core char-\\nacteristics of the method; I have offered some clarification of this, making \\nthe distinction between the ‘accidents’ and ‘essences’ of GTM (Bryant, \\n2017, Chapter 4, especially Table 4.4). The ‘accidental’ aspects mostly \\nderive from the historical period within which GTM developed, so in time \\nthey should be revised, rectified, or clarified. The ‘essential’ ones are those \\nthat distinguish GTM from other approaches.\\nNot surprisingly, the authors of many of the chapters in Current \\nDevelopments (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019) offer accounts of what they con-\\nsider are the essential features of GTM. For instance, Johnson and Walsh \\n(CD:25) refer to ‘four foundational pillars [of the GT process]: all is data, \\nemergence (of categories, relationships, theory, and research design), con-\\nstant comparative analysis, and theoretical sampling’.\\nThe 2007 Handbook introduced the distinction between the method \\nand the output, using the term GTM for the former and GTs (grounded \\n \\ntheories) \\nfor \\nthe \\nlatter. \\nThis \\nusage \\nhas \\nnow \\nbecome \\nconventional \\nto \\nsome \\nextent, \\nincluding use of the acronym GTM, although the term ‘Grounded Theory’ \\nunderstandably continues to be used both with reference to the outcome \\nand the method; the context usually clarifies the actual meaning. Strübing, \\nhowever, takes issue with this distinction (email correspondence with author).\\nI have strong objections regarding the partial renaming of GT into GTM. In \\nyour paper you state that GT would be a ‘misnomer’. That is not the case. \\nIt is actually an oxymoron that carries the meaning of both, the process of \\nelaborating grounded theory and this (type of) theory itself. Why is that \\nimportant? Because it is one of the key features of American pragmatism \\n\\n\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM\\n31\\nto resolve reified objects into the processes of their becoming. In order to \\navoid false dichotomies and to reveal the power and the decision making \\nthat goes into those objects. ‘The published word is not the final one, but \\nonly a pause in the never-ending process of generating theory’ (Glaser/\\nStrauss 1967: 40). Theory for Strauss is a process, the same process that \\nyou would like to rename GTM. That would be one step back from the \\nadvances social sciences inherited from Strauss.\\nTo separate methods from theorizing would at the same time mean to support \\nexactly that kind of instrumentalism that led into quantitative methods core \\nmistakes: There is no method without theory and if it appears as such, it simply \\ndisguises its roots and its embeddedness. We should be wiser than them:-)\\nRobert Thornberg and Ciarán Dunne (CD:10) offer:\\nAt least three reasons [that] account for why GTM is necessary: (1) the literature \\ndoes not provide enough theories to cover all aspects or areas of the social life; \\n(2) due to their lack of grounding in data, extant theories seldom fit or work, \\nnor are relevant or sufficiently understandable to use in research which aspires to \\nbe sensitive to the empirical field and its participants (Glaser and Strauss, 1967); \\nand (3) our reality is dynamic, continuously shaped by diverse, subjective lived \\nexperiences and innovations.\\nNorman Denzin (CD:22) argues that although GTM is ‘not a unified frame-\\nwork’ there is a common core. Despite the different variants,\\nthere are commonalities: flexible guidelines for data collection (and analysis), \\nincluding interviewing, archival analysis, observation, and participant observation. \\nMost importantly, the commitment is to remain close to the world being studied.\\nHe notes that some of these ‘techniques’ are common across other methods, \\nalbeit for differing purposes and with different approaches/commitments. \\nMore contentiously, he argues that the outputs from GTM are not theories, \\nwhich is ‘perhaps a misnomer … a better word might be interpretation, \\ngrounded interpretation (GI)’.\\nKatherine Irwin (CD:18) refers to GTM as ‘a negotiated method’, and \\nthat it is ‘exposure of a generation of researchers to theoretical and epis-\\ntemological developments in the late 20th and early 21st centuries that \\naccounts for why and how GTM is currently being used to develop theo-\\nries linking structure and agency’. This observation brings GTM back to \\nStrauss’s work on precisely this inherently sociological issue, and the rela-\\ntionship between GTM and sociology discussed below.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n32\\nGTM coding and sampling\\nTwo aspects of GTM that continue to prove troubling both to exponents \\nand evaluators are coding and sampling; largely due to the differences \\nbetween their respective meanings in the context of GTM as opposed to \\nmore generic ideas in research as a whole.\\nCoding\\nReaders will probably be aware that the term ‘coding’, in the sense of cod-\\ning data, predates the appearance of GTM. It is used in a generic sense \\nin the context of research and data analysis, but in most cases will have \\nan explicit meaning depending on the specific research method and/or \\ntechnique that is being used.1 Glaser and Strauss, however, deliberately \\nchanged the meaning of codes and coding in GTM, so for many research-\\ners ‘coding’ is now first-and-foremost associated with GTM. But it can also \\nbe argued that coding has taken on a whole host of new meanings and \\nnuances, particularly across qualitative research in general.2 Unfortunately, \\nin their later writings, both in concert and individually, they offered further \\n \\nexpositions, often differing from the earlier ones. Susanne Friese (CD:14) \\nnotes that in the 1966 German edition, ‘Strauss and Corbin define coding \\nas “the process of data analysis” (p. 43). In the 2015 edition, it is defined as \\ndelineating concepts to stand for interpreted meaning (Chapter 12)’. This \\nshift indicates the extent to which Corbin has sought to incorporate inter-\\npretative methods in her more recent work. CAQDAS examples, such as \\nNVivo, MAXQDA, and Atlas.ti, use the term ‘coding’, but in different ways \\nfrom that used in GTM and from each other. In some respects, CAQDAS \\n‘coding’ is a form of labelling or tagging, whereas GTM coding involves far \\nmore than this. Critics argue that many GTM research papers fail to move \\nbeyond the details of ‘codes’, offering little insight or coherence and simply \\nre-labelling the data or describing some putative classification. But this is \\na failing on the part of the researchers themselves rather than anything \\ninherent in the method.\\nLinda Belgrave and Kapriskie Seide (CD:8) point to the paucity of \\ndetail in the early GTM texts – particularly Discovery – regarding what was \\ninvolved in GTM-type coding. In some regards this is understandable given \\nthat Discovery was primarily a manifesto written by Glaser and Strauss with \\ntheir academic colleagues in mind (see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 3). More \\n\\n\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM\\n33\\ndetailed expositions were provided in the methodological appendices in \\nboth Awareness and Time, these being the main sources of guidance on \\napplication of GTM in the early writings.\\nLater texts on GTM, however, have more than made up for this, but \\nthe result is often confusion as researchers try to make sense of the wide \\nvariety of explanations and terms that are used. Belgrave and Seide (CD:8) \\nmake the point that discussions on GTM coding must offer the basis for ‘a \\nstarting point and some organizational scheme’ for coding, based on an \\nunderstanding of ‘elements of coding approaches as steps in a process’, but \\n‘emphasizing that this process is not linear’.\\nThey offer an overview of ‘the major branches of the GTM family’, \\nincluding ‘Glaserian GTM and Constructivist GTM, as well as a note on \\nComputer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis’. In doing so, they are con-\\ncerned to offer a comparison of different approaches, but in\\na spirit of celebrating what we see as a rich garden of methodological possibilities, \\nsuited to diverse research paradigms. This is not to deny our differences, but to \\nvalue our pluralism. In this, we see ourselves in tune with authors such as Phyllis \\nNoerager Stern (2007), Adele Clarke (2009) and Frederick J. Wertz et al. (2011).\\nBelgrave and Seide stress ‘the impossibility of separating coding from other \\nelements of analysis, even writing’ for GTM. This is correct up to a point, \\ngiven that GTM is the method of constant comparison, an orientation that \\nencompasses all the stages of GTM-oriented research, from initial coding \\nto writing and presentation. But stated in their stark terms, it may mislead \\nor deter GTM novices.\\nThe consequence is that those tasked with writing about GTM coding are \\nfaced with a conundrum: efforts at ‘clarification’ may all too easily obfus-\\ncate and over-simplify the complexities of the processes involved, resulting \\nin a mechanistic description of what is in fact a highly nuanced and subtle \\nseries of activities; but overly complicated and convoluted accounts might \\nprove bewildering and unhelpful.\\nI have found that occasionally doctoral students, having gathered a \\nfair amount of data – usually, but not only, from interviews – are then \\nunable to commit themselves to coding, lacking the confidence to \\nengage with this process. This is ironic, given that Glaser and Strauss \\nwere motivated to develop and teach GTM as a basis for giving doctoral \\nresearchers the confidence to develop their own theoretical concepts. \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n34\\nIn some cases, such reticence arises from students misunderstanding \\nthe different forms of advice regarding getting started with coding – \\n \\ni.e. word-by-word or line-by-line or incident-by-incident. They need to \\nheed Charmaz’s advice that it is best to start by moving quickly through \\nthe data, rather than getting bogged down trying to identify the minu-\\ntiae. Coding is one of those skills that can only be acquired through \\npractice, even though it may appear to be straightforward. Inexperienced \\nresearchers need to trust themselves in the earliest stages and avoid won-\\ndering if they are developing ‘the correct codes’, instead looking for \\nthose that are most relevant and useful in developing further conceptu-\\nalizations of the context under investigation.\\nBelgrave and Seide stress that ‘coding is more than labeling’, and that \\nthe ways in which the process is described by different authors reveals their \\nrespective epistemologies. They offer a very clear account, illustrated with \\nspecific examples, of five different approaches:\\n•\\t\\nthe somewhat sparse accounts offered by Glaser and Strauss;\\n•\\t\\nGlaser’s subsequent work;\\n•\\t\\nStrauss and Corbin’s ‘procedural approach’;\\n•\\t\\nCharmaz and Bryant’s constructivism; and\\n•\\t\\nClarke’s situational analysis.\\nThey conclude that GTM is not ‘a free-for-all’, but a robust methodology, \\nwhere it is both possible and advisable ‘to draw from the works of multiple \\nmethodologists, bringing awareness of underlying assumptions, benefits \\nand potential problems to one’s specific project’.\\nSampling\\nResearchers can only start their coding once they have identified the basis \\nfor their sample; again, a term that has specific connotations within GTM, \\ndiverging and differing significantly from the ways in which it is used and \\nunderstood in other contexts. Morse and Clark (CD:7) discuss GTM sampling, \\ndistinguishing between sampling in qualitative and quantitative inquiry, \\nthen further distinguishing GTM sampling from other qualitative forms.\\nWe argue that sampling is not a procedure that is delegated for locating subjects \\nwho represent the population at the beginning of the study, as it is in quantita-\\ntive inquiry. Rather, in qualitative inquiry, the goal of sampling is to represent the \\n\\n\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM\\n35\\nphenomenon. In grounded theory, it is a procedural tool that is integral to the \\nentire research process, with the goal of attaining excellent data that enables to \\ndevelopment and verification of an abstract and generalizable theory.\\nThe key to sampling derives from what they term ‘the concept of ade-\\nquacy’. For qualitative research this is based on the relevance of the \\nsample to the phenomenon under investigation, in sharp contrast to \\nsampling in a quantitative study. For GTM, however, they stress that sam-\\npling is part of the process of what they term ‘emergent design’, a key feature \\nof GTM, implying that researchers cannot be expected to know from the out-\\nset the types of samples that will be required in later stages of research. In this \\nregard, GTM sampling is a ‘situated action’ (see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 11; \\nSuchman, 1984) as opposed to one that can be prepared and planned from \\nthe start. In Morse and Clark’s terms ‘sampling strategies must be flexible … \\nused for developing the concepts, as well as constructing and confirming the \\ntheory’, the process as a whole being ‘integrated into the process of inquiry’.\\nMorse and Clark stress that the issue of sampling extends into the latter \\nstages of GTM research, so that it encompasses use of literature and ‘sam-\\npling from the library, including research on the topic conducted by others’, \\ndeveloping ‘generalizability to other concepts, by linking to other theories, \\nexperiences and populations’. They offer a range of heuristic devices, includ-\\ning how to ‘sample for process’, and how to establish one’s concepts beyond \\nthe specific research context itself. They also address the issue of the role of \\nresearchers, taking into account aspects such as ethnicity and culture.\\nTerminology\\nAlthough some of the acronyms used for variants of GTM may cause confu-\\nsion, this is remedied once the full expression of the acronym is confirmed, \\neven if it is unique or specific to that text. GTM terminology, however, \\nis another matter. Charmaz included a glossary in Constructing Grounded \\nTheory (Charmaz, 2006, 2014a), and in the 2007 volume we incorporated \\nthese definitions in our expanded Discursive Glossary (Bryant & Charmaz, \\n2007a). We have revised this glossary for Current Developments (Bryant & \\nCharmaz, 2019), but readers should be aware that writers adhere to their \\nown terms and we did not seek to impose any form of standardized ter-\\nminology. To paraphrase Crossman and Noma (CD:29), students have to \\nnavigate the tricky spaces of GTM texts.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n36\\nIn her comments on an earlier version of Friese’s chapter, Charmaz \\nnoted that differing uses of terms such as codes and coding are an ongo-\\ning issue for GTM, now made more complex with the advent of CAQDAS. \\nFriese also argues:\\nSome ‘codes’, however, may never be methodological; they simply serve organ-\\nizational purposes to support data retrieval. Further, the code system needs to \\nbe structured in a way to be able to use more advanced software tools later in \\nthe analysis. This is based on technical requirements of the software and might \\nlead to the impression to remodel GT to QDA. The latter would only be the case \\nif the analyst was only tagging the data without writing, and thus not translating \\nthe underlying methodology in the intended way.\\nThere is also the vexed question of the relationship between the terms \\ncode, category, and concept. In 2007 we discussed the different ways in \\nwhich these terms were used in the GTM literature. In some cases, one \\ntext uses ‘code’ where another opts for ‘category’; similarly, for ‘category’ \\nand ‘concept’. This applied not only to texts by different authors, but also \\nto different texts by the same author(s). The early GTM texts referred to \\na ‘core category’ as the outcome of a GTM study, but also referred to a \\ngrounded theory as a study of a concept; Glaser himself argues (CD:21) \\nthat GTM ‘is itself a grounded theory with conceptualization being the \\ncore category’: GTM is ‘about developing conceptualizations’.\\nI continue to opt for a hierarchy moving from codes at the most basic \\nand numerous level, through to a smaller number of categories, arriving at \\na single core concept, or perhaps two or three core concepts (Bryant, 2017, \\nChapter 5). Others, including Charmaz, employ the original sequence of \\ncode → concept → category. Regardless of the specific approach being \\nemployed, researchers will end up with numerous codes which need to \\nbe organized so that some sense can be made from the data. Friese makes \\nthis point with respect to CAQDAS ‘codes’, but it also applies to manual \\ncoding. Many GTM researchers report that their initial studies, when they \\nare open coding, can result in an unmanageable number of codes, often in \\nthe hundreds. Although potentially bewildering, researchers usually find \\nthat they can group these, and provide a coherent and persuasive account \\nfor so doing. Charmaz (2014a) recommends assessing how analytic codes \\nsubsume more descriptive codes and coding to develop analytic codes that \\ncan be raised to tentative categories.\\n\\n\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM\\n37\\nDifferent researchers may well develop different categories from the \\nsame data, but that is a ‘feature’ rather than a ‘bug’ – i.e. the process has \\nto be understood interpretatively, involving a dialogue between researchers \\nand data. Different researchers will have distinctive dialogues with the data, \\nsteering their investigations accordingly. Multiple researchers will compli-\\ncate but also enrich these ongoing dialogues. Researchers may also develop \\ndifferent categories and concepts from the same data, as Glaser and Strauss \\ndid for Awareness (1965b), then subsequently for Time (1968).\\nThe outcome of a successful grounded theory study is a concept or \\nsome limited number of related concepts – in either case the term ‘concep-\\ntualization’ seems the most appropriate. Glaser (2004) uses the term as a \\ndistinguishing feature of GTM, which is ‘straightforward conceptualization \\nintegrated into theory – a set of plausible, grounded hypotheses’. Corbin \\nand Strauss (2008, p. 263) likewise: ‘the point in analysis when all catego-\\nries are well developed in terms of properties, dimensions, and variations. \\nFurther data gathering and analysis add little new to the conceptualization, \\nthough variations can always be discovered’ (emphasis added).\\nThe gerund form conceptualizing is not defined in many GTM texts, includ-\\ning the 2007 volume, but is included in Current Developments (Bryant & Charmaz, \\n2007a, 2019). Strauss and Corbin clearly noticed its relevance, arguing that it \\nwas the ‘first step in theory building’ (1998, p. 103) – a form of abstracting. \\nThis implies that it comes into force in the middle and later stages of GTM-\\noriented research, after preliminary or open coding of initial data.\\nCharmaz offers the following characterization of ‘categorizing’ that \\nseems to encompass ‘conceptualizing’ in all but name.\\nCategorizing: the analytic step in grounded theory of selecting certain codes as \\nhaving overriding significance or abstracting common themes and patterns in sev-\\neral codes into an analytic concept. As the researcher categorizes, he or she raises \\nthe conceptual level of the analysis from description to a more abstract, theoretical \\nlevel. The researcher then tries to define the properties of the category, the condi-\\ntions under which it is operative, the conditions under which it changes, and its \\nrelation to other categories. Grounded theorists make their most significant theo-\\nretical categories into the concepts of their theory. (Charmaz, 2006, 2014a, p. 341)\\nCharmaz continues to use the initial GTM hierarchy, with codes leading \\nto categories, and finally one or more core concepts. Her terms follow the \\ntraditions of her discipline, in which relationships between concepts are \\nused in theorizing.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n38\\nOur introduction to the 2007 volume referred to several different uses \\nof these terms, and there is no obvious resolution to this. Instead, I cau-\\ntion readers to satisfy themselves that they understand how the terms are \\nused and how they relate to one another, in any specific text. Also, that \\nthey themselves, when writing about their research, clarify their use of the \\nterms, striving for consistency and coherence.\\nCoding and CAQDAS: Text mining\\nMitsuyuki Inaba and Hisako Kakai (CD:16) refer to ‘coding’ in the context \\nboth of GTM and what they term GTxA: ‘an innovative approach to quali-\\ntative data analysis called the grounded text mining approach’. They argue \\nthat there are three key advantages to this approach, linking GTM directly \\nto CAQDAS. The first is that it helps balance ‘viewpoints in theory con-\\nstruction’, i.e. ‘the two perspectives of depth and breadth in understanding \\ntext data by combining the GTM, which is based on the constructivist para-\\ndigm, and the visualization of text resources via text mining’. Second, this \\nenhances ‘transparency in the data analysis process’, allowing others to rec-\\nognize the steps taken in moving from the initial data to the higher-level \\nabstractions. Finally, building on these two features, the overall ‘cognitive \\nload of the researcher’ can be reduced.\\nThey offer various caveats relating to the use of CAQDAS and Big Data, \\nechoing Bryant and Raja (2014), where we cautioned against reliance on \\nalgorithmic approaches to data – whether or not they involve computer \\ntechnology. They admit that GTxA is time-consuming, in terms of the ini-\\ntial effort required to learn the CAQDAS package; also, that since ‘GTxA \\nuses the methods of both the GTM and text mining, more time is required \\nto obtain the final result compared with conducting each analysis indepen-\\ndently’. Andrea Gorra makes a similar point regarding time (CD:15).\\nMethod, methodology, tool\\nJohnson and Walsh (CD:25) point out that ‘[S]ince GT was first described \\nin 1967 through the epochal collaboration of Glaser and Strauss, GT has \\nbeen understood by various authors as a technique, a method, a method-\\nology, a framework, a paradigm, or as a meta-theory of inductive research \\ndesign’. This is much to the consternation of students looking for clarifica-\\ntion rather than confusion from the research methods literature. To resolve \\n\\n\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM\\n39\\nthis, I have offered my own perspective on the relationship between terms \\nsuch as method, methodology, model, tool, and technique – also strategy, \\napproach, and design – with regards to research (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 2), \\nbut others will have their own, differing approaches.\\nMany discussions use the terms ‘method’ and ‘methodology’ inter-\\nchangeably, and unless otherwise specified they can be understood \\nsynonymously. Flick, who has written a number of important and authori-\\ntative texts on qualitative research (e.g. Flick, 2008a, 2008b, 2014a, 2014b, \\n2015), opts for the term ‘research design’. He argues that the term ‘design’ \\nis a fluid concept and highly appropriate in the context of research since \\nresearchers need to be ready to change their strategy and approach as their \\ninvestigations develop. I have argued similarly that researching needs to be \\nunderstood as a series of ‘situated actions’ (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 11). Flick \\n(CD:6) quotes Charles Ragin:\\nResearch design is a plan for collecting and analyzing evidence that will make it \\npossible for the investigator to answer whatever questions he or she has posed. \\nThe design of an investigation touches almost all aspects of the research, from \\nthe minute details of data collection to the selection of the techniques of data \\nanalysis. (Ragin, 1994, p. 191)\\nStrübing uses the term ‘research style’, arguing that the\\nstrong ties between Strauss’s pragmatist predisposition and his methodological \\nperspective show up in the operational mode of Grounded Theory as a research \\nstyle: The iterative-cyclical process mode he proposes (Strauss & Corbin, 1994) \\nmirrors Dewey’s model of problem-solving – as does his notion of theory as a \\n‘never-ending process’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967: 40). Also, the idea of theoretical \\nsensitivity resonates with Mead’s concept of perspective (Mead, 1932/1959). \\n(emphasis added)\\nFlick also quotes from Boys in White (1961), where Becker et al. claim \\nthat:\\nIn one sense, our study had no design. That is, we had no well-worked-out set \\nof hypotheses to be tested, no data-gathering instruments, purposely designed \\nto secure information relevant to these hypotheses, no set of analytic proce-\\ndures specified in advance. Insofar as the term ‘design’ implies these features of \\nelaborate prior planning, our study had none. If we take the idea of design in \\na larger and looser sense, using it to identify those elements of order, system, \\nand consistency our procedures did exhibit, our study had a design. We can say \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n40\\nwhat this was by describing our original view of our problem, our theoretical \\nand methodological commitments, and the way these affected our research and \\nwere affected by it as we proceeded. (1961, p. 17)\\nThis statement hints at some characteristics of GTM, describing the balance \\nbetween being open to surprise and the unexpected in the early stages of \\nresearch, but also conducting the study in a disciplined and rigorous man-\\nner, combining theoretical and methodological sensitivities. The statement \\nalso indicates the strong continuity between Chicago School ethnography \\nand grounded theory.\\nSharlene Hesse-Biber and Hillary Flowers (CD:24) focus on the added-\\nvalue that feminist grounded theoretical approaches can bring to mixed \\nmethods research designs, aiming for combinations that are ‘integra-\\ntive’ and ‘reciprocal’. Through case studies, they establish how using \\nGTM can support feminist research goals, observing that feminist prin-\\nciples can stretch and expand GTM-in-use, leading to more profound \\nresearch. Moreover, building on the reciprocal effects between feminist \\nprinciples and GTM strengthens each and makes the results more pow-\\nerful, credible, resonant, and useful (Charmaz’s terms).\\nIn contrast, Johnson and Walsh (CD:25) seek to locate GTM against \\ncurrent discussion of mixed methods, making a distinction between mixed \\nmethods research (MMR) and multimethods research (MR). They provide \\nan overview of current concerns, and demonstrate\\nhow careful and thoughtful combining of grounded theory and mixed methods \\nresearch can result in an exciting methodology that we call mixed grounded \\ntheory (MGT). MGT is an approach to research that relies on ideas found in \\ngrounded theory and mixed methods research.\\nEarly statements by Strauss and his colleagues, such as that given earlier, \\nindicate that the idea of mixing methods – i.e. combining aspects of one \\nmethod with another – has always been a key aspect of good research practice. \\nConsequently, building on Glaser and Strauss’s work, I have coined the term \\nmethodological sensitivity, in recognition that virtually all research involves \\nplans and intentions with regards to the application of a combination of \\nmethods, tools, and techniques. There are few, if any, examples of unalloyed \\napplication of any single method, since methods, research plans, designs, and \\nstrategies usually falter at the first contact with the research setting.\\n\\n\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM\\n41\\nJohnson and Walsh would argue that in many cases this is an exam-\\nple of multimethod rather than mixed methods research. Their discussion \\ndemonstrates the need for researchers to understand the importance of \\narticulating their overall approach, including the forms of data that are \\nencompassed, and the forms of analysis that are employed.\\nDiscovery included the subtitle Strategies for Qualitative Research, but this \\nnever precluded use of quantitative data. On the other hand, Glaser and \\nStrauss rarely, if ever, refer to such data. Glaser’s dictum ‘All is data’ indi-\\ncates that all forms of data are amenable to GTM, and in 2008, in Doing \\nQuantitative Grounded Theory, he argued that the GTM researchers should \\nnot shy away from ‘the rich meanings to be found and grounded in sec-\\nondary quantitative measurement’ (Glaser, 2008, p. 89). Grounded theories \\ncan be generated from incorporation of quantitative data, including that \\ncollected by others in previous research exercises. In referring to this as \\n‘quantitative GT’, however, Glaser introduces potential confusion, since it \\nmay be thought that this is a distinct form of GTM, rather than strengthen-\\ning and clarifying the case that GTM researchers can and should consider \\nusing all forms of data, and in virtually any combination.\\nJohnson and Walsh refer to the issue of triangulation, defining it as ‘the \\nconvergence of findings across methods’, something that occurs both in \\nmixed method and multimethod research. Flick, likewise, discusses trian-\\ngulation, tracing the concept in some senses from Glaser and Strauss’s term \\n‘slices of data’.3\\nIf we take again the first edition of this Handbook (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007) as \\na reference, it looks like triangulation is also a concept which is not too promi-\\nnent in grounded theory discussions about methodology. However, the ideas \\nbehind triangulation are not too far away from what is done in grounded theory \\nresearch. The main idea of triangulation is to extend the research by using several \\nmethods, differing theories or multiple researchers. The resulting extension of data \\nand interpretations in the process is seen as a contribution to make research and \\nresults more credible and fruitful. (Flick, CD:6, emphasis added)\\nIn so doing, Flick introduces the issue of how multiple researchers interact \\nin a research project. In this regard, ‘slices of data’ involves understanding \\nthat different researchers may well slice the same data in different ways, \\nperhaps as a result of their individual backgrounds, training, or agendas. \\nAgain, this is something that underlines the importance of people’s theo-\\nretical and methodological sensitivities.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n42\\nAs has already been noted, Glaser and Strauss hardly addressed the ways \\nin which they collaborated in their work on death and dying. Collaboration \\nis a topic barely broached in research methods texts. Flick (CD:6) quotes \\nHammersley and Atkinson (1995, p. 24) ‘who argue in the context of \\nethnography that “research design should be a reflexive process which \\noperates throughout every stage of a project”’. Katja Mruck and Günter \\nMey devote their entire chapter (CD:23) to a discussion on reflexivity, \\ndelineating, and clarifying its place in the research process, and explain-\\ning how it affects outcomes. They offer researchers a list of concerns that \\nindividual and multiple researchers should consider during their projects. \\nBut empirical discussions of how reflexivity leads multiple researchers to \\ninteract, discuss, and compromise during the research process have not \\nreally figured to any significant degree in the research methods literature.\\nDuckles et al. (CD:31) offer some important insights on this topic, \\nincluding their statement of how they work together, seeking to incorporate \\nother research participants.\\nWe code both individually and as a team, develop consensus categories, review \\nour data to saturate the categories and build themes. We reach into academic \\nresearch literature, but also into local literature, stories and knowledge as part \\nof our constant comparative methods and processes of abduction, as we chal-\\nlenge, revise, and enrich our analysis.\\nThey include guidance showing how collaboration between academic and \\ncommunity-based researchers can:\\n1.\\t\\nbuild on local knowledge and address both local issues and systemic change \\nthrough iterative cycles of research;\\n2.\\t\\nacknowledge and integrate the emergent tensions in community-based \\nparticipatory action research to generate both practical solutions;\\n3.\\t\\nstart from the principles of people in the community (Afrocentric philoso-\\nphies were crucial in their work);\\n4.\\t\\nuse symbolic interactionism as a guiding perspective, and abductive analysis \\nas a methodological strategy. (my paraphrase)\\nCrossman and Noma (CD:29) discuss how multiple researchers collabo-\\nrate using GTM, and several other contributors to Current Developments \\n(Bryant & Charmaz, 2019) refer to the need to acknowledge research-\\ners’ differing cultural and linguistic backgrounds. As will be seen below, \\nhowever, terms such as ‘culture’, ‘paradigm’, and ‘indigeneity’ need to be \\n\\n\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM\\n43\\ntreated with care and critical insight. If pushed too far they lead to the \\nparadox that irked readers of Thomas Kuhn’s work, and infamously Kuhn \\nhimself, namely the problem of ‘the incommensurability of paradigms’.4 \\nAspects of this can often come to the fore in the interactions between stu-\\ndents and their supervisors, a topic discussed below in addressing student \\nand learning issues.\\nMethodologizing: GTM and methodological \\npositioning\\nGiven all these developments, variants, and other off-shoots, it is not sur-\\nprising that Reichertz (CD:13) argues that there is ‘no central reference \\ntext’ for GTM, nor ‘a binding canonization’. He sees this as ‘both a blessing \\nand a curse’, arising from the method being freed from ‘a specific form of \\nworking’. The ‘blessing’ is that GTM researchers are now guided by ‘general \\nprinciples – which makes adaptation to the respective subject matter con-\\nsiderably easier’. The converse of this, however, is it facilitates something \\nof a free-for-all, allowing anyone ‘to perform a somehow “open” and “data- \\noriented” analysis [and] to flag their respective practice as “grounded theory”’.\\nAs Strauss and Corbin feared in the 1990s, GTM is now ‘in vogue’, \\nbut whereas they worried about it then becoming ‘old-hat’, it has, on the \\ncontrary, become a fashion label, claimed and invoked extravagantly and \\nall-too-often speciously. (Crossman and Noma (CD:29) use the phrase \\n‘methodological consumerism’, albeit in a slightly different context.) Glaser \\nreacts to such tenuous claims, using various epithets for what he sees as \\ninvalid or counterfeit forms of GTM. Unfortunately, he casts his net indis-\\ncriminately, often aiming reproaches at variants of GTM from which he \\nwishes to distance his own, but which are perfectly valid and robust forms \\nof the method itself. The origins of this can be found in the earliest works \\nof Glaser and Strauss, where they needed to clear the ground for GTM, \\nand hence distinguish it from other positions with which it might be con-\\nfused. Glaser and Strauss, Strauss and Corbin, and Glaser on his own have \\ncoined numerous terms from which GTM needed to be distanced, includ-\\ning ‘mindless empiricism’, ‘mere description’, ‘full conceptual description’, \\nfailure to achieve ‘conceptual density’, and ‘grounded description’. Glaser \\nhas also described what others would consider valid variants of GTM as \\n‘remodelling’ the method or examples of ‘jargonizing’ – applying this term \\nto 25 of the 27 chapters of the 2007 volume (Glaser, 2009).\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n44\\nThe result is that GTM researchers need to position their use of the \\nmethod against this rich, flexible, but bewildering and potentially mislead-\\ning array of possibilities. In my grounded theory study of a large number of \\nrecent GTM papers, I developed the core concept of ‘methodologizing’, and \\na sub-concept of ‘methodological positioning’. Methodologizing refers to\\nthe ways in which researchers link their actual approach to other methods … \\n[the] process of methodologizing includes discussion of the scope of GTM, refer-\\nence to philosophical issues such as induction, deduction, and concern with \\nontological and epistemological topics – a common indication of this will be \\nin reference to ‘research paradigms’. … [also the sub-concept of ‘positioning’, \\nincluding the statements researchers offer] relating to aspects or features of \\nGTM – also to omissions or references to canonical or authoritative texts and \\nissues. (see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 14, Box 14.2, p. 295)\\nReichertz’s point regarding the lack of a central text for GTM is understand-\\nable, if contentious. In the 1990s it was common to read research papers \\nand doctoral theses that referred only to the second edition of Strauss and \\nCorbin (1998). This is less common now, but I have found in various work-\\nshops, seminars, and doctoral examinations that although there is almost \\nuniversal reference made to Discovery, the book itself has been read, at best, \\nin a cursory manner. Ludwik Fleck argued that the existence of a central \\ntext is critical in establishing substantive and methodological aspects of a \\nsubject area\\n…a judgment about the existence or non-existence of a phenomenon belongs, \\nin a democratic collective, to a numerous council, not to an individual. The text-\\nbook changes the subjective judgment of an author into a proven fact. It will \\nbe united with the entire system of science, it will henceforward be recognized \\nand taught, it will become a foundation of further facts and the guiding prin-\\nciple of what will be seen and applied (1936, VI). (SEP entry on Fleck, Stanford \\nEncyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.)\\nFleck refers to a single text, but with regard to GTM it would be more appro-\\npriate to consider which set of texts are ‘recognized and taught’; different \\nselections indicating which variant of GTM is under consideration and \\nuse. Discovery itself is clearly ‘recognized’ in this sense, its inclusion being \\ncommonplace in most discussions of GTM or GTM-oriented research. \\nAwareness and Time are cited as widely. My grounded theory of GTM \\npapers (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 14) found that the inclusion and omission of \\n \\n\\n\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM\\n45\\ncertain GTM texts was a reasonably accurate indicator of the methodo-\\nlogical position taken by the researchers involved; this supports Fleck’s \\nargument when applied to a set of texts rather than a specific one.\\nSince 2007 the volume of GTM literature has burgeoned. In many \\nrespects this is to be welcomed as researchers can now consult numerous \\nsources if they want to learn and develop their ideas about GTM. Several \\nintroductory texts, and also chapters on GTM in handbooks and collec-\\ntions, are devoted to research methods in general or qualitative methods in \\nparticular. Also, a large and growing number of research papers and com-\\npleted doctoral theses are available online. These provide something of a \\nmixed blessing. On the plus side, they provide researchers with archetypes \\nfor GTM-oriented research that can assist those seeking guidance with \\n \\nregards to both the process and the presentation for their research – \\n \\nwith the caveat that the actual process is accurately and candidly described \\nin the publication. There is, however, the danger that such exemplars \\nwill become seen as standard models to be mimicked with little or no \\nreflection on applicability and relevance. This issue arises with all forms \\nof research and is not confined to GTM or qualitative research. Indeed, \\nlooking across the range of GTM outputs – journal papers, theses, and the \\nlike – there seems to be a varied and stimulating range of formats and struc-\\ntures. Some PhD theses are presented as straightforward reports, others \\nare interspersed with detailed memos, extracts from the data, and various \\ntypes of visualizations. Some PhD students strive to offer novel formats for \\ntheir work, including the use of ‘story-line’ and narrative accounts, and even \\nextended dialogues. Some of the ways in which GTM research has and might \\nbe presented are referred to in Chapter 6 on Student and Learning Issues.\\nA family divergence\\nThe extended metaphor of family resemblances and genealogy encom-\\npasses the ‘family divergence’ that developed in the 1990s. Publication \\nof Strauss and Corbin’s Basics of Qualitative Research drew a vehement \\nresponse from Glaser, prompting publication of Basics of Grounded Theory \\n(Glaser, 1992), where he distanced himself from the views expressed by \\nStrauss and Corbin, claiming their book represented a move away from \\nGTM while masquerading as an articulation of the method. He castigated \\nStrauss for the ‘immoral undermining’ (p. 121) of GTM, arguing that Strauss \\nwas never really in tune with GTM proper, having remained wedded to \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n46\\nwhat Glaser termed the method of ‘full conceptual description’. Some \\nhave referred to this as a dispute between Glaser and Strauss, but Strauss, \\nwho died in 1996, never responded to Glaser. The chapter on grounded \\ntheory published in the first edition of Denzin and Lincoln’s Handbook of \\nQualitative Research includes a footnote that might be understood to refer \\nobliquely to Glaser’s account (Strauss & Corbin, 1994):\\nAUTHORS’ NOTE: This summary statement represents the authors’ views as \\nparticipants in, contributors to, and observers of grounded theory’s evolution. \\nOthers who have been part of this intellectual movement will differ in their views \\nof some points made here and the relative importance we give them. (Strauss & \\nCorbin, 1994, p. 273, emphasis added)\\nMany of the chapters, both in the 2007 Handbook and Current Developments \\n(Bryant & Charmaz, 2007a, 2019), present explanations of these events \\nthat are couched in ameliorative rather than combative terms. One view \\nis that both Glaser, and Strauss – initially on his own, then later together \\nwith Corbin – were, in their different ways seeking to support students \\nwith theoretical coding, and more generally moving from commonplace \\ndescription to theoretical insights and conceptualization. Strauss and \\nCorbin, writing in 1994, argued that although many researchers were \\n‘claiming use of GTM’, they were often ‘failing to accomplish more than \\na fairly mundane level of coding, certainly not moving on to theoretical \\ncoding, and subsequently to generating theoretical statements’. Glaser has \\nconsistently made similar statements. Glaser’s response was couched in \\nterms of his ‘coding families’, which first appeared in Theoretical Sensitivity \\n(1978). Strauss and Corbin proposed their ‘coding paradigm’ in the 1990s, \\nas a remedy to the repeated failure of researchers to move from the frac-\\nturing that results in ‘substantive’ coding to the articulation of more \\nintegrative conceptualizations.\\nGlaser criticized Strauss and Corbin for ‘forcing’ the outcome with their \\ncoding paradigm, but others have pointed out that Glaser’s coding fami-\\nlies are incoherent, bewildering, and can also encourage forcing the data \\ninto a particular coding family. Thus Kelle (CD:3) argues that ‘researchers \\nwith a broad theoretical background knowledge and a longstanding expe-\\nrience in the application of theoretical terms will certainly not need such \\na list’. On the other hand, he goes on to state that the coding paradigm \\n‘may be much more helpful for researchers with limited experience in \\n \\n\\n\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM\\n47\\nconceptualizing empirical data in theoretical terms’, largely because it is \\nmore explicit. But this is also the reason why Glaser’s criticisms hit home. \\nKelle concludes that ultimately ‘Glaser’s critique that the coding paradigm \\nmay lead to the forcing of categories on the data cannot be dismissed’. \\nKelle characterizes the issue as emanating from the ‘antagonism between \\nemergence and theoretical sensitivity’.\\nAlthough I do not have extensive evidence regarding how doctoral and \\nother early-career researchers develop their concepts, I do have substantial \\nfamiliarity in teaching, supervising, and examining numerous students – \\ncurrently 50+ GTM-type PhDs. Based on this small but select sample, it \\nappears that the intricacies of moving from low-level, embedded codes to \\nhigher-level, more abstract ones that are then related to one another as part \\nof a conceptual model or theory, does not present a significant problem. \\nMoreover, few if any have used Strauss and Corbin’s coding paradigm or \\nGlaser’s coding families; those who have tried mostly report disappoint-\\nment in their respective practicalities.\\nOn the other hand, Charmaz has found grounded theory studies, across \\nmany different fields, that fail to offer conceptual analyses, much less a \\ncogent theory, sometimes trying to disguise this by presenting their weak \\nconceptualizations as neologisms in the form of gerunds, but which in \\nfact are nothing more than everyday terms to which the suffix ‘-izing’ has \\nbeen added.5 I suspect that many such cases of inadequate research are \\nlargely the result of poor GTM research practice and/or lack of mentoring \\nor understanding, in which case guidance on theoretical coding would not \\nreally provide any effective remedy. A well-grounded study on GTM-in-use \\nwould be enormously helpful in shedding more light on this.\\nIt may be that what was a common problem in the 1980s and 1990s \\nhas now largely been resolved or simply dissipated. Students do often find \\nthemselves ‘flooded with data’, but in most cases they manage to pro-\\ngress to develop higher-level abstractions that form the basis of theoretical \\naccounts. Moreover, those who encounter problems with this transition \\noften continue to do so even if they try to adopt the strategies proposed \\nby Glaser or Strauss and Corbin. Neither the coding paradigm nor coding \\nfamilies quite seem to fit the bill.\\nBoth Strauss and Corbin and Glaser combined the justification for their \\n‘remedies’ with criticism of researchers claiming largely or wholly unwar-\\nranted use of GTM. For this group, neither the coding paradigm nor the \\ncoding families will resolve anything. As Strauss and Corbin observed in \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n48\\n1994, ‘a child once launched is very much subject to a combination of its \\norigins and the evolving contingencies of life. Can it be otherwise with a \\nmethodology?’ The problem of disobedient or misbehaving children persists!\\nAnother explanation for the Glaser–Strauss divergence centres on \\nabduction. Thanks to Kathy’s anecdote (Charmaz, 2014a, p. 202), we \\nknow that Strauss already saw GTM as an abductive method in the 1960s, \\nwhereas Glaser continues to stress only the inductive nature of GTM. Jane \\nGilgun (CD:5) discusses the deductive aspects of GTM, which may appear \\nsomewhat strange given the explicit rejection of orthodox social science \\nresearch – characterized as hypothetico-deductive – in the early GTM texts, \\nparticularly Discovery. Gilgun, however, locates GTM against the back-\\nground of Chicago School sociology, but in contrast to two other forms of \\nanalysis associated with Chicago. Her chapter focuses on:\\nDeductive qualitative analysis (DQA), one of three approaches to research asso-\\nciated with the Chicago School of Sociology. The other two are GT and field \\nresearch, which is descriptive in nature, and sometimes referred to as ethno-\\ngraphic research.\\nGilgun explains that ‘DQA is an updating of analytic induction … an \\napproach older than GT’. Unlike GTM, DQA and its predecessor – analytic \\ninduction – ‘allows for qualitative hypothesis testing and theory testing as \\nwell as concept-guided descriptive research’. In both cases, such research \\nbegins with sensitizing concepts, which, Gilgun notes, was ‘traditional in \\nthe Chicago School for decades before Blumer (1969) gave them a name \\n(Gilgun, 1999, 2005, 2016)’. All three forms of research ‘produce findings \\nthat are grounded in data on which findings are based’.\\nReichertz (CD:13) argues that GTM ‘was to a very small extent abduc-\\ntive from the start and has become more and more abductive in its more \\nrecent stages. The controversy within GT can be characterized, at least in \\npart, as one between induction and abduction’. The role of abduction \\n \\nin GTM is now far more widely understood than was the case even at the \\ntime of the 2007 Handbook. Strauss certainly understood this, even if he \\ndid not share the full ramifications with his colleagues or discuss it in his \\nwritings on GTM.\\nA later chapter addresses ‘Student and Learning Issues’ specifically, but \\nI have already remarked on the ways in which the various disputes, diver-\\ngences, and differences can be perplexing for those seeking to understand, \\n\\n\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM\\n49\\ngain familiarity with, and use GTM. GTM now comes in several variants, \\nand even the founding texts are losing their canonical status. Graduate \\nstudents and others should be able to contend with this. They need to \\nread widely and make sense of how the method might be incorporated \\ninto their own research activities: developing and demonstrating methodo-\\nlogical sensitivity. Those writing about GTM, however, need to understand \\nthat they can hinder this, particularly if they merely offer chastisement \\nand censure, failing to offer clear and respectful accounts of positions with \\nwhich they may well disagree, but which still warrant attention (see the \\nearlier discussion of Rapoport’s rules).\\nSummary of ‘core characteristics’ of GTM\\nThe Senior Editor’s Introduction to Current Developments (Bryant, 2019) \\nincludes my summary of what I consider the ‘essences’ of GTM; it is repro-\\nduced here to conclude this section. (Most of the key terms are included in \\nthe Discursive Glossary (2019) in Current Developments.)\\n•\\t\\nCoding-cum-analysis-cum-memoing – the form and strategy for \\ncoding in GTM was and remains innovative in many ways, including \\nits starting point, and its iterative nature;\\n•\\t\\nAlso the link to memoing, which, although largely absent from the \\nearliest writings, is now a key feature;\\n•\\t\\nSubstantive and formal theory generation – this developed in part \\nfrom Merton’s idea that research should aim to provide theories of the \\nmiddle range. In contrast to mid-20th century preoccupations with hypo-\\nthetical structural explanations of whole societies, Merton (1957) advocated \\nconstructing theories to explain empirical problems – both Substantive \\nGrounded Theories and Formal Grounded Theories are examples of this;6\\n•\\t\\nPurposive/convenience sampling followed by theoretical \\nsampling – qualitative sampling was and still is misunderstood, par-\\nticularly by those whose research experience and expertise is derived \\nlargely or wholly from a quantitative background; GTM offers a basis \\nfor clarifying sampling issues for qualitative research in general;\\n•\\t\\nTheoretical saturation – often seen as a weakness of GTM, but, used \\ncorrectly, it is in fact a strength of the method, since, unlike many \\nmethods, it offers the rationale for claiming to have reached an interim \\nend-point for a research endeavour;\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n50\\n•\\t\\nUse of the literature – initially to establish the basis for the research but, \\nfar more importantly, to refer to and engage with the relevant literature as \\nan additional and critical form of data against which interim or later analy-\\nses can be positioned – this is what is referred to as theoretical coding;\\n•\\t\\nCriteria – fit, grab, work, modifiability; and also Charmaz’s \\ncredibility, originality, resonance, usefulness;\\n•\\t\\nOpenness to serendipity;\\n•\\t\\nPragmatism – particularly the ways in which GTM now has to be \\nunderstood as a method for what I have termed ‘enacting abstrac-\\ntion and abduction’.\\nSome of these are important for many other, if not all other, methods, but \\nseveral are specific to GTM, and their combination is unique to GTM. More \\ncritically, taken together, they embody a distinctively persuasive, coherent, \\nrigorous, and effective method for undertaking qualitative research.\\nI do not expect all writers on GTM, nor all readers of this monograph \\nand of Current Developments to concur with this account; indeed, I would be \\namazed if that was the case. Glaser and Strauss, particularly in Discovery, were \\nkeen to challenge their peers, and stir up controversy and debate. Those of \\nus wishing to follow in their footsteps need to do likewise, but we must take \\ncare to understand the important distinction made by Albert Camus (2000 \\n[1951]) between the historical rebel and metaphysical rebel. The former aims at \\nperfection, and some set of ‘absolute values’; the latter accepts the absurdity \\nof the drama of social existence and the ‘unreasonable silence of the world’, \\nrecognizing social existence and any attempts to encapsulate it as uncertain, \\ncomplex, and chaotic. GTM is the research method for metaphysical rebels par \\nexcellence, so it is no wonder that it remains beset by controversy and discord, \\nboth from within and without; yet it continues to provide an inimitable spur \\nand support for challenging and innovative research and conceptualization.\\nGTM in the age of Big Data\\nCAQDAS – Computer Aided/Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis\\nThe 2007 volume did not have a chapter devoted to computer-aided analysis, \\nor anything on the ways in which digital technologies are and might be used \\nin GTM (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007a). One was planned, but unfortunately the \\nchapter was not submitted. In 2007 this may not have been a major omis-\\nsion, but now it certainly would be. CAQDAS is now an inescapable aspect of \\n \\n\\n\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM\\n51\\nqualitative research; indeed, Friese (CD:14) wonders how anyone can con-\\ntemplate data analysis without using it in some form or other. This position is \\nreinforced by Gorra (CD:15), who refers to claims that the millennial genera-\\ntion, having, in Dan Tapscott’s (2008) terms, ‘grown up digital’, will undertake \\nresearch assuming that computer-based technology is always at-hand, ready \\nto be incorporated into the research process in any number of ways.\\nGlaser has consistently argued that GT researchers should not use \\ncomputer-based facilities for coding and analysis, correctly pointing out \\nthat researchers cannot and should not rely on technology as a substitute \\nfor their own insights and skills, developed from experience in GT data \\nanalysis. But as both Friese and Gorra demonstrate, things have developed \\nrapidly in this regard, and the manner in which CAQDAS and related tech-\\nnologies can and have been incorporated in highly successful GT research \\ncannot be ignored; on the contrary, there are lessons here for everyone to \\nheed even if they have no intention of using CAQDAS.\\nThere is a certain irony in the term CAQDAS itself in the context of \\nGTM. The term that it encompasses, QDA (Qualitative Data Analysis), was \\nused by Strauss and Glaser, both in their joint work and their later, distinct \\npublications, as a form of deprecation. From their earliest writings, Glaser \\nand Strauss were at pains to stress that many forms of qualitative research \\ndid not, and could not, lead to theory generation. For example, in Discovery \\nthey argue that ‘[D]escription, ethnography, fact-finding, verification (call \\nthem what you will) … cannot generate sociological theory’ (1967, p. 7). \\nStrauss often referred disdainfully to ‘mere description’. Glaser (CD:21) \\nhas used various terms in a similar manner, including QDA and Grounded \\nDescription. In the meantime, however, QDA has taken on a life of its own, \\nso it is now seen as a neutral and generic term covering all forms of quali-\\ntative analysis and hence as the basis for CAQDAS. Friese (CD:14) herself \\ndistinguishes between CAQDAS and QDA, preferring the former since it \\nincorporates the idea that the software ‘assists’ the analysis/analyst; the \\nprime activity is undertaken by the researcher(s) and not the software.\\nQDA software implies that the software is doing the analysis instead of being \\na tool aiding the researcher (who still must do the thinking). Automation is \\ncertainly an issue these days given the massive amounts of data available. But \\nbig data analysis is different from qualitative data analysis even if big data may \\nconsist of qualitative, i.e., non-numeric data (Friese, 2016). Thus, we need to \\ndistinguish between the analysis of qualitative data and qualitative data analysis, \\nwhereby GT is a form of the latter.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n52\\nFriese demonstrates extensive familiarity, skill, and insight with the \\nsoftware, including NVivo,7 MAXQDA, and Atlas.ti,8 offering detailed \\ndescriptions of differing implementations of a case study drawn from the \\nwork of Strauss in the 1980s and Corbin more recently.\\nCharmaz commented on an early version of Friese’s chapter as follows:\\nYour chapter captured my interest and raised all kinds of foundational questions \\nabout GT. Readers will not only find it to be helpful in understanding the software \\nbut also in asking fundamental questions about the grounded theory method.\\nYou do an excellent job in showing how researchers can use the programs to \\nhandle myriad details. The capability of the programs for synthesizing data is \\nunassailable. The extent to which they help in scaling up to theory is less appar-\\nent to me. What struck me is that what stands as a theoretical category or \\nconcept differs markedly between grounded theorists. That may be an artifact of \\nusing Strauss and Corbin’s approach, which Glaser (1992) dismissed as ‘full con-\\nceptual description’. Fundamental questions arise. What is a code? When and \\nhow do CAQDAS programs help the researcher to raise codes? How is theorizing \\ndistinguished from describing? What makes an analysis theoretical?\\nI have argued elsewhere (Bryant, 2014), and in a range of different contexts, \\nthat the introduction of digital technology often exposes the complexities \\nof what have previously been seen as mundane or unexceptional activi-\\nties and practices, and this is certainly the case with Friese’s analysis of \\nCAQDAS, as Charmaz’s comments indicate.\\nBased on her work using CAQDAS over 20 years, Friese wonders how \\nanyone can avoid the technology: ‘I can hardly imagine how one would \\nhandle the expected data material manually, and how to keep track of it’. \\nOn the other hand, she also points out that researchers with little or no \\nexperience of CAQDAS should not attempt to develop these skills as part \\nof a research project: ‘it is not a promising idea to begin learning to use a \\nsoftware tool because you have some data and now want to analyze them’.\\nThis firmly resonates with Gorra’s complementary chapter (CD:15). \\nGorra used NVivo, with mixed results, in her own PhD (see Bryant, 2017, \\nChapter 19), and was keen to find out how current PhD students are far-\\ning. Her approach was to do a grounded theory study of a small number \\nof students, eventually producing the core concept of ‘Movement: Keep \\nMoving (Self, Mind, Data)’. One key aspect of her study is that all the \\nstudents demonstrated methodological sensitivity as they experimented \\n\\n\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM\\n53\\nwith different ways of ‘interacting with the data’, including consideration \\nof possible tools such as CAQDAS. Gorra also found that ‘[B]ased on the \\nanalysis of my interviews with GT researchers, I believe that the many \\nchanges in the wider research environment, as discussed in the introduction, \\nhave had an impact on the actual practice of grounded theorizing’.\\nGorra’s core concept develops some of the ideas touched on by Friese. \\nIt encompasses three different aspects centred on ‘time’ in the context of \\ndoctoral research, including: the ‘length of time available’ for the study; \\ndeciding whether or not to invest time to learn using a CAQDAS software \\npackage to gain potential time savings later on; and the time required for \\nthe actual data analysis.\\nIn general, CAQDAS and a whole host of other technological develop-\\nments must be recognized as having an extensive impact on the research \\nprocess as a whole. Different researchers will find their own ways of incor-\\nporating available tools; in some cases, their strategies will prove to be \\ndead-ends, but in others they will enhance the process and the outcomes. \\nPeirce referred to musement in the research process; we now have digital \\nmusement as an important stage either early in the research process, as \\nresearchers experiment with their data and analytic codes, or later as they \\ndevelop their concepts. Indeed, researchers should be encouraged to ‘play’ \\nwith the technology.\\nData and Big Data\\nIn the quote above, Friese distinguished between Big Data analysis and \\nGTM analysis. Big Data is certainly a ‘hot topic’, and as such commonly \\nover-sold. It has clear ramifications for GTM since it appears to be a way in \\nwhich conclusions can emerge algorithmically through computerized pro-\\ncessing of massive data sources. Some have argued that we no longer need \\ntheories, since we now have ‘all the data’, although few go as far as this \\n(see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 16, for further discussion). Clearly, the oppor-\\ntunities offered by massive data sources need to be grasped, although the \\nchallenge they afford is far more directly a concern of quantitative research \\nthan qualitative. For instance, issues of sampling and the appropriate form \\nof statistical analysis may simply not apply if the ‘sample’ is more-or-less \\nthe entire population, and the process of accounting for ‘missing values’ is \\na very different form of activity and analysis.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n54\\nSome of the more outrageous claims regarding Big Data have been \\ndismantled in our article in First Monday (Bryant & Raja, 2014; see also \\nBryant, 2017, Chapter 16), where we argue that far from Big Data eclipsing \\nGTM and qualitative research and analysis, GTM actually provides a very \\nclear and important corrective to some of the more outlandish claims of \\nthe Big Data proponents.\\nIt might appear that claims along the lines of ‘now we have all the \\ndata, there is no need for theories’ is the logical conclusion of the idea \\nthat theories emerge from the data. I have always commended Glaser’s \\n \\nslogan that ‘all is data’, in the sense that GTM researchers should potentially \\napproach anything and everything as worthy bases for investigation – \\n \\ne.g. interviews, documents, observations, literature, websites, and so on. On \\nthe other hand, I have also cautioned against the idea that ‘data is all’, in the \\nsense that concepts, models, and theories will somehow ‘emerge’ from the \\ndata itself – whatever its source or nature. The more extreme, enthusiastic, or \\nprovocative adherents of Big Data take this misunderstanding even further, \\nechoing a Beatles lyric, so it is now understood as ‘Big Data is all you need’. \\nClearly this is nonsense.\\nWhat Big Data claims fail to acknowledge is the role of human insight and \\nconceptualization; exactly what the term theoretical sensitivity encompasses. \\nAssertions that technology can do everything in this context are similar to \\nthose in the artifical intelligence (AI) community who claim that abduction \\ncan now be automated.\\nInaba and Kakai (CD:16), describing their conception of GTxA (a grounded \\ntext mining approach), outline one way in which GTM researchers can use \\nthese technological advances:\\n[GTxA is] an integrative, reflective, and cyclical process that obtains an overview \\nof the text data (Step 1), completes a qualitative data analysis (Step 2), creates \\nvisualization and performs an analysis with text mining (Step 3), and then devel-\\nops a meta-inference (Step 4). By cyclically repeating these steps, researchers \\nobtain a deeper understanding of the text data.\\nBut they stress that it is the researchers who develop and have to \\narticulate this deeper understanding of the data; a process best explained \\nin terms of a constructivist understanding of GTM. They concur with \\nBryant and Raja (2014), where we argue that both Big Data analysis (often \\ntermed Knowledge Discovery from Data) and GTM are ‘instantiations of \\n\\n\\nTHE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM\\n55\\nhermeneutics’, envisaged not as a circle but rather as a ‘spiral moving from \\nan origin focused on the data towards ever higher levels of abstraction and \\nconceptual reach’.9\\nWhatever GTM researchers might think and seek to do with regards to \\nCAQDAS, Big Data, and other manifestations of digital technology, they \\nneed to pay them some cognizance. In the first instance considering how \\nthey might be of assistance, and also being prepared to respond to those \\nwho might challenge their findings from a perspective based on misuse \\nand misunderstanding of ‘Big Data’ or other resources that fail to incorpo-\\nrate insight and theoretical sensitivity.\\nImages as data\\nKrzysztof Konecki (CD:17) takes the idea of ‘all is data’ one stage further, \\narguing that images can and should be amenable to GTM analysis. He \\ndevelops Glaser and Strauss’s metaphor of ‘slices of data’ with his concept \\nof ‘multi-slice imaginings’, defined as a process that involves ‘identifying \\nthe layers of image that should be analyzed (levels of creation, structure, \\npresentation and reception of image)’. He argues that ‘visual grounded the-\\nory’ should be understood as a distinct way of doing GTM, and that this \\nwas already present to some extent in Clarke’s situational analysis, which \\n‘announced her departure from the basics of GT and instead proposed a \\nconcentration on situational analysis using visual materials’ (Clarke, 2005).\\nOne of Konecki’s objectives is to draw attention to the processes \\ninvolved in ‘seeing’ or ‘observing’. He quotes Banks (2001, p. 7), ‘Seeing \\nis not natural, however much we might think it to be’. This aligns with \\nthe constructivist orientation which views interaction between ‘researcher’ \\nand ‘data’ as an interpretative dialogue, applying to all forms of data, \\nnot only to images. GTM analysis necessarily involves interpretation and \\n‘multi-slice imaginings’, as discussed by Konecki.\\nNotes\\n1\\t Wertz et al. (2011) Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis is a key source for those \\ninterested in learning more about different approaches.\\n2\\t See for instance, Saldana’s book, which outlines several different forms of and \\napproaches to coding (Saldana, 2015).\\n3\\t This term is common in the works of Glaser and Strauss, but its meaning is some-\\nwhat opaque. Kathy Charmaz was unsure of its precise meaning, but recalled \\nGlaser and Strauss using it when discussing bits or fragments of data. I would \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n56\\nargue that the metaphor is, however, clearly distinct from this, since ‘slicing’ \\nimplies that the total data is somehow in one piece from which slices can be \\ntaken. I do not want to press this too far, but it does illustrate the ways in which \\nthe term ‘data’ was in many, important ways a key ‘sensitizing concept’ in the \\nearly GT writings, rather than a definitive one – see below.\\n4\\t Errol Morris relates an incident in his first year as one of Thomas Kuhn’s grad-\\nuate students. ‘I asked him, “If paradigms are really incommensurable, how is \\nhistory of science possible? Wouldn’t we be merely interpreting the past in the \\nlight of the present? Wouldn’t the past be inaccessible to us? Wouldn’t it be \\nincommensurable?” He started moaning. He put his head in his hands and was \\nmuttering, “He’s trying to kill me. He’s trying to kill me.” And then I added, “…\\nexcept for someone who imagines himself to be God.” It was at this point that \\nKuhn threw the ashtray at me. And missed.’ https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.\\ncom/2011/03/06/the-ashtray-the-ultimatum-part-1/\\n5\\t For a discussion of GTM and gerunds, see A. Bryant (2017). Introduction to \\nPart Three. In Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in Research \\nPractice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\\n6\\t Herbert Blumer (1954), a close colleague of Strauss in Chicago, similarly criti-\\ncized ‘grand theory’ in his essay ‘What is wrong with social theory?’, American \\nSociological Review, 19, 3–10.\\n7\\t Confusion in conversation can arise in GTM since someone discussing NVivo \\ncodes may be understood to be referring to ‘in vivo’ codes.\\n8\\t Atlas.ti is referred to in the UK as ‘Atlas-tee-eye’, but elsewhere, particularly in \\nGermany where it was developed, as ‘Atlas-tee’.\\n9\\t Hermeneutics is usually explained in terms of the hermeneutic circle – see https://\\nplato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics\\n\\n\\n3\\nGTM FROM A LOGICAL  \\nPOINT OF VIEW\\nEpistemology and ontology\\nIt used to be the case that, in many disciplines, concerns about a research-\\ner’s epistemological stance were rarely more than nugatory. It was widely \\nassumed that all researchers shared similar assumptions – essentially that \\nscientific research was best accomplished by objective, disinterested, empir-\\nical work aimed at discovering ‘the facts’. Not too far removed from Charles \\nDickens’ caricature of English education in the Victorian era, embodied in \\nMr Gradgrind.\\nNOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts \\nalone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You \\ncan only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever \\nbe of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own chil-\\ndren, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, \\nsir! (Dickens, Hard Times, 1854)1\\nSchatzman commended Glaser and Strauss for pushing researchers into \\nmaking clear and articulate methodological commitments. The work of \\nThomas Kuhn (1962 & 1970) had an even greater impact, leading research-\\ners to consider and articulate their epistemological orientation. Yet many \\nresearchers, particularly those in what are termed ‘the hard sciences’, sim-\\nply carried on as before. Those employing qualitative methods, particularly \\nin the social and human sciences, however, were expected to broach the \\nissue at some point, and doctoral students in particular are now expected to \\naddress epistemological issues when discussing their method/methodology.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n58\\nI take the view that, while commendable to some extent, it seems \\nsomewhat churlish to expect doctoral students to grapple with and clarify \\ntopics that remain highly contentious and unresolved even for erudite \\nand experienced philosophers. As such, I advocate serious consideration \\nof epistemological avoidance, albeit recognizing that this is not always a \\nfeasible option (see below).\\nIn various discussions introducing and developing Constructivist GTM, \\nKathy Charmaz and I have sought to expose the ways in which pre-existing \\nvariants – including Glaser and Strauss’s joint work, as well as their later \\ndistinct writings – were misleading in their epistemological claims; often \\nwith distinctly positivist assumptions and ramifications: Charmaz’s chap-\\nter in the second edition of The Handbook of Qualitative Research being the \\nfons et origo of this critique (Charmaz, 2000). Prior to this, the GTM posi-\\ntion on such topics was largely one of epistemological evasion – the matter \\nwas not addressed at all.\\nSubsequent to Charmaz’s and my writings, however, Glaser, and those \\nwho support his position, have responded by claiming that GTM is able to \\nalign with any and every epistemological orientation; a position I refer to as \\nepistemological indifference (Glaser, 2002). Unfortunately, such cryptic catch-\\nall claims evade the real complexities. If researchers are required or feel the \\nneed to declare and discuss their epistemological stance, then they must be \\nable to offer some substantiation, perhaps in the form of an appeal to a \\nset of authoritative statements, simultaneously observing that other sources \\nargue an alternative or opposing opinion. Some writers on GTM – and other \\n \\nmethods – seem highly concerned about the links between a researcher’s \\nstance on epistemology/ontology and the research strategy/process/methods \\nthat they then follow. This is more complex when more than one researcher \\nis involved, particularly if researchers with differing – contrasting and even \\nopposing – stances work in collaboration. Such collaborations might prove \\nfruitful and insightful in the long run, if more time-consuming and trouble-\\nsome in the short run.\\nEpistemological indifference is not a defensible position, neither is eva-\\nsion. I do not advocate either, but I do understand and, in some contexts, \\nrecommend epistemological avoidance. Much as with paying tax, avoidance \\nis legal and understandable; evasion is neither; indifference is hazardous. So \\ntoo for doctoral researchers. It is perfectly reasonable to avoid detailed and \\ncomplex discussions on ‘the E and O words’ (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 2).\\n\\n\\nGTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW\\n59\\nIn contrast, Charmaz does not support avoidance, but instead advocates \\na thorough engagement with epistemology since many disciplines and \\npublications require clear statements on the topic. We concur, however, \\nthat researchers must be able to substantiate any epistemological claims \\nthey offer; with the caveat that such claims can often be implicit. For GTM \\nthis is particularly important since so many papers and other research out-\\nputs incorporate statements such as GTM is ‘an inductive method’, or ‘we \\navoided all preconceptions’, or ‘the theory emerged from the data’, all of \\nwhich raise complex and important epistemological issues, without neces-\\nsarily appearing to do so.\\nIn my concluding discussion of ‘the E and O words’ I noted that:\\n… it is worth stressing that purity of method is no guarantee of value in research \\nfindings, or as Rorty (1977) has argued: ‘Nothing is to be gained for an under-\\nstanding of human knowledge by running together vocabularies in which we \\ndescribe the causal antecedents of knowledge with those in which we offer \\njustification of our claims to knowledge.’ (Bryant, 2017, p. 56)\\nIn other words, claimed adherence to a method is no substitute for effective \\ninsight.\\nGTM – an epistemological fairy-tale?\\nIn his extended review of three books on the urban environment, Wacquant \\n(2002) described GTM as ‘an epistemological fairy-tale’, a term often invoked in \\npejorative critiques of GTM. Wacquant applied this epithet both to GTM and \\n‘diagnostic ethnography’, a term ‘coined by Duneier’s Wisconsin colleague Erik \\nWright to characterize this inductivist, I-began-to-get-ideas-from-the-things-\\nI-was-seeing-and-hearing-on-the-street approach to field-based inquiry’. \\nInterestingly, he offers no references to GTM itself, seemingly assuming his \\nsociological readership will understand the target of his gratuitous sideswipe.\\nWacquant’s review is symptomatic of the paradoxical relationship \\nbetween GTM and sociology (see below). But for now, it is worth noting \\nthat Wacquant’s sentiment regarding the inductivism of GTM seemed to be \\nsufficiently commonplace in sociology in 2002 to require no further expla-\\nnation. Such statements indicate a severe misinterpretation of GTM, perhaps \\nan understandable failing at the time. Yet the full context of his comment \\nreveals that he is actually praising Duneier for what can and should now be \\nunderstood as a form of abduction largely emanating from GTM.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n60\\nSo he went about ‘fishing’ for questions to which these informants might have \\nanswers. But his problematic did not emerge inductively, as in the epistemologi-\\ncal fairy tale of ‘grounded theory’ or ‘diagnostic ethnography’: it resulted from \\nthe projection, onto the sidewalk, of Duneier’s personal interest in morality and \\n‘respectability’ (already evident in Slim’s Table). Duneier must be given credit \\nfor the candor with which he acknowledges it: ‘I hadn’t formulated a precise \\nresearch question. I had no theories that I wanted to test or reconstruct, and \\nI didn’t have a particular scholarly literature to which I knew I wanted to con-\\ntribute. … I sought mainly to diagnose the processes at work in this setting and \\nto explain the observed patterns of interactions of people. I also have a general \\ntheme that guides me in collecting data in all of my work: whether and how the \\npeople I am with are or are not struggling to live in accordance with standards of \\n“moral” worth.’ (Wacquant, 2002, pp. 340–41, emphasis added)\\nWacquant’s short-hand dismissal of GTM occurs within the context of \\ndescribing an approach that looks remarkably similar to a credible and \\nwell-crafted grounded theory study:\\n•\\t\\nno precise research question;\\n•\\t\\nspecifically eschewing verification of existing theories;\\n•\\t\\ndeliberately not scouring the literature;\\n•\\t\\nand seeking to explain general patterns based on a general view of \\nwhat was going on in specific urban settings.\\nIndeed, Wacquant criticizes one of the books under review for artificially \\noverlaying the ‘narrative of deindustrialization and racial exclusion … onto \\nfield descriptions … [with a low] ratio of analysis to narrative and interview \\ntranscripts’ – i.e. too much description and too little analysis; precisely \\nthe failings that Strauss and Corbin, and Glaser were already pointing \\nout in 1990 when criticizing inadequate research masquerading as GTM. \\nWacquant’s criticisms are aimed at the wrong target.\\nEpistemological metaphors – emergence, lens, \\nextract, abstract\\nAlthough Strauss (Charmaz, 2014a; see also Strauss, 1987, p. 12) may \\nhave understood that GTM was ‘abductive’ – albeit that this key aspect \\nwas only more fully articulated, clarified, and made evident in recent \\ntimes – the vocabulary used in the early GTM writings leads in other direc-\\ntions. Simplistic use of the term ‘data’, an over-playing (Strauss’s term) of \\n\\n\\nGTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW\\n61\\ninduction, and the ramifications of the precept that researchers should \\nallow the theory to emerge from the data, are all imbued with a positivist \\nepistemology and its ramifications. The metaphor of ‘emerging’ continues \\nto plague discussion of GTM, as do other metaphors centring on cognition \\nand the role of the researcher. These also impact on ideas about research \\nand insight more generally.\\nThe metaphors we use influence and direct the ways in which we think \\nabout things, with both positive and negative ramifications. Ridding our-\\nselves of using metaphors is not possible; neither is it advisable, since the \\npower of metaphors – by definition, opening up new ways of thinking and \\nimagining – is important, particularly in research approaches aimed at artic-\\nulating innovative and challenging conceptualizations. Grounding theory in \\nthe data is a very powerful, illuminating, and innovative metaphor!\\nThe problem with the metaphor encapsulated in the idea that a grounded \\ntheory ‘emerges’ from the data is that it detracts from the active and interpre-\\ntative nature of research, as researchers seek to move from their data towards \\ncredible and coherent forms of abstraction – conceptualizations in the form \\nof theories, models, or frameworks.\\nFor Nietzsche, ‘truth is a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, \\nanthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which have been \\nsubjected to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation and decora-\\ntion’ (quoted in Rorty, 1991, p. 32), a sentiment echoed by Lakoff and \\nJohnson in Metaphors We Live By (2003). Researchers and those writing \\nabout research methods need to be aware of the role and power of meta-\\nphors. The metaphor of emerging, a central part of what I have termed ‘the \\nGTM mantra’ (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 14 and Table 18.1), is double-edged \\nand far too likely to be misleading or ambiguous. If theories are char-\\nacterized as ‘emerging’ from the data, then the role of the researcher is \\nsomewhat diminished since some level of agency appears to be granted to \\nthe data. Even if this is understood and taken into account, it still obscures \\nor detracts from understanding the nature of the role of the researcher(s) as \\none of being in dialogue with their data.\\nDespite phrases such as ‘the theory arises from the data’, Glaser and \\nStrauss clearly understood that the relationship between researchers and the \\ndata is more complex. Hence, they introduced the term theoretical sensitivity \\nin Discovery (1967). Kelle (2007, p. 193) has defined this as the ‘the ability \\nto see relevant data and to reflect upon empirical data material with the help \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n62\\nof theoretical terms’. Glaser and Strauss themselves stressed that ‘[O]nce \\nstarted, theoretical sensitivity is forever in continual development’ (1967, \\np. 46). They also demonstrated the complex relationship between research-\\ners and their data in their two initial grounded theories – Awareness (1965b) \\nand Time (1968). Since both were derived from the same data, the theoreti-\\ncal insights for each must have been under the control of the researchers, \\nand reliant on their skills and decisions on how best to pursue one line of \\nthought and leave others for later consideration.\\nIn part, the fault lies with uncritical use of phrases such as ‘the theory \\nemerges from the data’ and the associated concept of ‘emergence’ in general. \\nAccording to the authoritative Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (n.d.  – entry \\non emergence), the word ‘emergence’ is highly problematic.\\nEmergence is a notorious philosophical term of art. A variety of theorists have \\nappropriated it for their purposes ever since George Henry Lewes gave it a \\nphilosophical sense in his 1875 Problems of Life and Mind. We might roughly char-\\nacterize the shared meaning thus: emergent entities (properties or substances) \\n‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with \\nrespect to them. (For example, it is sometimes said that consciousness is an \\nemergent property of the brain.) Each of the quoted terms is slippery in its own \\nright, and their specifications yield the varied notions of emergence that we \\ndiscuss below.\\nThis description certainly resonates with its use in the context of GTM, in the \\nsense that the method is designed to prompt and support researchers mov-\\ning from the data and the specific context, to higher-level abstractions and \\nconcepts which, although clearly derived from the data, encompass proper-\\nties and explanatory compass that are not reducible to the data itself – i.e. the \\nresulting theory can be said to be an emergent entity. But this is not the same \\nas promoting the idea that theories emerge from the data. This latter use of the \\nterm has too many other potentially misleading and deceptive ramifications \\nand implications, particularly those relating to the role of researchers, the \\nprocesses of cognition, and generating novel insights.\\nSimilarly, acknowledging that grounded theory is an emergent method, \\nin which researchers make methodological decisions through successively \\nstudying their data and nascent analyses, does not mean that theory simply \\narises from the data (Charmaz, 2008a). The process of developing theo-\\nretical insights is dependent on researchers examining and analyzing the \\ndata, then moving to develop conceptualizations; the initial phase might \\n\\n\\nGTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW\\n63\\nbe understood as a form of induction, but the subsequent stages necessarily \\ninvolve abduction (see below).\\nGlaser and Strauss were keen to distinguish GTM from existing methods, \\nparticularly those that relied on deriving testable hypotheses from existing \\ntheories. They were equally critical of what they termed ‘mindless empiri-\\ncism’, evidenced by their reference to Blumer’s ‘admirable article, addressing \\nhimself to the gap between ungrounded theories and the countless empirical \\nstudies unguided by any theories’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, fn, p. 14). Blumer’s \\ncritique was aimed not only at this ‘mindless’ approach, but also at the way \\nin which many research projects set out with the objective of producing out-\\ncomes that had already been foreshadowed in earlier work (see Bryant, 2017, \\nChapter 3). Blumer’s way of avoiding these contrasting hazards was through \\nrecognition of the role of ‘sensitizing concepts’. A sensitizing concept\\nlacks such specification of attributes or bench marks and consequently it does \\nnot enable the user to move directly to the instance and its relevant content. \\nInstead, it gives the user a general sense of reference and guidance in approaching \\nempirical instances. (Blumer, 1954, p. 7, emphasis added)\\nSensitizing concepts facilitate some forms of investigation but can and do \\npreclude others.\\nGlaser and Strauss offered a different and starker reaction and \\nresolution to Blumer’s criticisms. To avoid the potential for confirma-\\ntory bias – setting out to find evidence for what you had already decided \\nwas the case – and also to reject what they saw as the somewhat servile \\nand docile deductive model that pervaded US social science, they advo-\\ncated that doctoral researchers should steer clear of the prevailing and \\n‘authoritative’ literature, and so enter the research context with ‘as few \\npreconceptions as possible’ (Glaser, 1978, pp. 2–3).\\nOver the years this admonition has taken on a life of its own, so that \\nfor many people, including research examiners, journal editors and other \\ngate-keepers, GTM inextricably involves researchers ignoring the relevant \\nliterature at the outset, followed by claims along the lines that they under-\\ntook their work with no preconceptions or at least somehow circumvented \\nthem. A great deal of effort has been expended in correcting such mis-\\nconceptions, which I regard as ‘accidents’ rather than as ‘essences’ of the \\nmethod (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 4). The rationale for Glaser and Strauss’s \\nposition in the 1960s is understandable, but we now need to jettison such \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n64\\nadvice, which in part derives from the shortcomings of a common meta-\\nphor of cognition that is assumed in their writing, and which remains in \\nGlaser’s recent work.\\nNo preconceived research works as GT. But the worldwide use of GT or sup-\\nposed GT versions has increased our knowledge of the subtleties of requiring \\nno preconception or giving the arguments for preconceiving research aspects in \\nsome ways. I hope to detail many of these subtleties in this book so the reader \\ncan be aware of what it means to suspend preconceptions in service of emergent \\ngenerating of theory.\\nKeep in mind that preconceived concepts do not have to be forgotten. They are \\njust to be suspended for the GT research so the researcher is open to the emer-\\ngent. Why let them get in the way? (Glaser, 2012, emphasis added)\\nGlaser’s ideas emanate from ‘the conduit metaphor’ of communica-\\ntion (see Reddy, 1979; and Bryant, 2006). This metaphor is so common \\nin everyday parlance that it evades all but the most scrupulous atten-\\ntion – so neither Glaser nor Strauss can be singled out for criticism \\non this point. The assumption is that communication operates as a \\nseries of conduits – tubes, channels, ducts – along or through which \\ninformation is passed from sender to receiver. Reddy argues that this \\nrepresentation of communication is highly misleading, since good \\ncommunication then appears to resemble friction-free, blockage-free \\nflow. Consequently, communication problems are characterized as \\nblockages, breakdowns, or failures between transmission and reception. \\nHence Glaser’s assertion that preconceived concepts ‘get in the way’, \\nimplying that effective observation and research is all about clearing a \\npath of impediments to the development of understanding and insight.\\nGlaser also uses the metaphor of ‘suspension’; researchers should \\n‘suspend preconceptions’. We may be said to ‘suspend’ judgement if \\nwe hear differing views about a film or play prior to seeing it for our-\\nselves, but in such cases the options are fairly clear, whereas ‘suspending \\n \\npreconceptions’ is a far more complex issue, if indeed it is at all possible. \\nHow do we know what our preconceptions actually are? Preconceptions, \\nby definition, are often deeply ingrained and taken-for-granted, making \\nit impossible for anyone to characterize and articulate them as a basis \\nthen for ‘suspending’ them.\\n\\n\\nGTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW\\n65\\nStrauss and Corbin acknowledged that some of the initial GTM texts \\nmight have over-played the issue of avoiding existing work, quoting Ian \\nDey’s (1999, p. 251) succinct phrase ‘an open mind is not the same as an \\nempty head’. (The phrase is also attributed to Edward Tufte.) But the issue \\ngoes further than this, and it requires an understanding of how the con-\\nduit metaphor skews the ways in which people talk about and understand \\ncognition. Glaser and Strauss’s writings are symptomatic of the idea of cog-\\nnition as a process requiring a free-flowing path from source to receiver; \\npre-existing ideas just get in the way. The concomitant assumption is that \\nthese existing ideas can be turned off like a tap, allowing researchers to \\nclaim either that they have discounted various issues with which they have \\nfamiliarity, or they are immune to such influences and hold a neutral and \\ndisinterested position. Unfortunately, as John Maynard Keynes observed \\n(1936), ‘Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from \\nany intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist’. \\nRather than make claims about suspending, avoiding, or evading precon-\\nceptions, it is far better for researchers to explicate and acknowledge the \\nideas that they hold, and then let others decide the extent to which these \\ninfluence the process and outcome of the research itself. Those claiming \\nimmunity from any such influences, or omitting any reference to them, \\nmay well be those most affected by their preconceptions, precisely because \\nthey are unaware of them.2\\nIn contrast to the conduit metaphor, Reddy (1979, p. 171) proposed \\nwhat he terms ‘the toolmakers’ paradigm’. The fundamental difference \\nbetween the toolmakers’ paradigm and the conduit metaphor is that for \\nthe latter successful communication appears to be gained without effort, \\nwhereas for the former human communication ‘will almost always go \\nastray unless real energy is expended’ (p. 184). This observation also applies \\nto cognition, where effort is required by all parties to the communica-\\ntion process, and does not incorporate or even allow any passive form of \\n‘reception’. The toolmakers’ paradigm aligns with the interpretative/con-\\nstructivist turn since they share the view that our understanding of reality \\nis a participative, co-constructive, precarious, and continuous project.\\nBlumer’s argument for sensitizing concepts can be understood in this \\ncontext. Sensitizing concepts do not obstruct our studies and insights \\nbut, on the contrary, afford ‘a general sense of reference and guidance in \\napproaching empirical instances’ (1954, p. 7). Many GTM researchers refer \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n66\\nto specific sensitizing concepts, such as feminism, race and ethnicity, and \\nsocial justice. Some might argue that these concepts have not ‘earned their \\nway’ in the manner prescribed by Glaser and Strauss. To some extent such \\nsuspicions are well founded, particularly if the terms themselves are used in \\nan inept and confirmatory manner. Blumer suggested that:\\nhundreds of our concepts – like culture, institutions, social structure, mores, and \\npersonality – are not definitive concepts but are sensitizing in nature. They lack \\nprecise reference and have no bench marks which allow a clean-cut identifica-\\ntion of a specific instance and of its content. Instead, they rest on a general sense \\nof what is relevant. (Blumer, 1954, p. 7)\\nSensitizing concepts can be understood as different ‘lenses’ through \\nwhich to view research settings; a lens in this context is another meta-\\nphor for thinking about cognition. Thus, adding a new lens, or switching \\none lens out for an alternative, will alter the perspective or orientation \\nfrom which the context is viewed, much as in an eye-examination by \\nan ophthalmologist. But it is important to take the metaphor further \\nand understand that any ‘lens’ can also introduce sources of distortion, \\naltered representation, and occlusions. Sensitizing concepts, as enabling \\nmechanisms, allow us to develop our understanding in important ways, \\nand several chapters in Current Developments (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019) \\ndemonstrate this, using examples such as feminism, culture, injustice, \\nand indigeneity.\\nIn their early GTM texts, particularly Discovery, Glaser and Strauss can \\nnow be understood to have used the terms ‘data’, ‘theory’, and ‘concept’ \\nlargely as sensitizing concepts. They are never defined but play an impor-\\ntant role in establishing the basis for GTM. Sensitizing concepts facilitate \\nsome forms of investigation but preclude others. In Discovery, the argu-\\nment for GTM was clearly and cogently presented, but, using Blumer’s \\nterms, the concept of ‘data’ lacked ‘specification … and consequently [did \\nnot] enable the user to move directly to the instance and its relevant con-\\ntent’ (Blumer, 1954, p.7). The later critiques of Charmaz and others can \\nthen be understood as moving from using ‘data’ as a sensitizing concept to \\none where the term becomes subject to detailed and critical examination \\nto see if and how it ‘earned its way’. (See below where this is demonstrated \\nat greater length regarding ‘theory’.)\\n\\n\\nGTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW\\n67\\nInduction and abduction\\nThe 2007 Handbook offered new and important insights on the Pragmatist \\ninfluence on GTM, and the related concept of abduction. GTM contin-\\nues to be labelled an ‘inductive method’, but Strauss was already keen to \\ntell people in the 1960s that GTM was an ‘abductive method’. Strauss was \\ninfluenced by Pragmatism throughout his intellectual career, but strangely \\nfailed to refer to it explicitly, if at all, in his GTM writings; it is largely rel-\\negated to the odd footnote (see Bryant, 2009). On the other hand, GTM \\namong the German-speaking research community was closely associated \\nwith Strauss’s Pragmatism, and hence also with the issue of abduction. In \\nthe 2007 volume, the chapters by Reichertz and Strübing in particular attest \\nto this, and the topic is further developed not only by these contributors, \\nbut in other chapters in Current Developments (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007a, \\n2019). GTM writers now cannot ignore the issue, either needing to explain \\nhow abduction operates, or to discount it in some manner. For instance, \\nReichertz (CD:13) provides an argument that concludes starkly that \\n \\n‘[T]he logic of Strauss’s GT thus permits abductive reasoning, counts on \\nit, enables it, grants it place. More is not necessary.’ Many texts, however, \\ncontinue to claim simply that GTM is ‘an inductive method’, something \\nthat has been taken up by generations of students and other researchers in \\na largely unexamined manner. (Abduction is an important and complex \\ntopic, particularly so for GTM. This section draws on key chapters from both \\nHandbooks, also from Bryant (2017, Chapter 13). Readers are advised to go \\nto these sources for further explanation and suggestions for further reading.)\\nThe term ‘induction’, and various related terms, only occurs a few \\ntimes in Discovery. In Chapter V, Glaser and Strauss (1967, p. 104) refer to \\ngrounded theory as ‘the constant comparative method’, and distinguish it \\nfrom ‘analytic induction’ as follows:\\nAnalytic induction has been concerned with generating and proving an integrated, \\nlimited, precise, universally applicable theory of causes accounting for a specific \\nbehavior (e.g., drug addiction, embezzlement). … It tests a limited number of \\nhypotheses with all available data, consisting of numbers of clearly defined and \\ncarefully selected cases of phenomena. … The theory is generated by the refor-\\nmation of hypotheses and redefinition of the phenomena forced by constantly \\nconfronting the theory with negative cases, cases which do not confirm the \\ncurrent formulation.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n68\\nIn contrast to analytic induction, the constant comparative method is concerned with \\ngenerating and plausibly suggesting (but not provisionally testing) many categories, \\nproperties, and hypotheses about general problems (e.g., the distribution of services \\naccording to the social value of clients). Some of these properties may be causes, \\nas in analytic induction, but unlike analytic induction, others are conditions, \\nconsequences, dimensions, types, processes, etc. … the constant comparisons \\nrequired by both methods differ in breadth of purpose, extent of comparing, and \\nwhat data and ideas are compared. (emphasis added)\\nKelle (CD:3) offers a helpful note on analytic induction: ‘[T]heoretical \\npropositions are developed, built and modified through chains of infer-\\nences. To obtain a deeper understanding of this process it is important to \\ndifferentiate between different kinds of theoretical statements with regard \\nto their scope, source, degree of explicitness and empirical content.’\\nHammersley (2004, 2010, 2011) has written extensively on analytic induc-\\ntion and its comparison with GTM. He traces the former through the work of \\nseveral colleagues and mentors of Strauss, including Becker and Lindesmith, \\nthe latter with whom Strauss co-authored an enduring standard text on social \\npsychology (2009).3 Hammersley argues that Glaser and Strauss were at pains \\nto distinguish between GTM and analytic induction. GTM was a method \\nthat used ‘explicit coding … [to] … serve the function of … generating and \\n \\ndeveloping theories’. In contrast, analytic induction was\\nconcerned with generating and proving an integrated, limited, precise, univer-\\nsally applicable theory of causes accounting for a specific behavior (e.g., drug \\naddiction, embezzlement). … [I]t tests a limited number of hypotheses with all \\navailable data, consisting of members of clearly defined and carefully selected \\ncases of the phenomena. … the theory is generated by the reformulation of \\nhypotheses and redefinition of the phenomena forced by constantly confront-\\ning the theory with negative cases, cases which do not confirm the current \\nformulation. (Hammersley, 2010, italics in original, bold emphasis added)\\nSo most of the discussion on induction in Discovery actually refers to some-\\nthing distinct from GTM itself. On the other hand, there is one succinct and \\nunambiguous statement that is the source of part of the GTM mantra.\\nIn comparing incidents, the analyst learns to see his categories in terms of both \\ntheir internal development and their changing relations to other categories. For \\nexample, as the nurse learns more about the patient, her calculations of social \\n\\n\\nGTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW\\n69\\nloss change; and these recalculations change her social loss stories, her loss \\nrationales and her care of the patient.\\nThis is an inductive method of theory development. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 114, \\nemphasis added)\\nThe problems of induction are well documented and widely discussed (see \\nBryant, 2017, Chapters 2 and 13), but more pertinently, when considering \\nforms of reasoning, we need to account not only for the logical aspects but \\nalso for the cognitive ones. Although Glaser’s admonition to avoid ‘immacu-\\nlate conceptualization’ is both pithy and relevant in the context of GTM, it \\nignores the many ways in which researchers develop their insights. Martin \\n(CD:11) quotes Gary Shank’s classification of six modes of reasoning:\\nShank (1998), for instance, cited six modes that have emerged in the literature, \\nfrom the type of everyday cognition people utilize to solve problems to empiri-\\ncal research. They are: ‘(a) reasoning to the reason or hunch; (b) reasoning \\nto the clue; (c) reasoning to the metaphor or analogy; (d) reasoning to the \\nsymptom; (e) reasoning to the pattern; (f) reasoning to the explanation’ (Shank, \\n1998, pp. 848–849).\\nThe categorization is derived from Shank’s work, based on his refor-\\nmulation of Peirce’s ‘ten classes of signs’ in the context of his (Shank’s) \\nconsideration of Peirce’s work on semiotics and abduction.4 In the paper \\nco-authored with Cunningham (1996) they move from ‘categoriza-\\ntion’ to consideration of ‘inference’, asking ‘what can the ten classes tell \\nus about how human beings reason and make inferences about their world?’ \\n \\n(emphasis added). Although they do not spell out the ramifications here, \\nelsewhere Shank (1998) has stressed that his aim is to demonstrate that \\nabduction is as much a ‘psychological concept’ as a ‘logical and semiotic’ \\none. As Reichertz argues both in the 2007 volume and Current Developments \\n(CD:13), it is critical to maintain and defend the understanding of abduc-\\ntion as both logical and cognitive. He quotes Peirce to the effect that \\nabduction ‘takes place “like lightning”, and the thought process “is very \\nlittle hampered by logical rules”’ (emphasis added). Making inferences is an \\nembodied cognitive process, encompassing a logical form of reasoning, but \\nalso involving something along the lines of what Glaser and Strauss termed \\n‘theoretical sensitivity’.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n70\\nCharmaz has characterized abduction as ‘a type of reasoning that \\nbegins by examining data and after scrutiny of these data, and defining an \\nunusual finding, entertains all possible explanations for this data, and then \\nforms hypotheses to confirm or disconfirm until the researcher arrives at \\nthe most plausible interpretation of the observed data’ (Charmaz, 2014a, \\nemphasis added). This begs the question ‘plausible for whom?’. Initially \\nthis will be the researcher(s) themselves, and any advisors or evaluators; \\nlater the plausibility of the interpretation should be judged more widely, \\nalthough, as Glaser and Strauss argued, a grounded theory, and indeed \\nother theories, are often proven to be of ‘great practical use long before the \\ntheory is tested with great rigor’ (Awareness, 1965b, p. 293).\\nExplaining the role of abduction in GTM makes the method more \\nunderstandable and plausible. Reichertz has described Peirce’s concept of \\nabduction as involving an ‘out-manoeuvring’ of one’s existing knowledge \\nand expectations; an alternative metaphor to that of suspending or aban-\\ndoning one’s preconceptions. He also argues that the divergence between \\nGlaser and Strauss in their later writings can best be understood as oriented \\naround the idea of abduction: Strauss takes it up and uses it to distance his \\nidea of the method, not only from deductive methods of investigation but \\nalso from being simply ‘inductive’. The stress is on generating new ideas \\nand concepts. Glaser, on the other hand, adheres to the centrality of induc-\\ntion and theory emerging from the data.\\nReichertz offers a clear and succinct distinction between deduction, \\ninduction, and abduction. In stark terms, he states that deduction is tau-\\ntological but ‘truth-conveying’, while qualitative induction is tautological \\nbut ‘not truth-conveying’. What he refers to as ‘qualitative induction’ is\\nnot a valid but only a probable form of inference, although it does have the \\nadvantage of being capable of operationalization (albeit with difficulty). \\nQualitative induction is the basis of all scientific procedures that find, in col-\\nlected data, only new versions of what is already known. (Reichertz, CD:13)\\nHence his conclusion that GTM cannot lead to new theoretical insights if \\nit is purely and simply inductive.\\nIn contrast to qualitative induction, Reichertz refers to procedures that \\nlead to ‘an abductive discovered order’. An outcome that is primarily a \\n‘mental construct’ since ‘the search for order is never definitively complete \\nand is always undertaken provisionally’. This is bound up with his stress on \\n\\n\\nGTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW\\n71\\nabduction as primarily and ineluctably a cognitive process. These constructs \\nor hypotheses must then be amenable to a ‘multi-stage process of checking’.\\nAbductive inferencing does not double the amount of data but construes a \\nconcept, an idea, a theory which makes the action the data represent com-\\nprehensible and explains it. Research that takes an abductive approach makes \\naction comprehensible by indicating the regularities this action is based on, \\nmaking its motives apparent, to an extent far beyond what the acting individu-\\nals themselves are aware of. (Reichertz, CD:13, original emphasis)\\nIt is important to understand that when Reichertz refers to a multi-stage \\n \\nprocess of checking he is not advocating some form of positivist or empiricist \\nverification. His primary claim is that any theory has to be comprehensible \\nand plausible, again prompting the response ‘comprehensible and plausi-\\nble to whom?’, but anchoring the issue in the realm of a Pragmatist view \\nof knowledge, not a positivist/empiricist one. Theories are to be justified \\nprimarily in terms of their ‘usefulness’, and hypotheses judged in terms of \\nconsistency, coherence, credibility, and rigour. Knowledge claims require \\nand rely on cognitive and social foundations, or in Rorty’s stark terms: \\n‘Truth is what your contemporaries allow you to get away with’.5\\nReichertz’s chapter in 2007 stressed the cognitive nature of abduction. \\nIt is not something that can be automated, despite the claims of those in \\nthe AI (artificial intelligence) community who argue otherwise. He noted \\nironically that ‘[T]he great success of abduction, in my opinion, may be \\ntraced back to two particular features: first to its indefiniteness and second \\nto the misjudgment of the achievements of abduction that derive from this’ \\n(2007, p. 216, emphasis added). He repeats this in his new chapter (CD:13), \\nexplaining that abduction has been mis-characterized as a ‘rule-governed \\nway to new knowledge’, and taken up by those looking for a logical basis \\nfor something that might become machine-based.\\nHe also, quite correctly, distinguishes between serendipity and abduc-\\ntion. Abduction ‘brings a novel idea into the world’, but, unlike serendipity, \\nit does not rely on luck. On the other hand, the concept of ‘theoretical sensi-\\ntivity’ brings the two together much along the lines of Louis Pasteur’s point \\nthat ‘in the fields of observation chance favours only the prepared mind’. \\n(NB: The word ‘only’ is often omitted when people use this aphorism.) These \\naspects can coincide, for instance, in Benoit Mandelbrot’s account of how \\nhis ideas about ‘fractals’ and ‘roughness’ came about.6\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n72\\nMandelbrot wondered how things might have turned out differently had some-\\none cleaned the blackboard before he entered the room. He refers to Pasteur’s \\nmaxim to the effect that chance favors the prepared mind, but adds that ‘I also \\nthink that my long string of lucky breaks can be credited to my mode of paying \\nattention: I look at funny things and never hesitate to ask questions’ (emphasis \\nadded). This outlook gives encouragement to the sorts of abductive leaps that \\ninvolve ‘pattern recognition’, but it also emphasizes that such insights require a \\nbasis in prior experience or expertise. (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 16, p. 321)\\nAn abductive understanding of GTM, and more generally an appreciation \\nof abduction itself, acquires plausibility and credibility since it also reso-\\nnates with key writings on the ways in which we understand the world and \\nreflect on our experience and knowledge. For instance, Michael Polanyi, \\nin Personal Knowledge (1958) and The Tacit Dimension (1966), argued essen-\\ntially that ‘we can know more than we can tell’. A maxim taken up by \\nDonald Schön, who refers to Geoffrey Vickers to the effect that ‘in all our \\nordinary judgments of quality, we “can recognize and describe deviations \\nfrom a norm very much more clearly than we [can] describe the norm \\nitself”’ (Schön, 1983, p. 53). This all resonates with the idea quoted above \\nfrom Discovery, that a grounded theory can be practically useful long before \\nit receives wider theoretical affirmation.\\nTaken together this provides the basis for the realization that although \\nsome aspects of our activities and practices can be described in terms of \\nrules and procedures, there are other complexities that cannot. Schön \\n(1983) argues that there has to be an understanding that\\n[W]hen we go about the spontaneous, intuitive performance of the actions \\nof everyday life, we show ourselves to be knowledgeable in a special way. \\nOften, we cannot say what we know. When we try to describe it, we find \\nourselves at a loss, or we produce descriptions that are obviously inappropri-\\nate. Our knowing is ordinarily tacit, implicit in our patterns of action and in \\nour feel for the stuff with which we are dealing. It seems right to say that our \\nknowing is in our action. And similarly, the workaday life of the professional \\npractitioner reveals, in its recognitions, judgments and skills, a pattern of \\ntacit knowing-in-action. (1983, p. 49, emphasis added)\\nIt is critical to understand that abduction, far from being something \\nstrange and alien is to a limited extent a process common to all of us. We \\nare all proficient and expert in a range of activities that at one time or \\nanother were very new to us but are now part of our general repertoire; \\nfor instance, riding a bike, driving a car, playing a musical instrument, or \\n\\n\\nGTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW\\n73\\nmaking a cup of tea. Mostly we accomplish these tasks intuitively and \\nalmost automatically; we do not have to think about each aspect or action. \\nBut if something unusual occurs, we find ourselves confronted by a level of \\nuncertainty that may force us to attend to detailed aspects of our behaviour \\nthat in the normal course of events remain implicit or taken for granted.\\nIn other words, we become abductive, taking leaps in our reasoning, \\noften because to delay would lead to failure or disaster – e.g. if the car we \\nare driving starts to skid, or the brakes fail on our bicycle. Schön refers to \\nthis as ‘reflecting in action’ as opposed to ‘reflecting on action’. The former \\nhappens quickly and leads immediately to response or action, the latter is \\nmore considered, and involves thinking about something that happened \\nin the past and assessing how it could have been done differently or more \\neffectively. Reflecting in action opens up the possibilities of seeing things in \\na new light, casting off the habits and assumptions that usually sustain our \\nactions. If this is followed later on by reflecting on these new possibilities, \\nit may result in fresh insights and ideas that can be tested more rigorously.\\nIn the context of doing research, the necessity to respond quickly and \\nimmediately is not normally a requirement. But developing new insights, \\nand breaking away from ingrained assumptions and patterns of thinking, \\ndoes not come easily or naturally, particularly if the research objective is to \\ntest what is already accepted as part of the theoretical canon. This difficulty \\nis exacerbated if researchers are expected to serve an apprenticeship that \\ninvolves close study of the classic theories – the received wisdom.\\nGlaser and Strauss sought to circumvent this problem in part by devel-\\noping a method of research that was designed to maximize the chances of \\nencountering uncertainty and surprise, thereby encouraging development \\nof new conceptual insights and theories. Hence ‘out-manoeuvring’ our \\nexisting knowledge, as Reichertz contends. Close encounters with research \\ncontexts and ‘data’ parallel to some extent the wide range of experiences \\nthat practitioners will encounter in the course of their daily activities. \\nInevitably, some of these will produce surprises, the responses to which may \\nwell result in innovative insights and reconsideration of people’s received \\nunderstanding of domain knowledge. By intervening in the research setting \\nand encouraging participants to think about aspects of their activities and \\nenvironment that are usually taken for granted, GTM elicits features that \\notherwise might go unnoticed. In some cases, this process might become \\nevident as the data is being gathered, but it also might only come to light at \\na later stage when the data is being scrutinized and reflected on in memos.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n74\\nThis all provides the basis for a more cogent explanation of the ways in \\nwhich innovative insights arise, and the role of specific methods in facilitat-\\ning this. Peirce himself argued that abduction was aided either by ‘fear’ or \\n‘musement’. One or other may be beneficial, but they are not sufficient. If \\nabductive leaps are to be given a more robust and rigorous basis, something \\nfurther has to be incorporated, very much along the lines of the later stages \\nof GTM, particularly theoretical coding and theoretical saturation.\\nAbduction is now far more clearly and cogently understood to be an \\nessential feature of GTM than was the case in 2007. Reichertz (CD:13) sums \\nup the position succinctly:\\nThe question whether GT (in the variant of Strauss and the early Strauss and \\nCorbin) contains an abductive research logic can therefore be answered with \\na resounding ‘yes’. Fortunately, however, it does not only contain the logic of \\nabductive reasoning but also that of qualitative induction. The logic of Strauss’s \\nGT thus permits abductive reasoning, counts on it, enables it, grants it place. \\nMore is not necessary.\\nNow that the abductive nature of GTM has become more fully \\n \\narticulated, it can be seen as the leading method for enacting abstraction \\nand abduction.\\nGTM and abduction – some alternative and \\nelementary viewpoints\\nIn contrast to Reichertz, Tavory and Timmermans (CD:26) now argue that \\n‘abductive analysis’ is distinct from GTM since each approach asks differ-\\nent types of question. Their chapter makes a number of important points \\nregarding the paucity of work that takes and builds upon an initially sub-\\nstantive grounded theory and develops a formal one, or develops the key \\nconceptualizations in some other manner. But they largely build upon an \\nincomplete view of GTM and fail to account for the ways in which the \\nmethod has been developed and enhanced. Some aspects of their critique \\ndo apply, however, across research methods generally.7\\nInterestingly, they group abductive analysis with the extended case \\nmethod (ECM), and analytic induction. The former was developed by \\nBurawoy (1998) as part of his criticism of Glaser and Strauss’s original state-\\nment of GTM.8 Analytic induction has already been referred to since it was \\nspecifically discussed in Discovery as a contrasting approach to GTM.\\n\\n\\nGTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW\\n75\\nFor Tavory and Timmermans, abductive analysis, ECM, and analytic induc-\\ntion share a concern with the same ‘central question’ and the objective of \\n‘explicitly … connecting observations with existing bodies of theory’. They argue \\nthat this makes them all distinct from GTM. This contention can be criticized on \\nseveral counts. The first is that this ignores the way in which GTM incorporates \\nabduction – or abductive analysis – as a technique within GTM; now widely recog-\\nnized as a method that incorporates and encourages abduction understood as a \\nform of cognitive-cum-logical inference. Reichertz (CD:13) states this succinctly: \\n‘GT thus permits abductive reasoning, counts on it, enables it, grants it place. \\nMore is not necessary.’ I would affirm this, stating that GTM enacts abstraction \\nand abduction at its core.\\nSecond, Tavory and Timmermans appear to rely on a version of GTM that \\nincludes several non-essential aspects of the method. For instance, they refer \\nto axial coding, which they contrast with ‘abductive analysis’, even though \\nthe former, introduced by Strauss and Corbin (1990 & 1998), is not an essential \\naspect of GTM and has been roundly criticized by diverse grounded theo-\\nrists, including, separately, Charmaz and Glaser. Tavory and Timmermans \\nalso mention in vivo codes, which they argue have ‘been relatively popular in \\ngrounded theory circles’, but again the GTM literature is replete with caveats \\nabout reliance on such data in subsequent conceptualization.\\nThe third criticism derives from their identification of the common \\nobjective shared by abductive analysis, ECM, and analytic induction – i.e. \\n‘explicitly … connecting observations with existing bodies of theory’ – \\nand their view that this is not part of GTM. They support the GTM-based \\nadmonition ‘against researchers imposing stock theoretical ideas on their \\nresearch materials’, but then claim that ‘coding without constantly referring \\nto theoretical anticipations may have created the opposite problem: a col-\\nlection of thinly abstracted analyses unmoored in our community of inquiry’ \\n(emphasis added). Yet GTM explicitly incorporates engaging with the rel-\\nevant ‘community of inquiry’ as an aspect of ‘theoretical coding’, aimed at \\nweaving ‘the fractured story back together again (Glaser, 1978, p. 72) into \\n“an organized whole theory (Glaser, 1998, p. 163)”’ (quoted by Hernandez, \\n2009). Recent PhD student accounts (e.g. Bryant, 2017, Chapter 19) illus-\\ntrate this process, demonstrating how these skills can be honed, leading to \\ntheoretical and conceptual articulations incorporating researchers going to \\nand engaging with the literature for support and positioning at appropriate \\nstages of their work; something that is often critical at several points in a \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n76\\nresearcher’s stages of analysis. This combination of both theoretical and \\nmethodological sensitivity is a core aspect of GTM as it has developed in \\nthe past 50 years.\\nIn a further contrast to GTM, Tavory and Timmermans claim that \\nabductive analysis has ‘a distinct realist dimension: not anything goes, the \\nresearcher cannot wish analytical categories into existence’. Although I \\ndoubt that they mean to imply that for GTM ‘anything goes’, their argu-\\nment might be misunderstood in this sense. More critically, they offer a \\nmisplaced defence of realism, and so repeat the fallacies of writers such as \\nSartwell (2015), who misconstrue the Pragmatist position of Dewey and, \\nmore recently, Rorty (see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 17).\\nIt is worth dwelling on Sartwell’s fallacy in order to dispel any misun-\\nderstanding. Sartwell argues, contra Rorty, that:\\nrecent work in philosophy includes various forms of realism about the world: \\nthe idea that reality is not the product of consciousness, or of human perceptual \\nstructures or languages or interpretive communities, but exists independently. \\nWe don’t make the world, as one might put it; the world makes us. (Sartwell, \\n2015, emphasis added?)\\nIn essence, he is accusing Rorty of arguing that ‘reality is the product of \\nconsciousness’. This is absurd. In fact, it is such poor thinking that ‘it is not \\neven wrong’ – a phrase coined by the physicist Wolfgang Pauli when com-\\nmenting on work that was especially ill-conceived. In Contingency, Irony, \\nand Solidarity (1989), perhaps his most important book, Rorty explicitly \\nargues that:\\nTruth cannot be out there – cannot exist independently of the human mind – \\nbecause sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but \\ndescriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or \\nfalse. The world on its own unaided by the describing activities of humans can-\\nnot. (Rorty, 1989, p. 4, emphasis added)9\\nRorty never denied the existence of reality, but he did deny the possibility \\nof humans accessing or discussing reality in any non-linguistic fashion.\\nTavory and Timmermans correctly view abduction as an important \\ntechnique for generating novel insights, and they seek to offer a useful \\ncharacterization of what is involved. But in so doing they go too far in \\n \\ndistancing it from GTM, which I and many others would argue is poten-\\ntially one of the most effective methods for facilitating and fostering \\nabduction as part of the research process.\\n\\n\\nGTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW\\n77\\nIs abduction elementary?\\nMany writers on GTM refer to Sherlock Holmes, although not always in \\nthe same manner. Strübing has noted that when Strauss worked in Chicago \\nwith Goffman, Davis, Shibutani, Freidson, and Becker, they formed \\nthemselves into a group called ‘The Chicago School Irregulars’, deliber-\\nately evoking the ‘Baker Street Irregulars’ in the Sherlock Holmes stories. \\nStrauss’s group was dedicated to ‘studying natural settings, daily life, eve-\\nryday worlds, social worlds and urban lifestyles…’ (Lofland, 1980; see also \\nStrübing, 2007, p.19). But Strübing now doubts the veracity of this, and \\ndoes not refer to it in his current chapter.\\nFlick (CD:6), discussing abduction, quotes from Kennedy and Thornberg \\nthat ‘[L]ike the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, [abductive research-\\ners] constantly move back and forth between data and theories, and make \\ncomparisons and interpretations in searching for patterns and the best possi-\\nble explanations (Kennedy & Thornberg, 2018, p. 52)’. In contrast, Thornberg \\nand Dunne (CD:10) argue that Glaser and Strauss criticized Merton, because \\n‘[L]ike the fictive detective Sherlock Holmes [Merton’s] reasoning necessarily \\nleads to the position that data should fit the theory, in contrast to our posi-\\ntion that the theory should fit the data’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 261). So is \\nSherlock Holmes an example of an expert in abduction or not? I would argue \\nthat Holmes does employ a specific form of abduction.\\nAlthough Conan Doyle and Peirce were contemporaries, they lived in \\ndifferent countries and it is highly unlikely that either one was aware of the \\nother’s work. If anything, it is more likely that Peirce would have known \\nabout Sherlock Holmes, than would Conan Doyle have heard about, let \\nalone read, any of Peirce’s writings. So it is not surprising that Holmes’ \\nlogical processes are referred to as ‘deductive’ rather than abductive; \\nbut abductive they certainly are. Albeit, Conan Doyle describes Holmes’ \\nthought processes in a slightly different way to more conventional ideas \\nabout abduction – i.e. ‘Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever \\nremains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth’. This draws atten-\\ntion to the process of eliminating possibilities, then engaging in further \\ninvestigation of what remains, with the aim of clarifying the most plausi-\\nble explanation.10 Sherlock Holmes explained this form of reasoning to his \\namanuensis, claiming that ‘it is elementary my dear Watson’.\\nBut for Dr Watson it was far from ‘elementary’. Whenever he tried \\nto copy Holmes’ methods he failed miserably. Similarly, with abduction; \\nthe outcomes of abductive processes can and should have what Charmaz \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n78\\nterms ‘credibility’ and ‘resonance’ for others apart from the researcher(s) \\nthemselves, but this is not to imply that anyone can become an adept, \\nnor that abduction is some natural talent. It takes determination, prac-\\ntice, and experience, and GTM offers a well-founded path for developing \\nand applying these skills.\\nStories, narratives, and fairy-tales\\nIn an earlier article, Tavory and Timmermans (2009) contrasted GTM with \\nBurawoy’s ECM, seeing the former as using ‘ethno-narratives’ developed \\nfrom ‘actors in the field’, and ECM as relying on ‘theoretical narratives’. They \\nsee narrativity as entirely misplaced in sociological research, since it enforces \\nclosure and finality. ‘The narrative is in essence a fable – seductive exactly \\nbecause it is alien to the very structure of the historical world, supplying it \\nwith the false coherence and solidity that we crave’ (Tavory & Timmermans, \\n2009, p. 249). In their chapter (CD:26), they refer to the way ‘the researcher \\nlooks for what’s the story in the empirical materials’ (emphasis added). They \\nsee the ethno-narratives of GTM as ‘a naïve, artificial closure grounded in \\nsocial life and disregarding the researcher’s role in theoretically circumscrib-\\ning the events’ (2009, p. 249).\\nAgain, their criticisms have some cogency, but are critically incomplete. \\nImposing a single narrative, with closure and finality, is certainly not an \\neffective research strategy. But there is rarely just one version of the narra-\\ntive; hence the Rashomon effect. The term derives from the film Rashomon, \\nin which a murder is described by four witnesses in four entirely contradic-\\ntory ways. The Simpsons offers a powerful and succinct summation.\\nMarge:\\t Come on, Homer. Japan will be fun! You liked Rashomon.\\nHomer:\\t That’s not how I remember it!11\\nNarrative does have a place in GTM, but it needs to be understood against \\na context of the Rashomon effect and the role of abduction. Birks and Mills \\n(CD:12) discuss the storyline approach, defining it as ‘as an advanced ana-\\nlytical technique used in grounded theory research for the purpose of both \\nintegrating and articulating theory’. It allows a grounded theory to be \\n‘rendered and articulated’, encompassing the three dimensions of the ‘nar-\\nrative turn’ – i.e. ‘interaction, continuity and situation, each of which are \\n \\n\\n\\nGTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW\\n79\\npertinent for a grounded theory analysis’. This approach is not new to GTM, \\nand Charmaz points out that Strauss always emphasized finding the ana-\\nlytic story in the data, as David Hayes-Bautista, an early graduate of UCSF \\nrecalled (Charmaz, 2000). Birks and Mills (CD:12) explain that:\\n[T]he first and most extensive reference to storyline was made by Strauss and \\nCorbin in their initial Basics of Qualitative Research text (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). \\nIn this text, storyline was defined as ‘the conceptualization of the story’ (p. 116) \\nas part of the selective coding process. In developing the storyline, these authors \\nassert that the researcher moves from descriptive to analytical telling of the story \\nevident in the data. Through presenting the storyline as a mechanism for mov-\\ning the research from description to conceptualization, Strauss and Corbin (1990) \\nmake a significant contribution to grounded theory. (emphasis added)\\nDey (2007) similarly argues that narrative can be an effective way of bring-\\ning the temporal and structural elements to the fore. But this will also \\ndemand theoretical sensitivity from the researcher(s), who will need to \\nemploy abduction in moving the narrative from description to conceptu-\\nalization, in a manner precisely akin to that singled out for commendation \\nby Wacquant (see above). Moreover, by understanding and taking account \\nof the Rashomon effect, GTM researchers can evade the sort of criticism \\nvoiced by Burawoy (1991), who argued that Grounded Theorists, in claim-\\ning to let the data simply speak for itself, are simply supporting the status \\nquo, and leaving things as they are. They can allow and present alterna-\\ntive narratives, examining each one, then justifying their choice of which \\none(s) to take forward to conceptualization, eliminating the ‘impossible’ \\nwhile developing the ‘most plausible’.\\nNotes\\n1\\t Dickens, Hard Times, p. 3, online edition available at www.gutenberg.org/\\nfiles/786/786-h/786-h.htm.\\n2\\t Charmaz (2014a, 2017b) observes that grounded theory prescriptions to abandon \\nor suspend preconceptions address ideas from extant theory and research, not the \\nmore fundamental preconceptions on which researchers base their taken-for-granted \\nidentities. She argues that these preconceptions can shape or saturate the researcher’s \\nviews of the data and subsequent analysis.\\n3\\t An 8th edition appeared in 1999 edited by Lindesmith, Strauss, and Denzin.\\n4\\t Kathy has pointed out that Shank (1987, 1998) has long advocated using abduc-\\ntion and has an appreciative audience among critical psychologists (see, for \\nexample, Stainton-Rogers, 2003).\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n80\\n  5\\t This quote is attributed to Rorty, and he almost certainly used it in lectures and \\nseminars. The published version is as follows: ‘I can sum up what I have been \\nsaying about appeals to experience as follows: experience gives us no way to \\ndrive a wedge between the cultural–political question of what we should talk \\nabout and the question of what really exists. For what counts as an accurate \\nreport of experience is a matter of what a community will let you get away with.’ \\n(2007, p. 11)\\n  6\\t See www.edge.org/3rd_culture/obrist10/obrist10_index.html\\n  7\\t Tavory and Timmermans, referring to the ways in which debates about ‘theori-\\nzation and evidence … may have been unnecessarily adversarial’, assert that ‘a \\nsub-discipline needs to be quite confident about its place to go after its own’. \\nBut the contrary would seem to be the case. The compulsion to criticize alterna-\\ntives usually springs from lack of confidence, and the potential for one’s own \\nposition to be misconstrued and identified too closely with one or more of the \\nalternatives that are then confronted. Glaser and Strauss’s use of various terms \\nto distinguish GTM from other approaches derives from this latter, somewhat \\nprecarious position, rather than the former, more confident one – see below.\\n  8\\t Although many sociologists claim adherence to ECM, particularly in the form of \\nBurawoy’s ‘public sociology’, the extent of its use pales against that of GTM.\\n  9\\t Errol Morris (See Chapter 2, p. 56, note 4) is clearly in the same camp as Sartwell, \\nhttp://bostonreview.net/politics/errol-morris-there-such-thing-truth\\n10\\t In my article on Strauss’s failure to mention Pragmatism in his GTM writings I \\nreferred to ‘The Adventure of Silver Blaze’ in which Holmes notes the ‘curious \\nincident of the dog in the night-time’ – the curious thing being that the dog did \\nnothing in the night-time. See Bryant, 2009.\\n11\\t http://whatculture.com/tv/10-incredibly-subtle-jokes-simpsons-might-missed?page=3\\n\\n\\n4\\nGTM PARADOXES\\nIn 2007 (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007b), we discussed some paradoxical aspects \\nof GTM, something that is still all too evident in the literature. For instance, \\nsome writers claim that GTM is easy and comes naturally, but then go on to \\nargue that not everyone can conceptualize. In a sense, such contradictory \\nstatements are understandable and explicable given that GTM is a method \\nspecifically aimed at novice and inexperienced researchers, providing them \\nwith guidelines that offer a basis for overcoming any lack of confidence in \\nputting forward and developing their own theoretical insights. As such it \\nis crucial that obstacles and impediments are dismantled and defused, but \\nnot disregarded. So encouraging researchers needs to be tempered with an \\nunderstanding that the process of conceptualizing requires skill and exper-\\ntise, and no one can rely on ‘natural ability’. This is expressed succinctly as \\n‘the more I practice the luckier I get’, attributed both to renowned golfers \\nArnold Palmer and Gary Player. The GTM version might be something like: \\n‘The more I undertake GTM research, the easier I find it to develop persua-\\nsive and credible conceptualizations.’ Clearly, this acknowledges the active \\nrole played by researchers in the process.\\nGTM and sociology\\nIn addition to the paradoxes and perplexities we noted in 2007 (Bryant & \\nCharmaz, 2007a), there is also the issue of the relationship between GTM \\nand sociology. Discovery was written as a challenge to the US social science \\northodoxy of the time. Strauss himself was a key figure in the Chicago \\nSchool, itself something of a maverick academy. Glaser, although influenced \\nby Lazarsfeld, was never an established member of Columbia University. All \\nof this may explain why the relationship between GTM and sociology is \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n82\\ncomplex and peculiar. In discussing Glaser’s Basic Social Processes, Kelle \\n(CD:3) argues that: ‘[T]he emergence of theoretical codes or categories from \\nthe data is dependent on the ability to grasp empirical phenomena in theo-\\nretical terms, or, in other words, on “theoretical sensitivity”, a competence \\nthat demands training and background in sociological theory (which Glaser also \\nstill conceded, see Glaser, 1992, p. 28)’ (emphasis added). Similarly, Morse \\nand Clark (CD:7) refer to the ‘sociological primacy’ of GTM, and Tavory \\nand Timmermans (CD:26) state that GTM ‘presumes empirical observa-\\ntions are inherently sociologically relevant’.\\nIn practice, however, many GTM-oriented researchers make little or \\nno use of sociological theories. Moreover, within sociology the writ-\\nings of Glaser and Strauss, and other GTM resources, have nothing \\nlike the recognition that they have elsewhere. Martin (CD:11) argues \\nthat ‘I concur with Gibson and Hartman’s (2014) observation that the \\nlack of engagement with sociology hampers grounded theories’ (emphasis \\nadded). This may, of course, be a result of the ways in which many \\nGTM researchers articulate their outcomes against a wide variety of the-\\noretical resources that go above and beyond the ones they might have \\nexpected in the earliest stages of their research.\\nI would argue that it is precisely the transdisciplinary nature of much \\nGTM research that affords the ‘grab’ and ‘fit’ of grounded theories, concep-\\ntualized against the relevant theoretical context deemed most applicable \\nonce theoretical coding takes place. In Charmaz’s terms: credibility, origi-\\nnality, resonance, and usefulness (Charmaz, 2006, 2014a). Other research \\nmethods may also lead to such outcomes, but GTM specifically advocates \\nthese aspects as prime objectives and criteria of quality. Again, as Glaser \\nand Strauss stated in Awareness, grounded theories are often shown to have \\n‘great practical use long before [they are] tested with great rigor’ (Glaser & \\nStrauss, 1965b, p. 293).\\nClarke (CD:1) offers one perspective on how sociology developed from \\nthe 1950s, locating GTM against this and going on to argue that Situational \\nAnalysis (SA) is one component of what she terms ‘the (re)turn to the \\nsocial’. This move has\\ncoalesced around a number of often overlapping or hybrid approaches. In \\nqualitative inquiry across the disciplines these currently include: Bourdieusian \\nfield theory, Foucauldian discourse analysis, Foucauldian dispositif or apparatus, \\nactor-network theory (ANT), assemblage theory, rhizomic analytics, and the \\n\\n\\nGTM PARADOXES\\n83\\nhybrid method of SA. All have earlier roots but have been varyingly renovated \\nto take recent developments into fuller account. (NB: Clarke explains all these \\nterms in her chapter.)\\nSA, in particular, ‘relies on the inherent strength of constructivist GT in \\nclosely attending to context by “turning away from acontextual descrip-\\ntion” (Charmaz 2006: 271). In fact, in SA, I explicitly drew upon the \\nconcept of situation instead of context (Clarke 2005: 71–72)’.\\nPreviously I briefly referred to Irwin’s belief that recent developments \\naround GTM have demonstrated its important contribution to the ways \\nin which sociologists try to link structure and agency. Similarly, Duckles \\net al. (CD:31) draw attention to Charmaz’s (2014a) contention that GTM, \\nthrough its links to Symbolic Interactionism, not only encompasses pro-\\ncesses and meaning-making at the micro level of interactions, but also \\naddresses macro processes of change, emergence, agency, and negotiated \\norder. Similarly, Strübing credits Strauss with having ‘steered interactionism \\ninto the position of a full-fledged empirically-oriented sociology encom-\\npassing micro, meso, and macro level issues’. This incorporates Strauss’s \\nnon-GTM writings with GTM itself, particularly his final book Continual \\nPermutations of Action (Strauss, 1993). So it is surprising that GTM is often \\nheld at arm’s length by sociologists, exemplified in the previous discussion \\non Wacquant, albeit that he was writing more than 15 years ago, before \\nCharmaz published Constructing Grounded Theory (2006), but well after her \\nearlier constructivist GTM writings.\\nA further curious and noteworthy example is provided by Manuel \\nCastells, who refers to his developing a ‘grounded theory of power’ in \\nCommunication Power (2009, p. 5). The list of references lacks any from \\nGlaser, Strauss, or any other GTM text. Later, in his article ‘A sociology \\nof power: My intellectual journey’, he refers to ‘the quest for a grounded \\ntheory of power’, ‘the embrace of grounded theory as a strategy of theory \\nbuilding’, and ‘my deliberate option to engage in grounded theory rather \\nthan in grand theory’ (Castells, 2016, pp. 1, 4, 4). Again, there are no refer-\\nences to any GTM literature, and Castells describes his approach as follows: \\n‘I would start with theoretical constructs but always use them as research \\ntools to be modified and systematized only in terms of their usefulness in \\nthe process of discovery’ (2016, p. 4). Which is not in any way a helpful, or \\nindeed accurate or informed, summary of GTM!\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n84\\nThe examples of Wacquant and Castells are indicative of the perplexing \\nrelationship between GTM and sociology, and I leave it to others to decide \\nhow to apportion responsibility. More critically, the GTM community \\nneed to take it on themselves to remedy the situation, to the benefit of all \\nconcerned. It would certainly seem to be the case that many GTM-oriented \\nresearchers – and researchers in general – would benefit from a clearer \\nunderstanding of what is involved in ‘thinking sociologically’. A good place \\nto begin would be Zygmunt Bauman’s book of that title (Bauman & May, \\n2001). Conversely, sociologists and others in related disciplines with a pau-\\ncity of understanding of GTM, similar to that of the two eminent theorists \\nalready referred to, would do well to refrain from ill-informed criticism \\nand misuse of the GTM label. They should at the very least develop an \\nunderstanding of the method, referring to key GTM sources and reflecting \\non the ways in which GTM might influence their own work and discipline \\nin general. As Strübing (CD:2) suggests, Strauss’s concepts of ‘arenas’ and \\n‘social worlds’ would be a good starting point.\\nA strange hostility\\nRelated to all of this is a further and enduring paradox of GTM. Despite its \\nobvious popularity and widespread use, often leading to significant devel-\\nopments in practice, GTM continues to be regarded with suspicion or even \\nhostility by many gate-keepers – research evaluators, Institutional Review \\nBoards (IRBs) or their equivalent, examiners, editors, and reviewers – partly \\ndue to the sort of ill-informed views of GTM exemplified above.\\nThere are indeed many examples of ‘poor GTM research’, both in \\nterms of the research itself being poorly conceived and carried out, and \\nin terms of the ways in which GTM has been used/misused. But this is \\ncommon across all forms of research and all methods. For a variety of \\nreasons, what I have termed ‘methodologizing’ often incorporates a form \\nof branding, and researchers and evaluators expect research reports to \\nindicate the chosen method – or brand – clearly and succinctly. The result \\nis that claims by researchers with regard to methods are often specious or \\nmisleading. In the 1990s Strauss and Corbin (1994) worried about GTM \\nbecoming ‘fashionable’, anticipating the downside of ‘methodological \\nconsumerism’ (Crossman & Noma, CD:29), which also resonates with \\nMruck and Mey (CD:23), who refer to the use of GTM as a ‘legitimizing \\nlabel’; although for some it is a de-legitimizing one.\\n\\n\\nGTM PARADOXES\\n85\\nStrauss and Corbin also worried that GTM would become ‘old hat’, but \\nthat is certainly not the case. Indeed, given the popularity of GTM, the \\nnumber of examples of poor GTM research, and misuse of the legitimiz-\\ning label, is hardly surprising, but again a thorough and grounded study \\nof methods-in-use – across methods generally – might transform what are \\nlargely anecdotal claims into more rigorous and credible ones. Researchers \\nusing GTM, in whatever form or combination, do, however, need to pre-\\nempt the main criticisms levelled at the method, offering clear statements \\nwith regard to the rationale for their research, the processes and procedures \\nthat they have followed or intend to undertake, clearly explaining the ways \\nin which their analysis evolves, and providing the basis for their insights \\n(Bryant, 2017, Chapter 18, especially Tables 18.2 and 18.3).\\nOver the years I have given an introductory seminar on GTM with \\nthe title ‘The Grounded Theory Method: A Model of Good Research \\nPractice’. But I begin by examining the all-too-common view of GTM as \\na model of bad practice that seems to allow – if not actually encourage – \\n \\ninadequacies such as failing to clarify the initial research question, \\n \\ndisregarding the literature, and engaging with the problem domain with-\\nout a clear strategy. All of which leads to consideration of how GTM relates \\nto and sheds light on general issues of research practice, dismantling and \\nrebutting the all-too-common misunderstandings upon which this image \\nof GTM as bad practice is predicated.\\nGTM and researching in general\\nAs I noted earlier, Martin (CD:11) refers to Flick (2015), who\\nobserved that many of the challenges that faced qualitative research in the 1980s \\nand 1990s, including concerns with rigor and quality, remain. He also summa-\\nrized a number of emerging concerns internationally. He identified trends such \\nas evidence-based research and the rise of big social science projects, with col-\\nlaborators across departments and institutions, as a threat to small, individual \\nqualitative studies.\\nRather than seeing this as some palpable failing across the whole qualita-\\ntive endeavour, I believe that continuing concerns with rigour, quality, and \\npractical relevance should be understood as inevitable aspects of research \\nand the yearning for enhanced knowledge and understanding, based on \\nrecognition that these are all subject to ambivalence and contingency. \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n86\\nThose gate-keepers who disparage specific methods – GTM being a com-\\nmon target – should cast their nets more widely, paying more attention to \\nthe products of research and less to any idiosyncratic preconceptions about \\nparticular approaches. Moreover, GTM itself has two key features that are \\noften seen as weaknesses, but in fact need to be understood as sources of \\nstrength incorporating aspects of research that should be understood and \\nimplemented more generally.\\nThe first is the issue of theoretical saturation, which is widely misun-\\nderstood and often claimed by researchers with little or no justification. \\nAll research involves a compromise in deciding when to end a project \\nand report on the results. Theoretical saturation provides a clear focus on \\nwhich to base any such decision; something that many other methods fail \\nto address. Understood correctly, theoretical saturation requires research-\\ners to explain the basis for bringing their data gathering and analysis to \\nan end, moving on to report their findings and present their conclusions. \\nThis form of saturation can be claimed when researcher(s) can justify that \\nthere is sufficient data to substantiate their model – i.e. that the categories \\nin their model are borne out by the data, and that further data drawn from \\ntheir research context adds no further detail to the categories and concepts \\nalready articulated. But the basis for such claims is widely misunderstood \\nand misused, and researchers often assert that investigation of the research \\ncontext has provided ‘no further data’ or ‘no new data’, sometimes refer-\\nring to this simply as ‘saturation’ or even ‘data saturation’. This is wildly \\ninaccurate and does disservice to GTM.\\nGlaser and Strauss offered a clear definition of the term in Discovery: \\n‘[Theoretical] Saturation means that no additional data are being found \\nwhereby the sociologist can develop properties of the category’ (1967, p. 61, \\nemphasis added). This can be incorporated into other research methods as \\npart of ‘good practice’. Charmaz correctly notes that theoretical sampling and \\nthe progression from this to theoretical saturation go well beyond the idea of \\nGTM as purely inductive. ‘It involves a form of reasoning, abduction, which \\ndistinguishes grounded theory’ (Charmaz, 2014a, p. 200, emphasis added).\\nThe other aspect worthy of attention in this context is theoretical coding. \\nKelle (CD:3) defines this as one way that GTM advocates\\na non-deductive use of theories and models in the process of empirically \\ngrounded theory building. Thereby a variety of new and complex concepts \\nwere proposed like ‘theoretical coding’, ‘coding families’, ‘axial coding’, ‘coding \\nparadigm’ and many others.\\n\\n\\nGTM PARADOXES\\n87\\nMany now see Glaser’s coding families, and Strauss and Corbin’s coding \\nparadigm as equivalent, offering paths from codes and categories to concise \\nand integrated theoretical statements. On the other hand, my experience \\nwith numerous PhD students indicates that in many cases neither is nec-\\nessary; indeed, each has drawbacks that can mislead students. Doctoral \\nstudents seem to be able to move to a point where they can combine the \\noutcomes of their focused coding with theoretical coding, and relate cat-\\negories to one another, indicating ‘possible relationships’ (Charmaz), that \\n‘weave the fractured story back together’ (Glaser), cogently presenting their \\nfindings. This is often accomplished with a return to and engagement with \\nthe literature once the conceptual model has been developed from the data. \\nThis constitutes a key component of theoretical coding, and the literature \\ndeemed relevant to this stage of ‘constant comparison’ is often largely or \\ncompletely different from the literature investigated at the earliest stages of \\nthe research. This is commonplace for GTM research, and most, if not all, \\nPhD students when asked ‘what surprised you in your research?’ are readily \\nable to respond with clear aspects of their findings that proved unexpected \\nand could not have been predicted at the outset.\\nAs was pointed out earlier, Wacquant, in praising Duneier’s work, \\ndescribed it in terms that resonate with the process of theoretical coding, \\neven if neither he nor Duneier seem to have understood it as such. Castells \\nsimilarly hints at his use of existing theories, albeit exhibiting limited \\nunderstanding of the process and GTM in general.\\nThis key aspect of GTM is often ignored or misunderstood, leading to \\nunfounded criticisms of the method. In 1994, Strauss and Corbin noted \\nthat in far too many cases researchers were claiming use of GTM but failing \\nto accomplish more than a fairly mundane level of coding, certainly not \\nmoving on to theoretical coding, then generating theoretical statements. \\nAs a result, they noted that the complaint ‘where is the theory in grounded \\ntheory’ was invoked in methodological critiques or texts. This invocation \\nhas not disappeared (see below).\\nThe theory in grounded theory\\nOne apparent enigma of GTM is the paucity of substantive and formal \\ngrounded theories (SGTs and FGTs) more than 50 years after the method \\nand the first grounded theory made an appearance. Several of the chapters \\n \\nin Current Developments (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019) consider the ways in \\nwhich ‘theory’ is understood, both generally, and specifically in the context \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n88\\nof GTM. Without wishing to pre-empt these discussions, I take up some of \\nthese issues below, but note that good theories of any sort are rare and often \\nonly recognized within limited domains. Moreover, as Glaser and Strauss \\nasserted, in line with the Pragmatist roots of GTM, a grounded theory often \\nproves to be of ‘great practical use long before the theory is tested with great \\nrigor’ (1965b, p. 293). In response to such challenges, I offer Joseph Heller’s \\nretort when asked why none of his later books were as good as Catch 22.\\nInterviewer:\\t\\n‘Since Catch 22, you haven’t written anything nearly as good.’\\nHeller:\\t\\n‘No, but then neither has anyone else.’\\nMomentous grounded theories, such as Awareness, Time, and Status Passage \\n(Glaser & Strauss, 1965b, 1968, 1971), and ‘supernormalizing’ (Charmaz) \\nare few and far between, but then so too are theories more generally. This \\nis not a fault of GTM.\\nSo where is the theory in grounded theory?\\nThe challenging interrogatory is often used by those keen to point to and \\ndisparage poor examples of GTM, often amounting to no more than a series \\nof re-descriptions of some aspects of a research context, presented in the \\nform of ‘codes’ with little or no conceptualization. This specific issue has \\nbeen dealt with already, but it is worth reiterating the point that it is not \\nhard to find poor uses of any and every method, yet it would be wrong to \\nfault a method itself based only on such examples. This specific challenge, \\nhowever, begs the question of what is meant by the term ‘theory’, both for \\nGTM as such and more generally.\\nThe meaning of the term theory is itself fraught with ambiguity and \\nambivalence (Bryant, 2009).\\nFor some the term is an accolade, so citations for Nobel prizes mention that the \\nwinners have made major contributions to one or another theory, or have devel-\\noped a new one. In contrast, anyone wishing to disparage something might \\nuse the term in precisely the opposite sense, hence those arguing in favour of \\nIntelligent Design refer to the work of Charles Darwin or the concept of evolu-\\ntion in general as only a theory. (Bryant, 2017, p. 98)\\n‘Theory’ is best understood as a sensitizing concept in the early GTM writ-\\nings, but since then the term has understandably been the focus of greater \\n\\n\\nGTM PARADOXES\\n89\\nscrutiny and substantive analysis. Several chapters in Current Developments \\nreflect this, offering a range of definitions and discussions on the topic.\\nJohnson and Walsh (CD:25) note that there are different ways of defin-\\ning theory. These range from ‘general, etic (nomothetic) or particular, local, \\nemic (idiographic) perspectives’. The differences are largely derived from \\ndiffering positions with regard to epistemology and ontology, so from a\\npositivist or postpositivist view … a theory could be ‘a system of constructs and \\nvariables in which the constructs are related to each other by propositions and \\nthe variables are related to each other by hypotheses’ (Bacharach, 1989, p. 498). \\n[For constructivists/interpretivists a] theory could be an ‘approximation’ of a \\ncomplex reality (Weick, 1995).\\nThey refer to Gregor’s definition, which\\nproposed a broad, all-encompassing definition of a theory as an abstract entity \\nthat aims ‘to describe, explain, and enhance understanding of the world and, in \\nsome cases, to provide predictions of what will happen in the future and to give \\na basis for intervention and action’ (Gregor, 2006, p. 616).\\nCathy Urquhart (CD:4) also uses Gregor’s definition, noting that ‘Gregor \\nalso defines the components of all theories as containing a means of rep-\\nresentation, constructs, statements of relationship, and scope’. Birks and \\nMills (CD:12) define a theory as ‘an explanatory scheme comprising a set \\nof concepts related to each other through logical patterns of connectivity’.\\nKelle (CD:3) takes a different approach, quoting\\na famous metaphor of Hempel, a theory is a network of terms (following our \\nterminology we would say ‘categories’) which ‘floats, as it were, above the \\nplane of observation and is anchored to it by rules of interpretation’. These rules \\nof interpretation link certain points of the network ‘with specific places in the \\nplane of observation…: From certain observational data, we may ascend, via an \\ninterpretive string, to some point in the theoretical network, thence proceed, \\nvia definitions and hypotheses to other points, from which another interpretive \\nstring permits a descent to the plane of observation’ (Hempel, 1952, p. 36).\\nKelle’s chapter is devoted specifically to this subject, and he offers both a \\ngeneral overview of the term, as well as discussing how it relates to GTM, \\narguing that Glaser and Strauss’s understanding of the nature of theories \\nwas centred on categories.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n90\\n… the concept of ‘category’ played a crucial role: categories are not only the \\nbuilding blocks and basic elements of theories, they are also important tools \\nused throughout the whole research process to develop full-fledged theories. \\nTheoretical statements (or in other words, ‘hypotheses’) are basically formed by \\nconnecting categories.\\nThe nature of a theory is then far from simple or obvious and needs to be \\naddressed. In Discovery, Glaser and Strauss drew on Merton’s (1949) work, \\nin which he argued for ‘theories of the middle range’.\\nTheories that lie between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that \\nevolve in abundance during day-to-day research and the all-inclusive systematic \\nefforts to develop a unified theory that will explain all the observed uniformities \\nof social behaviour, social organization and social change. (Merton, quoted by \\nGlaser and Strauss, 1967, p. 39)\\nMerton argued that such theories were developed from close scrutiny of the \\ndata, and developed from studies of specific and constrained contexts. Glaser \\nand Strauss adopted this approach in describing both substantive and formal \\ngrounded theories as theories of the middle range. Kelle (CD:3) argues that \\n‘[A]s the scope of a substantive theory is extended towards a formal one, cat-\\negory or construct names by necessity become simpler, and more abstract, \\nbecause that construct has to apply to a large number of substantive cases’.\\nI am not suggesting that anyone using GTM has to engage at great \\nlength with these debates, but care is needed in the use of the term ‘theory’, \\nwhich should be accompanied by some form of further explanation. Again, \\nthis is an issue that extends beyond GTM to reporting research findings in \\ngeneral, although it is more pertinent to GTM with its inherent claim to be \\na method that can lead to new theories.\\nThis all demonstrates that claims by researchers to have developed new \\ntheoretical insights need to be made and treated with caution, whether or \\nnot they have used GTM. Yet, unlike many other methods, GTM clearly \\noffers the basis for such claims, albeit with critical caveats relating to scope \\nand applicability, for instance, the point that GTs are theories of the mid-\\ndle range. Here again, an aspect of GTM that has been criticized should be \\nseen as clarifying and facilitating good research practice. Other methods \\nsay little or nothing about these issues.\\nThe relative silence regarding Pragmatism in the context of GTM is \\ncritical here. The Pragmatist view, derived from Dewey, James and others, \\n\\n\\nGTM PARADOXES\\n91\\nis that a theory is a tool – to be judged accordingly. Grounded theo-\\nrists should base their claims on this, whether or not they use the term \\n‘theory’, ‘model’, ‘framework’, or any equivalent one. Classic GTs, such \\nas Awareness, Time, and Status Passage (Glaser & Strauss, 1965b, 1968, \\n1971), and ‘supernormalizing’ (Charmaz) have earned their status as useful \\n \\nconceptualizations. They are exceptional in the extent of their take-up and \\ninfluence on practice. Other GTs may have had more limited influence, \\nbut that is not to undermine their derivation and use within specific con-\\ntexts. I have argued elsewhere that Darwin can be seen as a proto-grounded \\n \\ntheorist, and hence the theory of evolution as a highly ‘useful’ grounded \\ntheory (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 20). Few theories – grounded or otherwise – \\nare as conceptually powerful as this.\\nDuckles et al. (CD:31) build upon the Pragmatist view of theories, \\ncombining it with Action Research. They encourage researchers to \\nexamine carefully how theories are constructed and their relationships \\nto the research process.\\nIf theory is, as proposed, ‘a grand word for these everyday activities of \\nknowing, understanding and sense-making’, then how is it uncovered and \\nused to inform methods and practice? They [Dick, Stringer and Huxham \\n(2009)] propose that we honor the theories of the communities we work \\nwith, both to clarify and understand the issues guiding our action research, \\nand to strengthen processes of inquiry.\\nThe issue of what is meant by ‘theory’, both in general terms and for GTM \\nspecifically, is complex. Some chapters in Current Developments cover the \\ntopic in substantive fashion, others refer to the issue as the basis for discus-\\nsion of other concerns. In this sense, the term is treated as ‘definitive’ in \\nsome chapters, and as a ‘sensitizing’ concept in others.\\nAs a conclusion to this brief discussion of the term, the following quote \\nfrom Albert Hirschman seems apposite. Hirschman was a noted, albeit mav-\\nerick, economist and essayist, his most widely cited work being Exit, Voice \\nand Loyalty. In a discussion on the impact of his work he noted that ‘[T]he \\nsuccess of a theory consists … in that suddenly everyone begins to reason \\naccording to new categories’ (1990 [1970], emphasis added). Hirschman was \\nnot a grounded theorist, but this seems to be a wonderfully succinct state-\\nment of one key criterion for judging any claim to theoretical innovation, \\nparticularly a grounded theory.\\n\\n\\n5\\nINDIGENEITY\\nOne aspect of doing research, now the subject of critical scrutiny, is the \\nway in which the research process is inevitably implicated with issues of \\npower, domination, exploitation, and hegemony, also with cultural and \\npolitical complexities and ramifications.\\nThe 2007 Handbook included a chapter by O’Neil Green et al. (2007) \\nwhich argued for the incorporation of issues of race and ethnicity as part of \\nthe research process. Various chapters in Current Developments develop this \\nrecommendation, stressing that researchers need to take account of various \\n‘sensitizing concepts’ – e.g. feminism, culture, social injustice, indigeneity, \\ndomination, hegemony, and emancipation. Some might take exception to \\nthis in the context of GTM, arguing that it precludes or impedes the process \\nof open-minded initiation of research. Thus, Hadley (CD:28) notes that \\nthere are grounds both for and against the incorporation of emancipatory \\nconcerns in GTM and research more generally. On the other hand, he also \\nrefers to\\nAdorno’s critique of the sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld … a mentor of Glaser, and \\narguably the progenitor of Glaser’s primary philosophical and methodological \\nbeliefs. From a [critical] perspective, Adorno denounced Lazarsfeld’s preference \\nfor simply describing ‘life as it is’ as nothing more than ‘a bourgeois sociology \\nreinforcing the domination inherent in society’ (Gibson, 2007, p. 438). Similar \\ncriticisms were levelled against Symbolic Interactionism, an early methodologi-\\ncal forerunner of Grounded Theory Methodology (Fine, 1993).\\nHadley quotes Kincheloe and McLaren, who state that theoretical descrip-\\ntions ‘are not simply about the world but serve to construct it … language \\nin the form of discourses serves as a form of regulation and domination’ \\n\\n\\nINDIGENEITY\\n93\\n(2000, p. 284). From a constructivist/interpretivist position it is not pos-\\nsible to claim that data ‘simply speaks for itself’.\\nYet Glaser and Strauss were right to maintain that concepts – even \\nsensitizing ones – have ‘to earn their way’. This is not required each \\nand every time a concept is used as a resource in someone’s research. In \\nDiscovery, the concepts of ‘data’ and ‘theory’ are not the subject of clear \\nand definitive discussion, in Blumer’s terms they ‘lack precise reference \\nand have no bench marks which allow a clean-cut identification of a \\nspecific instance and of its content. Instead, they rest on a general sense of \\nwhat is relevant’ (1954, p. 7). Similarly, Hesse-Biber and Flowers (CD:24) \\nstate that ‘feminism supplies the perspective and the disciplines supply \\nthe method. The feminist researcher exists at their intersection’. Irwin \\n(CD:18) discusses GTM research undertaken in ‘the context of mascu-\\nlinity and violence’, and Ravi Priya (CD:19) echoes this with regards to \\nresearch on ‘suffering and healing’. Other GTM researchers develop their \\nwork from positions explicitly developed around topics such as ethnicity, \\nsocial deprivation, and other forms of inequality (see below).\\nAgain, GTM can be a source for better research practice in general if \\nthis leads to the expectation for all research reports to incorporate a brief \\nintroductory section where researchers clarify any sensitizing concepts \\nthat informed their work, albeit that such considerations could at best be \\nindicative rather than definitive, since others might readily point out other \\naspects that were unacknowledged or tacitly assumed.\\nMorse and Clark (CD:7) deal with some of the ramifications of all this in \\ntheir chapter on sampling, explaining that seeking to deal with ethnicity, \\nfor instance, ‘is tricky. You must determine if your sample should be cohe-\\nsive culturally/ethnically’. Again, there is no once-and-for-all solution, but \\nresearchers must ensure that, as far as possible, they clearly state and justify \\ntheir orientation and any other related issues/concepts that they decide to \\nincorporate within their research approach.\\nCharmaz has specifically developed GTM as a basis for research in areas \\nthat touch upon and are even constituted by concerns for social justice (see \\nbelow). Kathy and I were particularly concerned to invite contributions \\nto Current Developments from a wide range of contributors, particularly \\nfrom geo-political and linguistic groups not included in the earlier volume, \\nalthough there is still a predominance of Anglophone and German-speaking \\ncontributors. We were keen for contributors to take account of the ways in \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n94\\nwhich research is conducted on a global and international scale – including \\ncollaborations between researchers from different backgrounds, countries, \\ncontinents, and regions – and also with doctoral students undertaking their \\nresearch and gaining doctoral guidance in universities in foreign countries.\\nOne of the terms that many authors use is indigeneity. Norm Denzin \\n(CD:22) centres his discussion around this, making the case and space \\nfor communities to determine what is and is not acceptable research as \\nit ‘encourages self-determination and empowerment’. He coins the term \\n‘indigenous grounded theory inquiry’, arguing that it\\nconnects research to struggles for liberation, to struggles which empower, which \\nchallenge the status quo, rebuild leadership, restore environments, and revital-\\nize language, culture, and community (Smith, 2005: 89). ‘Indigenous grounded \\ntheory research is performative research carried out by indigenous scholars, in and \\nfor indigenous communities, using the principles of indigenous grounded theory \\ninquiry’ (Smith, 2005: 89). This form of inquiry is collaborative and participatory \\nand is characterized by the absence of a need to be in control, by a desire to be \\nconnected to and to be a part of a moral community where a primary goal is the \\ncompassionate understanding of another’s moral position (Bishop, 1998: 203).\\nNorm Denzin has been a towering force for good in the world of methods \\nfor many years. He worked with Lindesmith and Strauss from the 1970s, \\n \\nco-editing several editions of their key text on social psychology. His early \\nwork The Research Act (1970) was hailed by many, including Herbert Blumer, \\nas a revolutionary text on the topic. Starting in the 1980s, he has co-edited an \\nenormous number of key collections on research methods, as well as organ-\\nizing international conferences and summer schools. Denzin has co-edited \\nthe Handbook of Qualitative Research, through its many editions (Denzin & \\nLincoln, 1994, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2017), and also a range of other collections, \\nincluding Qualitative Inquiry and Human Rights (2010), Qualitative Inquiry \\nand Social Justice (2009), Handbook of Critical Indigenous Inquiry (2008), and \\nPerformance Ethnography: The Politics and Pedagogies of Culture (2003).\\nIt is therefore with some trepidation that I take issue with aspects of \\nhis chapter. I concur with Denzin’s sentiments, but believe that the way \\nin which he expresses them needs further examination if they are ‘to earn \\ntheir way’. He uses the terms ‘performance’ and ‘performative’ almost as \\nsynonyms, which is misleading. In so doing, he also fails to give proper \\nattention to the latter, which is a critical issue in the context of his argu-\\nment and the ways in which research needs to develop a genuinely \\n\\n\\nINDIGENEITY\\n95\\ncosmopolitan orientation. It may well be that his extended discussions in \\nPerformance Ethnography resolve this, but the term ‘performativity’ reso-\\nnates across many disciplines and now has attained a highly specific range \\nof meanings and ramifications.\\nIn the extract in the earlier paragraph, he attributes the phrase ‘perform-\\native research’ to Linda Tuhiwai Smith, although it does not actually appear \\nin the work cited. It may be that the term, in Denzin’s and Smith’s contexts, \\nis a derivation from the concept of ‘performance’, but it then needs to be \\ndistinguished from the far more widely understood use of ‘performative’.\\nThe most notable and influential use of the word ‘performative’ is in the \\nwritings of the philosopher J. L. Austin, particularly How to Do Things with \\nWords (1962). His work was taken up by John Searle in Speech Acts (1969), \\nand more recently by Judith Butler in the context of gender. Butler specifi-\\ncally distinguishes between performance and performativity as follows:\\nIt’s one thing to say that gender is performed and that is a little different from saying \\ngender is performative. When we say gender is performed we usually mean that \\nwe’ve taken on a role or we’re acting in some way and that our acting or our \\nrole-playing is crucial to the gender that we are and the gender that we present \\nto the world. To say that gender is performative is a little different because for \\nsomething to be performative means that it produces a series of effects. We act and \\nwalk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man \\nor being a woman. (Butler, 2013, emphasis added)\\nIf applied to the context of ‘doing research’ this is an important distinc-\\ntion. Research as an activity cannot be seen as a dispassionate and neutral \\nform of investigation, but as constitutive and formative; it simultaneously \\nincorporates some features and marginalizes, excludes, or evades others. \\nStrauss’s work on identity, particularly Mirrors and Masks (1959), alludes \\nprecisely to these ideas, albeit expressed in a different vocabulary. To some \\nextent they were also present in early GTM, but it is only in recent work, \\nsuch as that by Charmaz, that they have begun to be clearly articulated.\\nOnce research is seen as performative, however, it must be understood \\nthat, as Butler argues, all research ‘produces a series of effects’. These effects \\nare largely beyond the control of researchers. Hence, Butler’s point that \\n‘performativity’ has ramifications and dimensions that extend well beyond \\n‘role-play’. Moreover, the concept of performativity applies to all forms of \\nresearch, including indigenous research – i.e. there will be ramifications for \\nthese forms of research, as there are for all other forms, albeit very distinct \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n96\\nfrom and all-too-often over-powered and effaced by ‘Western’ ones. This \\nis almost certainly what Denzin means in his chapter, but the point needs \\nto be put across more clearly and with due regard to the ways in which the \\nterms ‘performance’ and ‘performativity’ are now construed.\\nDenzin presents the ideas of Smith, derived from Decolonizing \\nMethodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (Smith, 2012), which are encap-\\nsulated in the phrase from the introduction: ‘“Research” is probably one of \\nthe dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary’. She counters the \\npredominant Western assumptions on the nature of research and knowledge \\nfrom the position of an indigenous and colonized Ma\\n¯ori woman, calling \\nfor the decolonization of methodologies and a new agenda for indigenous \\nresearch, one concerned with ‘a more critical understanding of the underly-\\ning assumptions, motivations and values that inform research practices’. I \\nfully concur with this, but the concept of ‘indigenous research’ must itself be \\nexamined to see how it ‘earns its way’.\\nDenzin (CD:22) treats the concept of ‘indigeneity’, and associated terms \\nsuch as ‘ritual’ and ‘culture’, as given:\\nThe performance of sacred tribal rituals, the telling of oral histories, and the \\nperformance of sacred identities validates traditional ways of life. The performances \\nembody the ritual. They are the ritual. In this sense the performance becomes a \\nform of public pedagogy. It uses a performative aesthetic to foreground cultural \\nmeaning, and to teach these meanings to performers and audience members alike.\\nThis is fine, but it must also be understood that in most, probably all, cul-\\ntures the performance of rituals and rites is bound up with hierarchies of \\npower and inequalities, particularly gender-based ones. They also incor-\\nporate forms of taboo, phobias, and prejudices; usually in the form of \\ndifferentiating between us/insider and them/outsider, with the latter split \\nbetween the ‘acceptable’ or tolerable, and the undesirable.\\nSmith points out the ways in which many assumptions around research \\npractice in ‘the West’ are bound up with discriminatory and biased views \\nand ramifications; all in need of exposure and remedy. But the practices of \\n‘others’ need similar scrutiny, even though they are far less influential and \\nglobally damaging in their current forms.\\nDenzin develops and extends Smith’s argument, but he risks undermin-\\ning its force and significance. For instance, in discussing the importance \\nof research giving voice to all participants, he wants researchers to ‘resist \\n\\n\\nINDIGENEITY\\n97\\nspeaking for the other’; but this is an impossibility. Even researchers from \\nwithin an indigenous culture cannot avoid ‘speaking for others’; we must \\nnot fall prey to the mistake of treating ‘other cultures’, or indeed our ‘own’ \\nculture, as homogeneous. After all, in one way or another any researcher \\nwriting anything with a view to publication is speaking for others. (It \\nmight be thought that using auto-ethnography partially resolves this, but \\nsuch auto-biographical approaches can often become part of the problem \\nrather than a possible solution.)\\nFocusing on indigeneity should be part of a process of critical scrutiny \\nof issues around power relationships, dominance, hegemony, class, colo-\\nnialism, and post-colonialism. It should also be part of the reflexivity that \\nis an essential consideration for all researchers. As a rule of thumb, when \\nencountering terms such as ‘we’, ‘our’, or any equivalent terms, it is almost \\nalways crucial to ask who is included and/or excluded, and what is assumed \\nin such generalizations.1\\nDenzin (CD:22) correctly stresses that ‘[I]ndigenous knowledge sys-\\ntems are too frequently turned into objects of study, treated as if they were \\ninstances of quaint folk theory held by the members of a primitive culture’. \\nThe corollary of this is that the decolonizing project ‘reverses this equation, \\nmaking Western systems of knowledge the object of inquiry’. Denzin won-\\nders whether or not this is the basis for ‘a dialogue between different systems/\\ndiscourses’. It certainly should be, but not if this leads to sacralizing and sen-\\ntimentalizing ‘other cultures’ and ‘indigeneity’. Denzin (CD:22) states that:\\n[T]heory, method, and epistemology are aligned in this project, anchored in \\nthe moral philosophies that are taken for granted in indigenous cultures and \\nlanguage communities. A pedagogy of emancipation and empowerment is \\nendorsed, a pedagogy that encourages struggles for autonomy, cultural well-\\nbeing, cooperation, and collective.\\nBut, unfortunately, this cannot be taken at face value. Emancipation and \\nempowerment, together with autonomy and cooperation, are powerful \\nsensitizing concepts, but they have to earn their way, and be amenable to \\ncritical scrutiny.\\nDenzin treats GTM as a touchstone, embodying the standard for rela-\\ntively good practice, but to be contrasted with some new form of ‘better \\npractice’. In so doing, he sets up GTM versus ethnography:\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n98\\nGrounded theory is a performance, a set of performative and interpretive prac-\\ntices and ways of making the world visible. This commitment to visibility is \\nanchored in the belief that the world, at some level, is orderly, and patterned. \\nThe world of social interaction and social experience can be theoretically sam-\\npled, saturated, located in situational social world, arena mapped, coded, fitted \\ninto conceptual categories, diagrammed, placed in conditional and consequen-\\ntial matrices, and represented in narrative, visual, and historical discourses. These \\ndiscourses, in turn, can be analyzed in terms of social relationships, identities, and \\nintersecting arenas and social worlds. (Denzin, CD:22)\\nThis is then contrasted with ethnography:\\nIn contrast, the performance ethnographer is a troublemaker. The practices of \\nethnography are not tools for creating order out of chaos. Instead ethnographies \\nare for creating chaos, ways of disrupting the world and its representations. \\nPerformance ethnographers see disorder in the world, reading orderliness as a \\ndramaturgical production. (Denzin, CD:22)\\nThis may be a reasonable characterization of some forms of current eth-\\nnography, albeit that ethnography, as originally developed in the 18th and \\n19th centuries, was intimately associated with conquest, colonialism, and \\n‘scientific’ models of racial hierarchies – i.e. what Smith had in mind when \\nreferring to ‘research’ as one of the ‘dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s \\nvocabulary’.\\nIt should also be noted that Glaser and Strauss specifically criticized eth-\\nnography as one form of research that was incapable of generating theory.\\nDenzin is also off-target with his other criticisms since GTM writers have \\nalways stressed that grounded theories are modifiable and embrace contin-\\ngency, uncertainty, and ambivalence. This is particularly the case for those \\nwho argue that GTM encompasses constructivist and Pragmatist ideas con-\\ncerning the provisional and contingent nature of knowledge claims and \\nconceptual constructs. Grounded theorists have in many instances proved \\nthemselves to be effective troublemakers.\\nI referred earlier to Burawoy’s criticism that, in letting data speak for itself, \\ngrounded theorists were leaving the world as it is, tacitly supporting the \\nstatus quo. But this is to mistake the potential impact of theoretical descrip-\\ntions in general, and particularly those emanating from the social actors \\nthemselves. Recent GTM work has focused on issues around social justice and \\ninequality, giving voice to those challenging conventional and hegemonic \\n\\n\\nINDIGENEITY\\n99\\ndiscourses. Charmaz leads the way, arguing that GTM, through its lineage \\nwith Symbolic Interaction and Pragmatism, inherently encompasses issues \\nof social justice and critical inquiry, a theme that Duckles et al. (CD:31) \\ndevelop. I am sure Denzin would concur with all of this, so it is unfortunate \\nthat he sees the need to make the distinction between GTM and perfor-\\nmance ethnography.\\nDenzin (CD:22) offers a set of questions for the meta-level of research \\nderived from a ‘critical politics of interpretation’. He argues that these \\nshould be posed by indigenous scholars with regards to ‘any research pro-\\nject, including those projects guided by grounded critical theory’. The \\nquestions, however, will be familiar to anyone applying for a research grant \\nfrom any government or private funding body. Questions regarding own-\\nership, priority, personnel, and likely beneficiaries are all now part of the \\nstandard Western research funding process.\\nA non-Westernized orientation certainly leads to a different under-\\nstanding of ‘we’ in Denzin’s questions, such as ‘What research do we want \\ndone?’ and ‘How will we know it is worthwhile?’ But Denzin goes further \\nthan this, stating that ‘These questions are addressed to indigenous and \\nnon-indigenous scholars alike. They must be answered in the affirmative; \\nthat is, indigenists must conduct, own, and benefit from any research that \\nis done on or for them.’ Unfortunately, several of the questions cannot \\nbe answered either affirmatively or negatively – e.g. the two at the start \\nof this paragraph. More critically, however, this approach risks compart-\\nmentalizing research and researchers into indigenists and non-indigenists, \\nagain committing the error of false attribution of homogeneity; effectively \\nimplying that non-indigenists cannot participate in the research contexts \\nof the former. This is not the basis for the type of dialogue that ought to \\nbe one vital outcome from more highly developed research awareness con-\\ntexts, which is surely what Denzin is keen to encourage.\\nDuckles et al. (CD:31) provide a useful corrective in their discussion:\\nCommunity-based participatory research (CBPR) provides an orientation to \\nresearch that ‘emphasizes issues of trust, power, dialogue, community capacity \\nbuilding, and collaborative inquiry toward the goal of social change’ (Minkler & \\nWallerstein, 2011, p. 7). Core characteristics of this approach include its focus \\non co-learning and the balance between research and action (Israel et al., 2005) \\nas well as creating local knowledge and promoting systems change (Minkler & \\nWallerstein, 2011). (emphasis added)\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n100\\nDuckles et al. use the term ‘community’, itself the topic of extensive critical \\ndiscussion – e.g. Bauman’s (1971) Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure \\nWorld. But in so doing they make several important points with regards to \\nresearchers, their methodological assumptions, and the role of all of those \\ninvolved in research practices.\\nAs researchers, we are aware that, at times, we can be drawn toward a tacit meth-\\nodological and theoretical individualism. This threat partially emerges from the \\nuniversity paradigms of research and publishing that often privilege certain notions \\nof expertise and singular voices. In addition, we recognize the individualism that \\nunderlies many Anglo-American cultures. Instead, we work toward explicitly inte-\\ngrating multiple methodologies, adopting diverse theoretical traditions to guide our \\nwork and embracing abductive reasoning to reach into local ways of understanding. \\nOur goal, however, is not to adopt this integration as another singular process, or \\nto find and bring exclusive sensitizing concepts to our analysis. Instead, we heed \\nLincoln and Guba’s (2013) caution against developing an ‘epistemological or theo-\\nretical melting pot in which researchers come to share lenses or standpoints (which \\nhave primarily been Eurocentric) and instead, to adopt approaches that bring atten-\\ntion and understanding to the nuances of difference’ (p. 10). (emphasis added)\\nIt is important for researchers to understand that the ‘nuances of differ-\\nence’ are common across these approaches, albeit that to date they have \\nmostly operated forcefully in only one direction. Crossman and Noma \\n(CD:29) take some account of this in their chapter on ‘internationali-\\nzation’, although in using the concept of a paradigm in referring to ‘a \\nresearcher’s epistemological and ontological premises’, they introduce the \\nproblem of incommensurability that was referred to earlier, even if they do \\ninvoke Denzin and Lincoln’s concept of ‘multiple paradigms interacting in \\ndynamic ways with one another’.\\nDirectly countering Denzin, Bainbridge et al. (CD:30) stress that it is \\nprecisely the grounded theory approach that can ‘work to ameliorate some \\nof the critiques that Indigenous people have about conventional research \\nprocesses and their continuing failure to deliver benefits’. Their chapter \\ndescribes six key critiques that ‘Indigenous nations have made of conven-\\ntional research approaches’.\\n(1) narrowly-focused, reductionist thinking; (2) a preponderance of deficit-\\nfocused descriptive research that is of generally suboptimal methodological \\nquality; (3) issues of power and control; (4) devaluing of Indigenous knowledge \\nsystems; (5) onerous amounts of research without corresponding impact; and \\n(6) context-independent and culturally-insensitive research.\\n\\n\\nINDIGENEITY\\n101\\nSeeking to respond to these critiques offers a useful starting point for con-\\nsideration of issues around indigeneity and post-colonial dialogue across \\ndiffering perspectives and positions regarding the status of knowledge and \\ntruth claims. Bainbridge et al. ‘specifically account for how the seemingly \\ndisparate methodologies of phronetic social sciences and participatory \\naction research approaches can be integrated with constructivist grounded \\ntheory methods to make issues of social justice explicit in the research \\nendeavour’. (Phronetic in this context is derived from the classical Greek con-\\ncept phronesis, which can be understood to mean practical judgement or \\npractical wisdom.)\\nEchoing some of my foregoing critique of Denzin, they argue that:\\nThe very issues that many researchers and others are attempting to resolve for \\nIndigenous people are the products of imposing Western systems and knowl-\\nedge. Paradoxically, proposed solutions often derive from and are implemented \\nthrough the same power dynamics and reductionist thinking that precipitated \\nthe concerns in the first instance. These impositions both reinforce Western \\nauthority as the knowers, disparage Indigenous knowledges, embed ethnocentric \\nassumptions and practices and enact parochial solutions that further entrench \\nsocial problems and impede cultural survival and flourishing. (Bainbridge et al., \\nCD:30, emphasis in the original)\\nI concur with this, with the caveat that ethnocentrism is a failing and a \\nfallacy common across cultures and ethnicities, although emphatically not \\nin equal measures or degree, nor in ramifications and consequences. Efforts \\nto dismantle and neutralize ethnocentrism must begin with and be focused \\nexplicitly upon the most destructive and disparaging forms emanating \\nfrom ‘imposing Western systems’.\\nCurrent Developments encompasses several discussions of ‘culture’. \\nCrossman and Noma (CD:29) note Charmaz’s influence in setting the \\nagenda. ‘Charmaz (2014b) has argued that the cultural, economic, historical, \\npolitical and geographic conditions of the United States have determined \\nthe logic, values, epistemological assumptions and worldview that influ-\\nence the kinds of problems investigated and the research questions posed \\nwithin grounded theory’. They point out the irony in Charmaz’s (2014b) \\nview that, ‘despite the widespread exportation of grounded theory to study \\nphenomena in a variety of cultures, few scholars have explored the cultural \\nassumptions that underpin the methodology itself’.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n102\\nYet researchers need to avoid assumptions that cultures are hermetic, \\ndistinct, and homogeneous. Clarke (CD:1) offers a succinct corrective in \\nher characterization of the interpretative turn, asserting that ‘Cultures are \\nbest understood as unevenly changing assemblages of distinctive symbols \\nand signifying practices’.\\nReichertz (CD:13) enhances this arguing that:\\nThe social order around which humans (often but not always) orient them-\\nselves in their actions is constantly changing and is, moreover, ‘sub-culturally \\nfragmented’ in the sense, that each sub-culture develops its own symbolic and \\nsocial order. The different order(s) therefore possess only a localized validity \\nand are continually and, since the advent of the ‘modern’, with increasing \\nrapidity being changed by individuals who previously (up to a point) adhered \\nto them (Eisenstadt, 2003; Foucault, 2004).\\nCrossman and Noma (CD:29) explain that ‘little is known about the impli-\\ncations of globalization and, more specifically, internationalization, for the \\nteaching, learning, practice and development of grounded theory’. This \\nleads to the issue of doing research in a non-English context, with the expec-\\ntation that the final output will be written in English. Massimiliano Tarozzi \\n(CD:9) discusses this in the context of translation, starting from the position \\nthat ‘the researcher is a culturally defined subject and analysis is embedded \\nin processes of mutual meaning-making’. He looks at the complexities of \\ntranslation in research, not simply confined to GTM. This concerns\\n(1) using GTM in cultures and countries in which researchers would be using \\nthe translation, (2) issues arising when international researchers are using the \\noriginal GTM sources in English but conducting their studies in their native \\nlanguages, and (3) presenting research results in English of data collected and \\nanalyzed in other languages. (Tarozzi, CD:9)\\nMany of my doctoral students have used GTM, and most of these have \\nbeen non-UK students, many based in countries outside Europe and the \\nUSA. They have undertaken interviews and other forms of data collection \\nin their local language(s), then developed their GTs in English. In most \\ncases they translated their data into English, coding from that translation. \\nRecently, however, one or two have compared the outcomes of this route \\nwith an alternative: completing the initial coding in the original language, \\nthen translating the codes into English. Although the sample is too small to \\n\\n\\nINDIGENEITY\\n103\\ndraw any conclusions regarding any differences in the outcomes, students \\nwho tried both routes reported no significant differences in the results. \\nWhen using both routes, they did, however, note significant enhance-\\nments in their understanding of the complexities of coding, and developed \\na clearer grasp of the process for articulating higher-level abstractions and \\nconcepts. To this extent, having to gather, code, and analyze data across \\ntwo or more languages offered a distinct advantage, albeit only after signifi-\\ncant additional effort.\\nTaking indigeneity, cultural and ethnic difference, translation, ethno-\\ncentricity, power, and dominance into account complicates consideration of \\nwhat is involved in coding, and researchers need to develop an understanding \\nof their research actions that takes account of some, if not all, of these. Hadley \\n(CD:28) refers to Clarke’s work on Situational Analysis and the influence of \\npostmodernism in concluding that ‘definitions about what is real are in a \\nconstant state of flux, and the methodology will reflect this chaos. Coding is \\ndeconstructive and similar to postmodern art, in that it is constantly being \\ntransformed and reinterpreted by each individual.’ This is Hadley’s conclu-\\nsion, not Clarke’s, and potentially opens the way for the ‘methodological and \\ntheoretical individualism’ Duckles et al. (CD:31) warn against. As was pointed \\nout above, research results, even interim ones that result from early stages of \\ncoding, need some claims to consistency, coherence, credibility, and rigour. \\nI have already used Rorty’s provocative contention that ‘Truth is what your \\ncontemporaries allow you to get away with’ (See Chapter 3, p. 80, note 5). A \\nsomewhat bizarre and challenging claim, but one that does clearly involve \\ngaining the assent of others, not simply deciding things for oneself.\\nNote\\n1\\t A joke dating from the 1960s provides an insightful, if ironic, example. The Lone \\nRanger and Tonto are watching a horde of Indian braves bear down on them in \\nfull battle fury. ‘Looks like we’re in trouble, Tonto,’ says the Lone Ranger to his \\npal. ‘What do you mean “we,” white man?’ Tonto responds… (It is now attributed \\nto E. Nelson Bridwell when writing gags for MAD Magazine.) http://pancocojams.\\nblogspot.co.uk/2013/07/sources-meanings-of-what-do-you-mean.html. For any \\nreader perplexed by this reference to The Lone Ranger, I recommend Wikipedia \\nand YouTube.\\n\\n\\n6\\nSTUDENT AND LEARNING ISSUES\\nI have remarked upon the paradox that some writers on GTM argue that \\nusing the method is easy and comes naturally, simultaneously arguing \\nthat conceptualizing is difficult and something that some may not be able \\nto accomplish. Glaser exemplifies this, probably a result of his aim to offer \\nguidance and establish confidence in novice users of GTM, and also to \\ncaution against the idea that ‘anything goes’ when developing concepts \\ngrounded in the data. It would, however, be better to acknowledge that \\nconceptualization is a skill that requires practice and experience, includ-\\ning learning from one’s own – and others’ – mistakes. In other words, \\nresearchers need to develop precisely the theoretical sensitivity that was key \\nto GTM from the start. This form of guidance comes more naturally with \\na constructivist view of GTM than from one that implies or openly states \\nthat the concepts/theories somehow emerge from the data.\\nAnother issue emanates from the protracted discussions regarding the \\nstatus of differing variants of GTM, which complicate the process of any-\\none keen to learn about GTM. This is in part what Crossman and Noma \\n(CD:29) refer to as the ‘tricky spaces’ that students need to navigate in \\ntheir research. Morse and Clark (CD:7) argue that sampling while trying to \\naccount for ethnicity is ‘tricky’, and Denzin makes extensive use of Smith’s \\ncritique of ‘colonialist methods’, including her chapter ‘On Tricky Ground’ \\n(Smith, 2005).\\nThis is not a promising basis for novice researchers who are keen to gain \\nconfidence and develop novel insights and concepts. So, students can be \\nforgiven if they discount GTM as a forbidding and obstacle-strewn option \\nrather than as a confidence-boosting one. This is not unique to GTM; it \\nis another form of criticism that applies generally. Texts on methods are \\n\\n\\nSTUDENT AND LEARNING ISSUES\\n105\\nnever able fully to explain the intricacies in using them in actual projects, \\njust as reading books on mountaineering or playing the cello are not going \\nto lead in themselves to conquering Everest or performing at Carnegie Hall.\\nIn similar vein, Irwin (CD:18) explains how she felt herself to be a ‘GTM \\npretender’, something she overcame once she encountered Charmaz’s con-\\nstructivist approach, which helped her realize ‘that others were probably \\ngrappling with the same constraints within the various GTM statements \\nthat troubled me’. Irwin was sceptical regarding ‘the effort to discover a \\nunitary, basic social process encompassing all individuals’ experiences in \\na setting’. She was frustrated in her attempts to use Strauss and Corbin’s \\nconditional matrix (Strauss and Corbin, 1990 & 1998), and so was reas-\\nsured that ‘Charmaz’s (2006, p. xi) “flexible approach” invited skeptical \\nresearchers like me to “enter the methodological fray” and “messy” \\ndebates about methods’.\\nCrossman and Noma (CD:29) argue that discussion of GTM-in-use \\nby graduate students is an underdeveloped area in grounded theory pub-\\nlications. There is, however, a growing literature on GTM-in-use; some \\naccounts are available through The Grounded Theory Institute, and my recent \\nbook includes four verbatim accounts from doctoral students (Bryant, \\n2017, Chapter 19). Reading these should be useful for research students \\nand others, although there is no substitute for actual experience, learn-\\ning from one’s mistakes, successes, and insights. Undertaking a research \\nproject and learning about different methods are basic requirements for \\ndeveloping and honing one’s methodological sensitivity.\\nI have referred to the uniquely hostile attitude of many academics and \\nother gate-keepers with regards to GTM. One consequence is that many \\nstudents are discouraged from learning more about the method and its pos-\\nsible use in their research. Paradoxically, given the popularity and renown \\nof GTM, many academics, with a barely minimal understanding of the \\nmethod, offer to advise students in their GTM-based research. Stern’s con-\\ncept of ‘minus mentoring’ was discussed earlier. It refers to well-meaning \\nadvisors with at best only a cursory understanding of the method. Stern \\nwas an adherent of Glaser’s variant of GTM, and her criticism was aimed \\nnot only at those professing to know more about GTM than was actually \\nthe case, but also at those who may well have known a good deal about the \\nmethod, but who, in Stern’s view, had taken a different path from Glaser – \\nparticularly Strauss’s later work and his collaboration with Corbin.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n106\\nThose with experience of GTM must ensure that researchers relying on \\nthem for guidance are fully appraised about the method and its variants \\nand nuances. On the other hand, any over-mentoring must also be avoided. \\nMentoring GTM research requires a balance between offering guidance \\nand refraining from prompting or influencing the student’s progress from \\ncoding to analysis. Students should be encouraged to articulate their find-\\nings at various stages of their research, and, if possible, to discuss these \\nwith their peers, even if the latter are not using GTM. Opportunities to \\ndo so, however, are dependent on there being a suitably large and willing \\ncommunity of researchers, either readily at hand or through workshops or \\nseminars organized on a wider basis.\\nOnce students have developed some of their analysis, guidance can be \\noffered relating to possible ways forward, including directing them to the \\nappropriate literature and other sources with which they should engage. Most \\ncommonly, this occurs once a more developed form of model or theory has \\nbeen established, but it can also take place earlier, as initial coding or secondary \\ncoding results in a semi-stable set of codes, categories, and/or concepts.\\nMentors may, however, differ with regard to the extent to which they \\npersuade or influence students to articulate and refine their analyses as \\nsocial processes incorporating gerunds. (The Wikipedia entry on gerunds \\nin various languages is a useful starting point to learn more – see https://\\nen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_various_languages; \\nsee \\nalso \\nBryant, 2017, Introduction to Part Three.)\\nAs was explained earlier, the relationship between GTM and sociology \\nis paradoxical, but GTM is best seen as a method that facilitates the devel-\\nopment of insights into and encapsulations of social processes; hence the \\nimportance of gerunds, which combine aspects of both a noun and a verb. \\nYet students should not feel obliged to develop their concepts/categories \\nas gerunds from the outset, and in many cases they may find that they \\nlack the relevant expertise in sociological thinking to conceptualize a social \\nprocess. Some direction may well be appropriate and necessary at this stage, \\nalthough the ability to ‘think sociologically’ (see above, and Bauman & May, \\n2001) requires skill and practice, including trial-and-error and subsequent \\nreflection leading to enhanced methodological and theoretical sensitivity.\\nIf students and their mentors can find the balance between minus \\nmentoring and over-mentoring, there may still be problems in dealing \\nwith academic gate-keepers – whether in the form of examiners, review \\n\\n\\nSTUDENT AND LEARNING ISSUES\\n107\\nboards, or evaluators. People in these positions cannot be expected to be fully \\ncognizant with every research method, tool, and technique; but if they are \\n \\nconfronted with something that is out of their comfort zone, their assumption \\nought to be that they should refrain from pre-emptive and ill-informed judge-\\nments, and defer to and seek assistance from those with relevant expertise. \\nThis is common practice when, for instance, a research proposal incorpo-\\nrates complex and sophisticated statistical techniques and digital tools. An \\nevaluator with little or no experience with quantitative research will under-\\nstand that assessment in such cases is best left to others. Unfortunately, the \\nconverse seems not to apply; those with little or no experience of qualita-\\ntive research rarely excuse themselves in the same manner. Furthermore, \\nGTM is often singled out for criticism, based on the sort of misplaced and \\nill-informed preconceptions and prejudices referred to earlier as ‘a strange \\nhostility’. It is one thing to criticize a research proposal for the ways in which \\na method or technique is planned to be used, or a research report – such as \\na PhD thesis – in which its use is explained, but quite another to censure or \\ndeplore a method or technique itself. I have sought to offer guidance to stu-\\ndents, mentors, and gate-keepers on these issues (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 18).\\nPresentation of GTM research\\nMy extensive experience with supervising, mentoring, and examining PhD \\nstudents has demonstrated the different ways in which researchers present \\ntheir findings, often enhancing textual descriptions with visualizations. \\nSometimes these derive directly from one or other form of CAQDAS, but \\nmany develop their own forms of presentation, sometimes to supplement \\nCAQDAS outputs, but mostly as ways of enhancing the cogency of their \\npresentation. Students often request examples of previous work using GTM, \\nfor example, doctoral dissertations or journal articles, as guides for their \\nown work. But these can be more distracting than beneficial, and it is far \\nbetter to work out one’s own best form of presentation, albeit guided by any \\ninstitutional conventions. Gorra (CD:15) argues that the current generation \\nof students largely expect to use some form of digital technology in their \\nresearch, including one or more forms of visualization. These must never be \\nallowed simply to stand on their own; all require textual explanation and \\njustification. Konecki’s (CD:17) concept of ‘multi-slice imaginings’ applies \\nto all forms of visualization, including those used in doctoral dissertations \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n108\\nand other research reports. So it is incumbent on researchers to explain and \\ncontextualize any visualizations included in their presentations.\\nThe presentation of GTM research has changed over the years. Awareness \\nand Time were published as research monographs (Glaser & Strauss, 1965b, \\n1968), as extended textual accounts of the research context and findings. \\nIn recent years a wide variety of formats and layouts have been used in \\nresearch journals, PhD theses, and other extended accounts. In most cases, \\nauthors include details of the codes and the data from which they were \\nderived, often using diagrams or other visualizations highlighting the pro-\\ncesses involved in moving from data to codes. Other visualizations are then \\nemployed for later levels of analysis, sometimes leading to intricate and \\nsophisticated representations of the eventual grounded theory.\\nMemos are also often incorporated into accounts in the form of verba-\\ntim extracts in clearly demarcated text boxes. If authors use this strategy, \\nthey must also ensure that they provide clear explanations and justifica-\\ntion for the substantive topics indicated in the memos; unadorned memos \\ncannot simply stand alone.\\nBoth Glaser and Charmaz refer to ‘theoretical sorting’, in which memos \\nare ‘sorted’ and clustered as a key component of preparation for drafting \\nthe research account. In Constructing Grounded Theory, Charmaz groups \\ntheoretical sorting, diagramming, and integrating as intertwined processes \\nthat researchers should undertake ‘in the service of theoretical develop-\\nment of their analysis’ (2006, p. 115).\\nWriters on GTM offer a variety of ways in which research can be pre-\\nsented, but individual researchers need to develop their own ways of ensuring \\nthat their presentations have effective impact on their target readership(s). \\nAgain, this is something that researchers need to develop through practice \\nand experimentation, taking account of any specific regulations or institu-\\ntional guidelines that may apply, but balancing this with consideration of \\nthe most effective forms of presentation – indicating how the research was \\ncarried out as well as presenting the findings and conclusions.\\nGTM and the literature\\nOne aspect that continues to prove troublesome for students and others \\nis how to relate to the literature when using GTM. The early admonition \\nnot to read the literature is best regarded as an historical accident, which \\n\\n\\nSTUDENT AND LEARNING ISSUES\\n109\\nwas understandable in the context of social science in the USA in 1960s, \\nbut never really defensible for researchers keen to understand how their \\nproject might result in a ‘contribution to knowledge’. Unfortunately, this \\ncanard has taken on an extended life of its own, and is resistant to efforts \\naimed at its eradication. It continues to mislead and deceive prospective \\nGTM researchers, advisors, and others. The chapters by Martin (CD:11), \\nand Thornberg and Dunne (CD:10) offer important clarifications of the \\nways in which literature can and should be used in GTM. These build upon \\nprevious accounts, such as Covan’s (2007) chapter in the 2007 Handbook.\\nThornberg and Dunne (CD:10) make a strong case for GTM researchers \\ngaining familiarity with the relevant literature from the start, arguing that \\nGTM research is ‘necessary [when] the literature does not provide enough \\ntheories to cover all aspects or areas of the social life’. Moreover, even if \\nexisting theories seem immune from this deficiency, ‘extant theories sel-\\ndom fit or work, nor are relevant or sufficiently understandable to use in \\nresearch which aspires to be sensitive to the empirical field and its par-\\nticipants’. This is a useful way of couching the argument, since it replaces \\na proscription with a constructive instruction and positive recommenda-\\ntion. While noting that Charmaz has described the original admonition as \\n‘rhetorical’, Thornberg and Dunne’s chapter describes ‘the place of the lit-\\nerature review in [the Glaserian, Straussian, constructivist] major versions \\nof GTM’. Their general point is that engaging with the literature can be \\naccomplished so that researchers relate their work to and integrate it with \\nexisting theories, but without undermining the data or forcing the analysis.\\nThey distinguish between different forms and phases of using the lit-\\nerature: initial, ongoing, and final. The initial phase is discussed as part of \\nthe scoping exercise that provides the basis for further work. Rather than a \\nconstraint or contamination, this initial literature review should be ‘both \\nempowering and enriching, imbuing the researcher with the confidence to \\nmove forward with the study’.\\nThe second phase is driven by the data and initial analysis: ‘During this \\nphase the researcher may seek to identify empirical studies which relate to \\nfindings (e.g., themes, ideas, hypotheses) emerging from the iterative pro-\\ncess between data collection and analysis.’ In many cases, this later exercise \\nwill incorporate literature that was not envisaged as relevant at the outset \\nof the study.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n110\\nThe last phase is where\\nthe researcher seeks to contextualize the constructed grounded theory in rela-\\ntion to established theoretical ideas and identify theoretical reference points \\nagainst which to compare and contrast the data. This review is crucial in terms \\nof locating the study within or across disciplines. Indeed, some of the theories \\nwhich strongly resonate with a constructed grounded theory may be new to a \\ngiven field or discipline. (Thornberg & Dunne, CD:10)\\nThornberg and Dunne specifically relate use of literature to abduction, \\nwhich they understand as ‘a selective and creative process in which the \\nresearcher carefully examines which hypothesis explains a particular case \\nor segment of data better than any other candidate hypotheses for further \\ninvestigation’. They conclude that literature is ‘a vital resource when con-\\nducting abduction in GTM’.\\nMartin (CD:11) offers a further and important perspective: using litera-\\nture as data, specifically in the development of a formal grounded theory. \\nShe makes the case for ‘four phases’ in which the literature is addressed – \\n‘scoping the literature, sampling the literature, bridging the literature, and \\nconfirming the theory’ – relating each to ‘the various stages of grounded \\ntheory methodology’.\\nDon’t call it ‘a literature review’!\\nThornberg and Dunne (CD:10), and many others, refer to the ‘literature \\nreview’ in their discussions, even though they encompass far more than \\nthe usual meaning of the term – i.e. an initial phase of research aimed at \\npositioning the research objectives from the start. My view is that doctoral \\nstudents in particular are best advised to restrict the term to this initial \\nstage, referring to later stages as part of their theoretical coding and/or as \\na ‘return to’ or ‘engagement with’ the literature. This will then preclude \\nan all-too-common issue whereby well-meaning examiners ask: ‘Why are \\nthere two literature review chapters in your thesis, an early chapter and a \\nlater one linked to the findings and conclusions?’\\nMartin (CD:11) and Thornberg and Dunne (CD:10) offer differing accounts \\nof the ways in which the literature can and should be incorporated with GTM, \\nand there are other authoritative sources that engage with this issue, for instance, \\nCharmaz (2014a, Chapter 11) and Bryant (2017, Chapter 12). Students should \\nfamiliarize themselves with these authoritative sources and clarify their own \\n\\n\\nSTUDENT AND LEARNING ISSUES\\n111\\nposition, referring to one or more in their writing, thus anticipating any such \\nqueries and criticisms of this type. Taken together, this should provide the basis \\nfor dispelling the ‘don’t read the literature’ canard, although it may still take \\nsome time before it finally disappears.\\nA repertoire of GTM research questions\\nGiven that one of the key characteristics of GTM is that it eschews articu-\\nlation of distinct and definitive research questions at the outset of any \\nresearch project, it might seem strange that many GTM writers suggest a \\nrepertoire of initial research questions. In so doing, they acknowledge add-\\ning to and in some ways going beyond the generic questions that Glaser \\nand Strauss offered as prompts to encourage and evoke wide-ranging \\nresponses at the initiation stage of a GTM-oriented project:\\n•\\t\\nWhat is this data about?\\n•\\t\\nWhat is this data a study of?\\n•\\t\\nWhat is going on?\\n•\\t\\nWhat are people doing?\\n•\\t\\nWhat are people saying?\\n•\\t\\nWhat do these actions and statements take for granted?1\\nCharmaz added to this list to include questions sensitizing researchers to differ-\\nent participants’ viewpoints, issues of power and control, structure, and context, \\nand the ways in which changes come about in the setting under investigation:\\n•\\t\\nFrom whose point of view is a given process fundamental?\\n•\\t\\nFrom whose is it marginal?\\n•\\t\\nHow do the observed social processes emerge?\\n•\\t\\nHow do participants’ actions construct them?\\n•\\t\\nWho exerts control over these processes? Under what conditions?\\n•\\t\\nWhat meanings do different participants attribute to the process? How \\ndo they talk about it? What do they emphasize? What do they leave out?\\n•\\t\\nHow and when do their meanings and actions concerning the process \\nchange? (Charmaz, 2006, p. 20)\\nHesse-Biber and Flowers (CD:24) offer ‘sensitizing questions’ in their \\ndiscussion of a ‘Feminist Grounded Theory Approach’:\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n112\\n•\\t\\nWhat particular research problems lend themselves to a feminist \\napproach to mixed methods?\\n•\\t\\nHow does a feminist approach to mixed methods research begin to \\ntake on a new context of research praxis?\\n•\\t\\nMore specifically, how do feminist researchers tend to issues of power, \\nauthority, reflexivity, ethics, and difference in their mixed methods \\nresearch design?\\n•\\t\\nHow do and what are the reasons why feminist researchers deploy mixed \\nmethods research designs that utilize a grounded theory analysis?\\nPriya (CD:19) poses further questions, derived from his GTM-oriented \\nresearch centred on suffering and healing:\\n•\\t\\nHow does [the] paradigm shift in grounded theory methodology \\ntowards a Constructivist GT approach open up inquiry into various \\naspects of human and social world?\\n•\\t\\nWhat does it mean to be reflexive while collecting data and analyzing \\nthe same?\\n•\\t\\nDo empathy and compassion play a role in the process of data collec-\\ntion and analysis?\\n•\\t\\nCan the same data be viewed again from a different vantage point that \\nmight help further our insights into the studied phenomenon?\\nHadley (CD:28) builds on both Glaser and Strauss’s, and Charmaz’s sets of \\nquestions, arguing that the former centre on ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions, the \\nlatter add ‘why’ as well as what and how questions, which can be framed as \\n‘Why is this going on here?’ He stresses that finding the answers will require \\nfurther investigation into the background issues, contexts, and causes.\\nIf there is an indication of recurring problems and social interactions intimately \\nlinked to power, inequality, gender, class stratification, or related critical concerns, \\nfurther questions are then used to guide later memo-writing and coding:\\n•\\t\\nHow is dominance being maintained here?\\n•\\t\\nWhat strategy is being used to privilege one group’s narrative over \\nanother?\\n•\\t\\nHow are things of value being gained here?\\n•\\t\\nHow are things of value being lost here?\\n\\n\\nSTUDENT AND LEARNING ISSUES\\n113\\n•\\t\\nWhat tactic is being used to gain an advantage over others here?\\n•\\t\\nWhat are the marginalizing interactions here?\\n•\\t\\nIn what way is the disadvantaged resisting?\\n•\\t\\nHow is gender/age/class affecting the dynamics discussed here?\\n•\\t\\nWho has been excluded from the established narrative?\\n•\\t\\nWhat activities are these ‘invisible ones’ engaging in while the domi-\\nnant group seeks to carry out their plans?\\n•\\t\\nWhat are the problems that arise as a result of the social processes of \\ndominant and disenfranchised groups?\\nThese are far-reaching and important questions, derived by Hadley in \\nhis discussion of GTM and Critical Theory. He offers an account of what \\nCritical Grounded Theory might be, also taking account of the criticism \\nthat Critical Grounded Theorists might be ‘forcing informant data into \\npreconceived categories’. His additions or enhancements, and those pro-\\nposed by Hesse-Biber and Flowers (CD:24) and Priya (CD:19), need to ‘earn \\ntheir way’ in any specific research project. But it is important that GTM \\nresearchers understand that they are there for consideration as part of the \\nmethod – whether as sensitizing questions or more directly applicable in \\nthe research setting itself. These aspects of GTM are particularly important \\nin considering GTM and social justice.\\nOne outcome of such suggestions is that GTM researchers, if and when \\nchallenged to articulate one or more ‘research questions’, now have access to \\na number of resources to which they can refer in preparing their responses, \\nperhaps pre-empting such challenges and explicitly stating their ‘sensitizing \\nquestions’, derived partly from the examples already given, and also from \\nthe research context itself and their own motivations in undertaking the \\nproject. (Researcher motivation is an important but largely ignored aspect \\nof research practice – see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 8.)\\nNote\\n1\\t These suggestions can be found in various places in Glaser and Strauss’s writings, \\nand are presented together here for convenient reference.\\n\\n\\n7\\nGTM, PRAGMATISM AND  \\nSOCIAL JUSTICE\\nGTM has been criticized for leaving things as they are and upholding the \\nstatus quo, but there are strong grounds to dispute this. Such censure is based \\non an out-dated and partial understanding of the method; one that particu-\\nlarly fails to take account of the constructivist and Pragmatist aspects that \\nare inherent in the method, albeit that they have only become widely articu-\\nlated and promulgated since the 1990s. Moreover, the constructivist variant \\nof GTM, while upholding Glaser and Strauss’s admonition to keep an open \\nmind in doing research of any kind, makes it clear that all of us, however \\nimpartial and unbiased we may try to be and think we are, observe the world \\nand make sense of it through a complex bundle of cognitions, perceptions, \\nexpectations, and assumptions. Since it is impossible to evade or escape these, \\nresearchers need to recognize and understand this, and proceed accordingly. \\nAgain, it is worth quoting Keynes’ response to anyone professing themselves \\nimmune to such influences: ‘Practical men who believe themselves to be \\nquite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some \\ndefunct economist.’ The quote continues ‘Madmen in authority, who hear \\nvoices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a \\nfew years back’ (Keynes, 1936, pp. 383–384).\\nMany GTM writers recognize and have responded to this issue, as did \\nGlaser and Strauss, albeit relegating a key statement qualifying their maxim \\nof keeping an open mind to a footnote in Discovery that states that ‘Of course, \\nthe researcher does not approach reality as a tabula rasa. He [sic] must have \\na perspective that will help him see relevant data and abstract significant \\ncategories from his scrutiny of the data’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 3).\\n\\n\\nGTM, PRAGMATISM AND SOCIAL JUSTICE\\n115\\nThe phrase ‘see relevant data’ covers many complex issues which \\nmay not have been evident in the 1960s but, given that research is now \\nunderstood inescapably to encompass issues of power, domination, and \\nhegemony, researchers need constantly to reflect on how their research \\nstrategies do or do not engage with these issues. Discussion of research \\nmethods has to embrace this; hence the importance of the chapters in \\nCurrent Developments (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019) concerned with indi-\\ngeneity, critical theory, and feminism, among others, in many cases \\nbuilding upon work published in Denzin’s various edited collections \\n(see p. 94).\\nGTM research has always necessitated paying heed to and engaging \\nwith those involved in the research context. Barry Turner stressed this in \\nthe 1980s, adding that GTM is an ‘approach to qualitative data [that] pro-\\nmotes the development of theoretical accounts which conform closely to \\nthe situations being observed, so that the theory is likely to be intelligible to \\nand usable by those in the situations observed, and is open to comment and \\ncorrection by them’ (Turner, 1983, pp. 334–335, emphasis added). Which \\ndoes not imply that the researcher(s) and those embroiled in the context \\nwill reach agreement.\\nCurrent admonitions, however, go further than this, urging researchers \\nto enter the research arena vigilant and attentive to issues of social justice, \\nwhich Charmaz has defined as encompassing ‘ideas and actions concern-\\ning fairness, equity, equality, democratic process, status, and hierarchy, and \\nindividual and collective rights and obligations’ (Charmaz, 2008b, p. 207). \\nIn her recent paper, ‘The power of constructivist grounded theory for criti-\\ncal inquiry’, Charmaz argues that:\\n[T]he constructivist version of grounded theory befits critical qualitative inquiry. \\n… [it] fosters asking probing questions about the data and scrutinizing the \\nresearcher and the research process. Unlike other versions of grounded theory, \\nthe constructivist version also locates the research process and product in his-\\ntorical, social, and situational conditions. [It offers] a foundation for bringing \\ngrounded theory into critical inquiry and enhancing it. (Charmaz, 2017a, p. 34)\\nDuckles et al. (CD:31) take up Charmaz’s view of critical inquiry as ‘embed-\\nded in a transformative paradigm that seeks to expose, oppose, and redress \\nforms of oppression, inequality, and injustice’ (Charmaz, 2017a, p. 35), \\n \\nstressing that Charmaz\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n116\\nalso frames (and encourages us to reframe) these abstract processes of jus-\\ntice, injustice, power, and privilege as ‘enacted processes, made real through \\nactions performed again and again’ (p. 35, italics in original). She proposes \\nthat CGT [Constructivist GT] provides the framework and tools to keep our \\nattention as researchers on the constructed, contested and situated nature of \\nthese processes.\\nThey argue that this results in part from the influence of Symbolic \\nInteractionism on GTM, since for Charmaz ‘… symbolic interactionists \\nassume process and explain stability … [offering] an alternative to other social \\nscientific perspectives that assume stability and attempt to explain change. \\n(Charmaz, 2014a, p. 266)’.\\nAlthough not all GTM researchers will concur with or adhere to this, \\nCharmaz’s position exemplifies a key characteristic of GTM and a criterion \\nfor evaluating any Grounded Theory. Developing from her supplementary \\nquestions (see above), Charmaz articulates and establishes the founda-\\ntion for an approach to research that regards social processes as precarious \\n \\nco-constructions, dependent for their continuity on combinations of struc-\\nture and agency imbricated with each other and with issues such as power, \\ndomination, exploitation, and hegemony, also with cultural and political \\ncomplexities. Far from shoring up the status quo, GTM researchers can \\nand should be working from an orientation that treats stable and enduring \\nsocial processes as problematic and contested. This draws on and echoes \\nthe issues raised in the earlier section on indigeneity.\\nThe 2007 volume touched on some of these issues, for instance in the \\nchapter by O’Neil Green et al. (2007) on ‘Grounded theory and racial/\\nethnic diversity’, but again this is an aspect of GTM that has developed \\nsignificantly in the intervening years. Bainbridge et al. (CD:30) refer to \\n‘phronetic GTM’ – i.e. a form of inquiry that centres on phronesis; practical \\nand moral wisdom.\\nOur phronetic grounded theory approach and transformational grounded \\ntheory contributed a decolonizing variation of grounded theory methods \\nand demonstrated its use in the Indigenous Australian and Pacific contexts \\n(Bainbridge, McCalman & Whiteside, 2013; Redman-MacLaren & Mills, 2015). \\nWith the exception of Charmaz (2017a), for instance, few theorists have \\nexplicitly taken up the proposition and utility of grounded theory as decolonizing \\ntool in research. Yet, grounded theory’s pragmatist roots and its commitment to \\nsocial justice suggest that it can be used purposefully in its intent as a decoloniz-\\ning method (Charmaz, 2017a). Indeed, grounded theory methods respond to \\n\\n\\nGTM, PRAGMATISM AND SOCIAL JUSTICE\\n117\\nmany of the discrete critiques of Western research that Indigenous researchers \\nhave proffered in recent decades. We contemplate how the utility of grounded \\ntheory methods can provide a fresh perspective and maximize the value of \\nresearch for Indigenous nations.\\nThey see this as extending constructivist GTM, enabling those working \\nfrom a constructivist position to building upon this enhanced awareness. \\nIn their work they have been concerned to\\nreflect on our own work to demonstrate that broadening constructivist grounded \\ntheory enables it to:\\n•\\t\\nbe ethically-situated and embedded in an explicit moral process \\n \\nphilosophy/value position;\\n•\\t\\nbe directly relevant to the lives of the people with whom we work;\\n•\\t\\nbe culturally-sensitive and responsive to people, their priorities and \\ncontext;\\n•\\t\\nbe reflective and action-oriented;\\n•\\t\\nwork from the strengths of given situations and Indigenous agency;\\n•\\t\\nbe situated as a two-way learning process, explicitly incorporating \\nmutual capacity development;\\n•\\t\\nvalue Indigenous knowledge and centre Indigenous voices and \\n \\nexperiences;\\n•\\t\\nexplicitly acknowledge and address power dynamics and discourse;\\n•\\t\\ninvolve authentic collaboration and trust in the co-creation of \\n \\nknowledge and action;\\n•\\t\\nintegrate Indigenous and Western knowledges;\\n•\\t\\nstudy and explicate processes, including why, how and for what \\n \\npurpose;\\n•\\t\\ncapture and explicate in detail a ‘big picture’ view of research phenom-\\nenon that is temporally situated;\\n•\\t\\nexplain what works for whom, under what conditions, through what \\nmechanisms and with what consequences;\\n•\\t\\nidentify points for action, change and intervention.\\nThey also refer to Flyvbjerg’s (2001, p. 57)\\nfive value-rational questions for working in a phronetic framework: (1) Where \\nare we going? (2) Who gains and who loses? (3) By which mechanisms of \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n118\\npower? (4) Is this desirable? (5) What, if anything, should be done? … [Adding \\nfour more] reflexive, action-oriented questions to generate data: (1) What is \\nthe situation? (2) What do we want to change? (3) What is already happening? \\n \\n(4) What’s working, what’s not, and who is missing out? (5) How can we \\nimprove the situation? (Bainbridge et al., CD:30)\\nTo these can be added the feminist sensitizing questions proposed by \\nHesse-Biber and Flowers (see above and CD:24). The chapters by Denzin \\n(CD:22), and Crossman and Noma (CD:29) develop this perspective, \\nadding further considerations. Denzin quotes from Smith’s work (see \\nabove) and includes her list of questions that should be posed by all \\nresearchers and evaluators.\\n1.\\t\\nWhat research do we want done?\\n2.\\t\\nWho is it for?\\n3.\\t\\nWhat difference will it make?\\n4.\\t\\nWho will carry it out?\\n5.\\t\\nHow do we want the research done?\\n6.\\t\\nHow will we know it is worthwhile?\\n7.\\t\\nWho will own the research?\\n8.\\t\\nWho will benefit? (L. Smith, 2000, p. 239).\\nThe chapters by Bainbridge et al. (CD:30), Denzin (CD:22), Duckles et al. \\n(CD:31), and Hadley (CD:28) develop the argument that research in general \\nhas to drop the pretence of disinterestedness and impartiality. Quantum \\nphysicists have long argued that there is an ‘observer effect’ when interact-\\ning with the physical world; this must be far more pronounced in social \\nsettings. I have already pointed to the flaws in the adage that GTM research-\\ners should avoid all preconceptions, arguing that it is far better to try – as far \\nas possible – to articulate one’s assumptions and expectations at the outset, \\nleaving it to others to decide the extent to which these influenced the later \\noutcomes. This applies across the research domain, not only to GTM, but \\nthe incorporation of the aspirations and concerns given above indicate that \\nGTM is particularly suited as a basis for emancipatory research.\\nHadley (CD:28) voices the concerns of those who worry that, for \\ninstance, Critical Grounded Theorists are ‘forcing informant data into pre-\\nconceived categories’. Again, it is a case of using sensitizing concepts but \\nensuring that they have ‘earned their way’. The issues and questions listed \\nby Duckles et al. (CD:31), and Hesse-Biber and Flowers (CD:24), and others \\n\\n\\nGTM, PRAGMATISM AND SOCIAL JUSTICE\\n119\\nprovide resources for consideration as researchers undertake their inquiries. \\nThe chapters by Hadley, Duckles et al., and Carter (CS:27) deal specifically \\nwith the ways in which GTM provides a method of critical inquiry when \\nundertaken with a specifically ethical orientation.\\nPriya (CD:19) similarly makes the case for a form of GTM that starts \\nfrom a rejection of research as value-neutral and detached, instead seeing\\nresearch interactions [as] … a site for co-construction that may help bring to the \\nfore an in-depth understanding of experiences from the participant’s standpoint \\nthrough a more flexible procedure of negotiations of meanings or interpreta-\\ntions of shared experience.\\nIn this way, researchers can be aware of, and try to avoid, ‘unknowingly \\n[contributing] to legitimizing of social hierarchies that stifle the human \\nvoice’, instead aiming to recover ‘silenced or marginalized voices (Charmaz, \\n2000, 2017a, 2017b)’ (Priya, CD:19).\\nDuckles et al. (CD:31) refer to Hense and McFerran (2015), who have \\nproposed a critical grounded theory approach that consists of ‘iterative \\ncycles in praxis, working with tension and doubt, engaging in democratic \\ncollaborations, and ensuring rigor’. Duckles et al. argue that ‘these tensions \\nhave the potential to lead to more robust and inclusive research directed at \\nmeaningful social action and change’. Furthermore, this combination of \\ntension and doubt encourages ‘abductive and reflective processes, creating \\nstrategies and dialogic spaces to reach into local theories and indigenous \\nways of knowing and being’.\\nThey explicitly link Pragmatism, concern with social justice, and GTM, \\nquoting Bruce and Bloch (2013), who proposed\\nfour salient features of pragmatism; ‘its emphasis on the practical dimensions of \\ninquiry, the pluralistic nature of the tools that are used to study phenomena, the \\nparticipatory role of individuals with different perspectives, and the provisional \\nnature of inquiry’ (p. 28). (Duckles et al., CD:31)\\nInquiry is then seen as participatory and active, ‘building on Peirce’s belief \\nthat “the most robust inquiry must involve full participation of all who \\nmay have knowledge of the situation”’ (Bruce & Bloch, 2013, p. 30).\\nStacy Carter (CD:27) offers strong grounds for combining an avowedly \\nethical stance with GTM:\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n120\\nempirical ethics and value-rich social science can offer three things to grounded \\ntheory. The first is an additional depth to data collection, retaining openness but \\nencouraging the presentation of counterfactuals and elicitation of moral reason-\\ning. The second is a new kind of theoretical sensitivity: to normative concepts \\nand questions, which will encourage greater attention to values as significant \\ncomponents in most social and psychological processes. The final benefit is to \\nstrengthen the sophisticated approach to the problem of epistemic authority \\nalready available in pragmatist traditions.\\nCarter takes issue with those who argue that the descriptive and the \\n \\nnormative – the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’ – are distinct. For Carter, they ‘are \\ninterleaved rather than dichotomous’. This aligns with the view of many \\nPragmatists, particularly Rorty.\\nCarter also takes on the issue of how GTM researchers should engage \\nwith existing research and literature, explicitly recognizing the role of \\nexisting theories and ideas in the generation of grounded theories, then \\nextending this beyond the issue of ‘whether existing theory should be \\nused in grounded theorizing (as doing so is unavoidable)’, to argue that \\nresearchers should be clear in discerning ‘which existing theory should be \\nused, and how’.\\nShe notes that recent GTM writing, particularly taking its lead from \\nCharmaz, has focused on ‘the moral dimensions of social life, the every-\\nday judgements we make about whether things are right or wrong’. The \\ninevitable result of this is that GTM provides a potent method of research \\nthat necessarily addresses ethical and moral issues. Carter welcomes and \\nencourages this, since she is adamant that ‘social research should not only \\ndescribe things or explain how they come to be, but also examine moral \\njudgements, and perhaps even make moral prescriptions’.\\n\\n\\nIN CONCLUSION\\nThe foregoing discussion developed from reading the submissions to the \\nnew Sage Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory (Bryant & \\n \\nCharmaz, 2019). These, together with the 2007 Handbook (Bryant & \\nCharmaz, 2007a), comprise a rich and challenging set of resources for those \\nwith an interest in and/or experience of GTM. The 59 chapters across both \\nvolumes encompass discussion of GTM from a wide range of positions, \\noffering extensive material for further reading and encouraging new ideas \\nabout topics and approaches to qualitative research, with clear implications, \\ninnovations, and challenges for practice and social action: continuing the \\ntrend that was set in motion in the 1960s by Glaser and Strauss.\\nAs I read the submitted work, I deliberately used a GTM strategy, study-\\ning each chapter in detail, and deriving codes as I did so. In many instances \\nI used verbatim extracts, many of which are included above. The section \\nheadings were also for the most part derived in a similar fashion.\\nAs I explained in the introduction, the original title for this discus-\\nsion was The Varieties of Grounded Theory Experience, partly in homage to \\nWilliam James and the original Pragmatists, particularly Peirce and Dewey, \\nbut also to underline the ways in which Glaser and Strauss’s original work \\nhas led to a range of outputs and clarifications that have added consider-\\nable depth and profundity to qualitative research and research practice in \\ngeneral. These ‘varieties’ or variants include the work of Strauss, his later \\ncollaboration with Corbin, and also Glaser’s individual writings.\\nThe most influential variant, however, stems from the work of Kathy \\nCharmaz, dating from the late 1990s, and incorporating her chapter in \\nthe second edition of the Handbook of Qualitative Research (2000) and \\nthe publication of Constructing Grounded Theory (2006). Neither the 2007 \\nHandbook nor Current Developments could have been assembled and pro-\\nduced without her. Without exception all those approached to contribute \\na chapter accepted enthusiastically precisely because the invitation came \\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n122\\nfrom Kathy. Most of the new contributors to Current Developments were \\nher recommendations, and many of the new topics addressed in Current \\nDevelopments emanate directly from her work, particularly on the subject \\nof social justice.\\nGlaser has always contended, quite correctly, that GTM is itself a grounded \\ntheory, and as such it can be judged in the terms that Glaser and Strauss them-\\nselves proposed – i.e. fit, grab, work, and modifiability, to which we must also \\nadd Charmaz’s criteria of credibility, originality, resonance, and usefulness. From \\nthe evidence of the two Handbooks, and the associated resources on which \\nthey draw, GTM itself clearly satisfies all these measures. But with the clearly \\nunderstood caveat that GTM now comprises a ‘family’ or ‘constellation’ of ori-\\nentations and insights that researchers need to approach and appraise drawing \\non their own methodological sensitivity. This latter is a skill that constantly \\nrequires exercising and conscious reflection, whether one is an early career \\ndoctoral researcher or a well-seasoned and widely-published one.\\nThis may seem onerous to novice researchers as they contend with the \\nplethora of issues that confront anyone entering the field of research and \\nresearch methods. Anyone in such a position should be able to draw upon \\none or more mentors to assist, challenge, and support them. Given the \\nearlier discussion of ‘minus mentoring’, however, this may be particularly \\nproblematic for GTM researchers. It is, therefore, important that GTM texts \\naddress these issues specifically, with the proviso that differing viewpoints \\nare treated in the manner outlined in Rapoport’s rules (see above).\\nGlaser and Strauss articulated GTM for those new to social science \\nresearch, offering a basis for novice researchers to feel confident in devel-\\noping their own conceptualizations and theoretical insights. Yet the \\nfounding trilogy – Awareness (1965b), Discovery (1967), and Time (1968) – \\ndid not lend itself readily as a set of introductory texts or primers. Strauss’s \\nlater work, based on his lectures and seminars, began to address this more \\ndirectly, leading to publication of Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists \\n(1987), and the first two editions of Basics of Qualitative Research (Strauss & \\n \\nCorbin, 1990 & 1998). Since the 1990s, Glaser has similarly sought to \\ndevelop ways in which researchers can be supported and encouraged as \\nthey apply GTM in their projects.\\nSince the publication of Charmaz’s Constructing Grounded Theory, there \\nhas been a welcome flourishing of texts and other resources upon which \\nGTM researchers can draw, and I now offer a brief guide to some of these.\\n\\n\\nAPPENDIX A: KEY RESOURCES AND \\nRECOMMENDED READING\\nKathy Charmaz’s Constructing Grounded Theory (2006, 2014a, and 3rd edition \\n \\nin preparation) provides the best starting point for learning about and \\nunderstanding GTM, offering an accessible and extended account, and \\nproviding a resource that readers can constantly return to as their research \\ndevelops. In addition, Awareness and Time provide detailed accounts of the \\ntwo earliest Grounded Theories, and particular attention should be paid to \\nthe appendices which provide succinct methodological overviews (Glaser & \\n \\nStrauss, 1965b, 1968). My own book Grounded Theory and Grounded \\nTheorizing (Bryant, 2017) provides some example GTs, and guidance for \\nthose preparing their research for doctoral examination and/or submission \\nfor possible publication.\\nSuggestions for further reading on specific topics – \\nlisted alphabetically\\nThe chapters in the two Handbooks discuss a wealth of resources, to which \\nreaders should refer. The collections by Wertz et al. (2011) and Morse et al. \\n(2009 & 2016) also provide important accounts from a variety of perspectives.\\nGiven the importance of certain issues in the foregoing discussion here \\nare some recommendations for initial study of and familiarization with the \\nfollowing topics, the selection is necessarily idiosyncratic and limited to \\nonly a few items; readers should refer to the appropriate chapters in both \\nHandbooks for further resources.\\nAbduction\\nBryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in \\nResearch Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 13: ‘Abduction: \\nNo longer an alien concept’.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n124\\nPlutynski, A. (2011). Four problems of abduction. Hopos: The Journal of \\nthe International Society for the History of Philosophy and Science, 1(2), \\n227–248.\\nReichertz, J. (2014). Induction, deduction, abduction. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage \\nHandbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 123–136). London: Sage.\\nSebeok, Th. & Umiker-Sebeok, J. (1979). ‘You know my method’: A juxtaposi-\\ntion of Charles S. Peirce and Sherlock Holmes. Semiotica, 26(2/3), 203–250.\\nAdvice for preparation of PhD theses and article submissions\\nBryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in \\nResearch Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 18.\\nCAQDAS\\nFriese, Susanne (2016). Qualitative data analysis software: The state of the art. \\nSpecial Issue: Qualitative Research in the Digital Humanities, Bosch, Reinoud \\n(Ed.), KWALON, 61, 21(1), 34–45. (See also her chapter).\\nHutchisons, Andrew J., Johnston, Lynne H., & Breckon, Jeff D. (2010). Using \\nQSR-NVivo to facilitate the development of a grounded theory project: \\nAn account of a worked example. International Journal of Social Research \\nMethodology, 13(4), 283–302.\\nSilver, Christina & Lewins, Ann (2014). Using Software in Qualitative Research: A \\nStep-By-Step Guide. London: Sage.\\nWoolf, Nickolas H. & Silver, Christina (2018). Qualitative Analysis Using ATLAS.ti/\\nMAXQDA/NVivo: The Five Level QDA Method. Oxford: Routledge.\\nCoding and sampling\\nCharmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage. Chapters 5 & 6.\\nFlick, U. (2014b). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (5th edition). London: \\nSage. Chapter on Sampling.\\nMorse, Janice M. (2006). Strategies of intraproject sampling. In P. Munhall (Ed.), \\nNursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective (4th edition, pp. 529–540). Boston, \\nMA: Jones & Bartlett.\\nMorse, J. & Clark, L. (2019). The nuances of theoretical sampling. In A. Bryant & \\n \\nK. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded \\nTheory. London: Sage. Chapter 7.\\nEpistemology and ontology\\nBlaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2010). How to Research (4th edition). \\nMaidenhead, UK: Open University Press.\\nBryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in \\nResearch Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 2.\\n\\n\\nAPPENDIX A: KEY RESOURCES AND RECOMMENDED READING\\n125\\nDenzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of Qualitative \\nResearch (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Part Two.\\nGuba, Egon G. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualita-\\ntive research. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of \\nQualitative Research (pp. 105–107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\\nMetaphors of cognition\\nBryant, A. (2006). Thinking Informatically: Towards a New Understanding of \\nInformation, Communication & Technology. New York and Lewiston, Wales: \\nEdwin Mellen Press. Chapter 3.\\nLakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University \\nof Chicago Press.\\nReddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our \\nlanguage about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought  \\n(pp. 284–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\\nPlans and situated actions\\nSchön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. \\nNew York: Basic Books.\\nSuchman, L. (1984). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human – Machine \\nCommunication. New York: Cambridge University Press.\\nPragmatism\\nMalachowski, A. (2013). The Cambridge Companion to Pragmatism (Cambridge \\nCompanions to Philosophy). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\\nStrübing, J. (2019). The Pragmatism of Anselm L. Strauss: Linking theory and \\nmethod handbook. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of \\nCurrent Developments in Grounded Theory. London: Sage. Chapter 2.\\nTalisse, R. B. & Aikin, S. F. (2008). Pragmatism: A Guide for the Perplexed. Guides \\nfor the Perplexed series. London: Continuum.\\nStudent accounts – using GTM\\nBryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in \\nResearch Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 19.\\nGrounded Theory Institute – various www.groundedtheory.com/\\nTheoretical coding\\nCharmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage. Chapters 6, 9 & 11.\\nCharmaz, K. & Thornberg, R. (2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. \\nIn U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: \\nSage. Chapter 11.\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n126\\nTheoretical saturation\\nBryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in \\nResearch Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 12.\\nCharmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage. Chapter 8.\\nTheoretical sensitivity\\nGlaser, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.\\nThistoll, T., Hooper, V., & Pauleen, D. (2016). Acquiring and developing theo-\\nretical sensitivity through undertaking a grounded preliminary literature \\nreview. Quality and Quantity, 50(2), 619–636.\\nThinking sociologically\\nBauman, Z. & May, T. (2001). Thinking Sociologically. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.\\nMills, C. W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University \\nPress.\\n\\n\\nAPPENDIX B: THE SAGE HANDBOOK \\nOF CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS  \\nIN GROUNDED THEORY –  \\nLIST OF CHAPTERS\\nSenior Editor’s Introduction\\nEditors’ Overview\\nPart I  THE GROUNDED THEORY METHOD: 50 YEARS ON\\nChapter 1:  \\u0007\\nSituating Grounded Theory and Situational \\nAnalysis in Interpretive Qualitative Inquiry\\nAdele E. Clarke\\nPART II  THEORIES AND THEORIZING IN GROUNDED THEORY\\nChapter 2:  \\u0007\\nThe Pragmatism of Anselm L. Strauss: Linking \\nTheory and Method\\nJörg Strübing\\nChapter 3:  \\u0007\\nThe Status of Theories and Models in  \\nGrounded Theory\\nUdo Kelle\\nChapter 4:  \\u0007\\nGrounded Theory’s Best Kept Secret: The Ability to \\nBuild Theory\\nCathy Urquhart\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n128\\nChapter 5:\\t\\n\\u0007\\nDeductive Qualitative Analysis and Grounded \\nTheory: Sensitizing Concepts and Hypothesis-\\nTesting\\nJane F. Gilgun\\nPART III  GROUNDED THEORY IN PRACTICE\\nChapter 6:\\t\\n\\u0007\\nFrom Intuition to Reflexive Construction:  \\nResearch Design and Triangulation in  \\nGrounded Theory Research\\nUwe Flick\\nChapter 7:\\t\\n\\u0007\\nThe Nuances of Grounded Theory Sampling  \\nand the Pivotal Role of Theoretical  \\nSampling\\nJanice M. Morse & Lauren Clark\\nChapter 8:\\t\\nCoding for Grounded Theory\\n\\t Linda Liska Belgrave  & Kapriskie Seide\\nChapter 9:\\t\\n\\u0007\\nCoding and Translating: Language as a Heuristic \\nApparatus\\nMassimiliano Tarozzi\\nChapter 10:  Literature Review in Grounded Theory\\nRobert Thornberg & Ciarán Dunne\\nChapter 11:  \\u0007\\nUsing Popular and Academic Literature as Data \\nfor Formal Grounded Theory\\nVivian Martin\\nChapter 12:  Rendering Analysis Through Storyline\\nMelanie Birks & Jane Mills\\nChapter 13:  \\u0007\\nAbduction: The Logic of Discovery of Grounded \\nTheory – An Updated Review\\nJo Reichertz\\nChapter 14:  \\u0007\\nGrounded Theory Analysis and CAQDAS: A Happy \\nPairing or Remodeling GT to QDA?\\nSusanne Friese\\n\\n\\nAPPENDIX B: THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS\\n129\\nChapter 15:  \\u0007\\nKeep your Data Moving: Operationalization of \\nAbduction with Technology\\nAndrea Gorra\\nChapter 16:  \\u0007\\nGrounded Text Mining Approach: A Synergy \\nbetween Grounded Theory and Text Mining \\nApproaches\\nMitsuyuki Inaba & Hisako Kakai\\nChapter 17:  Visual Images and Grounded Theory Methodology\\nKrzysztof T. Konecki\\nChapter 18:  \\u0007\\nGrounded Theory Methods in the Context of \\nMasculinity and Violence\\nKatherine Irwin\\nChapter 19:  \\u0007\\nUsing Constructivist Grounded Theory \\nMethodology: Studying Suffering and Healing as \\na Case Example\\nKumar Ravi Priya\\nPART IV  \\u0007\\nREFLECTIONS ON USING AND TEACHING  \\nGROUNDED THEORY\\nChapter 20:  \\u0007\\nTeaching and Learning Grounded Theory \\nMethodology: The Seminar Approach\\nJudith A. Holton\\nChapter 21:  Grounded Description: No No\\nBarney G. Glaser\\nPART V  GTM AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH PRACTICE\\nChapter 22:  \\u0007\\nGrounded Theory and the Politics of \\nInterpretation, Redux\\nNorman K. Denzin\\nChapter: 23  \\u0007\\nGrounded Theory Methodology and Self-\\nReflexivity in the Qualitative Research Process\\nKatja Mruck & Günter Mey\\n\\n\\nTHE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY\\n130\\nChapter 24:  \\u0007\\nUsing a Feminist Grounded Theory Approach in \\nMixed Methods Research\\nSharlene Hesse-Biber & Hilary Flowers\\nChapter 25:  \\u0007\\nMixed Grounded Theory: Merging Grounded \\nTheory with Mixed Methods and Multimethod \\nResearch\\nR. Burke Johnson & Isabelle Walsh\\nChapter 26:  Abductive Analysis and Grounded Theory\\nIddo Tavory & Stefan Timmermans\\nChapter 27:  Grounded Theory and Empirical Ethics\\nStacy M. Carter\\nChapter 28:  Critical Grounded Theory\\nGregory Hadley\\nPART VI  \\u0007\\nGT RESEARCHERS AND METHODS IN LOCAL AND \\nGLOBAL WORLDS\\nChapter 29:  \\u0007\\nThe Implications of Internationalization for \\nTeaching, Learning and Practising Grounded \\nTheory\\nJoanna Crossman & Hiroko Noma\\nChapter 30:  \\u0007\\nGrounded Theory as Systems Science: Working \\nwith Indigenous Nations for Social Justice\\nRoxanne Bainbridge, Janya McCalman, Michelle Redman-\\nMacLaren, & Mary Whiteside\\nChapter 31:  \\u0007\\nCommunity-based Participatory Research and \\nConstructivist Grounded Theory: Aligning \\nTransformative Research with Local Ways of \\nBeing and Knowing\\nJoyce M. Duckles, George Moses, & Robert Moses\\nDiscursive Glossary\\n\\n\\nREFERENCES\\nAlexander, J. C. (1985). Neofunctionalism. London: Sage.\\nAustin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. (William James Lectures). \\nOxford: Oxford University Press.\\nBacharach, S. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. \\nAcademy of Management Review, 14, 496–515.\\nBainbridge, R., McCalman, J., & Whiteside, M. (2013). Being, knowing, and \\ndoing: A phronetic approach to constructing grounded theory with \\nAboriginal Australian partners. Qualitative Health Research, 23(2), 275–288.\\nBanks, M. (2001). Visual Methods in Social Research. London: Sage.\\nBauman, Z. (1971). Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge: \\nPolity Press.\\nBauman, Z. & May, T. (2001). Thinking Sociologically. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.\\nBecker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A. L. (1961). Boys in White: Student \\nCulture in Medical School. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.\\nBenoliel, J. Q. (1984). Advancing nursing science: Qualitative approaches. \\nWestern Journal of Nursing Research, 63(3), 1–8.\\nBenoliel, J. Q. (1996). Grounded theory and nursing knowledge. Qualitative \\nHealth Research, 6(3), 406–428.\\nBishop, R. (1998). Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination in research: \\nA Maori approach to creating knowledge. International Journal of Qualitative \\nStudies in Education, 11, 199–219.\\nBlumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological \\nReview, 19, 3–10.\\nBlumer, H. (1969). What is wrong with social theory? In Herbert Blumer \\n(1969/1986), Symbolic Interactionism (pp. 140–152). Berkeley, CA: University \\nof California Press. Originally published in Vol. XIX in The American \\nSociological Review.\\nBruce, B. C. & Bloch, N. (2013). Pragmatism and community inquiry: A case \\nstudy of community-based learning. Education and Culture, 29(1), 27–45.\\nBryant, A. (2002). Re-grounding grounded theory. Journal of Information \\nTechnology Theory and Application, 4, 25–42.\\nBryant, A. (2006). Thinking Informatically: Towards a New Understanding of \\nInformation, Communication & Technology. New York and Lewiston, Wales: \\nEdwin Mellen Press.\\nBryant, A. (2009). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of \\nAnselm Strauss. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social \\nResearch, 10(3), Article 2, September.\\n\\n\\nREFERENCES\\n132\\nBryant, A. (2014). Thinking about The Information Age. Informatics, 1, 190–195.\\nBryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in \\nResearch Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\\nBryant, A. (2019). Senior Editor’s introduction. The Sage Handbook of Current \\nDevelopments in Grounded Theory. London: Sage.\\nBryant, A., Black, A., Land, F., & Porra, J. (2013). Information systems history: \\nWhat is history what is IS history What IS history and why even bother with \\nhistory. Journal of Information Technology, 28(1), 1–17.\\nBryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (Eds.) (2007a). The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. \\nLondon: Sage.\\nBryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (2007b). Grounded theory research: Method and \\npractices, Editors’ Introduction. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage \\nHandbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 1–28). London: Sage.\\nBryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (2007c). Grounded theory in historical perspective: \\nAn epistemological account. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage \\nHandbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 31–57). London: Sage.\\nBryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (Eds.) (2019). The Sage Handbook of Current Developments \\nin Grounded Theory. London: Sage.\\nBryant, A. & Raja, U. (2014). In the realm of Big Data. First Monday, 19(2&3), \\nhttp://firstmonday. org/article/view/4991/3822\\nBurawoy, M. (1991). The extended case method. In M. Burawoy, A. Burton, \\n A. Ferguson, K. Fox, J. Gamson, N. Gartrell, L. Hurst, C. Kurzman, L. Salzinger, \\n \\nJ. Schiffman & S. Ui (Eds.), Ethnography Unbound: Power and Resistance in the Modern \\nMetropolis (pp. 271–287). Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.\\nBurawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Social Theory, 16(1), March.\\nButler, J. (2013). Judith Butler on gender as ‘performed’ or ‘performative’. \\nCritical Theory, posted 8 November, https://my.vanderbilt.edu/criticaltheory \\nfall13/2013/11/judith-butler-on-gender-as-performed-or-performative/\\nCamus, A. (2000 [1951]). The Rebel. Harmondsworth: Penguin.\\nCastells, M. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\\nCastells, M. (2016). A sociology of power: My intellectual journey. Annual \\nReview of Sociology, 42, 1–19.\\nCharmaz, K. (1983). Loss of self: A fundamental form of suffering in the chroni-\\ncally ill. Sociology of Health and Illness, 5(2).\\nCharmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. \\nIn N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd \\nedition, pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\\nCharmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\\nCharmaz, K. (2008a). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. In \\n J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of Constructionist Research  \\n(pp. 397–412). New York: Guilford Press.\\nCharmaz, K. (2008b). Grounded theory in the 21st Century: Applications for \\nadvancing social justice studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), \\nStrategies of Quaitatve Inquiry, (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\\nCharmaz, K. (2014a). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd edition). Thousand \\nOaks, CA: Sage.\\n\\n\\nREFERENCES\\n133\\nCharmaz, K. (2014b). Grounded theory in global perspective: Reviews by inter-\\nnational researchers. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9), 1074–1084.\\nCharmaz, K. (2017a). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical \\ninquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 34–45.\\nCharmaz, K. (2017b). Special Invited Paper: Continuities, contradictions, \\nand critical inquiry in grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative \\nMethods, 16(1).\\nCharmaz, K. & Keller, R. (2016). A personal journey with grounded the-\\nory methodology: Kathy Charmaz in conversation with Reiner Keller. \\nForum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(1), \\n \\nArticle 16, January.\\nClarke, A. (2005). Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. \\nThousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\\nClarke, A. (2007). Grounded theorizing using situational analysis. In A. Bryant & \\nK. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 363–397). \\nLondon: Sage.\\nClarke, A. (2009). From grounded theory to situational analysis: What’s new? Why? \\nHow? In J. M. Morse, P\\n. N. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz, & A. E. Clarke \\n(Eds.), Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation (pp. 194–235). Walnut \\nCreek, CA: Left Coast Press.\\nClarke, A. (Ed.) (2015). Situational Analysis in Practice. London: Routledge.\\nClarke, A., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. S. (2017). Situational Analysis: Grounded \\nTheory after the Postmodern Turn (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\\nClarke, A. & Keller, R. (2014). Engaging complexities: Working against sim-\\nplification as an agenda for qualitative research today. Adele Clarke in \\nconversation with Reiner Keller. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: \\nQualitative Social Research, 15(2).\\nCorbin, J. (2011). Grounded Theory Methodology. Studienbrief der Fern Universität \\nHagen. Available at: https://vu.fernuni-hagen.de/lvuweb/lvu/file/.../33800-\\nvorschau.pdf\\nCorbin, J. & Strauss, A. L. (1988). Unending Work and Care: Managing Chronic \\nIllness at Home. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.\\nCorbin, J. & Strauss, A. L. (1990, 2008 & 2015). Basics of Qualitative Research: \\nTechniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (1st, 3rd & 4th editions). \\nThousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\\nCovan, E. K. (2007). The discovery of grounded theory in practice: The legacy \\nof multiple mentors. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of \\nGrounded Theory (pp. 58–93). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\\nDenzin, N. K. (1970). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological \\nMethods. Chicago, London: Aldine\\nDenzin, N. K. (2003) Performance Ethnography: The Politics and Pedagogies of \\nCulture. London: Sage\\nDenzin, N. K. & Giardina, M. D. (Eds.) (2009). Qualitative Inquiry and Social \\nJustice. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press\\nDenzin, N. K. & Giardina, M. D. (eds.) (2010). Qualitative Inquiry and Human \\nRights. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press\\n\\n\\nREFERENCES\\n134\\nDenzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. & Smith, L. T. (2008) Handbook of Critical Indigenous \\nInquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage.\\nDenzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (1994, 2000, 2001, 2005 & 2017). The \\nSage Handbook of Qualitative Research (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, & 5th editions). \\nThousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\\nDewey, John (1929). Experience and Nature. Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing.\\nDewey, John (1938). Logic, the Theory of Inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and \\nWinston.\\nDey, I. (1999). Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. San \\nDiego, CA: Academic Press.\\nDey, I. (2007). Grounding categories. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage \\nHandbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 167–190). London: Sage.\\nDick, B., Stringer, E., & Huxham, C. (2009). Theory in action. Action Research, \\n7(1), 5–12.\\nEisenstadt, S. N. (2003). Comparative Civilizations & Multiple Modernities. Leiden: \\nBrill.\\nFine, G. (1993). The sad demise, mysterious disappearance and glorious tri-\\numph of symbolic interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 61–68.\\nFlick, U. (2008a). Designing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.\\nFlick, U. (2008b). Managing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.\\nFlick, U. (Ed.) (2014a). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: \\nSage.\\nFlick, U. (2014b). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (5th edition). London: Sage.\\nFlick, U. (2015). Qualitative Inquiry – 2.0 at 20? Developments, trends, and \\nchallenges for the politics of research. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(7), 599–608.\\nFlyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and \\nHow it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\\nFoucault, M. (2004). Geschichte der Gouvernementalität. Frankfurt am Main: \\nSuhrkamp.\\nFriese, Susanne (2016). Qualitative data analysis software: The state of the art. \\nSpecial Issue: Qualitative Research in the Digital Humanities, Bosch, Reinoud \\n(Ed.), KWALON, 61, 21(1), 34–45.\\nGerhardt, U. (1976). Krankenkarriere und Existenzbelastung. Zeitschrift für \\nSoziologie, 5(3), 215–236.\\nGibson, B. (2007). Accommodating grounded theory. In A. Bryant & \\nK. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 436–453). \\nLondon: Sage.\\nGibson, B. & Hartman, J. (2014). Rediscovering Grounded Theory. London: Sage.\\nGilgun, J. (1993). Grounded theory and dimensional analysis: An inter-\\nview with Leonard Schatzman. Available at: https://janegilgun.wordpress.\\ncom/2012/03/06/transcript-of-an-interview-with-leonard-schatzman/\\nGilgun, J. F. (1999). Methodological pluralism and qualitative family research. In \\nSuzanne K. Steinmetz, Marvin B. Sussman, & Gary W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook \\nof Marriage and the Family (2nd edition, pp. 219–261). New York: Plenum.\\nGilgun, J. F. (2005). Qualitative research and family psychology. Journal of \\nFamily Psychology, 19(1), 40–50.\\n\\n\\nREFERENCES\\n135\\nGilgun, J. F. (2016). Deductive qualitative analysis and the search for black swans. \\nPaper presented at the Pre-conference Workshop on Theory Construction and \\nResearch Methodology, National Council on Family Relations, Minneapolis, \\nMN, November 1.\\nGlaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.\\nGlaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. \\nMill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.\\nGlaser, B. G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, \\nCA: Sociology Press.\\nGlaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? Forum Qualitative \\nSozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3).\\nGlaser, B. G. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung \\n/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2) Article 4 – May. [Barney G. Glaser with \\nthe assistance of Judith Holton]. Available at: www.qualitative-research.net/\\nindex.php/fqs/article/view/607/1315\\nGlaser, B. G. (2008). Doing Quantitative Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: \\nSociology Press.\\nGlaser, B. G. (2009). Jargonizing: Using the Grounded Theory Vocabulary. Mill \\nValley, CA: Sociology Press.\\nGlaser, B. G. (2014). Applying grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 13(1), June.\\nGlaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1965a). Discovery of substantive theory: A basic strat-\\negy underlying qualitative research. American Behavioral Scientist, 8(6), 5–12.\\nGlaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1965b). Awareness of Dying. Chicago, IL: Aldine.\\nGlaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, \\nIL: Aldine.\\nGlaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1968). Time for Dying. Chicago, IL: Aldine.\\nGlaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1971). Status Passage. Chicago, IL: Aldine.\\nGoffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.\\nGouldner, A. (1973). Romanticism and Classicism: Deep structures in social sci-\\nence. In A. Gouldner, For Sociology: Renewal and Critique in Sociology Today. \\nNew York: Basic Books. Available at: www.autodidactproject.org/other/\\ngouldner5.html\\nGregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, \\n30(3), 611–642.\\nHammersley, M. (2004). Analytic induction. In Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan \\nBryman, & Tim Futing Liao (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science \\nResearch Methods (pp. 16–18). London: Sage.\\nHammersley, M. (2010). A historical and comparative note on the relation-\\nship between analytic induction and grounded theorising. Forum Qualitative \\nSozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(42).\\nHammersley, M. (2011). On Becker’s studies of marijuana use as an example of \\nanalytic induction. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 41(4).\\nHammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in Practice (2nd \\nedition). London: Routledge.\\nHempel, C. (1952). Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science. \\nChicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.\\n\\n\\nREFERENCES\\n136\\nHense, C. & McFerran, K. S. (2015). Toward a critical grounded theory. Qualitative \\nResearch Journal, 16(4), 402–416.\\nHernandez, C. A. (2009). Theoretical coding in grounded theory meth-\\nodology. Grounded Theory Review, 8(3), November. Available at: http://\\ngroundedtheoryreview.com/2009/11/30/theoretical-coding-in-grounded-\\ntheory-methodology/\\nHirschman, A. O. (1990 [1970]). Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline \\nin Firms, Organizations and States (1990 edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard \\nUniversity Press.\\nIsrael, B. A., Eng, E., Schultz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2005). Methods in Community-\\nbased Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.\\nJames, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience. London: Longmans.\\nJames, W. (2000). Pragmatism and Other Writings. Penguin Classics. \\nHarmondsworth: Penguin.\\nKearney, M. (2007). From the sublime to the meticulous. In A. Bryant & \\nK. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: Sage.\\nKelle, U. (2007). The development of categories: Different approaches in \\ngrounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of \\nGrounded Theory (pp. 191–213). London: Sage.\\nKennedy, B. & Thornberg, R. (2018). Deduction, induction, and abduction. In \\nU. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection (pp. 49–64). \\nLondon: Sage.\\nKeynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. \\nLondon: Macmillan.\\nKincheloe, J. & McLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative \\nresearch. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research \\n(2nd edition, pp. 279–313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\\nKuhn, T. S. (1962 & 1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: \\nUniversity of Chicago Press.\\nLakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University \\nof Chicago Press.\\nLayder, D. (1993). New Strategies in Social Research: An Introduction and Guide. \\nCambridge: Polity Press.\\nLincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (2013). The Constructivist Credo. Walnut Creek, CA: \\nLeft Coast Press.\\nLindesmith, R. & Strauss, A. L. (2009 [1949]). Social Psychology. New York: The \\nDryden Press.\\nLofland, J. (1980). Reminiscences of Chicago: The Blumer-Hughes Talk. Urban \\nLife, 9, 251–289.\\nMaines, D., Sugrue, N., & M. Katovich (1983). The sociological import of \\nG. H. Mead’s Theory of the Past. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 161–173.\\nMead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self & Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. \\nChicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.\\nMead, G. H. (1959 [1932]). The Philosophy of the Present. La Salle, IL: Open Court \\nPublishing.\\n\\n\\nREFERENCES\\n137\\nMerton, R. K. (1949). On sociological theories of the middle range. In R. K. Merton, \\nSocial Theory and Social Structure (pp. 39–53). NewYork: Simon & Schuster.\\nMerton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.\\nMinkler, M. & Wallerstein, N. (2011). Introduction to community-based partici-\\npatory research: New issues and emphases. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein \\n(Eds.), Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to \\nOutcomes (pp. 5–23). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.\\nMorrison, D. E. (1978). Kultur and culture: The case of Theodor W. Adorno and \\nPaul F. Lazarsfeld. Social Research, 45(2), Summer.\\nMorse, J., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A. E. (2009 & \\n 2016). Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Walnut Creek, CA: \\nLeft Coast Press, 2009; London: Routledge, 2016.\\nNagel, D. A., Burns, V. F., Tilley, C., & Aubin, D. (2015). When novice researchers \\nadopt constructivist grounded theory: Navigating less travelled paradigmatic \\nand methodological paths in PhD dissertation work. International Journal of \\nDoctoral Studies, 10, 365–383.\\nO’Neil Green, D., Creswell, J. W., Shope, R. J., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). \\nGrounded theory and racial/ethnic diversity. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz \\n(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 472–492). London: Sage.\\nParker, R. & Pollock, G. (1981/1995). Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology. \\nLondon: Pandora.\\nParsons, T. (1937). The Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press.\\nPeirce, C. S. (1986). Philosophical Writings. New York: Dover.\\nPeirce, C. S. (1992). Reasoning and the Logic of Things. Edited by K. L. Ketner. \\nCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\\nPolanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. \\nChicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.\\nPolanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.\\nQuint, J. C. (1965). Institutionalized practices of information control. Psychiatry \\nInterpersonal and Biological Processes, 28(2).\\nQuint, J. C. (1967). The Nurse and the Dying Patient. New York: Macmillan.\\nRagin, C. (1994). Constructing Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.\\nRalph, N., Birks, M., & Chapman, Y. (2015). The methodological dyna-\\nmism of grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, \\n \\n14(4), 1–6.\\nReason, P. & Bradbury-Huang, H. (2015). Action Research Handbook (2nd edition). \\nLondon: Sage.\\nReddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our \\nlanguage about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought  \\n(pp. 164–201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\\nRedman-MacLaren, M. & Mills, J. (2015). Transformational grounded theory: \\nTheory, voice, and action. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(3).\\nReichertz, J. (2007). Abduction: The logic of discovery in grounded theory. \\nIn A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory  \\n(pp. 214–228). London: Sage.\\n\\n\\nREFERENCES\\n138\\nRorty, R. (1977). Dewey’s metaphysics. In Steven M. Cahn (Ed.), New Studies in \\nthe Philosophy of John Dewey. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.\\nRorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge \\nUniversity Press.\\nRorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, Relativism and Truth. Cambridge: Cambridge \\nUniversity Press.\\nRorty, R. (1999). Relativism: Finding and making. In R. Rorty, Philosophy and \\nSocial Hope. London and New York: Penguin.\\nRorty, R. (2007). Cultural politics and the question of the existence of God. \\nIn R. Rorty, Philosophy as Cultural Politics: Philosophical Papers Volume 4. \\nCambridge: Cambridge University Press.\\nSaldana, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd edition). \\nLondon: Sage.\\nSartwell, C. (2015). Philosophy returns to the real world. New York Times, \\nOpionator blogs, 13 April. Available at: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.\\ncom/2015/04/13/philosophy-returns-to-the-real-world\\nSchön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. \\nNew York: Basic Books.\\nSearle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: \\nCambridge University Press.\\nShank, G. (1987). Abductive strategies in educational research. American Journal \\nof Semiotics, 5(2), 275–290.\\nShank, G. (1998). The extraordinary ordinary powers of abductive reasoning. \\nTheory & Psychology, 8(6), 841–860.\\nShank, G. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Modeling the six modes of Peircean \\nabduction for educational purposes. Paper presented at the annual meet-\\ning of the Midwest AI and Cognitive Science Conference, Bloomington, IN. \\nOnline address for MAICS 1996 Proceedings available at: www.cs.indiana.\\nedu/event/maics96/Proceedings/shank.html\\nSmith, L. T. (2000). Kupapa Maori research. In Marie Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming \\nIndigenous Voice and Vision (pp. 225–247). Vancouver: UBC Press.\\nSmith, L. T. (2005). On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of \\nuncertainty. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative \\nResearch (3rd edition, pp. 85–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\\nSmith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples \\n(2nd editon). London: Zed Books.\\nStainton-Rogers, W. (2003). Social Psychology: Experimental and Critical Approaches. \\nMaidenhead: Open University Press.\\nStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (n.d.). https://plato.stanford.edu. Entries on \\n`genealogy’; `Romanticism’; `Fleck’; `emergence’.\\nStern, P. N. (2007). On solid ground: Essential properties for growing grounded \\ntheory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded \\nTheory (pp. 114–126). London: Sage.\\nStern, P. N. (2012). Jeanne Quint Benoliel. Qualitative Health Research, 22 \\n(November), 1580–1581.\\n\\n\\nREFERENCES\\n139\\nStrauss, A. L. (1959). Mirrors and Masks: The Search for Identity. Medicine in \\nSociety Series. London: Martin Robertson & Co.\\nStrauss, A. L. (1964). Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions. New York: Free \\nPress.\\nStrauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: \\nCambridge University Press.\\nStrauss, A. L. (1993). Continual Permutations of Action: Communication and Social \\nOrder. New York: W. de Gruyter.\\nStrauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1990 & 1998). Basics of Qualitative Research (1st & 2nd \\neditions). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.\\nStrauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. \\nIn N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research  \\n(pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\\nStrauss, A. L., Glaser, B. G., & Quint, J. (1964). The Nonaccountability of \\nTerminal Care. Hospitals, 38(January), 73–87.\\nStrauss, A. L., Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., Erlich, D., & Sabshin, M. (1963). The \\nhospital and its negotiated order. In E. Freidson (Ed.), The Hospital in Modern \\nSociety (pp. 147–163). New York: Free Press.\\nStrübing, J. (2007). Anselm Strauss. Constance: UVK.\\nSuchman, L. (1984). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine \\nCommunication. New York: Cambridge University Press.\\nTavory, I. & Timmermans, S. (2009). Two cases of ethnography: Grounded the-\\nory and the extended case method. Ethnography, 10, 243–263.\\nTurner, B. (1983). The use of grounded theory for the qualitative analysis of \\norganizational behaviour. Journal of Management Studies, 20(3), 333–348.\\nWacquant, L. (2002). Scrutinizing the street: Poverty, morality, and the pitfalls \\nof urban ethnography. American Journal of Sociology, 107(6), May.\\nWeick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing IS. Administrative Science \\nQuarterly, 40, 385–390.\\nWertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson, R., Anderson, \\nR., & McSpadden, E. (2011). Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis: \\nPhenomenological Psychology, Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative \\nResearch, and Intuitive Inquiry. New York: Guilford Press.\\nWiener, C. (2007). Making teams work in conducting ground theory. In A. Bryant \\n& K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 293–310). \\nLondon: Sage.\\nWittgenstein, L. (n.d.). Aphorisms 66 and 67. Philosophical Investigations. \\nAvailable at: http://users.rcn.com/athbone/lw65-69c.htm\\nWittgenstein, L. (2001 [1953]). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.\\n\\n\\nabduction 8, 16, 48, 60, 63, 67, 70–78\\ndistinct from GTM 74, 80n7\\nas ‘elementary’ 77–8\\nrealist dimension 76\\naccidents and essences 30\\nacronyms, use of 35\\naction research (AR) 6, 101\\nAdorno, T. 17\\nAmerican Behavioural Scientist 20–21\\nanalytic induction 75\\nAtlas.ti 32, 52\\nAustin, J.L.: How to Do Things with \\nWords 95\\naxial coding 75\\nBainbridge, R. et al 100, 101, 116, 118\\nbasic social processes 82, 105\\nBauman, Z. 84\\nBecker, H. 15\\nBecker, H. et al 39–40\\nBelgrave, L. and Seide, K. 33\\nBiernacki, P. 14\\nBig Data 38, 53–4\\nBirks, M. and Mills, J. 78, 79, 89\\nBlumer, H. 63, 65–6\\nBruce, B.C. and Bloch, N. 119\\nBryant, A. 26\\nGrounded Theory and Grounded \\nTheorizing 13, 44–5, 59, 88\\n‘Grounded Theory Method, The’ \\n(seminar) 85\\nBryant, A. and Charmaz, K.:\\nSAGE Handbook of Current Developments \\nin Grounded Theory 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, \\n30, 35, 37, 42, 46, 49, 50, 66, 67, \\n69, 87–8, 89, 91, 92, 93–4, 101, \\n115, 121, 122, 127–30\\nlist of chapters 127–30\\nSAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory 1, \\n9, 13, 18, 30, 35, 41, 46, 48, 67, \\n81, 92, 109, 121, 122, 123\\nBryant, A. and Raja, U. 38, 54\\nBurawoy, M. 17, 18, 78, 79, 98\\nButler, J. 95\\nCamus, Albert 50\\nCAQDAS (computer-aided/assisted \\nqualitative data analysis) 50–53, 107\\nCarter, S. 119–20\\nCastells, M.: Communication Power 83, 84\\ncategories 36, 37, 89–90\\ncentral text, lack of 43–5\\nCharmaz, K.:\\nabduction 8–9, 70, 75, 77–8, 86\\nCAQDAS 52\\ncategorizing 37\\ncoding 34, 36\\nconceptualizing 47\\nConstructing Grounded Theory (2007) 4, \\n13, 25, 35, 83, 108, 121, 122, 123\\nconstructivist GT 16, 25, 26, 58, \\n105, 115\\ncritical inquiry 115\\nemergence 62\\nepistemology 58, 59\\nGTM as ‘family of methods’ 5\\ninfluence of USA on research \\n13–14, 101\\ninterpretive turn 24\\nliterature 109, 110–111, 112, 115\\npreconceptions 79n2\\non Quint 7\\nresearch questions 111, 112\\nsocial justice 18, 93, 98, 101,  \\n115–16, 119\\nstories 79\\nINDEX\\n\\n\\nINDEX\\n141\\nsupernormalizing 88, 91\\nSymbolic Interactionism 83, 99\\ntheoretical sorting 108\\ntheory/theorizing 82\\nChicago School 8, 15, 16, 40, 81\\nClarke, A. 8, 14, 20, 24, 33, 34, 55, 102\\nSituational Analysis 13, 26, 82–3, 103\\n‘classic’ GT 27\\ncoding-cum-analysis-cum-memoing 49\\ncoding/codes 32–4\\nanalytic and descriptive 36\\naxial coding 75\\nCAQDAS coding 32, 36, 38\\nand categories 36\\ncoding families 46, 87\\ncoding paradigm 46–7, 87\\nand concepts 36\\ndefinitions 32\\ngrouping 36\\nand labelling 34\\nin other languages 102–3\\ntheoretical coding 86–7, 110\\nvariations of terminology 36\\ncollaboration 41–3\\ncommunication 64\\ncommunity 100\\ncommunity-based participatory \\nresearch 99–100\\ncomputers see CAQDAS (computer-\\naided/assisted qualitative data \\nanalysis)\\nconcepts/conceptualizing 36, 37, 47, 93\\nneed for skill and expertise 81\\nconduit metaphor 64\\nconstant comparison 33\\nconstructivism 16, 25, 27, 98, 114\\nenhanced awareness in constructivist \\nwork 117\\ncontext of research 115\\nCorbin, J. 13, 14, 19\\ninterpretative methods 32\\nCorbin, J. and Strauss, A. 60\\nBasics of Qualitative Research (1990, \\n2008, 2015) 19\\nconceptualization 37\\nUnending Work and Care: Managing \\nChronic Illness at Home (1988) 19\\ncore categories 36\\ncore characteristics 49–50\\ncreativity 23\\ncriteria 50\\ncritical commentaries 12\\nCritical Grounded Theory 113, 119\\ncritical qualitative inquiry 115\\nCrossman, J. and Noma, H. 13, 14, 24, \\n35, 42–3, 84, 100, 101, 102, 104, \\n105, 118\\ncultures 24, 96\\nhomogeneity of 97, 99, 102\\ninfluences on research 13–14\\n‘other cultures’ 96–7\\nDarwin, Charles 23, 91\\ndata speaking for itself 17, 79, 98\\ndecolonizing 96, 97\\ndeduction 70\\nDenzin, N.K. 31, 94–5, 96, 97–8, 99, 118\\nPerformance Ethnography 94, 95\\nResearch Act, The 94\\nDenzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S.: \\nHandbook of Qualitative Research \\n46, 58, 121\\ndescriptive and normative 120\\nDewey, John 16, 17, 76, 121\\nDey, I. 65, 79\\ndialogue 24\\nDickens, Charles 57\\ndiscovery 23, 25\\nDoyle, Sir Arthur Conan 77\\nDuckles, J. et al 6, 18, 83, 91, 99–100, \\n103, 115, 118, 119\\ncollaboration 42\\nDuneier 59, 87\\nEinstein, Albert 23\\nemancipation 16, 92, 97, 118\\nsee also social justice\\nemergence 9, 61, 62–3\\nemergent design 35\\nepistemology 57–60\\navoidance 58\\nevasion 58\\nindifference 58\\nmetaphors 60–66\\nessences and accidents of GTM 13\\nethical stance 119–20\\n\\n\\nINDEX\\n142\\nethnocentrism 101\\nethnography 40, 98\\nevaluation of GT 116\\nfamily divergence 45–9\\n‘family of methods’ 5–7\\nfamily resemblances 5–6\\nfeminism 40, 66, 93\\nresearch questions 111–12, 118\\nfield methods 25\\nFleck, L. 44\\nFlick, U. 39, 41, 42, 77, 85\\nFlyvbjerg, B. 117\\nFoucault, M. 18, 102\\nFriese, S. 32, 36, 51–2\\ngender 95\\nsee also feminism\\nGerhardt, U. 20–21\\nGerman translations 20–21\\nGermany, GTM in 20\\ngerunds 106\\nGilgun, J. 25, 48\\nGlaser, B. 13, 14, 16, 75, 81, 122\\n‘all is data’ 54\\nBasic Social Processes 82\\nBasics of Grounded Theory 45\\nCAQDAS 51\\ncomputer use 51\\nconceptualizing 36, 104\\nconduit metaphor 64\\n‘counterfeit’ GTM 43\\ndisagreement with Strauss 45–6, 47\\nDoing Quantitative Grounded Theory 41\\nhistory of GTM 19–20\\ninduction 70\\nnovice users of GTM 104\\npreconceived concepts 64\\nquantitative data 41\\nresearch supervision 23\\nsuspension 64\\nTheoretical Sensitivity 19, 46, 61–2\\ntheoretical sorting 108\\nGlaser, B. and Strauss, A.\\nAwareness of Dying 6, 8, 15, 21, 22, \\n33, 37, 82, 108, 122\\ncategories 89–90\\ncoding 32, 34, 87\\ncognition 65\\ncollaboration and influence 7–8, 19, \\n21–2, 26, 42, 43, 46, 57, 82, 121\\nconcepts 93\\nconstant comparison 67\\nDiscovery 9, 11, 14, 21, 25, 32–3, 44, \\n50, 61, 66, 67, 74, 81, 86, 90, 93, \\n114, 122\\n‘Discovery of Substantive Theory’ \\n20–21\\nencountering uncertainty 73\\nepistemology 58\\nethnography 98\\ngames 5–6\\nin Germany 20\\nGTM: distinction from other \\nmethods 63\\ninduction 68–9\\nliterature 63–4, 114\\nmethodology 57\\nopen mind 114\\nresearch prompts 111\\nsensitizing concepts 65–6, 93\\n‘slices of data’ 41, 55\\nStatus Passage 21, 22, 91\\ntheoretical saturation 86\\ntheoretical sensitivity 61–2, 69\\ntheory 51, 70, 77, 88–9\\nTime for Dying 6, 8, 21, 22, 33, 37, \\n108, 122\\ntranslations into German 20–21\\nGoffman, E. 15, 77\\nPresentation of Self in Everyday Life 21\\nGorra, A. 52, 53, 107\\nGouldner, A. 15–17, 18, 23, 28n8\\nGregor, S. 89\\nGrounded Theory Institute 13, 105\\nGrounded Theory Review 19–20\\nGTxA 38, 54\\nHadley, G. 17, 26, 27–8, 92, 103, \\n112–13, 118\\nHammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. 42, 67\\nHense and McFerran 119\\nHesse-Biber, S. and Flowers, H. 40, 93, \\n111–12, 118\\nHirschman, A.: Exit, Voice and Loyalty 91\\nhistory of GTM 6–28\\n\\n\\nINDEX\\n143\\nHolmes, Sherlock 77\\nHolton, J. 11\\nHopf, C. and Weingarten, E.: \\nQualitative Sozialforschung 21\\nhypotheses 23\\nidentity 95\\nimages 55\\nimagination 16, 23\\nInaba, M. and Kakai, H. 38, 54\\nindigeneity 94, 96–7, 99–101\\nindigenous nations 100\\nindigenous researchers 117\\ninduction 48, 63, 67–9\\ninductively oriented GT 27\\ninterpretation:\\ncultural influences 24\\nnot universal 24\\ninterpretivism 25\\nIrwin, K. 31, 83, 93, 105\\nJames, William 16\\nJohnson, R.B. and Walsh, I. 30, 38, 40, \\n41, 89\\nKansas Medical School 15\\nKelle, U. 9, 20–21, 46–7, 61–2, 68, 82, \\n86, 89, 90\\nKeynes, John Maynard 65, 114\\nKincheloe, J. and McLaren, P. 17–18, 92\\nknowledge 72, 98\\nKonecki, K. 55, 107\\nKuhn, T. 43, 57\\nLakoff, G. and Johnson, M.: Metaphors \\nwe live by 61\\nLayder, D. 17, 18\\nLazarsfeld, P. 16–17, 17\\nLewin, K. 6\\nLincoln, Y.S.: Handbook of Qualitative \\nResearch 46\\nLindesmith, R. 68, 94\\nliterature 63, 108–111\\nphases of use:\\ninitial 109\\nsecond phase 109\\nlast phase 110\\nresistance to 108–9, 111\\nreviews 110–111\\nuses 50, 109, 120\\nLorentz 23\\nMcCarthy, M. 25\\nMandelbrot, B. 71–2\\nMartin, V. 82, 109, 110 MAXQDA 32, 52\\nMead, G.H. 16, 17\\nmedical training 15\\nmemos 49, 108\\nmentors 23–4\\nMerton, R.K. 8, 9, 49, 77, 90\\nmetaphors 60–66\\nmethod-output distinction 30\\nmethodological sensitivity 25, 40, \\n52–3, 76, 105\\nmethods/methodology 9, 10–11, 38–41, \\n44, 74\\ncultural assumptions of 101\\ndecolonizing 96\\nmethods/theorizing distinction 31\\nMey, G. 13\\nminus mentoring 105, 122\\nmixed methods 40\\nMorse et al 13\\nMorse, J and Clark, L. 34–5, 82, \\n93, 104\\nMoses, George 6\\nMoses, Robert 6\\nMozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 23\\nMruck, K. 13\\nMruck, K. and Mey, G. 42, 84\\nNagel, D.A. et al 11\\nnarrative 78–9\\nNietzsche 61\\nNVivo 32, 52\\nobjectivism 16\\nobservers as participants 24\\nOlesen, V. 14\\nO’Neil Green, D. et al 92, 116–17\\nopenness 40, 114\\nto serendipity 50\\noutcome 30\\nParsons, T. 8, 9\\nparticipatory action research 101\\n\\n\\nINDEX\\n144\\nPeirce, C.S. 16, 69, 77, 121\\n‘performance’ and ‘performative’ 94–5, \\n96, 98\\nphronetic GTM 116, 117–18\\nPolanyi, M. 72\\nPersonal Knowledge 72\\nTacit Dimension, The 72\\npositivism 15–16, 27\\npostmodern, situative GT 27\\npower 83, 92, 96\\nand emancipation 97\\npractice, need for 81\\nPragmatism 16, 17, 27, 50, 67, 80n11, \\n90–91, 98, 99\\nand social justice 119\\npreconceptions 65, 118\\nprescriptive positivistic GT 27\\npresentation of research 107–8\\nvisualization 107–8\\nPriya, R. 93, 112\\nQDA (Qualitative Data Analysis) 51\\nqualitative analysis of content 27\\nquantitative data 41\\nquantitative and qualitative inquiry 34–5\\nquestions for research 99\\nQuint, J.C. 6, 7, 13, 15, 18, 19, 28n1\\n‘Institutionalized practices of \\ninformation control’ 7\\nNurse and the Dying Patient, The 7\\nrace and ethnicity 92, 98\\nRagin, C. 39\\nRapoport: four rules 11, 12\\nRashomon effect 78, 79\\nreality, perception of 24, 76\\nreasoning, modes of 69\\nrebels, metaphysical and historical 50\\nReddy, M. 64, 65\\nreflexivity 97\\nReichertz, J. 21, 43, 44, 48, 67, 69, \\n70–71, 73, 74, 75, 102\\nfive varieties of GTM 26–7\\nresearch:\\nas activity 95\\nas performative 95, 96\\nprocess 22–3, 42\\n‘speaking for the other’ 96–7\\nresearch design 10, 39, 42\\nresearch questions 85, 99, 111–13\\nsensitizing questions 111–12\\nritual 96\\nromanticism 15–16, 17\\nRorty, R. 25, 59, 76, 80n5\\nContingency, Irony and Solidarity 76\\nsampling 34–5\\nand Big Data 53\\nand concept of adequacy 35\\nand ethnicity 104\\npurposive/convenience 49\\nin quantitative and qualitative \\ninquiry 34–5\\nas situated action 35\\nSartwell, C. 76\\nSchatzman, L. 25, 57\\nSchön, D. 72, 73\\nscientism 16\\nSearle, J. Speech Acts 95\\nsensitizing concepts 63, 65–6, 92\\nserendipity 50, 71\\nShakespeare, William 23\\nShank, G. 69, 79n4\\nSimpsons, The 78\\nSituational Analysis 13, 26, 82–3, 103\\n‘slices of data’ 41, 55\\nSmith, L.T. 95, 96, 98, 104, 118\\nDecolonizing Methodologies 96\\nsocial justice 98–9, 101, 113, 115–20\\nsociology and GTM 59, 81–4, 106\\nSoeffner, H.G. 20, 21\\nStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 18, \\n28 n8, 44, 56 n9, 62\\nStern, P. 7, 14, 23, 105\\nstories 78–9\\nStrauss, A. 7, 14, 15–19, 25, 26, 47–8, \\n52, 84, 121\\nabduction 67\\nBoys in White 15, 39\\nChicago School 77, 81\\nContinual Permutations of Action 83\\nGerman translations 20–21\\ninteractionism 83\\nMirrors and Masks 21, 95\\nmixed methods 40\\nPsychiatric Ideologies and Institutions 15\\n\\n\\nINDEX\\n145\\nQualitative Analysis for Social Scientists \\n(1987) 8\\nstories 79\\nteam work 22\\ntheory 31, 51\\nsee also Corbin, J. and Strauss, A.; \\nGlaser, B. and Strauss, A.\\nStrauss, A. and Corbin, J. 26, 34, 47–8, \\n87, 105\\nBasics of Qualitative Research (1990, \\n1998) 8, 11, 27, 45, 79\\nCAQDAS 51\\ncoding 32, 87\\ncoding paradigm 46, 47, 87\\ndescription and analysis 60\\nHandbook of Qualitative Research, The \\n(1994) 12, 20, 46\\nliterature 65\\n‘methodological consumerism’ \\n43, 84\\nstories 79\\ntheory 37\\nsee also Corbin, J. and Strauss, A.\\nStrübing, J. 17, 21, 30–31, 39, 67, 77, \\n83, 84\\nstudents of GTM 104–113\\nguidance 106\\nmentoring 23–4, 105, 106–7\\nsupervisors 23–4, 105\\nsuspension of preconceptions 64\\nsuspicion of/hostility to GTM 84, 105\\nSymbolic Interactionism 17, 83, 99, 116\\nTavory, I. and Timmermans, S. 74, 75, \\n76, 78, 80n7\\nteam work 22\\nterminology 35–6\\ntext mining 38\\ntheoretical coding 86–7, 110\\ntheoretical saturation 49, 86\\ntheoretical sensitivity 54, 61–2, 69, \\n82, 104\\ntheories/theorizing 26, 70, 87–91\\nand Big Data 54\\nformal and substantive theories 49\\nmeaning of theory 88–90\\nPragmatic view 90–91\\nthinking sociologically 84\\nThornberg, R. and Dunne, C. 31, 77, \\n109–110\\nTolstoy, Anna Karenina 5\\ntoolmakers paradigm 65\\ntranslated data 102\\ntriangulation 41\\ntruth 76, 103\\nUniversity of California San Francisco \\n(UCSF) 8, 11, 14, 19, 25\\nUrquhart, C. 89\\nVickers, G. 72\\nvisualization of research \\n output 107–8\\nWacquant, L. 59, 60, 84\\nWallace, Alfred Russell 23\\nWiener, C. 14, 22\\nWittgenstein, L.: Philosophical \\nInvestigations 5–6\\nWright, Eric 59\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nAdvancing Grounded Theory \\nwith Mixed Methods \\nThis groundbreaking book introduces an innovative new perspective on mixed method \\ngrounded theory methodology (MM-GTM) by conceptualizing it holistically as a distinct, \\nqualitatively driven methodology that appreciates the integrity of each of the methods it \\nembraces. This practical and accessible text advocates for using MM-GTM in a way that \\npromote meaningful interaction between qualitative and quantitative data during analysis. Its \\nprincipal contribution is to provide a set of research tools to develop or refine a multi-faceted \\nanalytical framework in applied fields in the social and behavioral sciences, including nursing. \\nUsed as either a resource or a textbook in a survey course about research methods, the text \\nreferences dozens of examples about how a dialectical exchange between different sources \\nof data can be built into core grounded theory procedures, including theoretical sampling, \\ncoding, case-based memoing, and integrated visual displays. With a whole chapter devoted \\nto reporting, the book also considers the way that indexes of quality that extend beyond \\nmethodological transparency can be used to evaluate research that partners mixed methods \\nwith grounded theory and other qualitative methods. \\nFeaturing student-friendly pedagogy throughout, including self-assessment questions, \\na glossary, and a framework that summarizes key points, this text is an essential read for \\nall research methods students or early career researchers ambitious to develop a theoretical \\nperspective with qualitative, mixed methods, or evaluation. \\nElizabeth G. Creamer is professor emerita of educational research and evaluation in the \\nSchool of Education in the Virginia T\\nech College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences. She is \\nthe author, co-author, or editor of more than more than 7 books, and nearly 200 peer-reviewed \\njournal articles, book chapters, and reviews. Her most recent book is An Introduction to Fully \\nIntegrated Mixed Methods Research (SAGE, 2018). \\n\\n\\n\\n\\nAdvancing Grounded \\nTheory with Mixed \\nMethods \\nElizabeth G. Creamer \\n\\n\\nFirst published 2022\\nby Routledge\\n2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN\\nand by Routledge\\n605 Third Avenue, New Y\\nork, NY 10158\\nRoutledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business\\n© 2022 Elizabeth G. Creamer\\nThe right of Elizabeth G. Creamer to be identified as author of this work has been asserted \\nby her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act \\n1988.\\nAll rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any \\nform or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, \\nincluding photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, \\nwithout permission in writing from the publishers.\\nTrademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, \\nand are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.\\nBritish Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data\\nA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library\\nLibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data\\nA catalog record for this book has been requested\\nISBN: 978-0-367-17479-8 (hbk)\\nISBN: 978-0-367-17480-4 (pbk)\\nISBN: 978-0-429-05700-7 (ebk)\\n\\n\\nDedication \\nThis book is dedicated to my older sister, born Linda Lee Greene, who died of leukemia just \\na few weeks before the COVID outbreak was officially acknowledged in the United States. \\nShe was an indefatigable champion of my turn to textbook writing and the audience of \\nemerging scholars across the world it addresses. \\n\\n\\n\\n\\nAbbreviated table of \\ncontents \\nPreface \\n \\nxvii \\n1 \\nDefinitions \\n \\n1 \\n2 \\nVariety \\n26 \\n3 \\nProcess \\n46 \\n4 \\nVisualization \\n \\n72 \\n5 \\nDissonance \\n93 \\n6 \\nReporting \\n \\n119 \\nAppendices \\n \\n147 \\nIndex \\n \\n168 \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nAnnotated table of contents \\n1 \\nEstablishing language and purpose \\n1 \\nThis chapter builds an argument for the creative potential of partnering mixed methods with \\ngrounded theory for purposes of advancing analytical insight and developing an explanatory frame-\\nwork. It MM-GTM as a distinct methodology and creates a platform for dialog across disciplines \\nby introducing key terminology. \\n2 \\nVaried approaches to using mixed methods with theoretical \\nframeworks \\n26 \\nThe chapter provides a glimpse of the range of ways that mixed methods has been paired with \\ngrounded theory and how it can serve as an integrative framework at the onset of a study, offer \\ninterpretive insight as a study is underway, and/or stand as its principal outcome. \\n3 \\nMixed methods and the process of theorizing \\n46 \\nThis chapter is about the procedures that advance theorizing, including how qualitative and quanti-\\ntative data can be integrated through theoretical coding, analytical memo writing, case-based analysis, \\nand theoretical sampling. \\n4 \\nAdvancing theoretical reasoning with visualizations \\n72 \\nThis chapter considers the ways that in empirical research, visual displays represent ideas at the same \\ntime they generate them. The chapter introduces creative approaches to integrating different sources \\nof data in visual displays to advance theoretical reasoning. These include mapping, timelining, and \\nvariations of cluster mapping. \\n5 \\nLeveraging dissonance to advance theoretical reasoning \\n93 \\nThe opportunity to engage dissonance and incongruities in the results emerging from different meth-\\nods is a unique benefit of a mixed methods approach. When pursued systematically, these often \\ngenerate original insight. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\nx \\nANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS \\n6 \\n119\\nHighlighting quality through reporting \\nA specific research design or method is no guarantee that a study is scientific or that the results are \\ncredible or useful. This chapter considers different strategies that can be used to gauge the quality \\nof MM-GTM research, including in the ways that research procedures or a final theoretical frame-\\nwork can be visualized effectively in a table or figure. A list of indicators of quality is discussed that \\nextends beyond a singular reliance on transparency about research methods during reporting. \\n\\n\\nDetailed contents \\nList of tables, figures, and boxes \\n \\nxiii \\nPreface \\nxvii \\nPurpose \\n \\nxviii \\nGoals \\nxviii \\nAudience \\n \\nxix \\nThe author’s qualifications and positionality \\n \\nxx \\nPedagogical features \\n \\nxxi \\n1 \\nEstablishing language and purpose \\n \\n1 \\nIntroduction \\n \\n1 \\nVarious ways of defining theory and its purpose \\n \\n3 \\nConceptualizing MM-GTM as a methodology \\n \\n14 \\nDistinguishing exemplars of an integrated approach to MM-GTM \\n \\n20 \\nConclusions \\n \\n23 \\n2 \\nVaried approaches to using mixed methods with  \\ntheoretical frameworks \\n \\n26 \\nIntroduction \\n \\n26 \\nImplications of the word “design” \\n \\n28 \\nMethodological adaptability of grounded theory \\n \\n33 \\nConsulting the literature throughout the research process \\n \\n34 \\nDemonstrating variability in MM-GTM with a group of exemplars \\n \\n35 \\nConclusions \\n \\n42 \\n3 \\nMixed methods and the process of theorizing \\n \\n46 \\nIntroduction \\n \\n46 \\nIntegrated analysis using abduction \\n \\n48 \\nIntroducing examples in this chapter \\n51 \\nSingling out core grounded theory procedures \\n \\n54 \\n\\n\\nxii \\nDETAILED CONTENTS \\nTheoretical coding \\n \\n58 \\nMixed analysis through integrated case-based memos \\n \\n62 \\nTheoretical sampling \\n \\n65 \\nConclusions \\n \\n69 \\n4 \\nAdvancing theoretical reasoning with visualizations \\n72 \\nIntroduction \\n \\n72 \\nJoint and integrative visual displays \\n \\n74 \\nDifferent types of integrative displays \\n \\n77 \\nExploring examples of mixed methods used with a visual display to generate analytical insight \\n \\n78 \\nTimelining as a visualization strategy that enables integration of different types of data \\n \\n81 \\nConclusions \\n \\n89 \\n5 \\nLeveraging dissonance to advance theoretical reasoning \\n \\n93 \\nIntroduction \\n \\n93 \\nDifferent perspectives about the centrality of dissonance to the research process \\n96 \\nPotential sources of dissonance that emerge over the life of a research project \\n \\n98 \\nDesigning for dissonance \\n \\n101 \\nThe chapter exemplars \\n \\n102 \\nExploring dissonance with a case-based approach in MM-GTM \\n105 \\nWarranting inferences through visual displays \\n \\n113 \\nConclusions \\n \\n116 \\n6 \\nHighlighting quality through reporting \\n \\n119 \\nIntroduction \\n \\n119 \\nConsidering the variety evident in the chapter exemplars \\n \\n121 \\nArticulating a methodological rationale for MM-GTM \\n \\n123 \\nVisualizing a theoretical model developed with MM-GTM \\n \\n125 \\nWrestling with ways to gauge quality in MM-GTM \\n \\n130 \\nChallenges faced by investigators using MM-GTM \\n136 \\nConclusions \\n \\n139 \\nGlossary \\n \\n143 \\nAppendices \\n147 \\nAppendix A: List of exemplars by chapter \\n \\n149 \\nAppendix B: List of examples of MM-GTM \\n \\n151 \\nAppendix C: Summary by chapter and cross-cutting theme \\n \\n153 \\nReferences \\n \\n156 \\nIndex \\n168 \\n\\n\\nTables, figures, and boxes \\nTABLES \\n1.1 Overview of Steps in the Process of Analyzing Multiple Sources of Data in  \\nMM-GTM Through an Abductive Process \\n \\n18 \\n1.2 List of Chapter Exemplars, Field, and Distinguishing Features \\n \\n22 \\n1.3 Linking Key Points from Chapter 1 with the Cross-Cutting Themes \\n \\n24 \\n2.1 Example Developed from Evans et al. (2011): Framing Multi-Dimensional  \\nResearch Questions in Ways that Promote Integration \\n \\n33 \\n2.2 Contribution of the Literature to Theoretical Reasoning Throughout the  \\nResearch Process \\n \\n35 \\n2.3 Innovative Features of the Three Exemplars of MM-GT from Chapter 2 \\n \\n36 \\n2.4 Core Elements of a Formal Grounded Theory, Their Definition, and Key  \\nComponents of the Catallo et al. Grounded Theory Model to Explain the  \\nIntimate Abuse Disclosure \\n \\n40 \\n2.5 Linking Chapter 2 to Cross-Cutting Themes \\n44 \\n3.1 Innovative Features of the Four Examples of MM-GTM from Chapter 3 \\n \\n52 \\n3.2 Illustrative Example of a Data Display from Multiple Sources of Data \\n \\n54 \\n3.3 Core Grounded Theory Procedures and Definitions \\n \\n55 \\n3.4 Priority Awarded to Core Grounded Theory Procedures by Schools  \\nof Thought \\n56 \\n3.5 Frequency of the Use of Core Grounded Theory Procedures in an Analysis  \\nfrom a Systematic Review of 64 MM-GT Articles by Guetterman et al. (2017) \\n \\n56 \\n3.6 Illustrating Causal Pathways in the Grounded Theory Model Produced by  \\nBussing et al. (2012) \\n \\n61 \\n3.7 Linking Key Themes from Chapter 3 to Cross-Cutting Themes \\n \\n70 \\n4.1 Purposes of Integrative Visual Displays in MM-GTM, by Phase \\n \\n76 \\n4.2 Definitions of Different T\\nypes of Visual Displays in MM-GTM \\n \\n77 \\n4.3 Examples of Visual Displays, by Field, T\\nype, Purpose, and Stage of the  \\nResearch Process \\n \\n78 \\n\\n\\nTABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES \\nxiv \\n4.4 Davis and Baulch’s (2011) Visual Depiction of Common Life Trajectories \\n \\n84 \\n4.5 Illustrative Joint Display Linking Qualitative and Quantitative Data from the  \\nData Matrix from the Forest Example \\n \\n88 \\n4.6 Linking Key Themes from Chapter 4 to Cross-Cutting Themes \\n \\n90 \\n5.1 Varying Points of View about Exceptions, Dissonance, and the Need for  \\nVerification in Grounded Theory and the Implications for Mixed Method  \\nDesigns, by School of Thought \\n \\n98 \\n5.2 Procedures that Leverage Dissonance in Ways that Advance Theoretical  \\nReasoning \\n \\n101 \\n5.3 Innovative Features of the Chapter Exemplars \\n \\n102 \\n5.4 Example of Data for a Case-Based Analysis with Visual Components \\n \\n106 \\n5.5 Shell of a Concordance Table Illustrating a Way to Document Strength  \\nof Support Across Cases \\n \\n114 \\n5.6 Excerpt from a Joint Display from Castro et al. (2010) that Reveals a  \\nClear Pattern \\n \\n115 \\n5.7 Documenting the Systematic T\\nesting of Alternative Explanations from  \\nthe Hypothetical Collaborative Space Study \\n \\n116 \\n5.8 Additions from Chapter 5 to the Architecture of the Cross-Cutting Themes \\n \\n117 \\n6.1 Documenting the Contribution of Selected Theoretical Propositions from  \\na Grounded Theory Model: A Hypothetical Example \\n \\n136 \\nFIGURES \\n1.1 Final Composite Model from Kawamura et al. (2009) \\n \\n13 \\n1.2 The Link Between Mixed Methods, Grounded Theory Methods, and  \\nTheory Building \\n \\n15 \\n1.3 Overlap Between the Analytic Logic and Procedures of Grounded Theory  \\nand Mixed Methods \\n20 \\n2.1 Framing a Research Problem in a Multi-Dimensional Way \\n \\n30 \\n2.2 A Multi-Level Conceptual Model from Evans et al. (2011, p. 280) \\n \\n32 \\n3.1 An Inductive–Deductive–Abductive Analytical Cycle: Integrative MMR-GTM \\n \\n50 \\n3.2 Conceptual Model from Bussing et al. (2012) \\n \\n60 \\n3.3 A Facsimile of the Timeline Completed by Participants in the Study About  \\nWar-Related Trauma \\n \\n69 \\n4.1 Example of a Case-Based Timeline \\n \\n83 \\n4.2 Generating Analytical Insight from a Matrix-Mapping Activity \\n \\n86 \\n4.3 Procedural Diagram of the Design of Matrix-Mapping Activity \\n \\n87 \\n5.1 Potential Sources of Dissonance in a MM-GTM Study \\n \\n100 \\n5.2 Embodying a Stair-Step Process to Develop Theory from a Mixed Method  \\nCase-Based Analysis \\n \\n110 \\n6.1 A Final Composite Grounded Theory Model from Shim et al. (2017) \\n \\n129 \\n6.2 Wesely’s (2010) Procedural Diagram Showing in Interactive Design \\n \\n133 \\n\\n\\nTABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES \\nxv \\nBOXES \\n1.1 Kawamura et al.’s (2009) Study of the Impact of a Health Intervention \\n \\n11 \\n2.1 Evans et al.’s (2009, 2011) Adaptation of a Life Course Perspective \\n \\n37 \\n2.2 Catallo et al.’s (2013) Use of MM-GTM to Understand Paradox in a Randomized  \\nControl Trial \\n \\n39 \\n2.3 Westhues et al.’s (2008) Study About Mental Health Services for Immigrant  \\nPopulations in Canada \\n \\n41 \\n3.1 Jone’s and Kafetsios’s (2005) Study About War-Related Childhood Trauma \\n \\n67 \\n5.1 Exploring Group Differences in a Study About the Implementation of  \\nManagement Software by Kaplan and Duchon (1988) \\n \\n104 \\n5.2 Using Mixed Method Case Studies to Theorize Public Space in London by  \\nCarmona (2015) \\n \\n107 \\n5.3 An Exploration of the Link Between Motivation and Persistence in a  \\nLanguage Immersion Program by Wesely (2010) \\n \\n112 \\n6.1 Shim et al.’s (2017) MM-GTM Study About a Health Intervention \\n \\n127 \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n \\n \\nPreface \\nLeading experts in the development of grounded theory have long expressed support for the \\npotential to consider multiple sources of data in service of using a qualitative approach to \\ndevelop or refine an explanatory framework. Those endorsing the idea of utilizing quantitative \\ndata along with qualitative data in grounded theory have not considered the impact this could \\nhave on research procedures like theoretical sampling. Despite this long-standing endorsement \\nof the benefits of collecting both qualitative and quantitative data and evidence that this has \\nbeen done with some frequency in practice, no one to date has dedicated the type of attention \\nthat is needed to create an intellectual framework for how mixed methods and grounded theory \\ncan be paired in ways that respect the integrity of each. \\nBoth mixed methods and grounded theory have proven themselves to be methodolo-\\ngies that are adaptable to diverse circumstances and philosophical paradigms (Sebastian, 2019; \\nUrquhart, 2013). This groundbreaking book introduces an innovative perspective on mixed \\nmethod grounded theory methodology (MM-GTM) by conceptualizing it holistically as a \\ndistinct, qualitatively robust method and methodology that retains the integrity each of the \\nmethodologies it embraces. The methodology builds on the multiple areas of overlap between \\nthe methodological assumptions of grounded theory and mixed methods, while at the same \\ntime recognizing that each has a unique contribution to make. MM-GTM takes advantage of \\nthe strengths of each method. The methodological framework presented is not positioned as a \\ncritique of grounded theory, but an expansion of the ways it can be used in conjunction with \\ndifferent types of data. \\nAdvancing Grounded Theory with Mixed Methods illustrates ways that the interest in diverse \\nperspectives embedded in a dialectical logic that includes abduction can reframe core grounded \\ntheory procedures, like coding and theoretical sampling, as mixed method procedures. This \\napproach disrupts the notion that using mixed methods with grounded theory is accom-\\nplished simply by the addition of quantitative data or analytical procedures. It also contests the \\nassumption that the main reason for pairing mixed methods with grounded theory is to add a \\nquantitative stage whose purpose is to confirm the qualitative findings. Instead, it proposes a \\nmethodological framework that maintains the integrity of both the method and methodology \\nof grounded theory, while demonstrating ways they can be used in tandem with other methods \\nto generate new analytical and theoretical insight that is useful in applied fields. \\nAcademic fields differ in the priority awarded to research that has a theoretical foundation. \\nIt is mandatory for research in some fields, like experimental psychology, where an investigator \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nxviii PREFACE \\nis expected to deploy a formal theory that has demonstrated reliability in multiple settings. \\nThe role of an off-the-shelf theory as an indicator of quality is less apparent in fields that have \\na distinctly applied focus, including nursing and education where grounded theory has been \\nused most widely. In those settings, a theoretical framework is sometimes consulted later in the \\nresearch process to explain unexpected findings. A methodologist well known in the community \\nof nursing scholars and among mixed methodologists, Margarite Sandelowski (1993) maintains, \\nstated or not, theoretical understanding is always implicit in the way a problem is conceived. \\nThe framework I present in this book develops the idea of MM-GTM as both a method \\nand a methodology. It foregrounds an iterative and interactive approach to data analysis by \\noverlaying an abductive logic where a back and forth exchange between different types of data \\nis embedded in the core set of grounded theory procedures. \\nPURPOSE \\nThe aim of this practical text is to serve as both a resource and an instructional tool to advance \\nthe use of qualitative and mixed method procedures in the development and refinement of \\nevidence-based explanatory frameworks in education, health sciences, and other applied fields. \\nI use the expression “explanatory framework” as an umbrella term that includes a grounded \\ntheory, a conceptual framework developed from the literature, and a theoretical framework \\nthat is developed through the systematic empirical procedures. I build on the argument that \\n“Qualitative research can be prominent in mixed methods research rather than compromised \\nby it” (Creswell, Shope, Plano Clark, & Green, 2006, p. 1). \\nThis text opens the door to a conversation between qualitative and mixed methods research \\nby presenting MM-GTM as a type of integration at the methodological level where both meth-\\nods make a substantive contribution to explanatory insight. This book is not the resource to \\nconsult for a detailed dissection of differences between the ways that the founders, Glaser and \\nStrauss, approached grounded theory. Nor does it provide a painstaking historical review about \\nthe ways their thinking evolved over time that already has been well-documented. Although I \\ntake pains to recognize that there are differences between grounded theory approached with a \\npost-positivist, pragmatist, constructivist, interpretive, or postmodern framework on such issues \\nas the role of literature, I do this principally to emphasize the dynamism of the methodology \\nand the ways it has been adapted in practice. \\nGOALS \\nThis book aims to arm an investigator new to mixed methods and/or grounded theory with \\nthe practical tools necessary to execute MM-GTM, without the suggestion that it uses a “cook-\\nbook” or “one-size-fits-all” approach. Each chapter has a one- or two-word title that zeroes in \\non its purpose. The topics addressed in each chapter are listed as follows. \\n1 \\nChapter 1: Definitions. This chapter builds an argument for the creative potential of \\npartnering mixed methods with grounded theory for purposes of advancing analytical \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPREFACE \\nxix \\ninsight and developing an explanatory framework. It presents MM-GTM as a distinct \\nmethodology and creates a platform for dialog across disciplines by introducing key \\nterminology. \\n2 \\nChapter 2: Variety. This chapter provides a glimpse of the range of ways that mixed \\nmethods has been paired with grounded theory and how it can serve as an integrative \\nframework at the onset of a study, offer interpretive insight as a study is underway, and/or \\nstand as its principal outcome. \\n3 \\nChapter 3: Process. This chapter is about the procedures that advance theorizing, \\nincluding how qualitative and quantitative data can be integrated through theoretical cod-\\ning, analytical memo writing, case-based analysis, and theoretical sampling. \\n4 \\nChapter 4: Visual Displays. This chapter considers ways that in empirical research, \\nvisual displays represent ideas at the same time they generate them. The chapter introduces \\ncreative approaches to integrating different sources of data in visual displays to advance the-\\noretical reasoning. These include mapping, timelining, and variations of cluster mapping. \\n5 \\nChapter 5: Dissonance. This chapter explores how the opportunity to engage disso-\\nnance and incongruities in the results emerging from different methods is a unique benefit \\nof a mixed methods approach. When pursued systematically, these are often generate origi-\\nnal insight. \\n6 \\nChapter 6: Reporting. This chapter considers different strategies that can be used to \\ngauge the quality of MM-GTM research, including in the ways that research procedures \\nor a final theoretical framework can be visualized effectively in a table or figure. A list of \\nindicators of quality is discussed that extend beyond a singular reliance on transparency \\nabout research methods during reporting. \\nAUDIENCE \\nGrounded theory has become a dominant data-analytic technique in a wide variety of academic \\ndisciplines, including sociology, anthropology, social work, education, information, manage-\\nment, nursing, and other fields related to health (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). In addition \\nto this list, the book is a resource for early career researchers across the world in other applied \\nfields, including child development, counseling, criminology, business and management, \\nhuman geography, gerontology, and instructional technology. A set of exemplars is featured \\nthat were produced by researchers in diverse fields. The fact that the selection includes several \\nexemplars that were launched during doctoral research is meant to underscore that combining \\nmixed methods and grounded theory is not an inordinately ambitious goal for a doctoral stu-\\ndent. Added to that is the conviction that building or refining a theoretical framework is critical \\nto the skill set of novice researchers with an ambition to publish. \\nThe textbook will advance the skills of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in \\na research methods course in qualitative, mixed methods, or evaluation. Its most likely home \\nis a course about qualitative research methods where it would serve as an effective companion \\nto classic texts about qualitative research by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) or Patton (2002) that \\nintroduce students to a generic set of qualitative analytical procedures. Advancing Grounded The-\\nory with Mixed Methods is compatible for pairing with books about grounded theory, including \\n\\n\\nPREFACE \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nxx \\nthose by Corbin and Strauss (2008) and Charmaz (2006, 2014a). In an evaluation course, this \\ntext could be used to guide a content analysis designed to construct a contextually nuanced \\nconceptual framework to guide data collection and analysis. The text will extend a mixed \\nmethods research course designed to provide students the skills necessary to write an effective \\ngrant proposal. The insight offered by the text could be leveraged by an assignment to build \\nand refine a conceptual framework from the literature and, subsequently, to use it as a guide for \\ndeveloping an interview or observation protocol. \\nTHE AUTHOR’S QUALIFICATIONS AND POSITIONALITY \\nMy qualifications for authoring this textbook are related to my experience as a researcher, \\nteacher, and writer. For the majority of my career, my research. I taught doctoral level \\nmethods courses in both qualitative research and mixed methods research at a research uni-\\nversity in the United States for over 20 years. An experience developing the modules for \\nmy first online course in mixed method research approaches provided a springboard for the \\npublication of my 2018 textbook, An Introduction to Fully Integrated Mixed Methods Research. \\nIn that book, I introduced a framework that reflects a conviction of the power of embed-\\nding the intention to integrate data sources throughout all phases of the research process \\nand the phrase coined by Jennifer Greene in 2007, a mixed method way of thinking. I join \\nher and another esteemed colleague, Pat Bazeley (2018a), to emphasize the potential gain \\nto conceptual and theoretical insight when different sources of data are integrated during \\nanalysis. \\nThe analytical procedures I propose in this textbook reflect my affinity for the ground-\\nbreaking work of Kathy Charmaz (2014a) and her constructivist approach to grounded theory. \\nWith the foundational view that knowledge is constructed, rather than discovered, and the \\nacknowledgment that more than one empirically grounded interpretation is not only pos-\\nsible but likely, I find that the constructivist paradigm is closer to my own views about the \\nnature of knowledge and how it is constructed than other approaches to grounded theory. I \\njoin Charmaz in avoiding discussions of causality that are associated with a realist perspective. \\nI waiver from Charmaz’s constructivist approach in that I am not a relativist. I am more com-\\npelled than Charmaz was to pursue differences between the perspectives of participants, not \\nfor purposes of reconciling them, but to get a better glimpse at the social forces that might lie \\nunderneath. \\nThis textbook is aimed at an international audience. The framing of mixed methods in \\nthis textbook is influenced by writers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and from \\nthe growing group of researchers interested in mixed methods that I have met from Australia, \\nChina, Europe, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, and South America. My approach to \\nmixed methods reflects an offshoot of constructivism referred to as dialectical pluralism (John-\\nson, 2012; Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2015). The principal reason for this is my fascination \\nwith the contribution of dissonance, incongruities, and contradiction between results from the \\nanalysis of different types and sources of data to explanatory insight (Creamer & Edwards, 2019). \\n\\n\\nPREFACE \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nxxi \\nMy interest in polyvocality in the representation of authors’ voices (Creamer, 2011), resistance \\nto formulaic approaches, and awe about research in the face of so much complexity inches \\nmy views closer to the postmodern camp. I am persuaded that there is much to be gained by \\ndesigning a research project to purposefully leverage different viewpoints and perspectives. I \\npresent MM-GTM in a practical way, but not in a way that suggests it is a recipe or rule book \\nthat should be slavishly followed, but as a platform, like a diving board, for the generation \\nof innovative new perspectives, methods, and methodological combinations. The perspective \\nunderscores the important role that creativity, persistence, and intense curiosity can play in \\nproducing research that impacts practice. \\nMost MM-GTM is complex and likely to unfold across multiple phases and in ways that \\nare not entirely predictable (Johnson & Walsh, 2019). Joining Mertens (2015) in prioritizing the \\ncomplexity of mixed method research, as Canadian scholar Cheryl Poth does (2018a, 2018b), \\nintroduces tensions with the naming systems associated with mixed method and with research \\nconducted in two phases with distinct qualitative and quantitative strands. A scholar from the \\nUnited Kingdom Nigel Fielding made a similar observation, writing: “Following textbook \\nprescriptions laying down approved research designs may be a necessary rite of passage, but the \\nbenefits of mixing methods flow from creative innovation and conceptualizing rather than a \\npragmatic approach” (2012, p. 126). \\nI depart from many of my US-based colleagues and the preoccupation with classifying and \\nnaming study mixed methods designs based on the timing and sequence of data collection and \\nanalysis. The complexity of the research designs evident in practice and the fact that no two stud-\\nies are alike is one explanation for why I cannot center research design in the discussion of mixed \\nmethods that appears in this text. The increasing frequency of practice that foregoes data collec-\\ntion by using existing databases also negates the usefulness of defining research design by the tim-\\ning of data collection and analysis. I do not categorize the studies I incorporate in this text with \\nthe common terminology used in mixed methods about basic designs, believing it would be \\ntoo cumbersome and potentially alienating for the cross-disciplinary audience that is my target. \\nPEDAGOGICAL FEATURES \\nSeveral features incorporated in this textbook are designed to facilitate instruction and ease the \\nprocess for the reader to distill key points. These are: \\n• \\nThe text has an architecture or infrastructure that is built around a set of three cross-cutting \\nthemes. The link between the discussion and each of the cross-cutting themes is summa-\\nrized in each chapter. Appendix C provides a comprehensive table that identifies key points \\nfrom each chapter, organized by cross-cutting theme. \\n• \\nKey features of the design of each of the chapter exemplars are summarized in a text box. \\n• \\nQuotes from methodological leaders in mixed methods and/or qualitative research are set \\naside in the text. Reading these before launching into the full chapter is one way to get a \\nhandle on the key arguments presented in each chapter. \\n• \\nA set of self-assessment review questions appear at the end of each chapter. \\n\\n\\nPREFACE \\n \\n \\n \\nxxii \\n• \\nSuggestions for supplemental activities are listed at the end of each chapter. \\n• \\nKey terms that are used across chapters are listed in a glossary of terms. Each glossary term \\nis highlighted in bold in the text the first time it is used with an accompanying definition \\nin italics. \\n• \\nThere are two appendices for those looking for more examples. Citation information \\nabout each of the exemplars I singled out in the text is listed in Appendix A. A list of addi-\\ntional reputable examples of MM-GTM appears in Appendix B. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n  \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nCHAPTER 1 \\nEstablishing language \\nand purpose \\nThis chapter builds an argument for the creative potential of partnering mixed methods with grounded \\ntheory for purposes of advancing analytical insight and developing an explanatory framework. It MM-\\nGTM as a distinct methodology and creates a platform for dialog across disciplines by introducing key \\nterminology. \\nTERMS INTRODUCED IN THIS CHAPTER \\n• \\nAbduction \\n• \\nAnalytic density \\n• \\nConceptual framework \\n• \\nConstant comparative method \\n• \\nFully integrated mixed methods research (FIMMR) \\n• \\nFully integrated mixed method grounded theory methodology (FIMM-GTM) \\n• \\nGrounded theory \\n• \\nMixed method research \\n• \\nMixed method grounded theory methodology (MM-GTM) \\n• \\nMulti-method research \\n• \\nTheory \\nINTRODUCTION \\nSince it first began to ferment as a movement with its own set of methodological gurus, mixed \\nmethod approaches have continually demonstrated adaptability to diverse problems and disci-\\nplinary contexts. Its astonishingly broad cross-disciplinary appeal may be unique in that there are \\nthousands of examples of empirical publications and an expansive body of methodological litera-\\nture supporting the creativity and ingenuity in which it has been applied in practice. Emerging \\nat the same time as the movement toward interdisciplinary team-centered research, the span \\nof the usefulness of approaches that combine methods in practice can be seen by the applica-\\ntion of mixed methods to study topics as diverse as poverty in Bangladesh, climate change in \\n\\n\\n \\n2 \\nDEFINITIONS \\nSiberia, police practices in Canada, managing the growth in urban locations, and safe drinking \\nwater in rural Aboriginal communities. One reason for the adaptability of mixed methods is \\nthat it shares, along with multi-method research, the bedrock assumption of the contribution \\nto quality of consulting multiple sources of data that is an ontological assumption endorsed by \\nvirtually all social and behavioral researchers. What distinguishes mixed method from multi-\\nmethod research is the priority awarded to integrating information from multiple sources of \\ndata. Multi-method research incorporates multiple sources of data and/or methods but does not integrate \\nthem in a substantive way. \\nAt the core of the logic of mixed methods is a commitment to the purposeful engage-\\nment of diverse sources of data, analytical procedures, methods, and perspectives in pursuit of \\ngreater understanding of the complex interplay between individual and social phenomenon \\nand the natural environment. The most common form of mixing is at the methodological level \\n(Sandelowski, 2014). Its wide adoption across fields of inquiry invites the kind of cross-method \\nconversations that are evident in integrated methodological approaches, like mixed methods \\napproaches to grounded theory (Creamer, 2018a), case study (Cook & Kamalodeen, 2020; \\nGuetterman & Fetters, 2018), participatory action research (Ivankova, 2015; Ivankova & \\nWingo, 2018), and visual methods (Shannon-Baker & Edwards, 2018). Such partnering chal-\\nlenges us to reconsider the long-standing notion that in today’s rapidly changing world that a \\nresearcher can afford to narrowly identify his or her expertise as either qualitative or quantita-\\ntive. Addressing multi-dimensional topics like those related to poverty, health inequality, immi-\\ngration, violence, or sustainability requires expertise in a variety of domains. Every researcher \\nneeds the skills to be adept at using more than one method to contribute to cutting-edge \\nresearch. \\nIn the social sciences, we are better scholars, more able to contribute to social inquiry at \\nlarge, if we develop expertise in a variety of approaches. \\n(Pearce, 2015, p. 54) \\nThere are many different ways to build a theoretical component in a research study, includ-\\ning by integrating findings from multiple sources of data to build and test a grounded theory or \\nto refine or debunk a long-standing one that has been validated in other settings. Approaches \\nvary as a researcher might initiate a study with a theoretical orientation, find themselves in a \\nposition to see the merits in more than one theoretical orientation, or unexpectedly find the \\nneed to reach out to the literature to find an explanation for a paradoxical finding. Each of these \\ndifferent approaches to theory construction or refinement underscores a commitment to the \\ncontribution to quality of diverse research practices and approaches. \\nPurpose and contribution \\nThe text offers insight about the research methods and methodology of designing and doing \\nresearch that integrates a mixed methods and grounded theory. The purpose of this text is to \\nprovide an instructional tool that advances the use of qualitative and mixed method procedures \\nin the development and refinement of evidence-based explanatory models in education, health \\nsciences, management, information, and other applied fields in the human and behavioral \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n3 \\nDEFINITIONS \\nsciences. The text will fit well in a graduate level research method training course or seminar \\nthat begins with a review of grounded theory methods and then shifts to how these can be \\nextended through mixed methods. \\nOne of the aims of this chapter is to open the door for ongoing, cross-disciplinary dialog \\nbetween qualitative and mixed methods researchers by presenting mixed method grounded \\ntheory methodology (MM-GTM) as a type of integrated methodology. A methodology is a \\nspecialized type of theory that provides a logic that links procedures. An integrated methodol-\\nogy links one or more methods that are epistemologically compatible. The methodology is not \\npresented as a critique of grounded theory, but as an expansion of the ways it can be used in \\nresearch in the social and human sciences. \\nThe first chapter introduces some of the key terminology and many of the key themes \\nthat will be developed throughout the subsequent five chapters. It builds an argument for \\nMM-GTM as an integrated methodology. The cross-cutting themes weave in and out of every \\nchapter, re-surfacing in each to be further developed and elaborated. \\nThree principal ideas are at the center of this chapter: \\n1 \\nThe methodological literature, if not necessarily what is evident in practice, has narrowly \\nframed the use of mixed methods with grounded theory in ways that preserve the distinc-\\ntions between the qualitative and quantitative strands where one phase devoted to devel-\\noping theory using grounded theory methods and a second that is used to refine or test it \\nusing quantitative methods. \\n2 \\nA MM-GTM approach can also be used to develop or refine an explanatory framework \\nin ways that embed the logic of mixed method in grounded theory analytical procedures. \\n3 \\nUnexpected findings that emerge from comparing and integrating different sources of data \\nare a major source of innovation and theoretical insights. \\nOrganization of the chapter \\nThe chapter begins by introducing different terms associated with both grounded theory and \\nmixed methods, including by making a distinction between a theoretical (explanatory) and a con-\\nceptual framework and between mixed method and multi-method research. It then moves to \\npointing to evidence of the prevalence of MM-GTM. The next section singles out an exemplar of \\nfully integrated MM-GTM in a way that recognizes its complexity. Next, we consider MM-GTM \\nas a distinct methodology that embeds an abductive logic and a back-and-forth exchange between \\ndata from different sources in the constant comparative method and to the analytical procedures like \\ntheoretical sampling so central to grounded theory. The use of examples and exemplars is discussed \\nnext, with an explanation of the distinction I make between the two. The chapter concludes by \\nlinking the key themes from this chapter to the wider set of cross-cutting themes. \\nVARIOUS WAYS OF DEFINING THEORY AND ITS PURPOSE \\nTheory construction is at the heart of the scientific process (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010) and \\nevidence-based practice. A methodologist well known in the community of nursing scholars \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n4 \\nDEFINITIONS \\nand among mixed methodologists, Margarite Sandelowski (1993) maintains, stated or not, \\ntheoretical understanding is always implicit in the way a problem is conceived. Understood in \\neveryday conversation as a hunch or supposition (Weick, 1995), a theory can be viewed simply \\nas an explanation for the way things work (Collins & Stockton, 2018). In the context of empiri-\\ncal research, a theory is a cohesive explanatory framework generated through a systematic set of empirical \\nprocedures. In empirical research where theory is constructed from data, a theoretical framework \\noffers an explanation for a complex phenomenon without erasing the variability in the way it is \\nexperienced. Expanding on the relationship between theory and the way research is executed, \\nAgerfalk (2014) wrote: “Theories help to organize our thoughts, explain phenomena, ensure \\nconsistent explanations, improve our predictions, and inform design” (p. 594). \\nIn the context of the social and human sciences, the type of theory produced through \\nMM-GTM is not an abstraction with limited practical utility. A theory can provide an explana-\\ntion or multiple explanations not only about what is happening in a setting, but also why and \\nhow that might be the case. Its practical utility to evidence-based policy and practices lies in \\noffering a better understanding of the “why” and “how” of observed effects (Burch & Henrich, \\n2017). This kind of reasoning is essential to justify an intervention designed to improve learn-\\ning, health, or well-being. Without a theoretical basis, an intervention is an expensive version \\nof trial and error (Eccles, Grimshaw, Walker, Johnston,& Pitts, 2005). Using multiple methods \\nand multiple frameworks creates the best context for generating novel ideas and new insight \\n(Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010). \\nTheories help to organize our thoughts, explain phenomena, ensure consistent explana-\\ntions, improve our predictions, and inform design. \\n(Agerfalk, 2014, p. 594) \\nNo matter how well substantiated, many widely cited theories about human behavior, such \\nas those about learning or motivation or rational choice, are shaped by the socio-cultural climate \\nat the time they were first conceived and validated. They can be a poor fit to guide investigations \\nof dynamic environments like schools, hospitals, or for-profit or not-for-profit organization and \\nthe diverse clientele they serve. In a multi-cultural society, for example, it seems antiquated to \\nassume a perspective developed in the 1950s that an immigrant’s acculturation to a new society \\nrequires the abandonment of one’s home culture, foods, and holiday practices. We can yearn for \\nthe seeming certainty offered by a well-established theory and validated instruments, but one \\nof the principal conclusions drawn by researchers struggling to explain dissonance between the \\nresults suggested by their qualitative and quantitative data is that the phenomenon they studied \\nwere far more complex and multi-faceted than initially conceived (Creamer, 2018c). \\nGrounded theory \\nThere are multiple prominent schools of thought about grounded theory and what constitutes its \\ncore principles. The method, according to Charmaz and Thornberg (2020), is often mistakingly \\ntreated as a “mechanical application of procedures” (p. 7). Grounded theory is first and foremost \\na methodology that provides a comprehensive approach to generate a theoretical framework inductively from \\ndata. “The very purpose of grounded theory research is to produce theory,” Sandelowski maintains \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n5 \\nDEFINITIONS \\n(1993, p. 214). The aim of grounded theory is to develop an abstract explanation, not predic-\\ntion (Charmaz, 2017a). Although approached in many different ways, grounded theory is con-\\nventionally conceived as a systematic inductive or emergent approach to understand basic social \\npsychological processes and the ways individuals, groups, or organizations change over time \\n(Benoliel, 1996). According to Glaser, grounded theory is “the systematic generation of theory \\nfrom data that has itself been systematically obtained” (1978a, p. 2). Although arguably in can \\nnever be entirely so, an inductive or emergent approach is used both to build and refine theory. \\nGrounded theory makes the critical distinction between the process of discovery associated \\nwith an inductive mindset and theory generation and the confirmatory mindset and deductive \\nreasoning associated with hypotheses testing. Theory building, not verification, is the aim of \\ngrounded theory (Urquhart, Lehmann, & Myers 2010). \\nThe very purpose of grounded theory research is to produce theory. \\n(Sandelowski, 1993, p. 214) \\nAlthough it is not something most grounded theorists write about, a conceptual frame-\\nwork is one of many variants of the way that theorizing can be approached in a research study. \\nThis type of explanatory framework is a critical step in the process of constructing the design \\nof a study because it can provide a logical coherence that links across of phases of the research \\nprocess (Creswell & Plano, 2011; Maxwell & Loomis, 2003). A conceptual framework offers a tenta-\\ntive explanatory framework that is based on a synthesis of related literature and what is known in a practical \\nway about a phenomenon. It is assembled by the researcher to map how all the literature works \\ntogether in a study (Collins & Stockton, 2018). It reflects assumptions about the phenomenon \\nbeing studied (Maxwell, 2012). A conceptual framework often integrates more than one theo-\\nretical perspective. Conflicting explanations evident in the literature can offer a convenient and \\nelegant way to frame the need for a study. \\nAlthough the terms are often used interchangeably, a theoretical (analytical or explana-\\ntory framework) and a conceptual framework differ in the source on which they are based. A \\ntheoretical framework is empirical; it emerges from a systematic and, hopefully, through analy-\\nsis of data. Although this point is controversial among grounded theory experts, a conceptual \\nframework is structured through preliminary engagement with the literature. Likely to undergo \\nmany revisions over the course of a study, a conceptual framework serves multiple functions. \\nThese include (a) to identify a tentative set of core constructs, (b) to structure data collection \\ninstruments, and (c) to create a tentative, initial coding scheme. Viewing it as tentative and \\neminently revisable is one way to avoid “forcing” it on the interpretation of the data. It is help-\\nful to maintain a stance where, as Gorard characterizes it, theory is always partial, tentative, and \\nwaiting to be replaced by a better explanation (Gorard, 2004). \\nThe role of preconceptions and the literature at the onset of a grounded theory study \\nremains a hotly contested one among grounded theory practitioners, as does the discussion \\nabout how much the literature can be engaged at the onset of a study without unduly biasing the \\nresearcher. I address both are issues in Chapter 2. The invitation and the challenge in grounded \\ntheory is to maintain the type of exploratory stance that invites discovery and new insight. \\nOne of the methodological drives of grounded theory is as a data-driven way to under-\\nstand basic social-psychological processes that involve change over time (Benoliel, 1996). \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n6 \\nDEFINITIONS \\nSocial-psychological processes are temporal in that they involve change over time. Charmaz \\ndescribes a temporal process as having “clear beginnings and endings, and benchmarks in between” \\n(2006, p. 10). This temporality is linked to a process that leads to change (Charmaz, 2006). \\nGlaser (1978a) observed that research about basic social-psychological process can be based \\non the individual as the unit of analysis. A study about the development of identity as a scientist, \\nengineer, or medical practitioner, for example, uses the individual as the unit of analysis. On the \\nother hand, a study of teams might use the group as the unit of analysis. Understanding underly-\\ning processes that shape a phenomenon is not simply about validating knowledge but developing \\nexplanations that point to connections and relationships that have not been observed before (Van \\nMaanen, Sorensen, & Mitchell, 2007). It requires knowledge of interactions within a context \\n(Irwin, 2008) and considering those contexts as multiple and multi-faceted (Charmaz, 2017a). \\nAttending to social processes can offset the tendency in qualitative research, particularly in the \\nWestern world, to frame our questions and analysis at the level of the individual (Charmaz, 2017a). \\nThe potential to think theoretically about a phenomenon is vastly expanded when we step back \\nfrom a singular focus on individual experiences, to one that considers these in terms of multiple, \\nintersecting contextual influences. This might be how relationships, familial units, neighborhoods, \\ncommunities, organizations, and culture can influence individual perceptions and experience. \\nExamples of social-psychological process that might be the basis of a MM-GTM study are \\nnearly endless. Some examples of social-psychological processes appear in the following: \\n• \\nRecovering from trauma \\n• \\nBecoming environmentally conscious \\n• \\nRe-acclimating after immersion in another culture \\n• \\nWithdrawing from an abusive relationship \\n• \\nDeveloping inclusive leadership practices \\n• \\nNavigating infertility \\n• \\nLearning a new technology \\n• \\nLiving single \\n• \\nEmbracing spirituality \\n• \\nSeeking help to enhance well-being \\n• \\nEvolving personal, sexual, or professional identity \\n• \\nDeveloping complex reasoning skills \\n• \\nNavigating a new culture \\n• \\nDeveloping corporate culture in an open building environment \\n• \\nAdapting to a new technological innovation \\nChange rarely occurs in a linear or predictable way (Mason, 2006). Individuals, groups, or \\norganizations are likely to vary in the paths they travel to accomplish change. \\nMixed methods and grounded theory \\nA number of leading figures in the development of grounded theory as a methodology have \\npointed to, but not pursued, the potential that is inherent in either a multi-method or a mixed \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n7 \\nDEFINITIONS \\nmethods approach to develop an explanatory framework. Most of these figures have framed \\ntheir endorsement in terms of the value of the multiple sources of data, including using quan-\\ntitative data, in grounded theory procedures. Glaser (1978a), for example, famously argued \\n“all is data” when he extolled the value of taking advantage of a full range of different types \\nand sources of data. This vantage point is also evident in a statement by Holton and Walsh \\n(2017) who endorsed the inclusion of quantitative data in grounded theory, without pursuing \\nit further by suggesting ways that might be accomplished. Authors of a textbook about classic \\ngrounded theory, Holton and Walsh noted: “For grounded theorists, using both qualitative \\nand quantitative data opens a vast realm of additional empirical possibilities for generating \\ntheory” (2017, p. 11). \\nOthers have made a more obvert connection between mixed methods and grounded \\ntheory by suggesting it can involve not only different sources of qualitative and quantitative \\ndata, but also analytical procedures. This viewpoint is evident, for example, in a statement \\nby Kathy Charmaz, an influential spokesperson for a constructivist approach to grounded \\ntheory, when she wrote but did not further pursue the idea that “an emerging grounded \\ntheory can indicate needing more than one type of data and can incorporate more than \\none type of analysis” (2014a, p. 323). Isabelle Walsh offered an expansive point of view of \\nthe way integration can occur that goes beyond just data. She wrote: “A [grounded theory] \\nmay thus be generated using qualitative and/or quantitative data, methods, and techniques” \\n(2015, p. 536). \\nThe contribution of dissonance, ambiguity, and paradox is so central to my view of \\nmixed methods and what Jennifer Greene (2007) refers to as a “mixed method way of \\nthinking” that it is explicitly referenced in my working definition of mixed method \\nresearch: \\nA systematic approach to data collection and analysis that combines different sources of \\ndata and quantitative and qualitative analytical procedures with the intention to engage \\nmultiple perspectives in order to more fully understand complex social phenomenon. \\nDissonance between the results supported by analyses of diferent or integrated sources of data \\noften can be the frst clear indication that a phenomenon is more complex and multi-faceted \\nthan initially conceived (Creamer, 2018c). \\nMixed method grounded theory methodology (MM-GTM) is a methodology that \\nembeds a dialectical logic in the constant comparative method and grounded theory procedures to develop a \\nmid-level theoretical framework or to elaborate an existing one. MM-GTM studies that demonstrate \\nmore than a cursory familiarity with grounded theory as a method and methodology often \\naward more priority to the qualitative research methods than to mixed methods. In the nota-\\ntion system that serves as a shorthand among methodologists with expertise in mixed methods, \\nthe double capitalizing is intended to communicate an equal partnership where neither mixed \\nmethods nor grounded theory is demoted to a secondary position during data collection and \\nanalysis. The fact the mixed methods appears first in this abbreviation is more a reflection of \\nmy own interests and expertise than it is a statement that one methodology is more important \\nthan the other. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n8 \\nDEFINITIONS \\nFully integrated mixed method research \\nFully integrated mixed method research (FIMMR) is an approach to mixed methods research \\nwhere integration of qualitative and quantitative data and/or analytical procedures is embedded throughout \\nthe research process; from the formulation of research questions, to data collection and sampling, during \\nanalysis, and during the process of drawing of conclusions (Burch & Heinrich, 2017; Creamer, 2018a; \\nNastasi, Hitchcock, & Brown, 2010; Tashakkori, 2003). As compared to an equal priority \\nmixed method design where the strands are compartmentalized but no one method is subordi-\\nnated, results that emerge from integrated analytical procedures, it is best described as reflecting \\na mixed priority (Creamer, 2018a). \\nFIMMR was first described as the “most advanced, and most dynamic of all mixed \\nmodel designs” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, p. 689). Contemporary views of this design \\nframe it as one that is highly compatible with research launched with the purpose to better \\nunderstand the complex interplay between micro- (i.e., individual) and macro- (i.e., his-\\ntorical, political, organizational, interactional) that is so characteristic of multi-level mixed \\nmethods research (Creamer, 2018a). The word “dynamic” reflects how fully integrated \\nresearch often has to adapt not only to changes in the research environment or among a \\nresearch team, but also to the unexpected detours introduced when data and methods are \\nthoroughly integrated. \\nFully integrated mixed method grounded theory methodology (FIMM-GTM) \\nuses grounded theory procedures and strategies to integrate different sources of data through-\\nout the research process, including during data analyses, to produce and sometimes to test a \\ntheoretical framework. \\nIndications of the prevalence of MM-GTM \\nGuetterman, Babchuck, Howell Smith, and Stevens (2017) were the first set of authors to \\noffer some indication of the prevalence of MM-GTM. They located 61 MM-GTM articles \\nusing conventional search terms and the procedures of a systematic review. Their search pro-\\ncedures pulled in articles that included the use both the words “qualitative” and “quantita-\\ntive” in the title or abstract but did not necessarily incorporate a reference to either mixed \\nmethod or multi-method. It is possible that the search terms may have contributed to the \\ndisappointing results that emerged from their cataloging of the features of these studies. Only \\nabout one-third of the publications provided any evidence of employing or producing a theo-\\nretical framework. Most fell far short of using the full complement of grounded theory pro-\\ncedures. These authors were no doubt disappointed to conclude: “Researcher employing \\ngrounded theory in mixed methods research rarely drew upon all or even most of the features \\nof grounded theory” (p. 10). \\nA count of the appearance of in doctoral dissertations offers a second indicator of the \\nprevalence of MM-GTM. Howell Smith et al. (2019) executed a systematic search of doctoral \\ndissertations where the words “grounded theory” and “mixed methods” appeared anywhere \\nin the text. Their electronic search revealed that mixed methods and grounded theory have \\nbeen paired in doctoral research for quite some time. They located 482 dissertations, with an \\naverage of 48 dissertations appearing between 2011 and 2017. The number of dissertations \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n9 \\nDEFINITIONS \\nincreased steadily from 2001 through 2016, followed by a decline in number in 2016 \\nand 2017. Now readily accessible through online repositories, doctoral dissertations are \\nlikely the best prognosticator that the idea of pairing mixed methods with grounded \\ntheory. \\nA “classic” approach to MM-GTM \\nWell known among the community of scholars who have built an argument for the epistemo-\\nlogical foundations of mixed methods in dialectical pluralism, R. Burke Johnson joined two \\nother colleagues to introduce the idea that MM-GTM is a distinct methodological approach \\n(see Johnson, McGowan, & Turner, 2010). Johnson et al. coined the expression mixed method \\ngrounded theory (MM-GT). They pointed to a way that mixed methods can leverage the idea \\nfirst articulated by Glaser and Strauss (1967) that grounded theories can be constructed from \\nboth qualitative and quantitative data. \\nFacing a climate when there were still heated debates about the compatibility between \\nqualitative and quantitative methods, Johnson et al. (2010) conceptualized MM-GTM in \\nways I do not. They framed it as mixing two dramatically different sets of philosophi-\\ncal assumptions about how knowledge is constructed. They argued that “MM-GTM as \\narticulated here offers a creative and dynamic combination of objectivist and constructiv-\\nist grounded theory” (p. 74). Objectivist believe in a singular reality that can be captured \\nobjectively, while constructivists highlight that reality is often multiple and everyone expe-\\nriences it in different ways. Johnson et al. (2010) positioned MM-GTM as an opportu-\\nnity to fuse the “conflicting demands” (p. 72) of generating nomothetic (i.e., law-like, \\ngeneralizable) knowledge with particularistic, local, and contextual ideographic knowl-\\nedge. The separation that is maintained between the qualitative and quantitative phases in \\nthis approach to MM-GTM makes it possible to accommodate two different paradigmatic \\nperspectives. \\nJohnson et al. (2010) offered a view of MM-GTM that clearly differentiates the purpose \\nand methods used in the qualitative and quantitative strands of a study. Greene (2007) refers to \\nthis type of approach as a component design. This conceptualization matches the foundational \\ncategorization of mixed methods designs as primarily either concurrent (data collection and \\nanalysis occur separately) or sequential (one phase precedes, and is dependent, on another). \\nJohnson et al. (2010) prioritized triangulation, rather than analytical insight, as the principal \\nreason for using mixed methods. \\nThe logic of component design is evident in the way that Johnson et al. (2010) distin-\\nguished different purposes for the qualitative and quantitative strands of a study. This same logic, \\ncast at the project rather than study level, is evident in the impressive body of work produced \\nby Judith Wuest about a two-decade-long project to develop a theory about family caregiving \\nthat used MM-GTM (Wuest & Hodgins, 2011). The qualitative and quantitative phases served \\na distinct purpose. The initial phase was a qualitative one. It used grounded theory procedures \\nto identify a core construct and to pose hypotheses about the relationships between constructs \\nfor the purpose of developing a theoretical framework. A quantitative phase followed the initial \\nqualitative one. Its role was statistically to test the reliability of the constructs and the signifi-\\ncance of the paths that linked them. \\n\\n\\n10 \\nDEFINITIONS \\nJohnson et al. (2010) viewed MM-GTM in a complementary way in that qualitative and \\nquantitative data are collected about different constructs and for different purposes. Qualita-\\ntive analysis, for example, can provide an indication of an underlying causal mechanism while \\nquantitative data more readily identifies both anticipated and unanticipated outcomes. Emerg-\\ning so recently after the emergence of mixed methods as a distinct methodology in the late \\n1980s, the timeframe Johnson and colleagues were operating in may have made it difficult for \\nthem to envision the possibility that qualitative and quantitative data could be collected about \\nthe same constructs. \\nThe logic of a classic approach to MM-GTM introduced by Johnson et al. (2010) extends \\nto one its first formal manifestations in reporting that emerged from a dissertation completed \\nby Minjung Shim (Shim et al., 2017) that is discussed in greater detail in the final chapter. R. \\nB. Johnson was a member of the doctoral committee. The committee also contained a mem-\\nber widely recognized for her expertise in grounded theory. Shim described her research as \\nemploying a multi-phase mixed methods research design. Shim declared that the purpose of her \\nresearch was to build and confirm a grounded theory model. In reality, like virtually all MM-\\nGTM research with this aim, she achieved more than a single purpose. She confirmed parts \\nof the preliminary model developed from the literature and interviews, while simultaneously \\nelaborating it by removing and adding constructs and hypothesized paths that linked them. \\nPrioritizing the role of mixed methods in building explanatory power \\nA number of methodologists writing about mixed methods have prioritized the purposes it can \\nserve in MM-GTM in ways that extend beyond the classic purpose identified by Johnson et al. \\n(2010) in the first discussion about it to appear in print. Members of this group have showcased \\nthe potential contribution of mixed methods in a way that is compatible to the purpose of \\ngrounded theory to assist with the process of theorizing. Writing from the field of information \\nsystems, Isabelle Walsh (2015), for example, highlights the role of integrating different types of \\ndata for purposes above and beyond triangulation: “The purpose is not to test or correct what \\nhas been found previously, but to extend understanding of the phenomenon under scrutiny and \\nthe scope of the emerging theory” (2015, p. 550). \\nOne of the most compelling arguments for the use of mixed methods is the potential \\nto promote sophisticated analytical conceptualizations (Fielding, 2009, 2012). Fielding (2012) \\nmaintains the “radical potential” of mixed methods is not in terms of confirmation and a search \\nfor the “right answer” but “to build prismatic understanding of social phenomenon and the \\npotential to promote analytical density” meaning the potential for “sophisticated analytical con-\\nceptualization” (p. 125). Fielding advocates for recognizing the value-added of mixed methods \\nin creating inferences or a conceptual explanation with greater analytic density or conceptual \\nrichness (2009). Analytic density refers to the potential to build the type of multi-dimensional \\nconceptual understanding of social phenomenon that is essential to the iterative process of \\nbuilding knowledge in a scientific way (Fielding, 2012). Associated with validity, analytical density \\nrefers to envisioning constructs in a multi-dimensional way or to developing or elaborating an explanatory \\nframework in a way that adds conceptual nuance or richness. Analytic density can be achieved by \\nstrategies that integrate findings from different methods in ways that create the opportunity \\nto discern patterns, detect relationships between constructs, identify conditions that influence \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\nDEFINITIONS \\n11 \\nthe outcome, and that recognize the multi-dimensionality of core constructs (Creamer, 2021). \\nThe opposite of analytical density, according to Fielding (2009), is the type of tunnel vision \\nthat leads an investigator to refuse to engage a hypothesis or theoretical proposition because it \\nis incompatible with his or her preconceptions. \\nThe radical potential of mixed methods is not in terms of confirmation but to build pris-\\nmatic understanding of phenomenon and the potential to promote analytical density. \\n(Fielding, 2012, p. 125) \\nSimilarly, in writing about the link between thinking of research problems in a multi-dimen-\\nsional way, Jennifer Mason (2006), a sociologist, mounted an argument for putting explanation \\nat the center of our social research inquiry. She wrote: “Placing explanation at the center of \\nenquiry refects an interest in the complexities of how and why things change and work as they \\ndo in certain contexts and circumstances” (Mason, 2006, p. 19). \\nAn exemplar of MM-GTM \\nResearch driven by the purpose of integrating mixed methods with grounded theory to develop \\na more nuanced and comprehensive understanding is evident in the research Kawamura under-\\ntook for her dissertation, under the supervision of a leader in the mixed methods world, Nataliya \\nIvankova (i.e., Kawamura, Ivankova, Kohler, & Purumean-Chaney, 2009). From the field of \\npublic health, her dissertation produced results that suggested that a sense of identification with \\na popular media figure can promote behavioral change among patients with hypertension. The \\nfixing drive of a conventional parallel/concurrent mixed methods design accounts for why \\nthese authors chose to postpone integration of the results of the qualitative and quantitative data \\nuntil the penultimate point of bringing the results together at the inference stage. \\nBox 1.1 summarizes key features of the Kawamura et al. (2009), including its purpose, the \\nway it was designed, how integration was achieved, strategies used to navigate dissonance, and \\nthe theory produced. \\nBOX 1.1 \\nKawamura et al.’s (2009) Study of the Impact of a Health Intervention \\nPurpose: Kawamura et al. (2009) achieved a good deal more than they set out \\nto in this complex multi-layered study from the field of public health that was \\nframed to develop an integrated grounded theory model using mixed methods \\nto explore how a sense of identification with a media figure in radio program \\nmight impact levels of activity among patients with cardiovascular disease. \\nDesign: Referred to as a concurrent or parallel mixed method design because \\nthe qualitative and quantitative data were collected, analyzed, and reported \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n12 \\nDEFINITIONS \\nseparately. The instruments were designed to expand understanding of a con-\\nceptual model developed from the literature. The sample of participants for both \\nstrands overlapped. \\nIntegration: Integration occurred at the final inference stage when the theo-\\nretical framework developed from quantitative analysis and the grounded theory \\nproduced from the qualitative phase. The interweaving of qualitative and quan-\\ntitative constructs produced a composite grounded theory model with a more \\nmulti-faceted set of positive and negative consequences of the program than \\nwas initially conceived. It also identified a set of mediating factors that influ-\\nenced the process. \\nUnexpected findings: Because integration did not occur until the final stage of \\ndrawing the composite model, inconsistencies between findings from the quali-\\ntative and quantitative strands were not pursued. \\nTheory produced: These authors developed a final composite model that has \\nall the components of classic grounded theory. At the center of the model is \\na three-stage temporal sequence that begins with identified similarity with the \\nmedia figure, moves to emotional involvement, and advances to gains in motiva-\\ntion, attitude, and practice. The composite model is unique because proposed \\npaths (relationships between constructs) were generated from both the qualita-\\ntive and quantitative analysis. Some constructs and paths in the model were \\nderived from both qualitative and quantitative sources. \\nThe authors use language about the value-added of a mixed methods approach to the \\ndevelopment of a grounded theory that highlights its link to complexity. The authors observe: \\nNeither a quantitative nor a qualitative study by itself would explain the degree and com-\\nplexity of [parasocial] impact on physical activity and self-efficacy and practices in the \\ncontext of this study. Integrating the two models developed from the analysis of quantita-\\ntive and qualitative study strands provided both the level of detail and comprehensiveness \\nneeded to understand this complex social phenomenon and its roles in promoting health \\nbehavior among its participants. \\n(Kawamura et al., 2009, p. 100) \\nThe reference to “comprehensiveness” points to the complementarity rationale for using mixed \\nmethods where the principal outcome is to produce a more comprehensive, multi-layered, and \\nnuanced explanation. \\nThe composite model produced by Kawamura et al. (2009) is essentially a multi-layered, \\nholistic meta-inference that combines qualitatively and quantitatively derived constructs and \\npaths. An innovative feature of this article is the way the theoretical framework is visualized. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDEFINITIONS \\n13 \\nFIGURE 1.1 Final Composite Model from Kawamura et al. (2009) \\nGraphics that depict interrelationships (paths) between constructs derived from both qualitative \\nand quantitative procedures is another innovative feature of this visualization. Different shad-\\ning techniques are used to identify qualitatively and quantitatively derived outcomes, paths, and \\nmediating factors. Although it only applies in one case, a different box shape designates constructs \\nin the model that are supported by both qualitative and quantitative data. The uses of different \\ntypes of visual symbols and its acknowledgment of both convergence and divergence are the two \\nprincipal reasons I reproduce their Figure 4 here with copyright permission as Figure 1.1. \\nThe fact that qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed separately (a \\nconcurrent, parallel design) accounts Kawamura et al.’s (2009) approach to navigating the incon-\\nsistencies between qualitative and quantitative findings that emerged once they were considered \\ntogether as an integrated whole. The authors commented on the inconsistencies, which were \\nsubstantial, but reported no steps to reconcile them. Labeling their findings as contradictory, \\nKawamura et al. observed: “Four of the five features [of the model] were identified as contra-\\ndictory across the findings of the qualitative and quantitative analysis” (p. 96). Framing that the \\nresults of the quantitative and qualitatively derived grounded theory models as complementary \\nby virtue of addressing different research questions, these authors sidestepped further analysis \\nbut chose to embellish their initial conceptual model with some additional constructs that \\nemerged over the course of the analyses. \\nMM-GTM as an invitation to leverage dissonance and paradox \\nA process that is deliberate about engaging the dissonance and paradox often introduced by \\ndiverse viewpoints among collaborators or between findings from different analytical procedures \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n14 \\nDEFINITIONS \\nis the hinge that links mixed methods, grounded theory, and complexity. Rather than being \\nframed as a problem or a by-product that signals a weakness in the methods, dissonance, and the \\nuncertainty associated with it is prized in a dialectical perspective for its potential to generate \\ninnovative insight. The potential for dissonance and the contribution of a dialectical stance to \\ninnovative insight is a theme that connects this and my first textbook (Creamer, 2018a). Jen-\\nnifer Greene, an influential figure in the formalization of mixed methods as a methodology, is \\noften quoted for her description of a dialectical stance. She writes, a dialectical stance “seeks \\nnot so much convergence as insight . . . the generation of important understanding through the \\njuxtaposition of different lenses, perspectives, and stances” (Greene, 2005, p. 208). Dissonance is \\nnot an apologetic footnote to research in mixed methods: it is a player at the center of the stage. \\nA mixed method way of thinking actively engages with difference and diversity. \\n(Greene, 2005, p. 208) \\nThe role of seemingly stark diferences between preliminary fndings emerging from qualita-\\ntive and quantitative analytical procedures and the contribution of unexpected sources of data \\nis evident in two of the exemplars I feature in this textbook. As she navigated the complexities \\nof her dissertation research, fndings that countered the intent of her randomized control study \\n(RCT) led Christina Catallo to take an unexpected detour. She diagrammed an individual \\nchange map for each participant to pinpoint the key decision points of a group of women who \\nscored high on a survey about intimate partner violence, but nevertheless chose not to disclose \\nit to emergency room personnel (i.e., Catallo, Jack, Ciliska, & MacMillan, 2013). Catallo et al.’s \\nresearch is discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. \\nAlthough mixed methods and grounded theory have been paired productively and innova-\\ntive ways for quite some time, particularly in applied fields like education and nursing, a philo-\\nsophical foundation for this argument has not previously been developed. I explore this task in \\nsome detail in the next section of the chapter. \\nCONCEPTUALIZING MM-GTM AS A METHODOLOGY \\nBoth mixed methods and grounded theory have been characterized as methodologies that \\nare adaptable to diverse circumstances and priorities. Innovative applications of each continue \\nto emerge. Highlighting the ways researchers adapt grounded theory to diverse circum-\\nstances, Seidel and Urquhart (2013, p. 237) observed: “Grounded theory method (GTM) is \\nan evolving method that is subject to idiosyncratic interpretation and flexible deployment.” \\nReiterating the idiosyncratic way grounded theory has been deployed, Morse and Niehaus \\n(2009) maintain that “All types of grounded theory are individual methods in their own \\nright” (Morse & Niehaus, 2009, p. 95). The way an investigator deploys a methodology is an \\nexpression of his or her ontological and epistemological perspective and the wider social and \\nintellection strains of thought that influence a time period (Ralph, Birks, & Chapman, 2015). \\nThere are multiple areas of the overlap between the methodological assumptions of \\ngrounded theory and mixed methods. The areas where there is an overlap in the method-\\nological assumptions provide the groundwork for the argument of MM-GTM as a distinct \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDEFINITIONS \\n15 \\n• Utilized mostly \\nin applied fields \\n• Aim to contribute \\nto analytic density \\n• Considers\\n multi-level \\nsociocultural\\n context \\n• Adaptive \\nDesign \\n• Iterative \\nComponent \\n• Sensitizing \\nConcept \\n• Constant \\nComparative \\nMethod \\n• Theoretical \\nSamping \\n• Abduction \\n• Adaptible to \\nDiverse \\nParadigms \\nContextual \\nIssues \\nResearch \\nDesign \\nAnalytic \\nProcedures \\nAnalytic \\nLogic \\nFIGURE 1.2 The Link Between Mixed Methods, Grounded Theory Methods, and Theory \\nBuilding \\nmethodology if not a meta-methodology. As a distinct methodology, MM-GTM has own \\nrationale for linking a set of core procedures and using them in a systematic way. \\nPrincipal areas of methodological compatibility between mixed methods and grounded \\ntheory include the following: \\n1 \\nThe aim is to develop analytic density. \\n2 \\nAdaptable to diverse philosophical positions and paradigms. \\n3 \\nBoth adapts and generates complexity. \\n4 \\nAn iterative approach to both data collection and analysis. \\n5 \\nAbduction as one of the analytical logics that can be used with the constant comparative \\nmethod and theoretical sampling. \\n6 \\nAbduction powers theoretical sampling. \\nFigure 1.2 summarizes key areas of overlap between the methodological framework of \\ngrounded theory and mixed methods. Four areas are highlighted: contextual issues, research \\ndesign, analytic logic, and analytic procedures. The contextual overlap between grounded the-\\nory and mixed methods includes (a) an emphasis on developing analytical density, (b) that both \\nmethods are used most frequently in applied fields, (c) compatibility with diverse philosophi-\\ncal paradigms, and (d) that research questions are constructed in a multi-dimensional way that \\nrecognizes a multi-layered social-cultural context. \\nA second area of overlap shown in Figure 1.2 relates to an adaptive design (Poth, 2020) \\nthat both recognizes and generates complexity. An iterative component fueled by the constant \\ncomparative method is a second feature of the design. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n16 \\nDEFINITIONS \\nThe analytic logic recognized in Figure 1.2 highlights abduction as part of both the con-\\nstant comparative method and theoretical sampling. The final section of Figure 1.2 recognizes \\nanalytical procedures that can accommodate many types of approaches, including mixed meth-\\nods. This applies to theoretical sampling, developing a coding system, and the role of the lit-\\nerature and other theories in serving as sensitizing concepts and to explain unexpected findings \\nthat emerge during the coding process. \\nThe methodological assumptions of most approaches to grounded theory and mixed \\nmethods might seem to differ in terms of the appreciation for the contribution of dissonance \\nto generating theoretical insight. This is related to the role of verification and the treatment \\nof exceptions. Very little space is awarded to these topics in most textbooks about grounded \\ntheory. The act of engaging or integrating findings from different sources of data that occurs in \\nmixed methods allows for confirmation, but at the same time recognizes the disconnects that \\ngenerate topics for further exploration. \\nWe further explore some of the major areas of overlap between mixed methods and \\ngrounded theory in the next section. \\nCompatibility with multiple paradigms \\nA fourth way that the methodological grounding of mixed methods and grounded theory is \\ncompatible is that both have proven accommodating of diverse perspectives. Both grounded \\ntheory and mixed methods have been adapted by investigators operating from diverse epistemo-\\nlogical paradigms. Urquhart made this point by observing, for example, that grounded theory \\ncan be “appropriated by researchers with different assumptions about knowledge and how it can \\nbe obtained” (2013, p. 36). Grounded theory has been approached from diverse paradigmatic \\nperspectives that include post-positivism, interpretivism, constructivism, postmodernism, criti-\\ncal inquiry (Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006; Sebastian, 2019), and pragmatism (Morgan, 2014). \\nMorgan has taken the controversial position that a pragmatic approach guides most social sci-\\nence research methodology, including mixed methods (2013, 2014) and grounded theory (2020). \\nWithout overlooking its link to a pragmatic grounding, others writing about mixed methods affili-\\nate with the lens of dialectical pluralism as a guide for investigators committed to the exploration of \\ndiverse perspectives (e.g., Johnson, 2012) or a commitment to social justice that is associated with \\na transformative research agenda. Researchers joining interdisciplinary endeavors are likely to need \\ncompetencies in more than one method and to recognize the legitimacy of more than one paradigm. \\nThe iterative exchange embedded in the constant comparative method \\nOne of the principal arguments for the compatibility between the mixed methods and grounded \\ntheory derives from an endorsement voiced by the founders of grounded theory, now more \\nthan 50 years ago. The constant comparative method is an approach to analysis convention-\\nally framed to mean that data analysis and data collection co-occur. It is an analytical strategy where \\ndata, and eventually emerging constructs and themes, are continuously compared and contrasted as data \\ncollection and analysis unfolds. Whether you are in the field, collecting data or using a secondary \\ndata set, analysis begins as the first unit of data is encountered. \\nWalsh (2014) used language that suggests a link between mixed methods and the constant \\ncomparative method. “Data are continuously compared to previously collected and analyzed \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDEFINITIONS \\n17 \\ndata, looking for similarities and differences to help toward conceptualizing and theory building,” \\nWalsh wrote (2014). She added: “The use of mixed methods can feed into the cycles of induc-\\ntive analysis and constant comparison required by the grounded theory method” (2014 p. 13). \\nIn a study with a strong mixed methods orientation, Gasson and Waters (2013) also referred to \\nthe analytical process they employed in ways that link mixed methods, grounded theory, and \\nthe constant comparative method: “Qualitative and quantitative analyses where embedded, and \\nour results emerged through constant iterations between qualitative and quantitative data as they \\nwere collected and thru the analyses of all our data as one set” (p. 154), they noted. \\nMM-GTM is adaptable for use with an existing data set. This could be the case, for exam-\\nple, with a study involving social media posts or a body of documents like case notes or memos, \\nwhere analysis could be launched with a small a subset of the data. In this scenario, theoretical \\nsampling might involve dipping back into a data set to target the selection of cases to further \\nelaborate the properties of a core construct. \\nLinking the constant comparative method to an abductive logic \\nOther authors have pointed to the same type of iterative cycle during analysis that Walsh \\n(2014) linked to the constant comparative method but identify it as an approach to analysis that \\nhas roots in American pragmatism. It is referred to as abduction. Abduction is one of three \\napproaches to reasoning that include induction (generalizing from the specific to the general) \\nand deduction (generalizing from the general to the specific) (Locke, Golden-Biddle, & Feld-\\nman, 2008). Understood in a generic way, it is the process of generating multiple possible explanations for \\nan unexpected or surprising finding (Charmaz, 2019; Locke et al., 2008), treating these as tentative \\nhypotheses or theoretical propositions. Abduction is recognized as analytic induction in some \\napproaches to grounded theory (Suddaby, 2006). Because it involves engagement with prior \\nknowledge it is not compatible with Glaserian or classic grounded theory (Morgan, 2020). The \\nact of abduction is akin to a detective generating multiple possible explanations for something \\nthat might seem subtly off kilter in a crime scene. Obtaining additional data to rule out com-\\npeting hypotheses is linked to internal validity (Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2015). \\nIn an article provocatively titled “What Grounded Theory is Not,” Roy Suddaby of the Uni-\\nversity of Alberta in Canada characterized abduction in a way that directly links it to the constant \\ncomparative method. Suddaby, writing from the field of management, characterizes abduction \\nas “a process by which a researcher moves between induction and deduction while practicing \\nthe constant comparative method” (2006, p. 639). Although the line between the two is not \\nhard and fast, induction is considered exploratory and has long been associated with a qualitative \\napproach. It is the line of reasoning so central to grounded theory that begins with observations \\nabout data and moves to more abstract generalizations. Deduction, on the other hand, is most \\nfrequently associated with hypotheses or theory testing and quantitative approaches. It is the \\nprocess of testing how well a generalization fits data. Grounded theory requires the interplay \\nbetween induction and deduction (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Because it involves the process of \\ngenerating multiple possible explanations, particularly when those are heterogeneous, it is argued \\nthat abduction is the only approach to reasoning that can lead to original insight and introduce \\nnew conceptual views of a phenomenon (Locke et al., 2008; Weick, 1989). \\nAn abductive approach to analysis introduces a level of complexity by introducing doubt \\nand uncertainty during the research process. In making a case for its centrality to original \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n18 \\nDEFINITIONS \\ninsight, Locke et al. (2008) highlight the pivotal role that doubt or uncertainty play in the pro-\\ncess of theorizing. Doubt can initiate an inquiry, as when a researcher finds competing expla-\\nnations for a phenomenon, none of which resonates with her experience. Locke et al. vividly \\ncapture the process that might ensue when preliminary analysis yields dissonance in that the \\nresults are completely at odds with what was anticipated: \\nDoubt is the engine of abduction. The living state of doubt drives and energizes us to \\ngenerate possibilities, try them out, modify, transform, or abandon them, try again, and so \\non, until new concepts or patters are generated that productively satisfy our doubt. From \\nthis perspective, doubt is essential, not aberrant, part of the research process: The question \\nis not whether, but how to engage doubt [emphasis theirs]. \\n(p. 908) \\nThese authors highlight the inventiveness that is required to work your way through these kinds \\nof “empirical conundrums.” \\nAn abductive process is particularly useful in light of unexpected research findings (Tim-\\nmermans & Tavory, 2012). It is probably very compatible with a team setting where collabora-\\ntors work in a very interactive style and feel free to bat about very different ideas about how \\nto explain paradoxical findings. In an abductive approach, intriguing findings can generate a \\nvery tentative hypothesis (if–then types of statements generally referred to as propositions in \\ngrounded theory research) that are weighed deductively, and then further excavated by addi-\\ntional data analyses and often data collection. \\nTable 1.1 provides an overview of the steps in an analytical process for MM-GTM that is \\niterative and includes an inductive, deductive, and abductive logic during analysis. The table \\nhighlights integration by adding a center column that is absent from more conventional depic-\\ntions of the research process in mixed methods research. \\nTABLE 1.1 Overview of Steps in the Process of Analyzing Multiple Sources of Data in \\nMM-GTM Through an Abductive Process* \\nSteps \\nQualitatively \\nIntegration \\nQuantitatively \\nAnalyzed Data \\nAnalyzed Data \\nStep 1 \\nInitial analysis \\nInitial analysis \\nStep 2 \\nPreliminary inferences \\ncompared with a \\ncombination of induction and \\ndeduction; some confirmed. \\nStep 3 \\nAlternative explanations \\n\\ngenerated. \\n\\nStep 4 \\nRevisit initial analysis; new \\nRevisit initial analysis; \\n\\nanalysis; additional data \\nnew analysis; additional \\nsought. \\ndata sought. \\nStep 5 \\nCompare new round of \\n\\ntentative inferences; draft or \\nrefine a theoretical model. \\n* To be read from the top down. \\n\\n\\nDEFINITIONS \\n19 \\nTable 1.1 depicts an analytical process that begins with the separate analysis of qualita-\\ntive and quantitative data that can occur in concurrently or sequentially. Then it shifts to a \\nmore integrated approach where there is a type of cycling between induction and deduction \\nto generate hypotheses and then to move on to explore them further through additional data \\ncollection and analysis (Thomas, 2010). Rather than the view emerging from the first and sec-\\nond generation of methodological textbooks about mixed methods that frame inferences and \\nmeta-inferences as only occurring at the final stage of the analytical process, Table 1.1 depicts a \\nprocess where interpretation and inferences are drawn throughout the research process. \\nThe type of active dialog depicted in Table 1.1 between findings emerging from different \\nsources of data requires both creativity and insight into its potential implications that can only \\ncome from being embedded in the literature. One who argues that regardless of paradigm all \\nresearch involves interpretation, Bazeley writes: “Researchers move routinely between deduc-\\ntive and inductive thinking about their topic as they consider what is known and puzzle about \\nwhat they are finding out in an iterative cycle of developing and testing ideas from and with \\ndata” (2018b, pp. 335–336). I explore the process of abduction further in Chapter 3 about how \\na mixed methods approach can be embedded in grounded theory procedures. \\nThe link to complexity \\nThe complex nature of individual actions and interactions within multi-layered socio-cultural \\ncontext is a third rationale for the compatibility between mixed methods and grounded theory \\n(Guetterman et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2010). “We believe that the human world is especially \\nrich and complex, and that MM-GTM can offer an important method for understanding com-\\nplexity,” Johnson et al. observed (2010, p. 72). Complexity requires a dynamic research design \\nthat can accommodate changes in the research environment and navigate empirical findings \\nthat do not always cohere in expected ways (Poth, 2018a). A telltale sign of complexity is when \\nresearchers end an investigation realizing that the phenomenon they studied is far more com-\\nplex than they initially understood. \\nMixed methods research projects almost always involve complex study designs (Saint \\nArnault & Fetters, 2011). There are multiple signals that a research design is complex. Three \\nsignatures of a complex research design include: (a) when the core construct is multi-dimen-\\nsional and framed as embedded in a socio-cultural context, (b) data are collected from multiple \\nlevels of an organization, or (c) when participants are distributed across geographically diverse \\nsettings (Poth, 2018b). In a school setting, for example, this might include teachers, parents, \\nstudents, and administrators in multiple different settings. Diversity among collaborators is \\nanother dimension of complexity (Poth, 2018b). Saturation of the properties of all categories \\ncan be an elusive standard to achieve in a complex research design. \\nContributions of each method \\nThat both mixed methods and grounded theory make a distinct contribution is an additional \\ndimension of the argument for distinguishing MM-GTM as a distinct methodology. For \\ngrounded theory, this includes assurances that there will be a genuine exploratory or inductive \\nphase that resists the logic of hypotheses testing. An additional contribution is that it offers a \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n20 \\nDEFINITIONS \\nValue-Added of GT \\nSet of Analytical \\nProcedures \\nEnsure there is a Strong \\nExploratory Component \\nValue-Added \\nof MMR \\nIncentive to use \\nmultiple types of \\ndata. \\nAttention to exceptions, \\nverfication, & \\ndissonance. \\nDiverse approaches \\nto sampling. \\nFIGURE 1.3 Overlap Between the Analytic Logic and Procedures of Grounded Theory \\nand Mixed Methods \\nset of procedures for data collection and analysis that are absent from mixed methods. Both of these \\ncan offset an inclination to downplay the qualitative portion of MM-GTM. The unique contribu-\\ntion of mixed methods includes a push to be inclusive of different types of data, a logic that justifies \\nattention to dissonance, and more options for sampling, verification, and weighing exceptions. \\nFigure 1.3 uses a Venn diagram to depict the unique contributions of grounded theory and \\nof mixed methods as research methods used in a MM-GTM project. \\nThe topics of verification or confirmation and the treatment of exceptions are two areas \\nwhere it is possible to pinpoint what can be gained through the pairing of mixed methods and \\ngrounded theory. Leading voices in the different approaches to grounded theory, including its \\nfounders, do not award much attention to procedures that contribute to verification, seeing \\nthe purpose of grounded theory as developing theory rather than verifying it (Dey, 1999). The \\nsame ambivalence extends to exceptions and outliers. Charmaz acknowledges the role of con-\\nfirming hunches and promising leads but resists the idea of systematic attempts at verification in \\ngrounded theory (Morgan, 2020). There is little justification for verification in constructivism \\nbecause all truth claims are equally valid (Bryant, 2009). Similarly, dissonance is only prioritized \\nas a source of original insight in postmodern approaches to grounded theory (Apramian, Cris-\\ntancho, Watling, & Lingard, 2017). \\nDISTINGUISHING EXEMPLARS OF AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO \\nMM-GTM \\nFor me, insight about the ways mixed methods is used in practice has been propelled less \\nby a prescription derived from a textbook, but from attention to dissecting how it has been \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDEFINITIONS \\n21 \\nreported in empirical publications. When it is driven by curiosity and the quest to find \\ninnovative examples, the scope of the search for exemplars profits by a purposeful strategy \\nto expand the reach of the mainstream journals, like the Journal of Mixed Method Research or \\nthe International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, which have made such an impact on \\nthe field. These are by no means the only sources of creative examples of mixed methods \\nresearch. Appearance of good examples in a wide range of disciplinary venues that extend \\nbeyond those in health sciences and education attest not only to the breadth of the use of \\nmixed approaches and its acceptance in many publication venues, but also can be seen as one \\nway that mixed methods promotes conversations that cross disciplines. I have been very pur-\\nposeful in my selection of examples and exemplars in this text to present an expansive view \\nof the way that mixed methods and grounded theory methods have been combined to com-\\nmunicate its wide use across multiple disciplinary venues. For the sake of simplicity, I refer \\nto them all as MM-GTM even though it would be more accurate to describe the examples \\nas MM-GT. \\nMy own search to locate every possible article I could lay my hands on that include the \\nterms “grounded theory” and “mixed methods” in the title or abstract, has brought me to a \\nmore positive impression than Guetterman et al. (2017) were able to extract from their catalog-\\ning of the way grounded theory procedures was implemented. On scrutiny, I set aside most of \\nthe examples they located through a systematic review as reflecting a simple QUAL + QUAN \\ncombination logic. This means they had a qualitative phase and a quantitative phase, but the \\ntwo were not integrated in a meaningful way. This is the reason there is little overlap between \\nthe articles this group located through their systematic search procedures and the articles I use \\nas examples and exemplars in this text. \\nI ultimately selected nine articles to feature as exemplars of MM-GTM from about 50 \\narticles I studied with considerable intensity. I consulted more than one article about an exem-\\nplar when it was possible with the conviction derived from an earlier study that this approach \\nnot only yields more data but also provides a more accurate way to gauge integration and the \\nuse of a theoretical framework (i.e., Creamer, Guetterman, Govia, & Fetters, 2020). A sum-\\nmary of each of the exemplars is set aside in each chapter in a text box. A list of these appears \\nin Appendix A. All of the exemplars I selected refer to use mixed methods to develop and/or \\nto refine a theoretical or conceptual framework. Each appeared in the form of a peer-reviewed \\njournal article. Each has a rigorous qualitative phase where qualitative data and analytical pro-\\ncedures are not used simply to add color and human interest to reporting, but for purposes of \\nexpanding and enriching explanatory insight. \\nQualities of the exemplars include the following: \\n1 \\nAdequate documentation of research methods. \\n2 \\nA reference list that reflects more than a passing acquaintance with the methodological \\nliterature of both traditions. The most methodologically rigorous of these articles reflects \\nknowledge of both mixed and grounded theory methods. \\n3 \\nOften, an unusual visual. \\nTable 1.2 provides a list of the exemplars of MM-GTM and identifies the chapter where \\nthey are featured. All of these are FIMM-GTM. Table 1.2 lists the articles, their academic field, \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n22 \\nDEFINITIONS \\nTABLE 1.2 List of Chapter Exemplars*, Field, and Distinguishing Features \\nExemplar \\nField \\nLead \\nDisciplinary or \\nDistinguishing Features \\nAuthor \\nMethodological \\nCountry \\nJournal \\nChapter 1: \\nPublic Health \\nJapan \\nDisciplinary \\nDeveloped a formal \\nKawamura et al. \\ngrounded theory with \\n(2009) \\na visualization that \\ndistinguished between \\nqualitative and quantitative \\nfindings. Built on a \\nconceptual model from the \\nliterature. \\nChapter 2: Evans, \\nPublic Health \\nUnited \\nMethodological \\nFramed by event analysis. \\nCoon, and Ume \\nStates \\nUsed grounded theory \\n(2011) \\nprocedures with a visual \\ndisplay. \\nChapter 2: Catallo, \\nNursing \\nUnited \\nDisciplinary \\nDeveloped a grounded \\nCiliska, and \\nStates \\ntheory to explain \\nMacMillan (2012) \\ncounterintuitive findings. \\nDeveloped a visual display \\nto trace each participant’s \\ndecision-making trajectory. \\nChapter 2: \\nNursing \\nCanada \\nMethodological \\nTeamed MM-GT with \\nWesthues et al. \\nparticipatory action research. \\n(2008) \\nChapter 3: Jones & \\nChild \\nUnited \\nDisciplinary \\nUsed grounded theory \\nKafetsios (2005). \\nPsychology \\nKingdom \\nprocedures, including a \\nvisualization, to elaborate \\nan existing theory about \\nthe relationship between \\nexposure to violence and \\ntrauma. \\nChapter 5: \\nUrban \\nUnited \\nDisciplinary \\nIntegrated visual, \\nCarmona (2015) \\nPlanning \\nKingdom \\nquantitative, and qualitative \\ndata for a case-based \\nanalysis of specific public \\nspaces. \\nChapter 5: Kaplan \\nManagement \\nUnited \\nDisciplinary \\nElaborated an existing \\n& Duchon (1988) \\nStates \\ntheory with grounded theory \\nprocedures and analyzed \\ngroup differences to explain \\ndissonant findings. \\nChapter 5: \\nEducation \\nUnited \\nMethodological \\nWesely (2010) \\nStates \\nChapter 6: \\nHealth \\nUnited \\nDisciplinary \\nPresented theoretical \\nShim et al. (2017) \\nStates \\nframework using the \\nparadigm model proposed \\nby Strauss & Corbin (1998). \\n* Only one article is listed in this table. Some chapter exemplars (e.g., Catallo & Shim) generated more than one \\npublication. \\n\\n\\n \\nDEFINITIONS \\n23 \\ncountry of affiliation of the lead author, if they appeared in a disciplinary or methodological \\njournal, and identifies distinguishing features. \\nI distinguish an article as an example, rather than exemplar, because it illustrates a point or \\nshows an unusual approach particularly to integration but otherwise is not distinguished. This \\nis the case, for example, in Chapter 4 that explores some innovative examples of how visuals \\ncan contribute theoretical insight but otherwise are not exemplary as MM-GTM. Unlike the \\nexemplars, examples generally underplay meaningful integration. I attribute this to unfamiliar-\\nity with the mixed methods literature. The multi-method label is a better descriptor for some of \\nthese because they reflect the combination logic I have already referred to. These self-identify as \\nhaving a qualitative and a quantitative phase but documented few if any steps to integrate them. \\nAppendix B provides a selected list of examples of articles that voiced an intent to combine \\nmixed methods and grounded theory. This is not an exhaustive list of articles, but one that I \\nhave screened for quality. The list by and large is restricted to examples that mention “grounded \\ntheory” and “mixed methods” in the title or abstract. It also includes a few that do not refer \\nto “mixed methods” but that make it clear in the abstract that analysis was conducted of both \\nqualitative and quantitative data. Additional examples where mixed methods and grounded \\ntheory were combined are identified in chapters by Johnson and Walsh (2019) and Hesse-Biber \\nand Flowers (2019) appearing in the most recent edition of the SAGE Handbook of Developments \\nin Grounded Theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019). Both of these chapters include examples that I \\nam not comfortable with characterizing as MM-GTM label because it is not one the authors \\nacknowledge. \\nCONCLUSIONS \\nThere are many different paradigmatic and methodological approaches to grounded theory, \\njust as there are to mixed methods. Both share the methodological resilience to be adaptable \\nto many other research approaches and philosophical paradigms. Fifty years from its initial \\nconceptualization in 1967 and the publication of the book that opened the door to qualitative \\nresearch, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, grounded theory has been around long enough as \\na methodology that different schools of thought, often led by former students of either Glaser \\nor Strauss, have emerged. First evident as a distinct movement, according to one of its most \\niconic figures, John Creswell, emerging in the 1990s in the midst of what is referred to as the \\nparadigm wars, there is certainly great diversity of views about it but distinct schools of thought \\nabout mixed methods have yet to coalesce. The different perspectives in the prominence they \\naward to the role of design, purpose, paradigm, and the centrality of mixing to understanding \\nits logic. I have not set out in this textbook to erase the differences in perspectives to either \\nlogic of inquiry, nor to corral those differences by cataloging them or trying to reduce them to \\na narrow typology of types. Instead, my goal is to put that diversity center stage with the belief \\nit can provide a springboard for creative and new applications that integrate methods. \\nAs venerable and durable tradition as it has proven to be, grounded theory is not the only \\nqualitative approach that can be used to develop theory (Maxwell, 2012). The next chapter \\nwidens the scope of our inquiry by considering the variety of ways that mixed methods have \\nbeen used in tandem with theory testing and building, including by pairing with a case-based \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n24 \\nDEFINITIONS \\napproach and life history analysis. I argue that conceiving a core construct in a multi-dimensional \\nway is the key to thinking in an integrated way. There are a number of quantitative procedures \\nthat are highly effective in developing and refining theory, but it is beyond my interest, exper-\\ntise, and the scope of this text to pursue these. \\nCross-cutting themes \\nA family of cross-cutting themes weaves in and out of each of the chapters, with each chapter gradu-\\nally adding another layer to our understanding about each one. The themes can be conceptualized \\nin three clusters. T\\nwo of the cross-cutting themes are related to an integrated approach to research \\nthat involves the collection and analysis of data from multiple sources to build or refine an explana-\\ntory, conceptual, or theoretical framework. The second cluster challenges the restrictiveness of a \\nframing of MM-GTM that underscores the purpose of triangulation or confirmation and, instead, \\nhighlights its use to expand the breadth, depth, and nuance in an explanation. The third cluster deals \\nwith themes related to complexity and dissonance and their contribution to explanatory power. A \\nmeta-summary of the contribution of each chapter to the cross-cutting appears in Appendix C. \\nTable 1.3 helps the reader extract key takeaways from this chapter and to begin to build a \\nwider architecture that provides a link between the key takeaways and the cross-cutting themes. \\nMethodological advances about our understanding of mixed methods approaches have always \\nbeen driven by the way it has been adapted in real-world examples (Greene, 2008). The extent \\nTABLE 1.3 Linking Key Points from Chapter 1 with the Cross-Cutting Themes \\nCluster \\nMajor Themes that Cross \\nChapter 1 – Key Points \\nChapters \\nIntegrated \\nApproaches to \\nMixed Methods \\nResearch \\nMixed Methods and \\nGrounded Theory \\nIntegrated mixed methods \\napproaches engage \\nqualitative and quantitative \\ndata in many phases of \\nthe research process, but \\nparticularly during analysis. \\n MM-GT is a methodology \\nthat embeds the logic \\nof mixed methods in the \\nconstant comparative \\nmethod and grounded \\ntheory procedures. \\nIntegrated research uses strategies that \\nintentionally leverage interdependence \\nbetween their sources of data, \\nmethods, or approaches. \\nThe most effective way to become an \\nintegrated researcher is to have some \\ncompetence in multiple methods, \\nincluding mixed methods. \\nFully integrated mixed methods \\nresearch (FIMMR) integrates qualitative \\nand quantitative data and analytical \\nprocedures in substantive ways \\nthroughout the research process. \\nIntegration generally serves multiple \\npurposes in this type of study. \\nConventional perspectives maintain \\nthe independence of the stands and \\nthe view of the purpose of MM-GTM to \\nbuild theory with qualitative procedures \\nand test it with quantitative ones. \\nIn MM-GT, the constant comparative \\nmethod can be applied to quantitative, \\nqualitative, and mixed data. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDEFINITIONS \\n25 \\nCluster \\nMajor Themes that Cross \\nChapter 1 – Key Points \\nChapters \\nComplexity and \\nDissonance \\nThe link between mixed \\nmethods and complexity. \\nA dynamic design is needed to \\nadapt to rapidly changing research \\nenvironments, unexpected results, and \\nto negotiate the different perspectives \\nteam members bring to research \\ninitiatives. \\nThe contribution of \\nparadox and dissonance to \\nexplanatory power. \\nA process that is deliberate about \\nengaging the dissonance and paradox \\noften introduced by abduction is the \\nlynchpin that reaches across mixed \\nmethods, grounded theory, and \\ncomplexity. \\nof inter-method mixing emerging from practice, such as evident in the dozens of examples of \\nMM-GTM I uncovered in peer-reviewed journals, provides evidence that researchers adapt \\nmethods in creative and often unexpected ways in the face of the roadblocks and challenges \\nthey face as they pursue complex, real-world problems. The type of complexity this introduces \\npressures us to reconsider our notion of what it means to develop expertise. T\\no call someone \\na mixed methods researcher is misleading as all but a few people who contribute to the meth-\\nodological literature also tend to write about their experience with other methods as well. \\nMethodological innovation requires both content expertise and knowledge of multiple difer-\\nent research approaches. \\nREVIEW QUESTIONS \\n1 \\nWhat distinguishes a conceptual framework, an explanatory framework, and a theoretical \\nframework? \\n2 \\nWhat is a mixed methods approach to the constant comparative method? \\n3 \\nWhat is an integrated mixed methods approach to theory development and how does it \\nvary from the way it was first conceived in the literature? \\n4 \\nIn what ways can complexity influence the design and execution of a study? \\nSUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS AND ACTIVITIES \\n1 \\nTo identify some of the challenges of using grounded theory in a doctoral dissertation, read \\nthe self-reflective account by Nelson (2017). \\n2 \\nIIQM/Mixed Methods International Research Association (MMIRA) Archived Webi-\\nnar: Mixed Method Approaches to Developing Grounded Theory, March 13, 2018. Link: \\nwww.ualberta.ca/international-institute-for-qualitative-methodology/webinars/ \\nmixed-methods-webinar/archived-webinars \\n\\n\\n \\n  \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nCHAPTER 2 \\nVaried approaches to \\nusing mixed methods with \\ntheoretical frameworks \\nThe chapter provides a glimpse of the range of ways that mixed methods has been paired with grounded theory \\nand how it can serve as an integrative framework at the onset of a study, offer interpretive insight as a study \\nis underway, and/or stand as its principal outcome. \\nTERMS INTRODUCED IN THIS CHAPTER \\n• \\nFormal or classic grounded theory \\n• \\nDesign \\n• \\nMethodological dynamism \\nINTRODUCTION \\nMixed methods research has been widely criticized, including by some of its strongest propo-\\nnents, for being “method-centric” in its preoccupation with procedures at the expense of both \\ntheory and methodology. Uwe Flick, a German author writing about the myths and mantras \\nabout mixed methods research, makes this argument when she notes that there is “too much \\nfocus on methods instead of theoretical and methodological issues” (2017, p. 46). Sharlene \\nHesse-Biber, long writing from a feminist standpoint, links the tendency to downplay the \\nintegrative functions a theoretical or methodological framework with the pragmatist episte-\\nmological framework and the interpretation that it reflects an “anything goes” with research \\nmethods. Variously framed as a methodology or a paradigm, the critical or transformative \\nperspective, Hesse-Biber contends “provides the theoretical perspective that links research \\nproblems and approach with a particular method or methods of data collection and analysis” \\n(2018, p. 550). \\nAs we will see in this chapter, both a methodology, like grounded theory, and an explana-\\ntory framework or model can serve as an integrative structure that links the purpose, conceptu-\\nalization of the core construct, research questions, literature review, data collection procedures, \\nanalysis, interpretation, and reporting. This is what can be characterized as the design of study. \\nA design is a map or a plan about how an empirical study is executed. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVARIETY \\n27 \\nStudies motivated to build theory are more likely to integrate than other types of studies \\n(Boeije, Slagt, & van Wesel, 2013; Evans, Coon, & Ume, 2011) because they provide the \\nframework to identify core constructs, pose links between them, and provide the structure for \\ndata collection and analysis (Evans et al., 2011). In a study designed to test, explore, or develop \\nan explanatory framework, both theory and methodology can serve as a map “for combin-\\ning the what with the why to gain a multi-dimensional understanding of causal mechanisms” \\n(Evans et al., 2011, p. 278). It can shift the thinking about a research problem in terms of a set of \\nvariables, or the relationship between a handful of variables to the kind of holistic multi-layered \\nreasoning that generates explanatory power and, in some cases, generalizability. \\nPurpose, objectives, and contribution \\nThe purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the creative and varied ways that mixed meth-\\nods and grounded theory have been partnered, including through their use with two other \\nmethodologies – the life course perspective and participatory action research. The discussion \\ncontinues to center on examples that manage to combine inductive, deductive, and abductive \\napproaches to analysis for purposes of developing theory. By theory I mean an explanatory or \\nconceptual framework, as opposed to a methodological framework. My interest in this discus-\\nsion is not to provide a recipe for approaching MM-GTM or in any way to attempt to routin-\\nize the procedures associated with it. This is evident in my selection of three examples, which \\nby and large do not completely adhere to a foundational or purist views of grounded theory \\naligned with one of its founders. It is my goal to underscore that a researcher has a wide variety \\nof tools at his or her disposal that can be adapted to his or her own perspectives, values, and \\nthose that emerge in the research setting over the life of a single study or multiple inter-related \\nstudy that constitutes a research program or project. Options about other strategies that can \\nbe used to pursue the process of developing a theoretical framework using grounded theory \\nprocedures is the topic of Chapter 3. \\nThe principal ideas at the center of this chapter are: \\n1 \\nMM-GTM has informed research in a wide variety of different ways. It is its adaptability \\nand variety that sustains its continued dynamism and usefulness. \\n2 \\nConceptualizing a problem and research questions in a multi-dimensional way can serve as \\nthe foundation for thinking theoretically and developing an integrated approach to mixed \\nmethods. \\n3 \\nLaunching a project with a conceptual framework sketched or diagrammed during the \\nprocess of consulting a cross-disciplinary body of literature facilitates integration across \\nresearch phases. \\nOrganization of the chapter \\nThe chapter begins by considering the word “design” and the implications it carries of con-\\nceiving of a research project as an integrated systematic whole where both a methodology, \\nlike grounded theory, or a theoretical framework can provide a guide to link the phases of the \\nresearch process from initial framing of research questions, to sampling plan, data collection, \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n28 \\nVARIETY \\nanalysis and drawing conclusions in a systematic and coherent way. It shifts next to high-\\nlighting the advantages to theoretical insight offered by thinking of a core phenomenon in a \\nmulti-dimensional way. The heart of the chapter is in the section that uses three exemplars to \\nunderscore the variety of ways that MM-GTM has been used at different phases in the research \\nprocess, from a driver of design, to serving an interpretive role during analysis, and in a more \\nconventional sense as the outcome of a study. \\nFirst, we consider what is meant by the word “design” and how it is linked to quality. \\nIMPLICATIONS OF THE WORD “DESIGN” \\nAmong researchers using mixed methods it is common to hear the term “design” used to refer \\nto a core set of basic designs advanced by Creswell and Plano (2011). This equates the word \\n“design” with the timing of data collection and analysis. Analysis of qualitative and quantitative \\ndata conducted in a parallel manner referred to as a concurrent design and when linked to each \\nother but timed at different points referred to as a sequential design. This approach has been \\ncriticized for awarding more attention to procedures than to purpose as the principal driver \\nof research design and for promoting the idea that the procedures set in place during planning \\nphase of a study comes to fruition exactly as planned. A more expansive view is that the word \\n“design” to carry a dual meaning. It implies both thoughtful planning and ongoing adaptability \\n(Hunter & Brewer, 2015). The implications of research design are related to issues of quality \\nbecause it helps builds consistency across phases of the research process. \\nMany conceive the word “design” in broader ways, but also see it as a kind of map or plan \\nabout how an empirical study is executed. In this way, to design a research study means to con-\\nceive of it as a logically coherent whole that begins with a clearly articulated research purpose \\nthat is subject to ongoing refinement and revision. When carefully worded, purpose can serve \\nas road map to guide the construction or selection of data collection instruments, the sampling \\nplans, and data analysis. It is the first place to turn in situations where events take an unexpected \\nturn, or findings emerge that are far outside what the literature led one to expect. \\nMethodologists often mean different things when they use the words “theory” or “design.” \\nReflecting a deep commitment to a feminist perspective, for example, Sharlene Hesse-Biber \\n(2018) refers to the transformative/emancipatory/critical paradigm as a theory because it influ-\\nences aspects of the research methods, including the type of relationships established with \\nparticipants, an expectation for reflexivity, and an approach to data analysis that is respectful \\nof diverse points of view. We have already considered how a conceptual framework developed \\nfrom the literature can play a similar organizational role, just as a grounded theory developed \\nusing a qualitative constant comparative approach developed in one phase of a research project \\ncan serve as the basis for further analysis and/or testing in a later phase. Although our focus is \\non theory as an explanatory framework, any coherent framework or methodology that serves \\nto connect content and method could be called a theory. \\nKathy Charmaz, a US scholar from California internationally recognized for her role in \\narticulating the foundation for a constructivist approach to grounded theory, maintained that \\nalthough their approach can be criticized for being positivist (i.e., there’s one truth and there \\nis an accurate way to measure it), Glaser and Strauss’ original 1967 book was paradigm shifting \\n\\n\\nVARIETY \\n29 \\nin that it tamped down the expectation for “grand theories.” These are assumed to be like the \\nlaws of nature in that they are invariant over time and place. Charmaz wrote that by providing a \\nsystematic set of procedures, Glaser and Strauss “democratized theory construction and made it \\nwithin the realm of the working researcher” (Charmaz, 2014a, p. 1076). The idea of generating \\ntheory is less intimidating when it is thought to be a method that uses an inductive approach to \\ngenerate a set of categories and then to spell out ways they may be linked (Timonen, Foley, & \\nConlon, 2018). \\nThe first step toward thinking theoretically about a research problem is to expand the \\nway the core phenomenon is conceived. That includes considering the core phenomenon \\nin a multi-dimensional way that frames research questions that extend across levels of analysis \\n(Weisner, 2016). An advantage of this multi-layered approach to data collection is the poten-\\ntial to examine individual attitudes and behaviors as it is embedded in larger social systems \\n(Malagon, Huber, & Velez, 2009). Although this is not the stance taken by practitioners of a \\nclassic approach to grounded theory, this type of framing of a core construct requires engaging \\na cross-disciplinary body of literature. \\nConceptualizing a research problem in a multi-dimensional way \\nKathy Charmaz continued to build her ideas about grounded theory as both a method and \\nmethodology by taking in account of cultures which are increasingly multiple, mobile, and \\ndynamic (2014a, 2017b). Weighing it in light of research involving indigenous groups, Charmaz \\nobserved that much Anglo-North American inquiry is driven by a preoccupation with indi-\\nvidualism with individual views, perceptions, and actions, and analyzed as if these occur in a \\nvacuum without the influence of friends, social and professional groups, wider communities or \\nneighborhoods, or social, organizational, and economic forces. She described how researchers \\nworking with participants from indigenous communities have to consider collective and com-\\nmunal ways of knowing that are embedded in the family, other kinship patterns, and the local \\ncommunity. \\nNot only do we gather data from individuals, but also our analysis often remains at the \\nlevel of individualism. \\n(Charmaz, 2017b, p. 37) \\nOne of the characteristics of grounded theory is how it situates a social phenomenon in \\na multi-layered social contexts (Charmaz, 2014, 2017b). Context is multi-faceted and oper-\\nates at a variety of levels and in ways that are not always consistent or coherent (Pearce, 2015). \\nConceiving individual attitudes and actions as nested within micro-, meso-, and macro-levels \\nof social structures enhances the capacity for theorizing (Irwin, 2008; Mason, 2006). Micro-\\nlevel constructs relate to individuals’ beliefs, attitudes, interactions, motivations, and aptitudes. \\nMeso-level constructs reflect how individual perceptions or actions might more fully be under-\\nstood within the broader context of instrumental relationships within groups, communities, or \\nan organization (Irwin, 2008). Macro-level constructs reflect an even wider social context and \\ncould include recognition cultural factors, as well as how current socio-political events impact \\nexperiences. \\n\\n\\n30\\nVARIETY\\nFigure 2.1 supplies a template to expand the conceptualization of a core construct in \\na multi-dimensional way by weighing individual perceptions and behavior within multiple \\nbroader contexts. A multi-dimensional or multi-level way of framing research problems differs \\nfrom what might be referred to as a bi-dimensional approach that weighs the impact of one \\nvariable on another.\\nFigure 2.1 is not constructed with data that are specific to a single research topic. Dur-\\ning the process of defining a research problem, the template might help you to think about a \\ncore construct as embedded within a constellation of other constructs that are embedded in a \\nwider social, cultural, and political context. This type of multi-dimensional framework can be \\ninformed by Adele Clark’s ideas about situational analysis in grounded theory (e.g., Clarke & \\nFriese, 2007; Clarke, 2005).\\nHow we connect or integrate evidence is less a procedural matter than a theoretical one \\nbecause it reflects wittingly or not assumptions about how change occurs (Irwin, 2008). A theoreti-\\ncal orientation, rather than simply a descriptive one, can be further enhanced by pursuing questions \\nabout the interconnections between the constructs. Writing within the context of nursing and \\nresearch, involving interventions, Marguerite Sandelowski makes the same argument: “Theory is \\nalways implicit in the problems that is presented, in the literature reviewed, and most importantly, \\nof the method itself” (1993, p. 215). Theoretical reasoning includes considering not only what \\nmight be the interconnections, but also about how and why these might be interconnected.\\nEmbedding multi-dimensionality in research questions\\nA central reason for the dynamic potential possible when a mixed methods approach is used \\nwith theory development and refinement is that multi-dimensional thinking is embedded in \\nthe logic. A writer with expertise in complexity theory highlights a role of mixed methods \\nFIGURE 2.1 Framing a Research Problem in a Multi-Dimensional Way\\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVARIETY \\n31 \\nthat is central to theoretical thinking, arguing that mixed methods approaches are a “fertile \\nbreeding ground” for “research that collects and analyzes data at different levels of granularity \\n(individual, groups, society)” (Koopmans, 2017, p. 17). Framing research questions that link \\nmicro- and macro-levels of social experience, including about underlying social processes, nec-\\nessarily involves different sources and kinds of evidence (Irwin, 2008). \\nArguing for the benefits of multi-method and mixed method research, a feminist sociolo-\\ngist writing about inequality, Sarah Irwin, maintains that a single source of data offers only \\none level or dimension of evidence, and can be not only partial but possibly distorting (Irwin, \\n2008). This would have been the case, for example, if the exemplar discussed in the next section \\nof the chapter restricted its scope with the individualistic assumption that a single individual, \\nnot a wider network of family and community members, contributed to elder care. \\nAn exemplar that models multi-dimensional theorizing \\nExploring how the process of caregiving can be embedded and contingent on a cultural con-\\ntext is part of the framework nursing educator, Bronwynne Evans and a set of collaborators in \\nthe health sciences bought to a mixed methods study about caregiving pairs among Mexican \\nAmerican immigrants (i.e., Evans, Crogan, Belyea, & Coon, 2009; Evans et al., 2011). They \\ndescribe how the life-course framework provided a map that facilitated integration and analysis. \\nThey write, the framework provides a map “for combining what with why to gain a multidi-\\nmensional understanding of causal mechanisms” (p. 278) (italics theirs). \\nEvans et al. (2011) include two explanatory visualizations in their mixed method article \\nthat also were reported earlier in an article about the qualitative phase of the project (2009). The \\nfirst visualization is a conceptual framework that served as a guide for the design of their study. \\nIt frames the literature within key constructs in the life course perspective. A second visualiza-\\ntion shows how the initial visualization was refined over the course of the study. Figure 2.2 is \\nreproduced with copyright permission from the Evans et al. (2011) article. It captures a multi-\\ndimensional way of conceptualizing a research problem. It is the first of two figures they include \\nin the article. \\nSeveral elements about this visualization are of note. The processes associated with care-\\ngiving over a 15-month period are depicted both across the bottom and linked to the timing \\nof life events and adaptive strategies at the top of the figure. Three levels of constructs are \\ndepicted at the center of the figure. “Burden and gain” are both individualistic constructs in \\nthat they are associated with the caregiver. Cultural influences are associated with family and \\nMexican American culture. Contextual influences are conceived the most broadly. In the \\nfinal model, these are narrowly conceived as demographic characteristics (education, social \\neconomic status, age, and gender) but could have been conceived more broadly to include, \\nfor example, characteristics of the home setting that would accommodate the elderly and/or \\naccess to care locally. \\nResearch questions can be worded in ways that reflect that type of multi-dimensionality \\nthat is evident in the conceptual model of the caregiving process proposed by Evans et al. \\n(2011). In mixed methods, research questions are often identified in ways that show the link \\nbetween the questions and either a qualitative or quantitative source of data, with additional \\nquestions making clear how the two will be integrated during analysis. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n32 \\nVARIETY \\nFIGURE 2.2 A Multi-Level Conceptual Model from Evans et al. (2011, p. 280) \\nTable 2.1 provides an example about how research questions in the Evans et al. (2011) \\ncould be worded to make explicit not only how each is linked to a source of data but also how \\nthey were or could be integrated. \\nThe first question is purely a descriptive one, written in anticipation of reporting on the \\nresults from a quantitative questionnaire. The second and third questions each point to the \\ntype of integration that is possible from case-based profiles that were created to synthesize both \\nqualitative and quantitative data about each of the caregiving units. The word “strain” appears \\nin bold to highlight the kind of link across research questions that can facilitate integration of \\nfindings from different sources of data. \\nThe research questions posed in Table 2.1 are written in a way that suggests that qualitative \\ndata are associated with some constructs and quantitative data associated with others. While this \\nis the most common approach, it is entirely possible that both qualitative and quantitative data \\ncould be collected about some of the same constructs. In this study, for example, additional \\nqualitative data could have been collected to more fully contextualize the construct “level of \\nstrain.” We will be exploring this example in greater detail in the next section, which addresses \\nthe variety or “methodological dynamism” (Ralph, Birks, & Chapman, 2015) in the ways \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVARIETY \\n33 \\nTABLE 2.1 Example Developed from Evans et al. (2011): Framing Multi-Dimensional \\nResearch Questions in Ways that Promote Integration \\nSource of Data \\nIntegration \\nResearch Question \\nQUANT Measure \\nWhat level of strain do participants \\nreport? \\nQUAL from \\nLinked through case-\\nWhat cultural, familial, and contextual \\nParticipants’ \\nbased analyses \\ninfluences are associated level of \\nDrawings \\nstrain? \\nQUAL \\nLinked through case-\\nWhat are the physical and emotional \\n– Interviews \\nbased analyses \\nconsequences of strain? \\ngrounded theory has been used when paired with mixed methods, as well as with a feminist \\ntheoretical grounding (Kushner & Morrow, 2003; Wuest, 1995). \\nMETHODOLOGICAL ADAPTABILITY OF GROUNDED THEORY \\nAlthough there is an ample list of prominent methodologists writing about grounded theory that \\nwould very likely breathe fire about this view, others have written in ways that recognize what \\ncould be described as methodological dynamism in its practice. This is a term that has been \\nused broadly to describe how methods evolve and remain viable over time (Ralph et al., 2015). Versed \\nin a variety of perspectives about grounded theory methods, Seidel and Urquhart (2013) and \\nUrquhart, Lehman, and Myers (2010), are committed to its core logic while recognizing its adapt-\\nability to a variety of paradigmatic and theoretical positions. “Grounded theory method (GTM) is \\nan evolving method that is subject to idiosyncratic interpretation and flexible deployment,” Seidel \\nand Urquhart write (2013, p. 237). Making an observation that applies equally to mixed methods \\nresearch, Dey (2004) points to the variability in the ways grounded theory methods are used. It is \\nnot a single, unified methodology. He writes, “There is no such thing as ‘grounded theory’ if we \\nmean by that a single, unified methodology, tightly defined and clearly specified” (p. 80). \\nGrounded theory method (GTM) is an evolving method that is subject to idiosyncratic \\ninterpretation and flexible deployment. \\n(Seidel & Urquhart, 2013, p. 237) \\nEvidence of the adaptability of grounded theory includes the gradual shift away from its \\ninitial grounding in an objectivist or modernist viewpoint to one that embraces the construc-\\ntivist orientation (Charmaz, 2006, 2014a). This extends to feminist and indigenous research \\nand other types of critical qualitative inquiry that aims to advance the goal of social justice by \\nstudying issues of power and privilege (Charmaz, 2017b). The adaptability grounded theory \\ncan also be seen in the ways it has proven amenable to multi-method triangulation that com-\\nbines qualitative and quantitative methods (Kushner & Morrow, 2003). \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n34 \\nVARIETY \\nCONSULTING THE LITERATURE THROUGHOUT THE RESEARCH \\nPROCESS \\nThe role of the literature and the timing of its use is another topic where there is evidence \\nof methodological dynamism in grounded theory and its adaptability to varied approaches. \\nFounders of the movement, particularly Barney Glaser and proponents of his stance, position \\nengagement with the literature as something that should be postponed until core constructs \\nhave emerged. Holton (2008) joins Glaser by insisting that engaging the literature prior to the \\nestablishment of the core category can inhibit theoretical sensitivity and block the potential to \\nrecognize a new core category that has not been prominent in the literature. \\nThe requirement that no literature be consulted during the process of conceptualizing a \\ngrounded theory study is one of the major reasons it is avoided (Urquhart, 2007). Subsequent \\ngenerations of scholars and who approach grounded theory with a constructivist lens quarrel \\nwith the practicality of the purist position that the literature is something to be avoided until \\nthe later stages of a project when core constructs have begun to emerge. The idea that it is \\npossible to ignore the literature as pen is put to paper to describe the need and potential con-\\ntribution of a study is not a practical one (Dunne, 2011). The perception that when using a \\ngrounded theory, it is mandatory to abstain from reading the literature, is no doubt one reason \\nwhy many an advisor might look askance at the idea of using grounded theory in a doctoral \\ndissertation. \\nGrounded theory is not an excuse to ignore the literature. \\n(Suddaby, 2006, p. 635) \\nA whole chorus of qualitatively minded methodologist has called the notion naïve that a \\nresearcher can enter a research project with a blank mind. Charmaz (2014a) is among those \\nwho argues that it is often neither practical nor conceptually productive to ignore the literature. \\nShe writes “Despite continued injunctions to forgo the literature until after completing the \\nanalyses, not all grounded theorists find delaying the literature review to be possible, practical, \\nor conceptually useful” (Charmaz, 2014b, p. 1080). “The idea any research undertakes a study \\nwithout some level of prior knowledge is simply unrealistic,” Dunne observes (2011, p. 117). \\nThe idea of a researcher as a blank slate may leave him or her prone to all manner of prejudices \\nand preconceptions (Dey, 1993). It is inherently contradictory to insist that the use of grounded \\ntheory is warranted because a topic has not been studied without engagement in the literature \\nto document that claim (McGhee, Marland, & Atkinson, 2007). \\nMy position is that in scholarly research, including in a study using grounded theory \\nmethods, a researcher should thoroughly and thoughtfully engage with a wide body of litera-\\nture throughout all phases of the research process. A researcher from Sweden who writes about \\ngrounded theory from a constructivist position, Robert Thornberg (2012), refers to “informed \\ngrounded theory” where both the product and the process of grounded theory is informed by \\nan iterative engagement with the literature and theoretical frameworks throughout the research \\nprocess. He writes that by applying the principle of an ongoing engagement with the literature: \\nIt is a highly interactive process in which the researcher’s coding and questions take \\nhim or her to some of the literature, which in turn sends him or her back to the \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\nVARIETY \\n35 \\nTABLE 2.2 Contribution of the Literature to Theoretical Reasoning Throughout the \\nResearch Process \\nPhase \\nContribution of the Literature \\nDuring Planning \\nSolidify need; develop sensitizing concept: single out key \\nconstructs and relationships; locate potential instruments; identify \\ncompeting explanations. \\nDuring Data Collection \\nInput about sampling strategy and types of additional data, if any \\nrequired. \\nDuring Analysis \\nGenerate explanations for unexpected findings; provide context \\nfor the significance of findings, including those that seem \\ncounterintuitive; challenge emerging findings, flesh out the \\nproperties of emerging constructs; suggest or support emerging \\nthemes; contribute to the decision about what to highlight; indicate \\npromising avenues for future research. \\nDuring the Process of \\nClarify contribution; fine tune language that emerged from the \\nPulling Together Results \\ncoding process to provide links to the way terms are used in the \\nliterature; support an argument that findings challenge elements \\nof existing theory; refine audience for work and identify potential \\npublishing venues. \\nempirical field and to his or her tentative codes and concepts with new lenses and \\nquestions. \\n(p. 252) \\nTable 2.2 summarizes some of the ways that engagement with the literature and theoretical \\nframeworks can contribute to theoretical reasoning throughout the research process. Although \\nmany of the items listed probably cross phases, the list points to contributions during planning, \\ndata collection, analysis, and during the process of pulling things together for reporting. \\nThe position suggested by Table 2.2 is more closely aligned with a constructivist view of \\ngrounded theory, than with the one advanced by its founders. Wide reading of the literature \\nand other theories, including outside of one’s original disciplinary or empirical domain, is \\ninstrumental to offsetting a confirmatory mindset. \\nDEMONSTRATING VARIABILITY IN MM-GTM WITH A GROUP OF \\nEXEMPLARS \\nThe variety of ways that grounded theory procedures can be accomplished through the analysis \\nand integration of qualitative and quantitative data to generate a multi-level grounded theory \\nwith a social process at the center is evident in three case examples of MM-GTM highlighted \\nin the next section. Without denying the likelihood that theory plays more than one role and \\nat more than one phase of the research process, the section is organized by the three points of \\nentry of theory in the research process identified by Sandelowski (1993). Theory is used from \\nthe onset in the first exemplar by Evans et al. (2011) about caregiving among Mexican Ameri-\\ncan immigrant families. In this case, the life-course perspective served an integrative function \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n36 \\nVARIETY \\nthroughout the framing, design, and execution of the project. The second exemplar comes for \\nthe field of nursing and was one of the publications that emerged from Christina Catallo’s dis-\\nsertation (i.e., Catallo, Jack, Ciliska, & MacMillan, 2013). After a preliminary round of analy-\\nsis that integrated qualitative and quantitative findings, Catallo generated a formal grounded \\ntheory to explain paradoxical findings. The references lists supplied by both the first and second \\nexemplar show a refreshing amount of familiarity with diverse perspectives about mixed meth-\\nods. The third exemplar illustrates the use of MM-GTM for the classic purpose of generating \\na theoretical framework as an outcome. The final example by Westhues et al. (2008) produced \\nan integrative grounded theory from a mixed methods community-based participatory action \\nproject (CBPR). CBPR is used widely in health sciences, for example, to explore health dis-\\nparities. The commitment to address inequities in the health care system and to do so by engag-\\ning stakeholders as co-constructors of knowledge carried with it from the onset the expectation \\nof diverse points of views. \\nEach of the exemplars featured in this chapter and their innovative features are summarized \\nin Table 2.3. \\nThe exemplars are described in greater detail in the next sections. \\nExemplar 1: using theory to frame and advance the design of a study \\nSome consider the idea of launching a project by explicitly grounding it in an existing theo-\\nretical framework as inimical to the inductive drive that some consider as essential to the logic \\nof grounded theory. Evans et al.’s (2009, 2011) framed a study about caregiving of the elderly \\namong Mexican American families within the life course perspective. These authors demon-\\nstrate that new dimensions of theory, including new theoretical constructs, can emerge when \\na study has a theoretical drive that is inductive (and/or abductive) even when it is framed by a \\npre-existing theoretical perspective. Another way that this exemplar is unusual is that it shows \\nunusually strong grounding in the methodological literature about mixed methods and qualita-\\ntive methods. \\nTABLE 2.3 Innovative Features of the Three Exemplars of MM-GT from Chapter 2 \\nExample \\nSection in Chapter \\nInnovative Feature \\nEvans et al. (2009, 2011) \\nDemonstrating Variability in \\nthe Ways Mixed Methods \\nare Used with GT \\nUsed an existing theory to frame \\nand advance the design of a \\nresearch method. \\nCatallo et al. (2013) \\nDemonstrating Variability in \\nthe Ways Mixed Methods \\nare Used with GT \\nDeveloped a grounded theory to \\nexplain counterintuitive findings. \\nWesthues et al. (2008) \\nDemonstrating Variability in \\nthe Ways Mixed Methods \\nare Used with GT \\nUsed MM-GTM with a thoroughly \\ninteractive, community-based \\nparticipatory action research \\nproject. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVARIETY \\n37 \\nThe life course perspective derives, like event analysis, from sociology. Major constructs in \\nthe life course perspective includes transitions and adaptive strategies. Its focus is on major life \\ntransitions. It can be used to study social interactions and events (Happ, Dabbs, Tate, Hricik, \\n& Erlen, 2006). It shares some parallel with core methodological concerns in grounded the-\\nory. This includes an interest in a time-ordered social process which in this case involved \\nthe caregiving trajectory. In grounded theory, attention to process involves considering how \\nsomething occurs and under what conditions or circumstances. This is associated with a logic \\nof causality that resides in process theory that deals with events, what influences them, and \\nwhat connects them (Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2010). Although this is not something Evans et al. \\nconsider, the parallel between the life course perspective and grounded theory methodology is \\nalso evident in an analytical interest in cultural and contextual circumstances, the physical and \\nemotional consequences to the caregiver, and the strategies they used to adapt to the strain. \\nBox 2.1 summarizes key aspects of the theory driven mixed methods study by Evans et al. \\n(2009, 2011) that adapted the life course perspective to explore the experiences of how Mexi-\\ncan American immigrants managed the process of caregiving when nursing home options were \\nnot realistic. It identifies the design of the study by summarizing the purpose, the way the data \\nwere collected, and how integration occurs. \\nBOX 2.1 \\nEvans et al.’s (2009, 2011) Adaptation of a Life Course Perspective \\nPurpose: This longitudinal, qualitative dominant mixed methods study adapted \\nthe life course perspective from the discipline of sociology to explore caregiving \\namong 110 Mexican American pairs over 15 months. Transitions, turning points, \\nand adaptive strategies are examined in this framework. \\nDesign: Interview data and participant drawn timelines provided the qualitative \\ndata, while the quantitative data about key concepts, including caregiver bur-\\nden/strain, were collected using questionnaires. \\nIntegration: Integration is enhanced in the study by a case-based approach \\nto analysis that combined qualitative and quantitative data in a narrative about \\neach caregiving unit. It was also achieved through quantifying some elements of \\nthe participant produced life course drawings. \\nUnexpected findings: This example illustrates that new dimensions of theory \\ncan emerge even when a study is designed to apply a pre-existing theoreti-\\ncal framework. By identifying themes that emerged from the combination of a \\ndeductive and inductive approach to coding, these authors identified collective \\ncaregiving as a theoretical construct that is new to the literature. \\nTheory produced: The article includes two multi-dimensional visualizations of \\nthe research problem. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n38 \\nVARIETY \\nThe box also summarizes the contribution of unexpected fndings to new insight about the \\ncaregiving process that normally considers it primarily as one caregiver and one patient, rather \\nthan a process embedded in the wider social unit of the family. \\nIn their qualitative article (2009), Evans et al. point to a case-oriented approach as \\na core component of their study, writing: “The core component of the study is case-\\noriented approach, which is an intensive, inductively driven study of cases with an eye \\ntoward configuration of similarities and differences” (2009, p. 282). In mixed methods, \\ncase-based analysis provides an effective way to link qualitative and quantitative data in a \\nnarrative or visualization (Bazeley, 2018a). Regardless if the case consists of multiple points \\nof data about an individual, a dyad or family unit, a classroom, an event, or physical loca-\\ntion, a case with integration embedded in it can serve as the principal unit of analysis. In \\nthe caregiving study (i.e., Evans et al., 2011), data from interviews, a quantitative survey, \\nand data quantified from life course drawings were integrated in a case narrative for each \\nof 110 caregiving units. \\nThe case-based narratives of each caregiving unit were the principal source of data used \\nto answer the research questions. With a mixed methods approach, a case-based approach to \\nanalysis differs from a case study in several important ways. These include that (a) they are an \\nintermediary step in the analysis, (b) they integrate multiple sources of data, and (c) they are \\nbased on a sample size that exceeds what one would normally find in case study research where \\nan N = 1 is sometimes satisfactory. \\nIn the Evan et al.’s (2011) caregiving study, the case narratives served a formative pur-\\npose in that they were used as the basis of further analysis. They were used formatively in a \\nnew round of coding to generate working hypotheses for further testing in subsequent phases. \\nThe life course perspective also influenced how qualitative data from the life history timelines \\nwere quantified. “The quantitizing process also was guided by the theoretical framework as \\nwe looked across constructs to identify important comparisons,” the authors note (Evans et al., \\n2011, p. 286). Generalizations drawn from the cross-case comparison were used formatively to \\ngenerate testable propositions. \\nExemplar 2: developing a grounded theory to explore \\ncounterintuitive findings \\nA researcher in nursing, Christina Catallo, carved out a dissertation using MM-GTM within \\nthe context of team-based project intended to test the efficacy of a randomized control trial \\n(RCT) designed to increase women’s comfort in disclosing partner abuse to emergency room \\npersonnel. Catallo et al. produced several articles about this project. A 2012 article concentrates \\non the qualitative phase when the grounded theory was developed, while the second, 2013 \\narticle explicitly frames the study as using both grounded theory and mixed methods (i.e., \\nCatallo et al., 2013). \\nBox 2.2 summarizes key aspects of the Catallo, Ciliska, and MacMillan (2012, 2013) use \\nof MM-GTM in a randomized controlled trial. It summarizes its purpose, design, and the ways \\nintegration occurred, as well as identified the role unexpected findings play, and the type of \\ntheory produced. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVARIETY \\n39 \\nBOX 2.2 \\nCatallo et al.’s (2013) Use of MM-GTM to Understand Paradox in a \\nRandomized Control Trial \\nPurpose: The complementary rationale is explicit in the purpose Catallo and \\nher colleagues identified for the phase of their research project reported in \\nthis feminist, MM-GTM research. They wanted to gain a more comprehensive \\nanalysis of abused women’s decision-making regarding disclosure of partner \\nviolence. \\nDesign: Following an initial phase of quantitative data collection, the authors \\nturned to a qualitative interview to gain more context about the disclosure pro-\\ncess. The authors used an embedded sample in that quantitative data about the \\ntype and intensity of violence that was used to select a sample of participants to \\ninterview. \\nIntegration: Integration of qualitative and quantitative data occurred in the \\nsecond and third phase of the research process where Catallo executed a \\ntype of case-based analysis by drawing a change map for each interview \\nparticipant that contextualized key transition points in her journey toward \\ndisclosure. \\nUnexpected findings: After executing the first phase of randomized con-\\ntrol trial, the authors unexpectedly turned to MM-GTM to pursue the coun-\\nter intuitive finding that women who reported the most violence on the \\nquantitative measure were the least likely to disclose it to emergency room \\npersonnel. \\nTheory produced: For her dissertation, Catallo integrated qualitative and quan-\\ntitative data to produce a formal grounded theory that is visualized in a figure. \\nThe model is multi-level in that it identifies constructs associated with the indi-\\nvidual (antecedents) and those associated with context, including conditions \\nthat promote the disclosure process and its outcomes. Transitions in the disclo-\\nsure process are depicted at the center of the model. \\nAfter executing the first phase of a randomized control trial, Catallo et  al. found \\nthemselves in the unexpected position of turning to MM-GTM to more fully understand \\nthe counter intuitive finding that women who reported the most violence on a quantita-\\ntive measure administered in the first phase, were the lease likely to disclose in the emer-\\ngency room setting. To explore these paradoxical findings, Catallo et al. used a type of \\ncase-based analysis where the unit of analysis was an individual and their journey through \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n40 \\nVARIETY \\nthe process of disclosure. They drew what they referred to as “concept maps” or “change \\nmaps” that contextualized the qualitative data by pinpointing key transitions or turning \\npoints on the journey to disclosure. The change maps revealed patterns of behavior that \\nwere evident in the integrated account but probably not to the participant. They drew \\non both qualitative and quantitative data to test the emerging theory and to determine if \\nthey had actually pinpointed the characteristics of women who were and were not likely \\nto disclose intimate partner violence to a health care provider. Catallo et al. (2012) hand \\ndrew each change map, incorporating data from the interviews. This kind of visualization \\ncan be produced by Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) \\n(Inaba & Kakai, 2019). \\nA grounded theory that is visualized in this linear fashion often has a dynamic social process \\nat its core. In this case, Catallo and her colleagues identify three steps in the disclosure process \\nin the 2012 article: (a) establishing readiness, (b) evaluating level of trust, and (c) the decision \\nto seek care. \\nCatallo et al. (2012) include a figure that reflects the elements of what is referred to as \\na formal grounded theory. A formal or classic grounded theory is envisioned in a multi-level \\nway. Stages in the progression through a temporal process are at the center of a visualization of formal or \\ngrounded theory. Other elements include references to outcomes (anticipated or not), intervening conditions \\nthat mediate the outcome, and contextual factors. \\nTable 2.4 itemizes the key components of a formal grounded theory, as identified by Seidel \\nand Urquhart (2013). The table provides a definition for each element and extracts examples \\nfor each element in the model from the Catallo et al. (2012) study about the process of disclo-\\nsure to health care professional of intimate partner abuse. \\nTABLE 2.4 Core Elements of a Formal Grounded Theory, Their Definition, and Key \\nComponents of the Catallo et al. Grounded Theory Model to Explain the Intimate Abuse \\nDisclosure \\nItem \\nDefinition \\nExample from Catallo et al. (2012) \\nCasual Condition \\nEvents or incidents that serve \\nas triggers. \\n“Being Found Out” \\nIntervening Conditions \\nElements in the environment \\nthat influence the interactions. \\nType of interactions with health care \\nproviders \\nContext \\nElements of the location that \\ninfluence the interaction. \\nWait time, lack of privacy, multiple \\nhealth care providers, concern \\nabout losing children to social \\nservices \\nStrategy \\nSometimes associated with \\nthe participant, but often the \\nactivities that influence the \\nIdentifying a breaking point \\noutcomes. \\nConsequences/Outcome \\nOutcomes of the actions and \\ninteractions. \\nSelf-initiated disclosure; forced \\ndisclosure \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVARIETY \\n41 \\nExemplar 3: developing a theoretical model as an outcome: an example \\nthat combines mixed methods, grounded theory, and community-based \\nparticipatory action research \\nIt is possible to continue to expand our ideas about the many varied ways that MM-GTM can \\nbe approached by consulting an article produced by a multi-disciplinary team (community psy-\\nchology, sociology, anthropology, and social work) that built an expectation of plurality in the \\nresearch design (i.e., Westhues et al., 2008). This project involved a five-year initiative designed \\nto “explore, develop, pilot, and evaluate how best to provide community-based mental health \\nservices that are reflective for people from culturally diverse backgrounds” (Westhues et al., 2008, \\np. 702). This team of feminist researchers paired mixed methods, grounded theory, and com-\\nmunity-based participatory research (CBPR) to synthesize findings from four sub-projects into \\na final meta-conceptual model that appeared in a qualitative health research journal. The CBPR \\nframework meant that the team was committed to engaging stakeholders through all phases of \\nthe research project, including by engaging community members and data collection and analysis. \\nBox 2.3 summarizes the purpose and design of Westhues et al.’s (2008) community-based \\nproject. It also identifies the ways that integration occurred, and the type of theoretical model \\nproduced. \\nBOX 2.3 \\nWesthues et al.’s (2008) Study About Mental Health Services for \\nImmigrant Populations in Canada \\nPurpose: The purpose of this collaboratively based mixed methods research \\nproject was to build a practice-oriented theoretical framework to enhance men-\\ntal health services five cultural-linguistic groups in Canada (Punjabi Sikh, Man-\\ndarin Chines, Somali, Spanish Latin American, and Polish). \\nDesign: Explicitly labeled as multi-method, mixed methods, and grounded \\ntheory, participatory action research (PAR) provided an integrative framework \\nfor this complex, multi-site project, which meant, according to the authors, \\n“that we were committed engaging service providers and members of the \\ncultural-linguistic communities in all phases of the study, including data analy-\\nsis” (p. 702). Data were collected from a comprehensive literature review, focus \\ngroups with community members from minority cultural linguistic groups, case \\nstudies, and an online service of health care service providers and analyzed \\nconcurrently. \\nIntegration: Data from the four methods were first analyzed separately using a \\ncombination of an inductive and deductive approach by subcommittees formed \\nfor this purpose. The conceptual models produced for each group were then \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n42 \\nVARIETY \\ntriangulated by members of the theory construction committee to produce a \\nfinal integrative model that included some new synthetic categories. \\nUnexpected findings: It was anticipated from the onset that many stakeholder \\ngroups would bring different views to bear on the topic of mental health. They \\nreport “the interactive and dialectic use of mixed data helped to discover para-\\ndoxes and contradictions in what we had been told, as wells as the similarities \\nand agreements” (p. 714). \\nTheory produced: The meta-model theoretical model produced that integrated \\nseparate models constructed from different sources of qualitative and quantita-\\ntive data uses labels that are comparable to those of a grounded theory model. \\nIt includes outcomes, actions that are similar to strategies, and a column that \\nrefers to values that promote the transformational process. \\nThe project reflects the complexity involved in a community-based project where the same \\nvalue-oriented commitment extended to implementing a highly collaborative model of team-\\nbased research. The complexity of the project is evident in its methodological grounding and \\nphilosophical commitment. It is described as (a) multi-method (data gathered through interviews \\nand surveys), (b) mixed methods (combining qualitative and quantitative approaches), (c) multi-site, \\nand (d) “multi-perspectival.” An expectation for diverse points of view was built in the multi-level \\nframing of the project. It was framed by the assumption that service providers, policy makers, and \\nmembers of the five different cultural linguistic groups would bring very different perspectives. \\nThe account provided by Westhues et al. (2008) is unique in the exemplars I have reviewed \\nin that it describes a research design that is embedded and mutually informed by team dynam-\\nics and interaction with stakeholders. In this case, the methodology (CBPR) provided the \\norganizing principle, not a theory like we saw in exemplar using the life-course perspective. \\nThe seven-person team appeared to form and reform the task oriented sub-committees ini-\\ntially assigned to analyze the different forms of data, while all the while memoing and com-\\nmunicating actively with each other. The process they describe is dialectical because the same \\npeople are moving across tasks and in ongoing communication. In this way, their depiction of \\nthe process resonates with the fluid, iterative conceptualization of synergistic fully integrated \\npartnership based mixed methods research generated by Nastasi, Hitchcock, and Brown (2010). \\nThey differ in that Nastasi and colleagues imagined ongoing, iterative engagement of qualitative \\nand quantitative data throughout the research process, while the Westhues et al. (2008) account \\ndownplays the quantitative data and concentrates on multiple qualitative sources of data. \\nCONCLUSIONS \\nThe impression that grounded theory methods require the formulaic application of a set of \\nprocedures that must be followed step-by-step is one reason researchers avoid it (Timonen, \\n\\n\\nVARIETY \\n43 \\nFoley, & Conlon, 2018). “Descriptions portray theorizing,” Weick writes, “as mechanistic, with \\nlittle appreciation of the often intuitive, blind, wasteful, serendipitous, creative quality of the \\nprocess” (1989, pp. 518–519). Reservations about the method that emanate from this concern \\nare no doubt further aggravated in the face of the argument that the application of grounded \\ntheory methods has been eroded because students have not been taught the differences that \\nevolved between the approaches of its founders (cf. Boychuk Duchscher & Morgan, 2004). \\nWeed (2009) takes a similarly firm admonitory tone in a review of the use of grounded theory \\nin research in sport or exercise psychology, seemingly alarmed to find that authors were not \\ndistinguishing differences between approaches. \\nAll methods are hybrid, emergent, and interactive productions. \\n(Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2008, pp. 2–3) \\nTight adherence to views of the founders who first conceived of grounded theory as a \\nmethodology is at odds with the principal argument at the basis of this chapter and why the \\nbrief title is “variety.” That is that every researcher adapts methods to their skills and circum-\\nstances within the inquiry logic of a method, as well as to the requirement for creativity and \\nadaptability demanded changes in the environment, unexpected findings, pluralistic views of \\ncollaborators, and diverse perspectives of participants. With foundational grounding that comes \\nfrom reading the methodological literature, methods can be applied in a systematic and rigorous \\nmanner that supports the credibility of the conclusions, without slavish attention to following \\na narrowly prescribed set of procedures. \\nNeither methods nor design can be equated with quality (Gorard, 2004). Central to any \\njudgment of the quality of a research report and whether it has an impact is the originality and \\npower of the explanation produced and the extent it resonates with reality (Charmaz, 2014a). \\nMany others emphasize “utility” of theory to both practice and future research as a central \\nmeasure of quality of research involving theory. The central question to ask about theory is if \\nit is a “model of reality that seems to ‘work’” (Hunter & Brewer, 2015, p. 619) and if it assists \\nwith making good decisions (Gorard, 2004). Theory is a tentative, partial explanation that is \\nonly good as long as it is useful, Gorard (2004) maintains. \\nEach of the three exemplars featured in this chapter used grounded theory methods with \\nthe very practical purpose of helping to inform policy and practice about complex health and \\nwell-being questions among members of vulnerable populations. Evans et al. were concerned \\nabout family members the care of the home-bound elderly in the Mexican-American com-\\nmunity; Catallo et al. with how emergency care personnel interact with women in abusive \\nrelationships; and Westhues et al. with developing a health care system that is responsive to the \\nneeds of immigrant populations with diverse cultural perspectives. \\nAdding to the architecture of cross-cutting themes \\nTable 2.5 adds a second layer of key themes to the architecture of cross-cutting themes intro-\\nduced in the first chapter. These are designed to help the reader extract important takeaways \\nfrom the chapter. It is organized around three clusters of concepts: (1) integrated mixed meth-\\nods designs, (2) MM-GTM, and (3) complexity and dissonance. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n44 \\nVARIETY \\nTABLE 2.5 Linking Chapter 2 to Cross-Cutting Themes \\nCluster \\nMajor Themes that Cross \\nChapter 2 – Key Points \\nChapters \\nIntegrated \\nIntegrated mixed methods \\nConceptualizing a problem and research \\nApproaches \\napproaches engage qualitative \\nquestions in a multi-dimensional way \\nto Mixed \\nand quantitative data in \\ncan serve as the foundation for thinking \\nMethods \\nmany phases of the research \\ntheoretically and developing an integrated \\nResearch \\nprocess, but particularly during \\napproach to mixed methods. \\nanalysis. \\nLaunching a project with a conceptual \\nframework developed during the process \\nof consulting a cross-disciplinary body \\nof literature facilitates integration across \\nresearch phases. \\nMixed \\nMM-GT is a methodology that \\nIt is possible to sustain an inductive drive \\nMethods and \\nembeds the logic of mixed \\nin a study that is framed by a theoretical \\nGrounded \\nmethods in the constant \\nframework from the literature at the onset. \\nTheory \\ncomparative method and \\ngrounded theory procedures. \\nMM-GT has informed research in a wide \\nvariety of different ways. It is its adaptability \\nand variety that sustains its continued \\nusefulness. \\nMM-GTM has been paired with a variety \\nof other qualitative research approaches, \\nincluding participatory action research. \\nComplexity \\nThe link between mixed \\nA theoretical framework can offer interpretive \\nand \\nmethods and complexity. \\ninsight about unexpected findings. \\nDissonance \\nThe contribution of paradox \\nAn expectation for plurality and dialectical \\nand dissonance to explanatory \\nexchange is built into the design of a \\npower. \\nMM-GTM participatory action research. \\nAnticipating the next chapter \\nThe next chapter builds on the idea of the variety that we see in the way MM-GTM has been \\nconducted but narrows the attention to the way that the analytical process can incorporate \\nmultiple sources and types of data. My purpose in Chapter 3 is not to revisit a well-worn path \\nby itemizing grounded theory coding procedures or to arduously itemize all the distinctions \\nbetween the ways the founders view these. This is a task that has been taken on by others. My \\nargument in the third chapter is that mixed methods are adaptable to grounded theory proce-\\ndures because they can be embedded in an abductive exchange between an exploratory and a \\nconfirmatory stance. \\nREVIEW QUESTIONS \\n1 \\nHow can a conceptual model developed from the literature during the planning stage of a \\nproject enhance the design of a study? \\n2 \\nWhat is the difference between conceiving a core construct, like identity, in a one-dimen-\\nsional way from conceiving it in a multi-dimensional way? \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVARIETY \\n45 \\n3 \\nWhat distinguishes a grand theory from a substantive grounded theory? \\n4 \\nWhat is case-based analysis and how can it promote integration? \\n5 \\nWhat are three major points of contention about people who have devoted considerable \\nenergy to writing about grounded theory as a methodology? \\nSUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITIES \\n1 \\nCreamer, E. G. (January 2016). Y\\nouTube: Anatomy of a Mixed Method Publication – High-\\nlighting Integration During Reporting (https://youtu.be/5PhV0ocaJ3A) \\n2 \\nUsing your personal experience and knowledge of the literature, sketch a change map \\nin the form of a grounded theory of your own project. Include activities or strategies, \\nanticipated strategies, and individual and environmental factors that are likely to influence \\nthe achievement of targeted outcomes. Create a type of logic diagram that (a) starts with \\nindividual pre-disposition, (b) imagines a core sequence with steps suggesting ways change \\nmight occur over time, (c) list strategies, activities, interactions thought to influence a posi-\\ntive outcome, and (d) identify possible outcomes, both intended and unintended. \\n\\n\\n \\n  \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nCHAPTER 3 \\nMixed methods and the \\nprocess of theorizing \\nThis chapter is about the procedures that advance theorizing, including how qualitative and quantitative data \\ncan be integrated through theoretical coding, analytical memo writing, case-based analysis, and theoretical \\nsampling. \\nTERMS INTRODUCED IN THIS CHAPTER \\n• \\nCase-based analysis \\n• \\nIntegrated analytical memo \\n• \\nIntegrated case-based analysis \\n• \\nSaturation \\n• \\nTheoretical coding \\n• \\nTheoretical sampling \\n• \\nIntegrated theoretical coding \\n• \\nIntegrated theoretical sampling \\nINTRODUCTION \\nIn the first two chapters, our attention was directed to the outcomes of empirical research that \\nuses mixed methods and grounded theory procedures in some part of the research process to \\ngenerate an analytical or conceptual framework to explain a social experience or process. In \\ndoing so, our attention was on developing an explanatory framework that is local in the sense \\nthat it is grounded in a specific context. This is sometimes referred to as “middle range” theory. \\nThese are less ambitious in their scope and claims than so-called “grand” theories where evi-\\ndence supports the reliability of the constructs across settings. This was the case, for example, \\nin research that people express embarrassment in much the same way across cultures that I \\nreported in my 2018 textbook, An Introduction to Fully Integrated Mixed Methods Research. \\nChapter 2 highlighted the variety in the ways grounded theory procedures have been \\nused with mixed methods in a wide range of disciplinary contexts. This includes how it can be \\nused as an integrative framework at the onset of a study, to offer interpretive insight as a study \\n\\n\\n \\n \\nPROCESS \\n47 \\nis underway, and/or as its principal outcome. Examples presented in that chapter demonstrate \\nthat mixed methods and grounded theory can be paired with other research methods, includ-\\ning qualitative approaches like participatory action research and event analysis, to both expand \\nunderstanding of a complex phenomenon and to provide some measure to confirm its findings. \\nAn emphasis on theory as a product as compared to theory as a process is one of the major \\ndifferences between the epistemological foundations of thought associated with grounded the-\\nory (Apramian, Cristancho, Watling, & Lingard, 2017). Glaser and Strauss characterized these \\nin different ways. In their minds, a theoretical framework is the ultimate endpoint of using \\ngrounded theory (Apramian et al., 2017). On the other hand, Charmaz, following a position \\nClarke took (2005), elevate theorizing over theory. Charmaz was explicit in the language she \\nused to frame her preference for theorizing over theory: \\nTheories present arguments about the world and relationships within it . . . My prefer-\\nence for theorizing – and it is for theorizing not for theory – is unabashedly interpretive. \\nTheorizing is practice . . . The fundamental contribution of grounded theory methods \\nresides in offering a guide to interpretive theoretical practice, not in providing a blueprint \\nfor theoretical products. \\n(Charmaz, 2006, p. 128) \\nIn an article that identifes “schools of thought” within grounded theory, Apramian et al. \\n(2017) maintain that Charmaz was less enamored with producing a theoretical framework than \\nher predecessors and mentors with a more modernist leaning. Instead, Apramian et al. (2017) \\nassert, her interest in basic social interactions and processes and fexibly deploying analytical \\nprocedures that promote the development of the properties of theoretical constructs. Rigor to \\nher was not transferability to other settings or conceptual density. Rather it was to authentically \\npresent the voices of participants. \\nPurpose, contribution, and principal takeaways of the chapter \\nIn this chapter, our lens shifts from what theory or an explanatory framework looks like when it \\nis a product of the systematic application of a set of mixed method procedures to the process of \\ntheory generation. This chapter attends to analytical procedures that combine data from quali-\\ntative and quantitative methods during the process of theorizing that contribute to analytical \\nunderstanding. These are not always associated with a final product that is described as a theory. \\nThe chapter transgresses traditional approaches to grounded theory by building an argument for \\nthe ways a dialectical give-and-take between qualitative and quantitative data can be embedded \\ninto the constant comparative method. It offers new ways of applying core grounded theory \\nprocedures like theoretical coding, analytical memoing, and theoretical sampling. \\nThe chapter focus on procedures that integrate qualitative and quantitative analytical pro-\\ncedures moves us considerably closer to a model of MM-GTM that reflects a fully equal status \\nin that it contains an equally robust qualitative and mixed methods arm. The approach taken \\nin the chapter widens the options available for MM-GTM to extend well beyond preliminary \\nviews that it merely involves applying the constant comparative method to quantitative data as \\nwell as qualitative data. Similarly, although it is very likely that a MM-GTM study starts with \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n48 \\nPROCESS \\nseparate analysis of different sources of data with procedures that maintain the integrity of that \\nmethod, the emphasis once again is on the types of synergies that can be accomplished by an \\nongoing interactive exchange, particularly during analysis. The chapter further expands views \\nof ways that data can be collected in grounded theory by offering examples of the creative use \\nof visual methods. \\nThis chapter emphasizes the integration of data collected through qualitative and quantita-\\ntive methods in core grounded theory procedures. Principal takeaways from the chapter include: \\n1 \\nThere is support for the argument that, rather than being a purely inductive one, the ana-\\nlytical process in grounded theory research is more accurately characterized as an abduc-\\ntive one that moves back and forth between an exploratory and a confirmatory stance. \\nThis is an epistemological basis for the compatibility between grounded theory and mixed \\nmethods. \\n2 \\nPromising directions for additional analysis often emerge from an abductive exchange \\nbetween data generated qualitatively and quantitatively about the same phenomenon. \\n3 \\nCase-based analyses that integrates qualitative and quantitative data in a narrative or a \\nvisualization can resemble a theoretical memo. These can advance theoretical insight about \\nthe relationships among constructs, including about the ways they are linked to micro-and \\nmacro-level variables that influence the process being studied. \\n4 \\nTheoretical sampling is a grounded theory procedure that is an extension of the con-\\nstant comparative method in that additional data gathering is shaped with the purpose of \\nadvancing theoretical insight. A promising lead can guide theoretical sampling. Theoretical \\nsampling can be used for both exploratory or confirmatory purposes. \\nINTEGRATED ANALYSIS USING ABDUCTION \\nThe conception of the analytical process at the center of the constant comparative method as \\none that combines both an inductive/exploratory stance and a deductive/confirmatory one, \\nis one that has been acknowledged. Charmaz, for example, declared: “grounded theory is \\nnot exclusively an inductive method” (2014a, p. 1079). This view of the analytical process in \\ngrounded theory as combining different analytical logics is a principal methodological argu-\\nment for the compatibility between mixed methods and grounded theory. Sociologists Stefan \\nTimmermans and Iddo Tavory (2012) took the position that induction does not produce the-\\nory. Instead, they argued that it is the pragmatically grounded analytical strategy of abduction \\nthat is the key to generating theory. Pushing back against the characterization of qualitative \\nresearch as inductive and quantitative research as deductive, Sandelowski (2014) maintained \\nthat all research cycles back and forth between the two (p. 6). There is growing recognition that \\nabduction needs further exploration, co-editor with Kathy Charmaz of the SAGE Handbook of \\nGrounded Theory, UK academician Anthony Bryant wrote. He maintained that while induction \\nremains central to grounded theory, grounded theory is a “method for enacting abstraction and \\nabduction,” Bryant asserts (2017, p. xii). \\nWe encountered abductive reasoning as a type of analytical logic in the first chapter. \\nThere, it is defined as an approach to analysis that is both inductive/exploratory and deductive/ \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPROCESS \\n49 \\nconfirmatory. It as an extension of the way the constant comparative method is used that often \\nproduces unexpected findings. Abduction “refers to the creative inferential process aimed at \\nproducing new hypotheses and theories based on surprising research evidence” (Timmermans \\n& Tavory, 2012, p. 170). It often involves finding new concepts to account for puzzling empiri-\\ncal findings (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). It requires a willingness to abandon old convictions \\nand to generate new ones (Reicherz, 2007). \\nIn abduction, “the researcher goes beyond data as well as pre-existing theory or theories. \\nIt is an innovative process because every new insight is a result of modifying and elaborat-\\ning prior knowledge and putting old ideas together as the researcher tries to explain the \\nnew data.” \\n(Thornberg, 2012, p. 247) \\nIn the context of MM-GTM, an analytical phase involving abduction is very likely to \\nfollow an initial phase where preliminary inferences or tentative conclusions are drawn from \\nthe separate analysis of different sources of qualitative and quantitative data. For example, in a \\nproject about vulnerability among children and homeless adolescents, Jo Moran-Ellis and a set \\nof colleagues from the United Kingdom build an argument for the importance of conceptual-\\nizing integration in a way that requires maintaining the methodological integrity or character \\nof each method: “integration involves the generation of a tangible relationship among methods, \\ndata, and perspectives, retaining the integrity of each” in a way that gives each method equal \\nweight (Moran-Ellis et al., 2006, p. 51). (Equal weight means that each method is integral to \\ndeveloping the findings [Creamer, 2018d].) They argue this is a strategy to reconcile the episte-\\nmological and ontological tensions that arise from using multiple methods, including multiple \\nqualitative methods. \\nTheory generation is not usually accomplished through a linear process. It is likely to \\ninvolve an iterative process during analysis as the investigator moved back and forth between \\ninduction and deduction and convergence and divergence. Theory generation is not something \\nthat can be accomplished in a linear or mechanistic fashion, but requires “simultaneous parallel \\nprocessing” (Weick, 1989, p. 519). \\nVisualizing an interactive approach to data analysis in MM-GTM \\nAlthough there are other ways it might be executed, iterative exchanges between inductive, \\ndeductive, and abductive analytical strategies are often launched, first, with separate analysis \\nof the different sources of data using analytical strategies that are consistent with the method. \\nThat is followed in a subsequent phase of analysis by cycling back and forth between the \\nfindings beginning to emerge from the analysis of different sources of data. These lead to the \\ngeneration or what Cronin, Alexander, Fielding, Moran-Ellis, and Thomas (2007) describe \\nas a “promising lead” that offers an explanation for a relationship between data sets. A prom-\\nising lead is often conceptualized in the context of the literature. Others refer to them as a \\nhypothesis or theoretical proposition. Hiles (2012) refers to them as an explanatory inference. \\nThese can take the form of an “if–then” statement about a relationship between constructs \\n(Morgan, 2015). \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n50 \\nPROCESS \\nPHASE 1 \\nData Analyzed \\nSeparately \\nDATA 1 \\nDATA 2 \\nDATA 3 \\nInduc˜on\\nDeduc˜on \\nInduc˜on\\nDeduc˜on \\nPHASE 2 \\nFindings from \\n2 Data Sets \\nIntegrated \\nInduc˜on\\nDeduc˜on \\nPHASE 3 \\nFindings from \\nAll Data Sets \\nIntegrated \\nPromising Leads \\nPromising Leads \\nFIGURE 3.1 An Inductive–Deductive–Abductive Analytical Cycle: Integrative MMR-GTM \\nFigure 3.1 provides what is referred to as a procedural diagram. It visualizes a way analysis \\nmight progress in a mixed methods study with a theoretical drive that directly engages qualita-\\ntive and quantitative data in an interactive and iterative way. It refers to three types of analytical \\nlogics: inductive/exploratory, deductive/confirmatory, and abductive. \\nThis generic figure depicts a three-phase process that begins with the separate analysis of \\neach data set. This is followed by investment of time and resources in a second phase where \\nresults from the initial round of analysis are engaged dialectically in a give and take that has \\nboth inductive and deductive dimensions. Conclusions can be verified or warranted through \\nthis back and forth between an exploratory and a confirmatory stance (Morgan, 2020). Dis-\\nsonance between the results from the different methods or evidence of a gap between what \\nwas expected can introduce an unexpected element to the analysis. This integrative step in \\ntheorizing can guide additional data collection or analysis or suggest novel directions for the \\nresearch process. \\nAn example of a promising lead that emerged from an iterative exchange that veered \\nbetween convergence and divergence is evident in a feminist account of a research proj-\\nect about working mother’s involvement in their childrens’ school activities (i.e., Weiss, \\nMayer, & Kreider, 2003; Weiss, Kreider, Mayer, Hencke, & Vaughn, 2005). Their research \\nchallenged the prevailing assumption that paid employment is negatively associated with \\na mother’s involvement in their childrens’ school activities. Weiss et al. characterized the \\nmixed methods analytical process as a highly interactive one that mirrored the team dynam-\\nics. “An intentional and iterative interplay exists between the separate analysis of qualitative \\nand quantitative data sets, such that mixing and integration occurs throughout analysis,” they \\nwrote (Weiss et al., 2005, p. 52). The analytical procedures parallel the type of interaction on \\n\\n\\n \\n  \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPROCESS \\n51 \\nthe team that they characterized as “extensive and respectful dialogue” (Weiss et al., 2003, \\np. 52). \\nAbductive reasoning as an extension of a mixed methods approach \\nto the constant comparative method \\nAn argument that prioritizes abduction over induction in the use of grounded theory meth-\\nods  extends the idea of the constant comparative method to one that embraces mixed \\nmethods approaches. Conventionally defined as linking data collection and analysis in a \\nqualitative approach by constantly comparing emerging constructs or concepts with new \\ndata as it is collected (Urquhart, Lehmann, & Myers, 2010), in mixed methods the idea \\nof using a constant comparative approach to analysis extends to the inductive–deductive– \\nabductive process that brings qualitative and quantitative data and analytical procedures into \\na conversation. \\nAbduction extends to pragmatic views about the role of the literature \\nin MM-GTM \\nCycling between an inductive/exploratory and a deductive/confirmatory one during analysis \\nassumes familiarity with the literature and existing theory from the very beginning of the \\nresearch process (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). The judgment about what is a promising \\nlead that brings dataset together relies on personal experience, familiarity with the data, and \\nknowledge of the literature. It can be sparked by team discussion (Cronin et al., 2007), par-\\nticularly when interdisciplinary expertise is brought to bear. Familiarity with the literature \\ncan amplify the potential implications of inconsistencies, gaps, silences (Creamer & Edwards, \\n2019). Noting the roots of abduction in a pragmatic philosophical perspective, Robert Thorn-\\nberg, wrote: \\nThus, by abduction, the researcher goes beyond data as well as pre-existing theory or \\ntheories. It is an innovative process because every new insight is a result of modifying and \\nelaborating prior knowledge or putting old ideas together in new ways as the researcher \\nexplores and tries to explain the new data. \\n(Thornberg, 2012, p. 247) \\nINTRODUCING EXAMPLES IN THIS CHAPTER \\nA wide reading of studies using MM-GTM yields many examples of the innovative use of \\na procedure or a visualization that could offer a tool for others with a project with a similar \\ndrive underway. Ideas for this chapter go beyond what I had in mind when I first started \\nthinking about its contents. Some of the ideas in this chapter were generated in part from \\nin-depth scrutiny of four studies that I consider in the following sections of the chapter. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n52 \\nPROCESS \\nI distinguish three as examples and the fourth as an exemplar. All use research methods in \\noriginal and innovative ways, but I only designate a study as an exemplar when I consider the \\noverall design, particularly the mixed methods component, to be refreshingly robust. I single \\nout a study as an example when a research procedure that integrates data from different sources \\nis used in an original or innovative way that could be adapted in other settings. \\nAuthors of each of the examples situate their work as utilizing mixed methods and at a \\nminimum acknowledge following grounded theory coding procedures. Table 3.1 summarizes \\nthe innovative features of each of the four examples discussed at some length in this chapter. \\nTable 3.1 provides information about each set of authors, the section of the chapter where dis-\\ncussion about them appears, and what is innovative about their approach. \\nThe examples reiterate the variety that is evident in research that pairs mixed methods \\nwith grounded theory. Each of the examples departs in some substantive way either from con-\\nventional practice in grounded theory or mixed methods. For example, in their project about \\nvulnerable populations, Cronin et al. (2007) deviate from definitions of mixed methods that \\nrequire one method to be qualitative and a second quantitative. What is “mixed” in the Cronin \\net al. (2007) article is not qualitative and quantitative data, but data that were collected and \\nanalyzed with different qualitative approaches. \\nI showcase the other examples discussed in this chapter for an original feature of their \\napproach to grounded theory. For example, in writing about how undergraduates’ definitions of \\nresearch evolve with experience, Lee et al. (2019) used a unique approach to the process of devel-\\noping an analytic memo. They were not constructed by a solitary researcher but through multiple \\nexchanges between a group of researchers who were actively engaged in coding the data. In the \\nstudy about treatment for attention deficit disorder, Bussing and her colleagues (2012) did not \\ncollect their own data. This team of researchers was able to leverage a set of data that had already \\nbeen collected. The expectation that new data be collected in a grounded theory is an assumption \\nthat Timonen, Foley, & Conlon (2018) dismiss as not always practical. The last example about \\nthe well-being of adolescent in war-torn areas in the former Yugoslavia by Jones and Kafetsios \\n(2005) is at odds with the framing of grounded theory as an exclusively inductive approach that, \\nas Whiteside, Mills, and McCalman (2012) proclaim, begins with no preconceived hypothesis \\nto prove or disprove. \\nTABLE 3.1 Innovative Features of the Four Examples of MM-GTM from Chapter 3 \\nExample \\nSection in Chapter \\nInnovative Feature \\nCronin et al. (2007) \\nPromising leading \\nIntegrating multiple qualitative \\ndatabases. \\nLee et al. (2019) \\nIntegrating through case-\\nbased memos \\nCollaboratively produced \\nintegrative analytical memos. \\nBussing et al. (2012) \\nIntegration through \\ntheoretical coding \\nTeaming GT with hypothesis \\ntesting and data which refuted it. \\nJones & Kafetsios (2005) \\nIntegrative theoretical \\nsampling \\nComposite measure combining \\nqualitative and quantitative data \\nused for theoretical sampling. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPROCESS \\n53 \\nSome scholars insist that departures from conventional research practice violate the integ-\\nrity of the method and contribute to its erosion (i.e., Greckhamer & Koro-Ljungberg, 2006). \\nOthers long associated with grounded theory, like Anthony Bryant, take a different position. \\nBryant (2002) sees it as a negative that grounded theory is still so strongly associated with its \\nfounders, arguing it inhibits innovation. For a research method to remain viable and dynamic \\nover time, particularly when it is used across disciplines, it must be adaptable to diverse circum-\\nstances (Ralph, Birks,& Chapman, 2015). \\nAdvancing integration through a promising lead \\nThose with an epistemological bent that predisposes them to qualitative approaches will take \\ncomfort in a methodologically reflexive account produced by a team of researchers that set out \\nto more fully understand experiences of vulnerability by integrating findings from data gener-\\nated from four “mini” qualitative studies (i.e., Cronin et al., 2007) that used grounded theory \\nprocedures during coding. In an account of these small-scale studies that seem more like a pilot \\nstudy than a full-fledged research project, these researchers accentuate the role of a “promising \\nlead” in integrating data from different sources. A promising lead is “a lead for further analysis \\ninvolving an iterative interrogation of all data sets” (Cronin et al., 2007, p. 576). \\nThe most creative part of this project is its shift from an interview to less conventional \\nand more naturalistic means of data collection. An impression that interview participants were \\nconcerned “to present their life accounts as stories” led the researchers to make a course adjust-\\nment and to add life history as a data collection method. The promising lead they trace emerged \\nfrom the data gathered through visual methods. Physical safety emerged as a strong thread in the \\nvisual component of the study that included photo-elicitation interviews and video-recorded \\nneighborhood tours with participants who were homeless. The team subsequently chose to \\nexplore this thread in their interview and life history data by creating what they referred to as \\na “data repertoire” that aligned information from all the data sources in a single matrix. The \\narticle concludes with a statement resonant with theoretical implications but falls short of pre-\\nsenting a fully developed explanatory framework. \\nA promising lead can make an appearance in the form of a hunch or burst of creative \\ninsight. These often rise to surface when each method produces a different, but likely overlap-\\nping, understanding of the over-riding research question. In the Cronin et al. (2007) study this \\nwas about the ways that economic, social, and physical vulnerability are manifested. Singling \\nout the role of a promising lead as a way to link findings from different sources of data points \\nto a research design that requires adaptability of methods to emerging findings. The choice to \\npursue an unexpected finding revealed by the juxtaposition of findings from different methods \\nrests on the researcher. Regardless of method, the act of analysis is always an interpretive one \\n(Fielding & Fielding, 1986). The choice of new ideas to pursue and those to let fall by the \\nwayside is an interpretive one made within the context of the research questions and a firm \\ngrounding in the literature. \\nThe team working with data about vulnerable populations (i.e., Cronin et al., 2007) constructed \\nwhat in the realm of mixed methods is referred to as a data display for each promising thread. The \\njuxtaposition of data from different methods about a promising lead or a theme is used formatively in \\nthat it generates further analysis that engages the iterative, inductive–deductive–abductive exchange \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n54 \\nPROCESS \\nTABLE 3.2 Illustrative Example of a Data Display from Multiple Sources of Data \\nSources of Data Related to Physical Safety Theme, by Participant \\nFabricated from Cronin et al. (2007) \\nFictitious \\nParticipant \\nNarrative Interviews \\nPhoto-Elicitation \\nInterview \\nVideo-Recorded Neighborhood \\nTour \\nLou Ellen \\nHistory of physical \\nassault as a child \\nPhoto of drug paraphernalia \\nnear a school playground \\nTime of day influenced \\nperceptions of safety, as did an \\nunfamiliar location \\ndescribed earlier. At reporting, this kind of display can support an argument for validity by providing \\ndocumentation of the source of conclusions drawn. It could well generate further rounds of data \\ncollection and in grounded theory what is referred to as theoretical sampling to further embellish \\ngaps and silences disclosed by the juxtaposition of data collected with different methods. \\nIt is a shortcoming in reporting that while the text fully pursues the lead about physical \\nsafety as an aspect of vulnerability, there are no visualizations related to the analysis in the Cro-\\nnin et al. (2007) article. As we talk about in the next chapter, whether in the form of table or \\nfigures, these types of visualizations can play an important role in supporting the conclusions of \\na study. Table 3.2 is designed to help a researcher visualize what a data display might look like. \\nI have extended the Cronin et al. article by extracting ideas articulated in the article to create \\nthe first few lines of what a data display might have looked like in this study. \\nWhen coded in the same way, these types of visual displays can be generated by software \\nthat aids in the analysis of qualitative and visual data. If not in the final report, data displays like \\nthe ones described by Cronin et al. (2007) would be helpful as supplemental materials. \\nThe richest data from the Cronin et al. study (2007) came from naturalistic sources. These \\ninclude field notes and a less conventional, participatory approach to data collection referred to \\nas neighborhood mapping. Charmaz (2017b) joined other feminist and critical theorists in the \\ncommentary she offers of the limitations of conventional data collection strategies and, most \\nnotably, the semi-structured interview with marginalized populations, arguing, as have oth-\\ners, that it reflects very Western cultural assumptions. More creative strategies like using visual \\nmethods as described in the next chapter will generate more authentic and robust data with \\ngroups of participants where the spoken word is not the best vehicle for communication. This \\nmight include, for example, children, non-English speakers, and those with special needs. The \\nappearance of terse, two to three words quotes appearing in the findings section of an article \\nspeak to the limitations of the over-reliance on interviewing as a method of data collection in \\nmuch qualitative research. \\nSINGLING OUT CORE GROUNDED THEORY PROCEDURES \\nDespite the diversity of perspectives voiced about grounded theory, there is a surprising level \\nof consensus about its terminology and generally about what constitutes its core characteris-\\ntics (Rieger, 2018). Table 3.3 narrows our attention to eight core characteristics of grounded \\n\\n\\n \\nPROCESS \\n55 \\nTABLE 3.3 Core Grounded Theory Procedures and Definitions \\nCore Feature \\nDefinition \\nCoding (open, focused, and \\ntheoretical) \\nAn increasingly abstract system of coding that begins with \\ndescriptive (open codes) and moves to a more narrowly \\ndefined set of codes that can include deductive codes. \\nConstant comparative method \\nNew data is constantly compared to data previously \\ncollected and tentatively coded. \\nCore category \\nCentral concept that could begin as a sensitizing concept \\nthat becomes the focal point of the theoretical explanation. \\nLogic model, conditional matrix, \\nor formal grounded theory model \\nA conceptual model that includes contextual factors, \\ninputs, outcomes, a process of strategies, and factors that \\nmediate them. \\nMemo writing \\nAn ongoing process of recording reflections about the \\nresearch process and emerging theoretical ideas. \\nSaturation \\nA judgment made by investigators about when sufficient \\ndata has been collected when new rounds of data \\ncollection yields little new insight. \\nSocial process \\nA temporal, time-ordered sequence that is at the center of \\na logic model. \\nTheoretical coding \\nTheoretical coding generates constructs to conceptualize \\nthe relationships between categories. \\nTheoretical sampling \\nA type of purposeful sampling where participants are \\nselected for purposes of advancing theoretical ideas. \\ntheory. Table 3.3 synthesizes information about eight grounded theory procedures and provides \\na definition of each. Authors reporting on a grounded theory study rarely acknowledge more \\nthan a couple of these (Guetterman, Babchuck, Howell Smith, & Stevens, 2017). \\nTable 3.4 reflects a subjective judgment of the different weighting that is given to the core \\nprocedures by leaders of different schools of thought defined within methodologists writing \\nabout grounded theory. While the work of each of these authors is linked to different onto-\\nlogical and epistemological assumptions, with the exception of Charmaz’s affiliation with con-\\nstructivism, there is little agreement among experts what philosophical grounding is attached \\nto each school. \\nTable 3.4 adds to the table that precedes it by recognizing that leading voices writing \\ntextbooks about grounded theory methods differ in the amount of space they dedicate to each \\nprocedure. The location of the Xs in the table is subjective, but it is informed by a number of \\narticles devoted to discriminating between the methodological, ontological (nature of reality), \\nand epistemological (how knowledge is constructed) priorities of each (e.g., Apramian et al., \\n2017; Rieger, 2018; McCall & Edwards, 2021; Sebastian, 2019; Timonen et al., 2018). Some \\nauthors single out Adele Clarke’s situational analysis (2005) as an additional school of thought \\n(e.g., Apramian et al., 2017; Timonen et al., 2018; Morse et al., 2009). The placement of the \\nXs in this table is eminently debatable. \\nThere is a modest level of consistency across the three schools of thought identified in \\nTable 3.4 about the centrality of three core procedures as being essential to a grounded theory \\nstudy. That is not to say they may not make a passing reference to the others. All three schools \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n56 \\nPROCESS \\nTABLE 3.4 Priority Awarded to Core Grounded Theory Procedures by Schools of Thought \\nProcedure \\nClassic/Formal \\nStraussian GT \\nConstructivist GT \\nGlaserian GT \\nwith Corbin \\nCharmaz \\nPositivist \\nRealist \\nConstructivist* \\nCoding (open, focused) \\nX \\nX \\nX \\nConstant comparative method \\nX \\nX \\nX \\nCore category \\nX \\nLogic model, conditional matrix, or \\nX \\nformal grounded theory model \\nMemo writing \\nX \\nX \\nX \\nSaturation \\nX \\nX \\nTheoretical coding \\nX \\nTheoretical sampling \\nX \\nX \\nSource: Apramian et al., 2017; Rieger, 2018; Sebastian, 2019 \\nTABLE 3.5 Frequency of the Use of Core Grounded Theory Procedures in an Analysis \\nfrom a Systematic Review of 64 MM-GT Articles by Guetterman et al. (2017) \\nProcedure \\nNumber/Frequency \\n(N = 61 Articles) \\nConstant comparative method \\n26 (42%) \\nCoding \\n36 (59%) \\nGenerated a theory/framework \\n20 (33%) \\nAnalytic Memos \\n8 (15%) \\nSaturation \\n18 (30%) \\nTheoretical sampling \\n5 (8%) \\nof thought are in agreement about the centrality of a structured, increasingly abstract approach \\nto coding, the constant comparative method, and memo-writing. Differences among these \\nauthors is most evident on three items. The constructivist emphasis in Charmaz’s (2014a) work \\nis in that she awards less attention than the other two authors on theory as the product of \\ngrounded theory procedures, theoretical sampling, and saturation. \\nAuthors of the articles comparing the approaches differ in the language they use to situ-\\nate the paradigmatic grounded of each. Leading methodologists differ in their views about the \\nparadigmatic grounding of the different schools of thought approach (e.g., Apramian et al., \\n2017; Rieger, 2018; Sebastian, 2019). One group of authors position Glaser’s and Strauss’ ini-\\ntial framing of the methodology as post-positivism and modernism and Strauss and Corbin as \\nsymbolic interactionists (Ralph, Birks, & Chapman, 2015) (see Table 3.5). \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPROCESS \\n57 \\nEstimating the frequency of the use of core grounded theory procedures \\nA systematic review and analysis of peer-reviewed MM-GTM articles executed by Tim \\nGuetterman and his colleagues (2017) offers some insight about how rarely most core grounded \\ntheory procedures are acknowledged in empirical MM-GTM articles. Researchers on this team \\ndissected each article to catalog many features, including by the type of mixed methods design \\nand the types of grounded theory procedures documented. Although conventional, the search \\nterms they used have a lot to do with weaknesses in the sample of 61 articles yielded in their \\nsearch. They write, “search terms were ‘grounded theory,’ and one of the following: ‘mixed \\nmethod*, ‘multi-method,’ or ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’” (p.  184). A telltale sign of the \\nweakness in the articles Guetterman et al. uncovered is that they found no example where the \\ntwo methodologies were given equal priority. The search terms were not effective in locating \\na sample of articles with the type of meaningful integration during the analysis of the type that \\nis considered in this book. \\nThe team of researchers concluded that there was not much recognition of core grounded \\ntheory procedures in most MM-GTM articles they located during their search process. The \\nmajority of articles (62%) recognized four or fewer core characteristics. Their cataloging revealed \\nthat none of the 61 articles recognized all of the core grounded theory procedures. They write: \\n“Researchers employing grounded theory in mixed methods research rarely drew upon all or \\neven most of the majors features of grounded theory” (Guetterman et al., 2017, p. 188). \\nGuetterman et al. (2017) equate research quality with methodological transparency. They \\nrely on the identification of six core procedures as an indicator of quality and transparency in a \\nMM-GTM article. Reinforcing the idea that most of the time a reference to grounded theory as \\na method refers to the coding procedures and not its theoretical purpose, authors of 59% of article \\nreferred to developing a coding scheme. Only about one-third produced a theoretical framework. \\nMemo writing and theoretical sampling were acknowledged only in a small number of studies. \\nThere are many reasons why researchers involved in complex, cross-disciplinary, team \\nresearch executed in several sites may not use many of the core grounded theory procedures \\nother than coding over the course of executing a project. Lack of in-depth knowledge of \\ngrounded theory is only one of several possible explanations. A second is associated space limi-\\ntations in journals and conventions about how much space is devoted to methods in content-\\noriented articles. The majority of insight of creative uses of MM-GTM procedures comes from \\nmethodological articles or content-oriented articles that devote an unusual amount of space to \\ndocumenting research methods. \\nEmbedding the engagement of qualitative and quantitative data in core \\ngrounded theory procedures \\nWhile leading methodologists devoted to grounded theory have long championed the potential to \\nuse many kinds of data to generate theory, the recognition has been at the level of data and not the \\nprocedures. The emphasis placed on data is evident in the wording of the argument put forward \\nabout MM-GTM. For example, by Holton and Walsh (2017) maintained: “For grounded theo-\\nrists, using both qualitative and quantitative data opens a vast realm of additional empirical possi-\\nbilities for generating theory” (p. 11). They maintain the separation between the two approaches, \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n58 \\nPROCESS \\naligning themselves with the view that the principal way to imagine MM-GTM is in a two-\\nphase study with a qualitative phase devoted to theory generation and a second, quantitative \\nphase attending to demonstrating its generalizability. Possibly because this requires multiple \\nstudies to execute and the likelihood that these are reported in separate articles, Walsh (2015) is \\none of the few examples I was able to locate that used this approach. \\nAn alternative to the emphasis on data as the source of an alliance between mixed meth-\\nods and grounded theory is one that situates it in the analytical approach (constant compara-\\ntive method, abductive reasons) and procedures (coding, memo writing, theoretical sampling, \\netc.). This is a topic I first entertained in a 2018 article, “Enlarging the Conceptualization of \\nMixed Methods Approaches to Grounded Theory with Intervention Research” (Creamer, \\n2018b). In that article, I introduced an argument for the potential for a fully integrated MM-\\nGTM (FIMM-GTM) where qualitative and quantitative data are integrated at multiple phases \\nof the research process, including during analysis. I closed that article noting that potential to \\nuse a mixed methods approach to advance theory development had not been actualized and \\nproposing that future research set out to identify the ways the two methods have been teamed: \\n“There has been little acknowledgment in the literature about MM-GTM that the use of some \\nprocedures that are central to the process of developing grounded theory, including theoretical \\nsampling and theoretical coding” (p. 13). This is the idea that launched this book. \\nIn the second chapter, I reviewed ways that qualitative and quantitative approaches can \\nbe integrated to produce a final explanatory model. In the next section of the chapter, I keep \\nthe focus on the act of theorizing and use three different examples of MM-GTM to follow \\nup on the idea that mixed methods can be embedded in grounded theory procedures like \\ntheoretical coding, analytic memo writing, and theoretical sampling. Each of the examples \\npoint to the ways that mixed methods and grounded theory can be employed together in \\nsynergistic ways. \\nTHEORETICAL CODING \\nConsiderably more attention has been paid in the methodological literature to descriptive types \\nof qualitative coding (i.e., open, axial, and selective or focused coding) than to an advanced type \\nof coding referred to as theoretical coding. Theoretical coding generates constructs that conceptual-\\nize the relationships between categories. “Redefining beauty” might be an example of a theoretical \\ncode generated as a core construct in a study about how women adjust their body image fol-\\nlowing a mastectomy. Theoretical coding can be a way to generate hypotheses or themes that \\nsubsequently can be tested quantitatively (Walsh, 2015), qualitatively, or with mixed data. \\nTheoretical coding typically occurs later in the process of developing a coding scheme. \\nIt is framed in the literature as following an initial phase of open or emergent coding. This is \\nthe most descriptive phase of coding. It can be developed using a subset of the data. The next \\nround of coding is referred to as focused coding. Normally, this refers to the phase of the cod-\\ning process where clusters of codes referring to similar constructs are grouped together. Johnny \\nSaldaña (2009), the author of a coding manual for qualitative researchers that greatly expanded \\nideas about ways to approach coding, defines theoretical coding as a strategy that leads to the \\ndiscovery of a core category. Theoretical coding generally follows earlier more descriptive \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPROCESS \\n59 \\nphases of coding. It is the leverage point that moves coding from descriptive to analytical or \\nabstract. In the real world of practice, theoretical coding can be introduced at many points in \\nthe analytical process. \\nCharmaz (2014a) ranks with her other methodologists writing about grounded theory in \\nthe way she presented theoretical coding. “The extent theoretical coding is an application of an \\nemergent process is somewhat ambiguous,” Charmaz wrote (2014a, p. 150). She suggested that \\na coding scheme can include both inductive (or emergent codes) and deductively derived codes \\nfrom the literature and other theoretical frameworks. T\\no illustrate that point, she suggested that \\nGlaser’s (1978a) coding families could prove useful. These include constructs such as context, \\nconditions, consequences, and causal mechanisms that are central to developing a formal theo-\\nretical model. This type of model is illustrated in Chapter 6. \\nIn the process of moving from the realm of the descriptive to one that is more analyti-\\ncal and potentially theoretical, an investigator’s frame of mind shifts to one that is more \\novertly interpretive. One reason this level of coding is considered abstract is that it requires \\nidentifying patterns and regularities detected in the text but rarely apparent to the partici-\\npant (Morgan, 2015). It is unlikely to find a participant, for example, that uses language \\nabout causality or about how one event or set of circumstances contributed to an outcome. \\nThe depth and nuance of theoretical coding depends on investigators’ personal experience, \\nbreadth of knowledge of the literature, and willingness to simultaneously juggle more than \\none possible explanation. \\nAn example of integration through theoretical coding \\nWe turn to an example from a project about attitudes about treatment options adolescents with \\nattention deficit disorder (ADHD) to spark ideas about what integrated theoretical coding \\nmight look like. Integrated theoretical coding is a mixed methods analytical strategy that engages find-\\nings from more than one type of data to generate theoretical propositions or hypotheses about the relation-\\nship among categories. I use two articles produced from this long-term project that are explicitly \\nlabeled as mixed methods to explore the ways that integrated theoretical coding can be used in \\ntandem with conventional grounded theory procedures (i.e., Bussing et al., 2005, 2012). \\nThe 2005 Bussing et al. article is unconventional in that the authors describe their proj-\\nect as using grounded theory inductively with a theoretical framework that had already been \\ndeveloped. This is a pragmatic approach to developing a coding scheme that is not uncommon \\nin practice. Both the 2005 and 2012 articles characterize the approach to coding of qualita-\\ntive data as one that combines both inductively and deductively derived codes. “The mixed-\\nmethod approach used in this study utilizes both inductive and deductive research methods,” \\nthat authors write (Bussing et al., 2005, p. 87). The movement back and forth between deduc-\\ntive and inductive coding meant a near seamless connection between the quantitative and \\nqualitative data. \\nIn the earlier article (Bussing et al., 2005) described a process of developing analytical \\ninsight that reflected that the team of researchers used a highly interactive approach. Linking \\nteam dynamics to the construction of analytical memos, Bussing et al. (2005, p. 89) wrote: \\n“Throughout the analysis process the research team took notes and shared memorandum, both \\nanalytical and reflexive.” The conceptual model was produced through this process. We see a \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n60 \\nPROCESS \\nsimilar process and outcome in an example from Lee et al. (2019) about engineers’ views about \\nresearch that I discuss later in the chapter. \\nIn researching views about treatment options for ADHD, Bussing et al. (2012) had an \\nopportunity to apply grounded theory methods to analyze an unusually robust body of data \\ngenerated in response to an open-ended question on a survey about concerns about the unde-\\nsirable effects of treatment options. While it is quite common, if not always applauded, for \\nsomeone to refer to a survey with open- and close-ended questions as mixed methods, this \\nteam of researchers had access to an unusual number of responses (1356) that ranged in length \\nfrom one word to lengthy paragraphs. \\nBussing et al. (2012) coded the data supplied in response to an open-ended question on a \\nsurvey in ways the combined conventional grounded theory coding procedures with theoreti-\\ncal constructs from the literature and that had emerged in prior phases of the research project. \\nThey describe a process of inductive coding that followed the usual sequence of open coding, \\naxial coding, and selective coding but also included already established codes. Theoretical codes \\n“were used to create an integrated model” (p. 97). Through this process, the team generated \\nthree theoretical codes that reflected reasons participants held negative views about a treatment \\noption: negative attitude/dislike, perceived ineffectiveness, and burden. The “burden” theoreti-\\ncal code contained axial codes like cost and disruption of daily activities. \\nTheoretical coding is directly linked to the construction of theoretical models that, accord-\\ning to Charmaz, have an internal logic “that more or less coalesces into coherent forms” (2006, \\np. 128). Figure 3.2 reproduces the model Bussing and her colleagues (2012, p. 97) generated as \\na result of an analytical procedure that integrated deductively and inductively derived theoreti-\\ncal constructs. The journal where it appears is open access. I reproduce the model in full for a \\nFIGURE 3.2 Conceptual Model from Bussing et al. (2012) \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPROCESS \\n61 \\nnumber of reasons, including that: (a) it reflects theoretical coding; (b) it is concise but highly \\nnuanced, leading to more than one interpretive conclusion; and (b) the practical implications \\nabout reasons patients may resist treatment are clearly evident. Paths connecting constructs in \\nthe model are based on the frequency of responses, with the darker shading indicating more \\nthan 20 responses. Small boxes with numbers make it possible to understand each path in terms \\nof codes derived from an open coding phase. \\nThe figure contains key elements of a grounded theory, including causal conditions, the \\ntreatment or strategy, and the outcomes. The shaded lines in this figure connect the theoretical \\ncodes in the left column (negative attitudes, perceived ineffectiveness, burden) with the treat-\\nment options in the center of the future (short-acting and long-acting medicine, education, \\nbehavior therapy, and counseling) with outcomes that are the undesirable effects anticipated \\n(physiological side effects, dependence, psychological side effects, stigma. \\nThe insights in this model could be visualized in other ways. In the section of Coding \\nManual for Qualitative Researchers (2009) devoted to coding for causality, Johnny Saldaña dem-\\nonstrates a way that the types of interconnections shown in the Bussing et al. (2012) figure can \\nbe displayed to highlight the potential causal links between the theoretical in causal matrix or \\nflowchart (p. 192). This type of table helps to disaggregate a complex figure by sorting out the \\nresults in terms of each treatment option. \\nIn Table 3.6, I apply the Saldaña (2009) strategy to tracing the paths in the grounded \\ntheory model produced by Bussing et al. (2012) by extracting information about three of the \\ntreatment options: long-term medication, education, and behavior therapy. The “more than” \\nsign implies a linear orientation often embedded in a grounded theory model. \\nCausality is implied in by the theoretical codes that offer an explanation for the “why” \\nbetween the outcomes anticipated and the treatment option. The search for evidence about the \\n“why” behind relationships between constructs builds internal validity (Eisenhardt, 1989). So, \\nfor example, education as a treatment option is not perceived to have undesirable effects but it \\nis not the treatment option most strongly endorsed by participants because of the concern is \\nthat it might not be effective. \\nBussing et al. (2012) feature the model in the section of the article devoted to reporting on \\nthe qualitative analysis but an argument can clearly be made for what they represent as mixed \\nTABLE 3.6 Illustrating Causal Pathways in the Grounded Theory Model Produced by \\nBussing et al. (2012) \\nTheoretical Code: “Negative \\nStrategy (Treatment \\nOutcome – “Undesirable \\nTreatment Perceptions” \\nOption) \\nEffects” \\n> \\n> \\n> \\nBurden (e.g., cost, adhering to a \\nLong-acting medications \\nPhysiological side effects \\ndosing regime) \\nBurden (interference with daily routine) \\nEducation \\nNone \\nPerceived ineffectiveness \\nBurden \\nBehavior therapy \\nDependence \\nPerceived ineffectiveness \\nPsychological side effects \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n62 \\nPROCESS \\ndata and mixed data analysis as one way to acknowledge that the lines between a qualitative and \\nquantitative approach can be blurry. Rather than one that can be pigeon-holed as quantitative \\nor qualitative, a “mixed position” is when some aspect of the quantitative analysis is pursued \\ninductively or some aspect of the qualitative analysis is pursued deductively (Pearce, 2015). \\nThe constructs depicted in the model can be considered as “mixed” because the lines between \\nthose quantitatively derived and those qualitatively derived are blurry. Some were inductively \\nderived through grounded theory methods and others were deductively derived. The figure \\ncan be considered “mixed analysis” because the paths between the constructs were not derived \\ninductively, but by quantifying the frequencies of the responses. Bussing et al. (2012) could have \\nafforded more methodological transparency to readers by devoting a section of the manuscript \\nto explaining how mixing occurred and what was achieved by it. \\nMIXED ANALYSIS THROUGH INTEGRATED CASE-BASED MEMOS \\nMemo writing in its various forms is widely recognized as one of the core characteristics of \\ngrounded theory analytical procedures. Writing memos is an on-going process in grounded the-\\nory. they are a record of reflections about the research process and emerging theoretical ideas. The \\npriority awarded to memoing as a procedure that enhances theorizing spans different schools of \\nthought about grounded theory, including those associated with formal theory (Glaserian) (Tim-\\nonen, Foley, & Conlon, 2018). Memos can be in a written as a narrative or constructed through \\na visualization like an informal sketch that captures preliminary ideas about the links between \\ncodes and sub-codes, between constructs embodied in categorical or selective codes, or that \\ntraces an idea about a temporal sequence. A field note from an observation could serve as a memo \\nthat could be coded later in the analytical process. Initially, memos are brief and constructed in a \\ntentative way. Excerpts from a memo might appear in a manuscript, but their main purpose is to \\nadvance analytical reasoning. \\nI refer to a memo that keeps a record of key decisions points in the analytical process as \\nprocedural memo and distinguish it from a more abstract and potentially theoretically signifi-\\ncant analytical memo. Memos are another type of data that serve as the fundamental bridge \\nbetween data and emergent theory (Lempert, 2007). “If data are the building blocks of the \\ndevelopment of theory, memos are the mortar,” Lempert wrote (2007, p. 119). A memo that \\ntoggles between description and abstraction can be the basis of an argument for patterns and \\nrelationships unlikely to be evident to a participant. More abstract than raw data in the form of \\ninterview transcripts or field notes, memos become data that can be the basis for further rounds \\nof coding and theme development. Some memos grow in complexity and become an enduring \\npart of the emerging theory, while others quickly fall by the wayside and can seem embarrass-\\ningly naïve in retrospect. An eye to the literature during the iterative process of developing a \\nmemo can alert the researcher “to gaps in theorizing, as well as the ways that . . . the data tells \\na different, or more nuanced story” (Lempert, 2007, p. 254). \\nAn integrated analytical memo integrates data collected from qualitative and quantitative \\nmethods to advance theoretical insight. These are readily adaptable to communicating a coherent \\nnarrative or to encapsulating the type of temporal sequence associated with change over time. \\nAn analytical memo can integrate qualitative and quantitative data and serve as a stepping-stone \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPROCESS \\n63 \\nfor further analysis, particularly when this involves case-based analysis by recontextualizing \\nwhat otherwise may seem the fracturing that occurs during open coding. The cycling back and \\nforth between insights drawn from different sources of data that is involved in the construction \\nof an integrated analytical memo is another example of the way the logic of mixed methods can \\nbe embedded in a grounded theory procedure. \\nAnalysis that is based on a case that integrates qualitative and quantitative data can be char-\\nacterized as mixed analysis. Integrated case-based analysis is a mixed methods analytical strategy \\nthat leverages data generated from qualitative and quantitative methods into a narrative or visualizations in \\nways that advance the analysis. A case might revolve around a core construct. It can be about an \\nindividual or an incident or event, like a public protest. Other units of analysis for a case-based \\nanalysis could be a caregiving dyad, a classroom, a community organization or hospital ward, \\na school, a neighborhood, a community, monument, or a piece of land. The development of \\ncases allows a researcher to reconnect segments to the context (Cronin et al., 2007). \\nPrioritizing case-based analysis as the “lynchpin for integration” in a mixed methods \\nstudy, Pat Bazeley wrote: “Each case holds data from different sources and different types \\ntogether, thus cases provide the lynchpin for integration of data” (2018a, p. 26). In MM-\\nGTM, an integrative case-based memo might take the form of a narrative that weaves together \\ninformation from different sources to construct an account of steps or transitions in the process \\nof change. This is similar to the “change maps” used by emergency room nurse, Christine \\nCatallo, Ciliska, and MacMallan (2012) featured in Chapter 2. She sketched one for every \\nparticipant and used them to pinpoint key transition points in the process leading to disclosure \\nabout partner abuse. The purposeful integration of qualitative and quantitative data for pur-\\nposes of further analysis is one feature that distinguishes case-based analysis from qualitative \\napproaches to case study. \\nIn her description of it as mixed analytical strategy, Dutch scholar, Judith Schoonenboom, \\nrefers to the process of developing a case in ways that suggest the abductive process of moving \\nback and forth between an exploratory and a confirmatory stance. She refers to this as “spiraling \\ncycles of ideas and evidence” (2019, p. 1). The priority she places on discordances and discon-\\ntinuities in the construction of cases suggests that Schoonenboom’s perspective inclines to the \\npostmodern. She traces different steps in the construction of a case, concluding that they often \\nbegin what she refers to as the “controversial case.” This is evidence that supports more than \\none conclusion about the role of a theoretical construct in a larger process. She also singles out \\nwhat she refers to as “moderating cases.” These further address complexities emerging from the \\nanalysis of different data sources by developing an understanding of the conditions or circum-\\nstances under which core ideas do not apply. \\nAn integrative case-based memo or visualization is not simply a descriptive compilation \\nlike a data matrix, but a construction that involves interpretation, a winnowing down of the \\ndata, and organization in a way that communicates a coherent logic without concealing nuances \\nin the ways it is experienced. In that way, it is similar to the reliance in fields like geology on \\nproducing field notes from observations. The lines between qualitative and quantitative data \\ncan be kept distinct in an integrated case-based memo, as we will see in the example described \\nin the following section where making meaning of the dissonance between the two was part of \\nthe task. In other circumstances, an integrative memo can be constructed so seamlessly that it is \\ndifficult to discern the lines between the data generated by different methods. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n64 \\nPROCESS \\nAn example of an integrative case-based memo \\nDuring a phase of intense coding and analysis of interview data, an innovative group of research-\\ners at Clemson University led by Lisa Benson (Faber et al., 2019; Kajfez et al., 2021; Lee et al., \\n2019) unexpectedly found themselves adding a step in their grounded theory project that involved \\ndeveloping an integrative analytical memo about each participant. Their interest in the role of \\nreal-world research experiences in the process of the development of an identity as a researcher \\nis a good match with the emphasis placed on process in constructivist grounded theory. T\\neam \\nmembers central to the analytical process needed a wider context to understand undergraduate \\nstudents’ evolving and sometimes contradictory understanding of the nature of research and what \\nit means to be a researcher. The process of constructing the memos helped members of the team \\nfurther explore what appeared to be the contradictory statements participants made during the \\ninterviews when they were asked to explain what they were thinking when they completed an \\nitem on the survey asking them to rate their view of themselves as a researcher. \\nDennis Lee took (Lee et al., 2019) took the lead in an article that documented the pro-\\ncedures team members used to develop and refine memos for each participant that integrated \\ninterview data with responses collected on a survey a few months earlier. The original authors \\nof each of the 20 memos had conducted the interview and were well versed in the theories \\nrelated to epistemology and identity that informed the research project. Each memo was for-\\nmatted in a similar way, with a final section called “cross case analysis” devoted to the constant \\ncomparative act of weighing the in light of other memos. Each memo went through multiple \\nrevisions during the process of interaction among the two people who co-constructed the \\nmemo and the reviewers who subsequently provided feedback about them. This resonates with \\nEisenhardt’s (1989) observation that the process of building theory from case study research is a \\n“strikingly iterative one” (1989, p. 546). \\nThe interactive process of constructing a detailed integrative memo about each participant \\nled to downplaying the significance of the quantitative number respondents assigned to their \\nresponse to survey items related to identity as researcher. Part of the researchers’ reluctance to \\nbase their analysis on the quantitative response was the realization that it froze a response about \\nresearcher identity to a single point of time. A quote that appeared in the memo about a par-\\nticipant, Taylor, captures the fluidity of the meaning of the number assigned and how it was \\nimpacted just a few months later by experiences that had occurred since completing the survey. \\nI feel like, from the time I answered your survey to now, I feel a lot more like a researcher, \\njust in the sense that I’ve had a lot more exposure in the last few weeks to doing engineer-\\ning-related research, so I’ve been exposed to another field in that sense. If I answered “7” \\nfor whatever reason on that, I would probably put myself at a an “8” now. \\n(Taylor, quoted by Lee et al., 2019, p. 4) \\nThe evolving nature of Taylor’s experience fts with Lempert’s (2007) warning to be cautious \\nabout imposing linearity on a participant’s experience. Not all social processes unfold in a linear \\nor for that matter, systematic, way, Lempert observed (2007). \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPROCESS \\n65 \\nIntegrative memos (cases) can be constructed to serve many different functions that advance \\ntheoretical insight. They can be organized to explore causal processes, to identify moderating \\nvariables that influence the outcomes, to pinpoint outcomes, or to describe the process of \\nchange (Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2015). They can be analyzed to reveal under what circum-\\nstances the social process (Rule & John, 2015). Lee et al. (2019) listed five main benefits that \\naccrued from the use of these case-based analytic memos in generating a theoretical framework. \\nThese are: (a) support the description of relationships between theoretical constructs, (b) inte-\\ngrate what was often seemingly contradictory quantitative and qualitative data, (c) facilitate the \\nuse of the constant comparative method, (d) enhance data analysis and model building, and \\n(e) verify a grounded theory model. They also served several practical purposes of consolidating \\ndata management and facilitating communication among team members about the data. As the \\nfinal model began to coalesce, members of the research team returned to the integrative memos \\nas a way to test model fit and to consider the new insight afforded by those who do not seem \\nto fit the model. Their search for cases that appeared not to fit the emerging model is a strategy \\nmore strongly associated with Strauss and Corbin (1998), than it is the constructivist position \\nput forward by Charmaz (2014a). \\nTHEORETICAL SAMPLING \\nTheoretical sampling is a third core grounded theory procedure designed to advance theo-\\nrizing that can be readily adapted to include multiple sources of data. It follows a very different \\nsampling logic than one that is based on trying to achieve representativeness. In a conventional \\nsense, it is defined as an emergent and purposeful approach to sampling that follows and initial purpose-\\nful sampling that is designed to advance theoretical insight by adding to the understanding of concepts, \\ncategories, relationships and themes. In the foundational literature about grounded theory, the \\npurpose of theoretical sampling is to gain better understanding of categories and concepts \\nand possible variations in them (Timonen, Foley, & Conlon, 2018). Emergent themes can be \\nexplored by adding questions to an interview protocol (Levina & Vaast, 2008) or expanding \\nan observation protocol. \\nOthers writing about the use of theoretical sampling take a more expansive view of the \\npurposes theoretical sampling can serve. It can include sampling to verify constructs or themes, \\nto achieve saturation, or to pursue negative cases (Morse & Clark, 2019). It can be used to \\nfind an explanation for group differences, as well as to find an explanation for inconsistencies \\nbetween data sources. Theoretical sampling based on the identification of disconfirming cases is \\noften used during the cyclical process of theory building and testing (Booth, Carroll, Ilott, Low, \\n& Cooper, 2013). It is possible to imagine theoretical sampling undertaken to understand gaps \\nand silences in the data about elements of the phenomenon that were not raised by participants \\nbut expected from the literature. \\nIn MM-GTM, the analytical logic of abduction can be the engine that drives theo-\\nretical sampling. An abductive logic can enter the scene when a coding scheme has begun \\nto solidify. “Theoretical sampling involves abduction as the researcher accounts for puz-\\nzling findings,” Charmaz noted (2019, p. 172). Maintaining her qualitative perspective, she \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n66 \\nPROCESS \\nframed the back and forth as occurring between the data and the emerging theory. Find-\\nings emerging from quantitative data or from quantitative analytical procedures would be a \\nthird partner in this arrangement in MM-GTM. For example, in intervention research in \\na health context where preliminary results ran counter to the assumption that a treatment \\nwould be effective, an abductive approach to theoretical sampling would pursue additional \\nqualitative and quantitative data to support or refute multiple possible explanations for that \\nfinding. \\nSaturation \\nThe argument for saturation as an indication of rigor now extends across many qualita-\\ntive approaches but the originators of grounded theory originally conceived of it as the \\nend point, if not the point, of theoretical sampling. In their first publication, Glaser and \\nStrauss (1967) described saturation in terms of fleshing out the characteristics of catego-\\nries, rather than a theoretical model. “Saturation means that no additional data are being \\nfound whereby the sociologist can develop properties of the category. As he [sic] sees \\nsimilar instances over and over again, the researcher becomes empirically confident that \\na category is saturated” (1967, p. 61). The pursuit of saturation can contribute to careful \\nattention to the development of the properties of a category and produce “the sharply \\ndefined, measurable constructs that are necessary for strong theory,” Eisenhardt (1989, \\np. 542) maintain. \\nOthers define saturation in more practical terms. Eisenhardt (1989) defined saturation as \\na point in the analytical process “when marginal improvements become small” (1989, p. 533). \\nNursing educator and editor of a qualitative journal, Janice Morse, sees this differently. She \\nthat data collection ends when there is “enough data to build a comprehensive and convincing \\ntheory. That is, saturation occurs” (1995, p. 148). It is not the quantity of data, she out, but \\n“valuing variation over quantity” (p. 147). An indicator of saturation is when the theoretical \\ncategories and model resonate with the literature (Nelson, 2017). \\nThere are wide variations in the way that theoretical sampling can be used in MM-GTM. \\nIt can depart from views of it framed in conventional grounded theory textbooks by serving \\na confirmatory purpose. Its use for confirmatory purposes is evident, for example, in a mixed \\nmethods study that used some grounded theory procedures to study depression among Japanese \\nimmigrants (i.e., Saint Arnault, 2009). She identified theoretical sampling as the strategy she \\nused to test hypotheses generated in a previous phase of a study. \\nTheoretical sampling does not always require additional data collection. A certain portion \\nof the data can be reserved to verify findings (Bruce, 2007). The study by Bussing et al. (2005) \\nabout attitudes about treatments for attention deficit disorder explored earlier in the chapter, \\nfor example, used theoretical sampling with data that already had been collected. A similar \\nstrategy could be used with themes generated from an integrated case-based analysis. In a study \\nof Indigenous empowerment, for example, Whiteside et al. (2012) demonstrate a way that \\ntheoretical sampling can be used with secondary data. \\nIntegrated theoretical sampling engages multiple types of data to advance theoretical insight \\nabout categories, concepts, relationships, and themes. In the exemplar described next, these are used \\nwith a carefully matched sub-sample from the larger population. \\n\\n\\n  \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPROCESS \\n67 \\nBox 3.1 summarizes key features of the design of the MM-GTM study of the effects of \\nchildhood trauma during war by Jones and Kafetsios (2005). I distinguish this study as an exem-\\nplar, rather than an example, because of the way that the intent to integrate different sources of \\ndata and engage the dialectically is embedded at many points in the research process. \\nBOX 3.1 \\nJone’s and Kafetsios’s (2005) Study About War-Related \\nChildhood Trauma \\nPurpose: This mixed methods publication is part of a larger body of work related \\nto an ethnographic study by a team of researchers in the United Kingdom inves-\\ntigating adolescents living in two neighboring cities on the opposite sides of a \\nwar in Bosnia (1992–1995) that involved ethnic genocide. Its declared aim was to \\nbetter understand the relationship between overall exposure to political violence \\nand well-being and the contextual factors that influence it. \\nDesign: This study is explicitly situated as mixed methods with a “primarily \\nqualitative methodological stance” (p. 159). Study authors characterize their \\nresearch as following the basic principles of grounded theory. The priority \\nawarded to mixed methods is evident in the numerous sources of data and the \\nmultiple ways they were engaged interactively. Data were collected through \\ninterviews with adolescents and a parent, the administration of multiple ques-\\ntionnaires, including those related to trauma and well-being, and stories and \\nlife history timelines. \\nIntegration: Findings from multiple sources of data were integrated at many \\npoints in the research process and in many innovative ways. The most innovative \\nof these included the quantification of the life history timelines and the creation \\nof mixed data through the construction of a composite measure of well-being \\nthat was informed by subjective judgment and quantitative indicators. Both \\nqualitative and quantitative were collected simultaneously through a survey that \\nwas administered orally where participants described their response to a vari-\\nety of different types of trauma associated with war (bombing, pet killed, family \\nmember injured, friend killed, etc.) and then ranked their frequency (how often) \\nand intensity (duration) \\nUnexpected findings: The “promising lead” that emerged fairly early in this \\nproject is that findings were not consistent with the initial assumption that the \\nwell-being of adolescents in the two villages would differ because one had been \\nthe target of more sustained and intensive bombing. Because habituation leads \\nto less feelings of threat, findings were described as “paradoxical” about quan-\\ntity of shelling. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n68 \\nPROCESS \\nTheory produced: The research extended the original theoretical framework. \\nAlthough not explicitly stated in a theoretical way, well-being (outcome) was \\ninfluenced by contextual factors, most notably, the “degree to which an event \\ndisrupts the adolescent’s personal network, and their personal sense of secu-\\nrity” (p. 172). \\nAlthough there are many fascinating elements of the methods used in this study, the dis-\\ncussion that follows draws attention to the creative ways that data from different sources were \\nintermingled in the sampling strategy. \\nAn exemplar that launched theoretical sampling with a promising lead \\nThe Jones and Kafetsios (2005) study about the effects of ethnic violence was shaped by \\nthe theoretical assumption that the more intense and sustained it is, the more traumatic the \\nexperience and the more likely it is to damage a sense of well-being or security. This logic \\nguided initial sampling procedures and the selection of adolescent youths from two villages \\nthat had experienced different levels of bombing during the Bosnian War between the Serbs, \\nCroats, and Muslims that occurred between 1992 and 1995. The authors situate the study \\nas mixed methods with a “primarily qualitative methodological stance” (Jones & Kafetsios, \\n2005, p. 159). The second round of sampling procedures was influenced by an unexpected \\nfinding that operated like a “promising lead” discussed earlier in the chapter. The authors \\npoint to this theoretical anomaly when they write: “Initial readings of the [interview] tran-\\nscripts showed the importance of exposure in one town but not the other, yet there seemed \\nto be an equal number of less well adolescents in each city” (Jones & Kafetsios, 2005, p. 163). \\nThis puzzling finding influenced subsequent integrative sampling procedures to further \\nunderstand the theoretical implications of the relationship between exposure to violence and \\nsymptoms of trauma. \\nJones and Kafetsios (2005) used a unique approach to integrative theoretical sampling \\nthat was grounded in both qualitative and quantitative assessments. They built a mixed data \\ncomposite measure of psychological well-being based that contained both a quantified change \\nscore, school grades, and the subjective judgments of parents, teachers, and the researcher who \\nhad been engaged in the field. Particular weight was given to the change score. That was the \\ndifference between the initial and final score participants assigned to their well-being as they \\ndrew their timeline. \\nJones and Kafetsios (2005) quantified findings from participant drawn timelines but did not \\ninclude any examples of them in the paper. As this is a strange omission for a study that used \\nvisual methods, I constructed the visualization in Figure 3.3 from the narrative provided in the \\narticle in the study about adolescents during the Bosnian conflict to illustrate how data provided \\nin the life history timeline was quantified. Participants drew a dot on the timeline reflecting an \\nassessment of their well-being for each year of their life after age five. A line was drawn to connect \\n\\n\\n \\n \\nPROCESS \\n69 \\nWell-Being by Year \\n0 \\n0.5 \\n1 \\n1.5 \\n2 \\n2.5 \\n3 \\n3.5 \\n4 \\n4.5 \\n5 \\n5-6 yrs. \\n7-8 yrs. \\n9-10 yrs. \\n11-12 yrs. \\n13-14 yrs. \\n15-6 yrs. \\nWell-Being \\nChild 1 \\nChild 2 \\nChild 3 \\nFIGURE 3.3 A Facsimile of the Timeline Completed by Participants in the Study About \\nWar-Related Trauma \\nthe dot to produce a trajectory. Differences between the highest and lowest point of well-being \\nwere then calculated. \\nA timeline can be “qualitized” (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2019) by asking a participant to \\nprovide context for points on the timeline. \\nCONCLUSIONS \\nThe attention in this chapter has been on procedures that promote theoretical reasoning by \\nengaging more than one source of data and more than one analytical approach (inductive, \\ndeductive, and abductive). I have used several examples and one exemplar to illustrate the \\npotential of embedding an abductive and dialectical exchange between qualitative and quanti-\\ntative data in three core grounded theory procedures: theoretical coding, analytical memoing, \\nand theoretical sampling. The same logic readily extends to other grounded theory procedures \\nsuch as axial coding and saturation. \\nIt would be disingenuous to suggest that the process of generating a theoretical framework \\nwith grounded theory and mixed methods can be reduced to a few formulaic steps that are use-\\nful in all settings. One set of authors writing about grounded theory research undertaken with a \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n70 \\nPROCESS \\nfeminist perspective compare doing grounded theory to preparing a gourmet meal. They write: \\n“Doing grounded theory, rather than a tidy process, is as messy as preparing a gourmet meal \\nwhere all the parts need to come together at the end”(Keddy Sims, & Stern, 1996, p. 450). This \\nrelates to the multi-dimensionality of the constructs and the complexity of the phenomenon \\nbeing studied. An approach characterized by a high level of interaction among collaborators \\nand that integrates findings from different types of data inevitably introduces new ideas and \\nunexpected findings. \\nAdding to the cross-cutting themes \\nThe final table in the chapter, Table 3.7, adds a third layer to the cross-cutting themes identified \\nin the first and second chapter by singling out key points from this chapter. The table is orga-\\nnized around three clusters of concepts: (1) integrated mixed methods designs, (2) MM-GTM, \\nand (3) complexity and dissonance. \\nTABLE 3.7 Linking Key Themes from Chapter 3 to Cross-Cutting Themes \\nCluster \\nMajor Themes that Cross Chapter 3 – Key Points \\nChapters \\nIntegrated \\nApproaches to Mixed \\nMethods Research \\nIntegrated mixed methods \\napproaches\\n A narrative or visualization that integrates \\nqualitative and quantitative data is a case-\\nbased mixed method analytical strategy that \\ncan serve a formative purpose by promoting \\nother kinds of analysis. \\nFully integrated mixed \\nmethods research (FIMMR) \\nFully integrated mixed method grounded \\ntheory (FIMM-GTM) embeds both qualitative \\nand quantitative data in basic grounded \\ntheory procedures like theoretical coding, \\nanalytical memoing, theoretical sampling, \\nand saturation. \\nMixed methods and \\ngrounded theory \\nMMR contribution to \\nexplanatory power \\nThe inductive and exploratory component \\nin MM-GT means that new insight with \\ntheoretical implications can emerge even in \\na study with a purpose to test an existing \\ntheory or hypothesis. \\nMM-GTM \\nThe constant comparative method is not \\nsimply an inductive analytical approach, \\nbut one that also engages deduction and \\nabduction. \\nIn MM-GTM, the analytical logic of \\nabduction can drive theoretical sampling. \\nComplexity and \\ndissonance \\nThe link between mixed \\nmethods and complexity \\nThe contribution of \\nparadox and dissonance \\nto explanatory power \\nA strategy for theoretical sampling can \\nemerge from unexpected findings that \\nemerge from comparing preliminary findings \\nfrom different databases. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n1 \\nPROCESS \\n71 \\nWith an eye toward visual displays \\nAn integrative approach to grounded theory analytical procedures extends the widespread \\nacknowledgment that both qualitative and quantitative data can play a role in a grounded theory \\nstudy but moves well beyond any conventional approach to grounded theory. I continue this \\nmore expansive and creative logic in Chapter 4 where we continue to explore ideas related to \\ncase-based analysis by offering new ideas about the role visualizations that integrate qualitative \\nand quantitative data can play in promoting more nuanced reasoning and in reporting. \\nREVIEW QUESTIONS \\n1 \\nHow can case-based analysis promote integration of diverse sources of data? \\n2 \\nHow can a dialectical logic be built into the way core grounded theory procedures are used \\nduring analysis? \\n3 \\nWhat is an example of how multiple sources of data can be engaged for purposes of theo-\\nretical sampling? \\n4 \\nUnder what circumstances can the inductive drive of grounded theory be maintained \\nwhen a study is framed with an explanatory framework from the literature? \\nSUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITY \\nCreamer, E. G. (March 13, 2018). Webinar: Mixed Methods and Grounded Theory sponsored \\nby the Mixed Methods International Research Association (MMIRA) and hosted by the \\nInternational Institute of Qualitative Inquiry (IIQM): www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_-\\noTXK8s1U&feature=youtu.be \\n\\n\\n \\n  \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nCHAPTER 4 \\nAdvancing theoretical \\nreasoning with visualizations \\nThis chapter considers the ways that in empirical research, visual displays represent ideas at the same time they \\ngenerate them. The chapter introduces creative approaches to integrating different sources of data in visual dis-\\nplays to advance theoretical reasoning. These include mapping, timelining, and variations of cluster mapping. \\nTERMS INTRODUCED IN THE CHAPTER \\n• \\nGraphic elicitation \\n• \\nIntegrative display \\n• \\nJoint display \\n• \\nMatrix mapping \\n• \\nParticipatory photo mapping \\n• \\nQuantitizing \\n• \\nTimelining \\nINTRODUCTION \\nDiagrams, tables, and figures constructed by participants and/or researchers not only serve as a \\ntool to succinctly communicate what was discovered through analysis but also as an analytical \\ntool that generates insight (Buckley & Waring, 2013). In mixed methods, a joint display is the \\nmost commonly used tool for integration (Creswell & Plano, 2011). A display that integrates \\ndata from different sources can help a researcher visualize links between constructs, envision a \\ncore construct that is at the root of an interactive social process, or recognize conditions that \\nmediate an expected outcome. Participatory procedures using graphic elicitation during \\ndata collection, such as through mapping and timeline activities, readily flow over to create a \\nplatform for an initial round of an analysis. Graphic elicitation is a data collection procedure where \\nparticipants physically create and/or verbally edit a diagram or other visual display. \\nIn the last chapter, I re-imagined many core grounded theory procedures, like the writing \\nof analytical memos and theoretical sampling, from their roots in a qualitative tradition to one \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVISUALIZATION \\n73 \\nthat readily embraces a mixed methods approach. These go beyond the simplistic idea that mixed \\nmethods approaches to grounded theory are simply a matter of adding quantitative data to what is \\notherwise a profoundly qualitative set of procedures. In this chapter, I take on the same task with \\nvisual methods. These, too, have almost exclusively been presented as qualitative procedures. I re-\\npurpose them as accommodating many different types of data and methods even when maintaining \\na drive that moves back and forth between an inductive/exploratory and a deductive/confirmatory \\nstance. I provide examples of the use of mixed methods during data collection and analysis with par-\\nticipatory mapping, timelining, and what I refer to as matrix mapping. The examples are provided \\nto inspire creative thinking about ways that they can be adapted and modified to fit other topics and \\ncontext. The examples are meant to encourage researchers to think beyond procedures like inter-\\nviewing and surveys that are not the best fit with marginalized or invisible populations, youth, or to \\nthose where formal verbal exchange is unlikely to produce rich and meaningful data. \\nPurpose, contribution, and principal takeaways of the chapter \\nThe use of visualizations is positioned as a critical step in the analytical process in both qualita-\\ntive (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and mixed method (Onwuegbuzie & T\\neddlie, 2003) research \\nbut their use in the development or refinement of theory has not been explored (Buckley & \\nWaring, 2013). At the same time, that there is little guidance about how to use them in mixed \\nmethods research (Plano Clark & Sanders, 2015), much less how they can be used to promote \\nexplanatory and theoretical insight in MM-GTM. \\nThe aim of this chapter is to invite readers to consider a range of examples of mixed methods \\nstudies that use visual displays in creative ways to integrate qualitative and quantitative data and/or \\napproaches during data collection and analysis. My focus is on visual displays that have an itera-\\ntive component. I take an unconventional stance by distinguishing these as an integrative visual \\ndisplay rather than using the more generic term of joint display. The discussion about each of the \\nexamples underscores the key point of the chapter. That is that integration of findings from dif-\\nferent sources of data in a visual display can be instrumental to advancing analytical and theoretical \\ninsight. While there are important links to qualitative software and to quantitative procedures, like \\nmulti-dimensional scaling, I must leave that topic to others to pursue. \\nThe chapter highlights the use of visual displays in mixed method research used in tandem with \\ngrounded theory procedures. It singles out strategies, including mapping, timelining, and other vari-\\nations of diagramming that have been demonstrated to be compatible to integrating multiple sources \\nof data in ways that generate new analytical insight. I return to one of the cross-cutting themes by \\nconsidering ways that visual displays can reveal diverse perspectives and expose dissonance between \\nfindings from different analytical methods. My ambition is to provide examples that others could \\nleverage in their own research. I postpone to the final chapter discussion of two types of visual dis-\\nplays that are a central feature of the expectations for reporting of a MM-GTM study. These include \\nprocedural diagrams (Creamer, 2020) and visual representations of substantive theoretical models. \\nPrincipal take-aways from the chapter include: \\n1 \\nA visual display can be used as a protocol to structure participatory data collection. \\n2 \\nWhile integrative and joint displays play a critical role during reporting, they can also play \\nan instrumental role in advancing analytical and theoretical insight. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n74 \\nVISUALIZATION \\n3 \\nJoint and integrative displays can reveal diverse perspectives and expose dissonance between \\nfindings from different analytical methods. \\n4 \\nData from integrated visual displays can be used as the basis of case-based analysis and \\nfacilitate cross-case comparisons. \\n5 \\nVisual displays have the potential to generate theoretical insight by helping an investigator \\nenvision patterns, time ordered social processes, and relationships among constructs. \\nOrganization of the chapter \\nThe chapter begins by considering the types and purposes of visual displays that integrate \\nqualitative and quantitative data and/or approaches. The next section of the chapter is devoted \\nto describing several different ways that participatory approaches have been used during data \\ncollection, including through mapping and timelining. The fourth section of the chapter shifts \\nthe focus away from the use of visual displays during data collection to that serve as a platform \\nto integrate data during analysis. In the last part of the chapter, we consider a hypothetical \\nexample involving the effect of nature on well-being that illustrates the interactive interplay that \\ncan occur when data collection and data analysis overlap. \\nJOINT AND INTEGRATIVE VISUAL DISPLAYS \\nThe use of visual displays, like diagrams, tables and figures, is widely endorsed in books about \\ngrounded theory, including those written by Corbin and Strauss (2008), Charmaz (2006), and \\nBirks and Mills (2015). A display “is a visual format that presents information systematically, so \\nthe user can draw valid conclusions and take needed action” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 91). \\nIn mixed methods, a joint display encourages the integrative engagement of data (Bustamante, \\n2017). It is a table or figure that arrays and sometimes links qualitative and quantitative data about the \\nsame constructs, research question, or themes (Guetterman, Fetters, & Creswell, 2015; McCrudden, \\nSchraw, & Buckendahl, 2015; Plano Clark & Sanders, 2015). \\nWhile it is customary to highlight the communicative role of a visualization in reporting \\nfindings, they can also play an important role during data collection and analysis. Buckley and \\nWaring (2013) expand the discussion about visual displays by noting their multiple functions: \\n“Diagrams, pictures, images, photographs, conceptual maps, matrices, tables and charts not \\nonly serve as visual representation of what is being discovered through analysis but also as gen-\\nerative/analytical techniques and communicative tools” (p. 149). Visualizations can contribute \\nto developing as well as supporting the conclusions of a study (Maxwell, Chmiel, & Rogers, \\n2015). That means visual display is not just a representation of what has been discovered but also \\nprovides a strategy to help the analyst generate new analytical and theoretical insight (Buckley & \\nWaring, 2013; Shannon-Baker & Edwards, 2018). They may reveal elements that are keys to \\ntheory development or refinement, including by providing information about the sequencing \\nof events, relationships among constructions, and connections between a social process and \\noutcomes (Weick, 1995). The role of joint and integrative displays in developing the conclu-\\nsions of a study is consistent with Charmaz’s emphasis on grounded theory as a methodology \\nfor theorizing. Analytical joint displays can be creative. They integrate data and discipline-based \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVISUALIZATION \\n75 \\nexpertise for purposes of knowledge discovery (Dickinson, 2010) and theory construction and \\nrefinement (Creamer, 2018b). \\nDiagrams, pictures, images, photographs, conceptual maps, matrices, tables, and charts not \\nonly serve as a visual representation of what is being discovered through analysis but also as \\ngenerative/analytical techniques and communication tools. \\n(Buckley & Waring, 2013, pp. 148–149) \\nJoint displays can serve both summative and formative purposes (Creamer & Edwards, \\n2019). A summative joint display summarizes or visually portrays data during reporting. Qual-\\nitative and quantitative data are often juxtaposed in a summative joint display in ways that \\nimplicitly confirm parallels between them, leaving task of drawing inferences or conclusions \\nlargely to the reader. Joint displays can be used formatively. This is when visualizations serve \\nas a form of data for analysis and/or as a mode of analysis (Shannon-Baker & Edwards, 2018). \\nA formative visual display can be like a theoretical memo that plays an intermediary role \\nduring analysis. These are well suited to explore inconsistencies and contradictions because \\nthey encourage further analysis by presenting qualitative and quantitative data in the same \\nanalytical framework (Maxwell et al., 2015). When used formatively, a joint display or visual-\\nization could be used as a new source of data that offers additional insight about patterns and \\nrelationships. \\nI depart from the conventional practice among members of the mixed method com-\\nmunity by making a distinction between a joint display and an integrative display. The \\nword “joint” in joint display narrows that function of this type of figure or table to two \\ntypes of data. An integrative visual display can include visual data or symbols, as well as \\nquantitative and qualitative data. I reserve the term “integrative display” to a figure or table \\nthat integrates more than one type of data during analysis in a formative way that advances analytical \\nor theoretical insight. As is the case with a figure that depicts a theoretical model, an integra-\\ntive display can provide more holistic understanding by including qualitative and quantita-\\ntive data on different constructs. This differs from Guetterman, Creswell, and Kuckartz’s \\n(2015) assumption that a joint display link qualitative and quantitative data on the same \\nconstructs. \\nOverlap between visual methods, grounded theory, and mixed methods \\nKnigge and Cope (2006) coined the expression “grounded visualization” in a way that explic-\\nitly links it to theorizing. They defined it as an analytical strategy to “more fully integrate \\ndiverse forms of data toward building theories and drawing strong conclusions” (p. 2021). They \\nidentified four areas of overlap between grounded theory and visualization that extends to \\nmixed methods as well. These are that they: (a) can be used for exploratory purposes to build \\nthemes inductively, (b) are often executed in ways that involve multiple rounds of data collec-\\ntion and analysis, (c) simultaneously consider particular instances and general patterns (italics theirs), \\nand (d) encourage multiple views and perspectives for building knowledge (Knigge & Cope, \\n2006, p. 2022). The multiple interpretations emerging from a visualization reflect complemen-\\ntary perspectives, with each source of data filling in information not available in another source \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n76 \\nVISUALIZATION \\nof data. It can reflect interpretations that are on the one hand, consistent, and on the other, \\ncontradictory (Knigge & Cope, 2006). \\nPurposes served by integrative visual displays \\nIntegrative displays can serve multiple purposes at different points in the research process in \\nMM-GTM. Table 4.1 is organized by phase of the research process, beginning with data col-\\nlection and ending with reporting. It identifies a wide range of different purposes that visual \\ndisplays can serve in MM-GTM. The table highlights synergistic ways that visual displays, \\nincluding both as data and as a mode of analysis. \\nPurposes identified in Table 4.1 extend beyond procedures strictly associated with analysis \\nand include offering a way to communicate with stakeholders or to pursue member checking. \\nExamples used later in the chapter illustrate the ways that a visual, like a matrix or mapping \\nactivity, can be used to enhance the potential to collect rich data as well as to provide an instru-\\nment to promote theoretical reasoning. \\nTABLE 4.1 Purposes of Integrative Visual Displays in MM-GTM, by Phase \\nPhase \\nPurpose \\nData collection \\n• Enhance potential for authentic data collection (Umoquit et al., \\n2013), including about sensitive topics (Kesby, 2000). \\n• Engage stakeholders in ways that will inform later stages of the \\nproject. \\n• Create a context for participants to tap into ideas and thoughts they \\nhave not yet articulated. \\n• Expand the diversity of participants that can be involved in a \\nresearch project. \\nData analysis \\n• Serve as a catalyst for discussion among team members. \\n• Serve as an “instrument of thought” and “evoke deeper elements of \\nhuman consciousness” (Buckley & Waring, 2013, p. 149). \\n• Facilitate cross-case comparison (Onwuegbuzie & Dickinson, 2008). \\n• Provide the basis for a case-based analysis. \\n• Enhance the ability to understand theoretical complexity and to \\ndetect patterns, relationships between theoretical constructs, and a \\nsequence of events. \\n• Reveal inconsistencies or contradictions between qualitative and \\nquantitative data. \\n• Facilitate member checking. \\nDrawing conclusions \\n• Explore the best possible explanation through visual and spatial \\nreasoning (Buckley & Waring, 2013). \\nReporting \\n• Provide transparency by documenting the link between data and \\nconclusions. \\n• Communicate linkages, a hierarchy, a temporal sequence through \\nthe spatial arrangement. \\n• Highlight key findings and help the reader understand how the \\ntheoretical framework was developed. \\n• Access a wider audience than by text alone (Buckley & Waring, \\n2013). \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVISUALIZATION \\n77 \\nDIFFERENT TYPES OF INTEGRATIVE DISPLAYS \\nVisual methods are approaches in which visualizations are developed, analyzed, and/or dis-\\nseminated to examine specific phenomenon (Prosser, 2007). In writing about the use of visual \\nmethods with mixed methods, Shannon-Baker and Edwards (2018) conceptualized visuals in \\nfour different categories: (a) when pre-existing visuals are used as data, (b) when visuals are \\ncreated as a form of data to be used in analysis, (c) when visuals are created in the process of \\ndoing analysis, and (d) when visuals are created to report research findings. Research that uses \\nvisual methods with existing graphics might base analysis on photographs, artifacts in the home \\n(e.g., Sheridan, Chamberlain, & Dupuis, 2011), wine labels (e.g., Tiefenbacher, 2013), or use \\ndata available from online archival websites like those devoted to restaurant menus or newspaper \\nadvertisements. The alignment of data in a visual can prove pivotal to seeing patterns in data \\nthat are not otherwise evident. Visuals that are created to report findings are often in the form \\nof a conceptual model or theoretical framework in MM-GTM. \\nThere are a wide variety of visuals displays that can be used in MM-GTM in ways where \\nthey serve both as a form of data and as a medium to promote theoretical thinking. Table 4.2 \\nlists and provides a definition for the different types of integrative displays that will be explored \\nin this chapter. These include concept maps, diagrams, mapping, joint displays, and what I refer \\nto as matrix mapping. \\nThere are other types of visual displays used with mixed methods, like social network \\nanalysis, that I do not cover here. Sometimes referred to as ecomaps (Bravington & King, \\n2018), the spatial arrangements in this type of diagram communicate relationships among \\nconstructs. \\nTABLE 4.2 Definitions of Different Types of Visual Displays in MM-GTM \\nTerm \\nDefinition \\nConcept map \\nA diagram or drawing constructed by participants that is used as data. \\nDiagram \\nOperates like a theoretical memo by tentatively sketching links between \\ncategories developed through inductive, deductive, or, abductive \\nreasoning. \\nMapping \\nA grounded visualization procedure that involves the visual representation \\nand analysis that includes geographic data (Knigge & Cope, 2006). \\nMatrix mapping \\nShares qualities with a concept or cluster map, but what appears within \\nthe map is based on qualitative and quantitative data participants enter \\nin a matrix with four or more cells. \\nIntegrative display \\nA visualization that integrates qualitative and quantitative approaches in \\nways that advance analytical and theoretical insight. \\nJoint display \\nA type of visual display that combines, aligns, or links qualitative or \\nquantitative data in a table or figure. \\nTimelining \\nTimelining is a participatory graphic elicitation method that encourages \\nthe construction of rich, time-ordered narratives of peoples’ life and \\nexperiences, often through diagramming or sketching combined with \\nopen-ended interview (Sheridan et al., 2011). \\n\\n\\n  \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n78 \\nVISUALIZATION \\nEXPLORING EXAMPLES OF MIXED METHODS USED WITH \\nA VISUAL DISPLAY TO GENERATE ANALYTICAL INSIGHT \\nThis chapter diverges from all the other chapters in this book in that it incorporates no exemplar \\nbut singles out three examples for discussion instead. The distinction, as noted in Chapter 1, is \\nthat for purposes of this chapter the authors used a visual display in an innovative way that might \\nbe useful to other researchers. They are not exemplary in other ways relevant to this context. \\nThe chapter introduces three examples of mixed methods studies that used visual displays \\nto integrate qualitative and quantitative data in ways that promoted analytical insight. Each used \\nparticipatory methods in that they were constructed or co-constructed with participants in a \\ndynamic and interactive way. Table 4.3 provides information about each of the three publica-\\ntions. It identifies the source, the disciplinary affiliation, the purpose of the display, and which \\nstages of the research process that the visual display was used. Visualizations are used in these \\nexamples in ways that recognize that interpretation plays a role throughout research process. \\nBazeley (2018a) argues this is true for all research methods. \\nVisual displays are used in each example in a different way. Each extends reasoning into \\nadditional dimensions of time or space. Timelining works well with narrative approaches, \\nresearch about the lifespan, or event analysis that center on processes that unfold over time. The \\nresearch using mapping introduces a spatial dimension. It works well with research involving \\ninteractions, such as occurring in public spaces or built environments, where the research is \\nabout human–environment interaction. All are intended to create a setting that helps the analyst \\nto explore meanings and patterns that underlie diverse experiences and points of view. \\nEach of the examples illustrates the use of a fully integrated approach to mixed methods \\n(FIMMR) because there is attention to the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods \\nacross data collection and analysis. The examples differ in their approach to mixed meth-\\nods. The example using grounded visualization through mapping (i.e., T\\neixeira, 2016) and the \\nTABLE 4.3 Examples of Visual Displays, by Field, Type, Purpose, and Stage of the \\nResearch Process \\nExample \\nField \\nType \\nPurpose of the \\nStage(s) of the \\nVisual Display \\nResearch Process \\nYouth views of housing \\nabandonment (Teixeira, \\n2016) \\nBuilt \\nenvironments \\nMapping \\nTo annotate \\nphotographs \\nduring a youth-\\nled neighborhood \\nwalking tour. \\nData collection and \\nanalysis \\nChanges in poverty \\nstatus over time in rural \\nBangladesh (Davis & \\nBaulch, 2011) \\nEconomics \\nTimelining \\nTo co-construct \\na time-ordered \\nnarrative. \\nData collection and \\nanalysis \\nFabricated example of \\nthe impact of nature on \\nwell-being \\nEnvironmental \\nsciences \\nMatrix \\nmapping \\nTo generate a set of \\nthemes for additional \\nanalysis and cross-\\ncase comparison. \\nData collection and \\nanalysis \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVISUALIZATION \\n79 \\nhypothetical one that used matrix mapping were executed in an iterative way that continu-\\nously moved seamlessly back and forth between data collected through different methods. \\nThis can be referred to as braided approach to mixed methods (Watson, 2019). The qualita-\\ntive and quantitative phases are more distinguishable in the timelining exercise completed \\nby two economists using data collected in Bangladesh (i.e., Davis & Baulch, 2011). The \\ndata collection and data analysis phases are distinct in this study. In their typology of mixed \\nmethods design, Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009) would categorize this as a sequential fully \\nintegrated design. \\nWe move to consider three examples that used integrative displays during data col-\\nlection and/or analysis in the next section of the chapter. First, we study an example \\nthat used photographs with geospatial data to explore participants’ views of an urban \\nneighborhood. The link to theorizing is clearest in this one. The second example shifts \\nattention from space to time and a research strategy called timelining. This example was \\nproduced by a pair of economists who studied changes in poverty status over time among \\nfarmers in Bangladesh. The third example pivots around the use of data matrix to collect \\nboth qualitative and quantitative data about the relationship between an experience in \\nnature and well-being. The cells in the 2 × 2 matrix afford a dimensionality that facilitates \\ncross-case comparisons. Grounded theory methods are not well developed in any of these \\nexamples. \\nParticipatory photo mapping, grounded theory, and mixed methods \\nParticipatory photo mapping (PPM) is generally categorized as a qualitative approach but it \\nis readily adaptable to mixed methods. Participatory photo mapping (PPM) is a graphic \\nelicitation method that integrates photography, community mapping, and walk-along interviews to learn \\nabout people’s experiences in a spatial context. It can also utilize diagramming (Teixeira, 2014). “Maps \\nprovide a visual representation of the spatial dynamics of a social phenomenon or process” \\n(Rucks-Ahidiana & Bierbaum, 2015, p. 99). These can be hand drawn by participants, by an \\ninvestigator, or they can be co-constructed together. Photo mapping borrows procedures from \\nphotovoice (cf. Wang & Burris, 1997) but prioritizes the insight that is afforded about a public \\nspace like a community garden, museum, tourist spot, or neighborhood that could influence \\nwell-being or identity. A quantitative component can be added by using a software mapping \\nplatform to identify the coordinates of the geolocation for a photograph. This type of data \\ncollection strategy joins other participatory approaches in setting out to promote authentic \\ncommunication with youth, marginalized populations like the homeless or disabled, and/or \\nwith groups with limited language skills. A participatory approach challenges conventional \\n(positivist and post-positivist) approaches that position the researcher as an independent, neu-\\ntral observer. \\nStudies with a geospatial component have been used in a wide range of mixed methods \\nstudies. These include in a study designed to promote campus safety (e.g., Hites et al., 2013). \\nOther mixed methods studies have used hand-drawn figures to explore environmental factors \\nthat promote physical activity (Hume, Salmon, & Ball, 2005), how community gardens foster \\nan attachment to place (Knigge & Cope, 2006), and others by feminist geographers explor-\\ning land-use patterns in rural settings (e.g., Nightingale, 2003; Rocheleau, 1995). A drive to \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n80 \\nVISUALIZATION \\nexplore underlying structures, like gender, race, and poverty, that perpetuate inequality is asso-\\nciated with a feminist and transformative paradigm. \\nAn example of participatory photo mapping \\nIn the next section, we consider two articles by the same author (T\\neixeira, 2014, 2016) about \\nyouths’ attitudes about urban neighborhoods. T\\neixeira modeled her work using participatory \\nphoto mapping as a grounded visualization from Knigge and Cope (2006). In this case, the \\ngrounded visualization was the bridge that linked grounded theory and mixed methods. It \\nintegrated the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data through grounded theory with visual \\nrepresentation and the analysis of geographic data (Knigge & Cope, 2006). Data in the T\\neixeira \\nstudy included photos taken by youths, field notes recorded by the researcher during a walk-\\nabout, interview data, and geospatial coordinates that marked the location of each photograph \\ntaken by the youths in the study. \\nGrounded visualization is “a research strategy at the analysis level, which will more fully \\nintegrate diverse forms of data toward building theory and strong conclusions.” \\n(Knigge & Cope, 2006, p. 2021) \\nAs with the study by Knigge and Cope (2006) that it is modeled after, that most unusual \\nelement of T\\neixeira’s research is its documentation of the creation of an interactive database that \\nmerged multiple different types of data in Computer Assisted Qualitative Analysis Software \\n(CAQDAS). Constructing a database that merges data on qualitative and quantitative constructs \\nis the key to meaningful integration (Bazeley, 2018a; Creswell & Plano, 2011). In the study \\nwith the mapping exercise, integration occurred during analysis through the innovative linking \\nof the multiple sources of data through a multi-media interactive map with hyperlinks using \\nmapping software. Each location point was associated with one of the youth photos, a GIS \\ncoordinate, street map, and coding schemes created by both the youthful participants and the \\nresearcher. \\nT\\neixeira (2016) included a screenshot from the mapping software (ArcGis) she used in her \\narticle (see Figure 2, p. 591, in T\\neixeira). The software made it possible for her to toggle back and \\nforth between multiple different types of data about a specific location in a neighborhood that \\nappeared in a participant’s photograph. It is not difficult to imagine how a researcher with this \\ntype of interactive database could use the kind of abductive process described in earlier chapters \\nthat moves back and forth between generating new ideas and supporting or refuting them. \\nTeixeira’s two articles (2014, 2016) reveal different aspects of the project. The first article \\n(2014) details the participatory side of the project and its transformative aim to promote com-\\nmunity change. The focus shifts away from participants in the subsequent 2016 article where \\nthe author elected to situate her work within an existing theory, broken windows theory, as \\npresented by Knigge and Cope (2006). From my perspective, the pairing with the broken \\nwindows theory is not consistent with the participatory action model. The translation is less \\nthan optimal because the broken windows theory is framed in language about “urban decay,” \\n“blight,” “vacancy,” and “abandonment” that has negative connotations. The author acknowl-\\nedged that participants did not resonate with the negativity embedded in the language she \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n  \\n \\nVISUALIZATION \\n81 \\nadopted from Knigge and Cope (2006). The language was far harsher than the language par-\\nticipants used to describe their neighborhood. This is a case where my strategy to consult more \\nthan one article exposed a clash between the pre-existing theory that was utilized and how the \\nauthor reported her interactions with participants in the field. \\nThis research is plagued by significant methodological weaknesses that ruled out my iden-\\ntification of it as an exemplar, including in the very small sample size based on convenience \\nsampling. Despite these limitations, several qualities distinguish this study of participatory photo \\nmapping, both in terms of grounded theory and mixed methods. These include: \\n1 \\nIts purpose is consistent with grounded theory because it reflects a localized theory of a \\nsocial process developed using an inductive approach that was grounded in the experience \\nof the participants. \\n2 \\nThe quantitative, geospatial data helped to point to patterns and commonalities across the \\nsites identified by participants in the photo mapping activity. \\n3 \\nQualitative and quantitative data were integrated during data collection through a group \\nmapping activity. \\n4 \\nData were merged during analysis to create an interactive, integrated database. \\n5 \\nIn a second phase, the locally developed theory was compared to a well-known existing \\ntheory in ways that challenged it and invited further exploration. \\nWe turn from a use of visual methods that prioritizes spatial arrangements to one that \\nattends to time, critical events, and the sequence of events. \\nTIMELINING AS A VISUALIZATION STRATEGY THAT ENABLES \\nINTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATA \\nTimelines or lifelines are generally cast as a qualitative data collection method but are readily \\nadaptable to approaches that integrate qualitative and quantitative data along a chronological \\ndimension. Timelining is a participatory graphic elicitation method that encourages the construction of \\nrich, time-ordered narratives of peoples’ life and experiences that is accomplished through diagramming or \\nsketching combined with an open-ended interview (Sheridan et al., 2011). A timeline used in data \\ncollection can have both a vertical and a horizontal axis (Bravington & King, 2018). These are \\nnot necessarily restricted to collection at a single point in time but can be constructed over \\nthe course of several interactions to capture key transition points or change. The act of creat-\\ning the diagram and annotating it can shrink the emotional and physical distance between the \\nresearcher and participant (Sheridan et al., 2011) in ways that enhance the quality of the data. \\nTimelining activities are used more widely with adults than other types of drawing and dia-\\ngramming procedures. \\nTimelining is a visual method that can be effective to study topics where the interest, as \\nis typical with grounded theory, is with a social process that changes over time. In his disserta-\\ntion, Michael Kutnak (2017), formerly a doctoral student in higher education, used a mapping \\nactivity to gain understanding of key points in the collaborative decision-making process that \\nacademics, planners, architects, and engineers working together used to reach agreement about \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n82 \\nVISUALIZATION \\ndesign of new academic buildings. He collected written and spoken language and symbols by \\nhanding each participant a set of magic markers and a sheet of paper from a flip chart and asking \\nthem to talk out loud as they diagrammed important steps in the process. Field notes were an \\nimportant part of his data, along with images constructed by his participants. \\nLike other visual methods, timelining is readily adaptable to a mixed methods approach. \\nThis procedure can be utilized either through data collection, during analysis, or through an \\napproach that integrates that two. As we saw in one of the exemplars featured in the previ-\\nous chapter about the experiences of adolescents in a refugee camps by Jones and Kafetsios \\n(2005), both qualitative and quantitative data can be collected on a timeline. In this case, \\nparticipants first tracked the frequency of their exposure to war-related violence over time \\non the horizontal axis. Subsequently, researchers asked them to elaborate their responses by \\nannotating the timeline. Data in timelines are often quantified for purposes of analysis. A \\nstraightforward way to do this is by creating a dichotomous variable to code a timeline for \\nthe presence or absence of a specific event. \\nA MM-GTM study used a timelining activity in the qualitative phase of a study about \\nparents’ help-seeking behavior for a child with an attention deficit disorder that was reviewed \\nin an earlier chapter. During semi-structured interviews, Regina Bussing et al. (2005, 2012) \\nasked parents to describe their help-seeking behaviors. Further analysis was conducted to \\nquantify different elements of the help-seeking behavior appearing on the timeline, includ-\\ning about the types of treatment sought. When combined with quantitative indictors, these \\nresearchers reported significant differences by both race and gender, particularly for African \\nAmerican girls, in help-seeking behaviors by parents with children with attention deficit \\ndisorder. \\nAn example of using timelining and case-based analysis \\nto understand changes in poverty status \\nAn international team of researchers involved in a large-scale, longitudinal study about changes \\nin the poverty status in communities in rural Bangladesh (i.e., Davis & Baulch, 2011) created \\nan innovative approach to timelining to reconcile dissonance between their qualitative data and \\na quantitative measure that had become a gold standard for the field. This conventional index is \\nbased on a single measure of expenditures. It documented an improvement in economic status, \\nwhile the investigators had confidence in their qualitative data that presented a more pessimistic \\nconclusion. \\nDavis and Baulch (2011) developed case-based timelines to track the changing pov-\\nerty status of their participants. Figure 4.1 reproduces a figure the researchers created to \\nrepresent the experiences of a 57-year-old woman. The figure includes quantitative data \\n(a quantitative score that denotes one of five different poverty states at different points of \\ntime) and qualitative data that summarizes comments by the participant to explain the ups \\nand downs in the graph line. The trajectory depicted in the timeline reproduced in the \\narticle shows a few up-ticks, but by and large it shows deteriorating circumstances between \\n1950 and 2007. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVISUALIZATION \\n83 \\nFIGURE 4.1 Example of a Case-Based Timeline \\nThe timeline depicted in this figure is an example of the type of data that motivated Davis \\nand Baulch (2011) to shift from a one-dimensional measure of poverty to a multi-dimensional \\none that factored in more than simply expenditures. This is a case where the inconsisten-\\ncies between the insights gained from the qualitative and quantitative data revealed different \\ndimensions. Because expenditures increased over time, but land ownership declined, the figure \\ncaptures a personal narrative where a single measure concealed shifts in personal and family \\neconomic well-being. The downward trajectory of the timeline shows how fragile these lives \\nwere and how a single, unexpected event could propel a person back into poverty. Analytical \\nprocedures that combined qualitative and quantitative indicators provided evidence to war-\\nrant the effectiveness of a more nuanced and multi-dimensional way to measure economic \\nwell-being. \\nDavis and Baulch (2011) further integrated their qualitative and quantitative data \\nthrough an unusual joint display. They generated a creative set of symbols to depict different \\ntrajectories graphed on the timelines. Symbols in the joint display reflect both the direction \\n(declining, stable, improving) of the graph line, as well as if the progression was an even or \\nuneven one. The number of cases in each category and the weight that was given to those \\ncases in the quantitative analysis also appear in the joint display. A similar approach could \\nbe used to distinguish the trajectory of change over time about many constructs, including \\nactivity level, weight gain or loss, or recovery from illness or addiction, to name just a few \\npossibilities. \\nTable 4.4 reproduces the joint display from Davis and Baulch (Table 7, 2011, p. 126) that \\nuses a set of images to embody what they refer to as common life trajectory patterns in their \\ndata. These were quantified for subsequent analysis. \\n\\n\\n \\n84 \\nVISUALIZATION \\nTABLE 4.4 Davis and Baulch’s (2011) Visual Depiction of Common Life Trajectories \\nDirection \\nStable \\nImproving \\nDeclining \\nStable \\nPattern \\nSmooth \\nSmooth \\nSmooth \\nSaw-tooth \\nDepiction Number of Cases \\n8 \\n3 \\n2 \\n135 \\nWeighted Per cent \\nof Cases \\n1.47 \\n1.43 \\n0.36 \\n44.98 \\nImproving \\nSaw-tooth \\n76 \\n26.15 \\nDeclining \\nSaw-tooth \\n30 \\n6.90 \\nDeclining \\nSingle-step \\n2 \\n0.48 \\nDeclining \\nMulti-step \\n37 \\n18.22 \\nTotal \\n293 \\n100 \\nIntegrating data through a matrix-mapping exercise \\nResearchers using mixed methods have integrated qualitative and quantitative approaches \\nthrough visual displays they sometimes refer to as a concept map and sometimes as a cluster \\nmap. When used as data, concept maps are generally hand drawn or diagrammed by participants \\nin ways that depict a network of related concepts. Qualitative software like NVIVO, Dedoose, \\nMAXQDA, or ATLASTI can be used to quantify qualitative data in ways that reveal similari-\\nties in coding or text. Qualitative software has the capability to produce or map or figure of \\na complex construct, like sustainability, in ways that make it possible to discern relationships \\namong constructs. \\nThere are multiple creative examples of the use of cluster or concept mapping in mixed \\nmethods. Following a structured approach used in evaluation and assessment, Windsor (2013), \\nfor example, used qualitative software and a concept map to cluster qualitative data about \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVISUALIZATION \\n85 \\nthe dimensions and consequences of abuse in a distressed community. Another team (Walker, \\nBlock, & Kawachi, 2012) used similar procedures to map factors that influence the food-buying \\npreferences of people living in locations where the options for buying groceries are more or \\nless abundant. In the field of agriculture, Santiago-Brown, Jerram, Metcalfe, and Collins (2014) \\ncreated a concept map to group statements reflecting different dimensions of wine growers’ \\ndefinitions of sustainability based on their frequency. In a longitudinal grounded theory study \\nwith patients with advanced Parkinson disease, Williams and Keady (2012) used a series of \\nconcept maps they co-constructed with their participants to document how an illness narrative \\nbecame more and more central to their definition of self over time. \\nThe research that distinguishes itself from a mixed method concept analysis or cluster \\nanalysis uses a type of mixing that relies on data transformation. Most often this is when quali-\\ntative data are quantified for purposes of statistical analysis. This is a mainstay of research using \\na mixed methods approach that is referred to as quantitizing (Sandelowski, Voils, & Knafl, \\n2009). This is a type of data transformation where qualitative data are quantified for purposes of statistical \\nanalysis. In a structured approach to content analysis, this is often done by asking participants to \\nassign a score so that the relevance or importance of statements generated during a brainstorm-\\ning session can be ranked. In mixed methods studies, visual preference surveys quantitize visual \\ndata by asking participants to rate or score a photograph or image (e.g., Sweeney & Von Hagen, \\n2015). In their use of mixed method concept mapping, both Walker et al. (2012) and Windsor \\n(2013) used qualitative software to cluster the line numbers of text that appeared in close prox-\\nimity. The closer the line numbers on this type of cluster map, the more the statements were \\nassumed to share an underlying meaning. \\nIn the next section of this chapter, I accept the challenge that I have presented to the reader \\nto be creative in experimenting with integrative displays that advance the analytical insight in \\nways that move beyond simply quantifying qualitative data. I describe a hypothetical example \\nabout the benefits of a walk in a forest that I have used as an interactive activity in workshops \\nabout MM-GTM. I refer to the procedure as a participatory matrix-mapping activity. Matrix \\nmapping is an interactive graphic elicitation method that asks participants to, first, enter the \\nintersection of a quantitative score on a scale on the vertical axis and a second score on a scale \\non the horizontal axis and then to annotate the point of intersection with a few words to \\ndescribe it. \\nA matrix-mapping activity produces a type of cluster map that is plotted by participants \\nrather than by qualitative software that quantifies qualitative codes or language. It is an inte-\\ngrative display that collects both qualitative and quantitative data concurrently. Participants \\nplot the intersection of their scores on two behavioral scales to generate a quantitative score. \\nA qualitative component is added when a participant adds explanatory comments in a matrix \\nwith four cells. \\nAn example of a matrix-mapping activity conducive to MM-GTM \\nI illustrate the way that a matrix-mapping activity might be used as a grounded visualization \\nfrom an idea that was sparked by a review of the popular media book, Nature Fix, that appeared \\nin the New York Times. Jason Mark (2017), a writer specializing in the environment, expressed \\nsome skepticism about claims made about the benefits to physical and psychological well-being \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n86 \\nVISUALIZATION \\nof experiences of nature that promise to help us be happier, healthier, and more creative. \\nNature neuroscientists purport that a walk in the woods as short as 15 minutes can reduce the \\nstress hormone, cortisol, and when as long as 45 minutes, can significantly enhance cognitive \\nperformance and possibly generate feelings of generosity. One explanation is that the experi-\\nence has its most profound impacts when it is an immersive one that engages all the senses from \\nsounds (bird song, wind, rain) through the aerosols present in evergreen trees that act as a mild \\nsedative. \\nNot entirely convinced that these findings extend to the real world, Mark (2017) expressed \\nskepticism that these claims might be “aspiration dressed up as a hypothesis.” In other words, \\nthat the unpredictability of the real-world experience, along with the potential introduction of \\nunexpected weather, pests, wildlife, and equipment malfunctions might yield for less positive \\nbenefits. \\nFigure 4.2 represents the type of 2 × 2 matrix that could be used to collect data to explore \\nthe link between well-being and an appreciation of nature, as evident through recollection of \\na single incident of a walk in the forest. In this hypothetical example, during the first phase \\nof data collection, participants would plot the intersection of two scores, each using a one- to \\nfour-point scale with the vertical Y axis collecting an assessment of overall well-being and the X \\naxis a measurement of appreciation of nature during a specific experience. In Figure 4.2, each \\ncircle represents a single participant. The label applied to each circle could be generated by the \\nparticipant and/or the researcher and then used as the basis for a group interview or discussion. \\nThe data in Figure 4.2 are hypothetical. It is completed as if there are only six participants when \\nconsiderably more would be needed to either confirm or develop a theory about the impacts \\nof an immersive experience in nature. \\nThere are a lot of different ways this type of activity could involve participants both in \\ndata collection and analysis. Figure 4.3 is a flowchart that captures the way the research process \\nmight unfold in this matrix-mapping activity. \\nFIGURE 4.2 Generating Analytical Insight from a Matrix-Mapping Activity \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVISUALIZATION \\n87 \\n!\\nPHASE 1: \\nData Collection \\nthrough Mapping & \\nClustering Activity \\nPHASE 2: \\nAnalysis \\nDevelop & Explore \\nTentative Themes \\nthrough a Joint \\nDisplay \\nPHASE 3: \\nAnalysis \\nConstruct Integrated \\nCase Profiles by \\nQuadrant \\nPHASE 4: \\nDevelop a \\nConceptual \\nModel/Explore the \\nLiterature for \\nRelated Theories \\nFIGURE 4.3 Procedural Diagram of the Design of Matrix-Mapping Activity \\nParticipants involved in the frst phase of the research might plot and annotate their scores on a \\ndata matrix and then explain their logic in a group setting. In the second phase of the process, \\npreliminary themes could be developed that explore diferences within and between the quad-\\nrants in the matrix. A comparison of the experiences of participants positioned in the diferent \\nquadrants very likely would uncover a diverse set of personal and environmental conditions that \\nefect the experience. A case-based approach to analysis could be used in a third phase where \\nthe research analyst might draft analytical memos or a summary case profle for each of the four \\nquadrants or for the extremes (high well-being, high nature; high well-being, low nature; low \\nwell-being, high nature; low well-being, low nature). Bazeley (2018a) suggests that a similar \\nexploratory strategy could be used with a quantitatively generated cluster analysis. \\nThe use of a matrix or cluster map that integrates qualitative and quantitative data for anal-\\nysis can extend to the use of a joint display. Qualitative and quantitative data are often aligned \\nside by side with questions, themes, and/or statistics in a joint display (Guetterman et al., 2015). \\nBy and large, this type of visual display devotes more attention to words than does an integra-\\ntive display. Meaning can also be communicated in an integrative display through such visual \\ndevices as shading, dotted and solid lines, curved or straight lines, and arrows. \\nIllustrating the use of a joint display to advance analysis \\nJoint displays array or align qualitative and quantitative data on the same constructs. Some \\nconceptualize joint displays primarily as a table with a two-column format that juxtaposes or \\nlinks qualitative and quantitative data. These typically represent less fluidity in the interaction \\nbetween data from different sources than the type of integrative display I have been review-\\ning. Early conceptualizations of the formatting of a joint display were extended in a recent \\npublication by Johnson, Grove, and Clarke (2019). They inserted a column at the center \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n88 \\nVISUALIZATION \\nof a conventional joint display in a process they referred to as “pillar integration.” They used \\nthe center column to document the themes that emerged when data from two sources were \\nintegrated. In an article I singled out as an exemplar in my first textbook (Creamer, 2018a); \\nCastro, Kellison, Boyd, and Kopak (2010) accomplished the same thing by adding a column to \\nthe right of a two-column display. Key themes were proposed in the right column that emerged \\nfrom the alignment of the qualitative and quantitative data in a rank order. \\nTable 4.5 uses a small amount of fabricated data extracted from the 2 × 2 data matrix \\nconstructed from the matrix-mapping activity shown in Figure 4.2. The first two columns are \\ncharacteristic of most joint displays in mixed methods. The first column lists quantitative scale \\nscores. The second column lists fictional data extracted from interview data matched to the \\nscore. The table is ordered by the score in the first column. \\nThe third column is what positions this joint display as an intermediary step in the analy-\\nsis, rather than exclusively as a tool for reporting that represents the data. The third column \\nlists examples of the types of themes that might emerge from considering the qualitative and \\nquantitative data together. The influence of past experiences is noted by two participants, for \\nexample, and produced the theme: past experiences, positive and negative, influence the pres-\\nent experience. The themes are posed as tentative statements that can be explored through \\nadditional rounds of data collection and analysis. Quantitative analysis might, for example, yield \\ndistinctions between the scores of individuals that describe interactions with and without other \\npeople or those with and without past memories. \\nTABLE 4.5 Illustrative Joint Display Linking Qualitative and Quantitative Data from the \\nData Matrix from the Forest Example \\nScores on Well-B\\nand Nature Scales \\neing \\nQualitative Data \\nGenerated Themes \\n3.8, 3.8 \\nWhenever I walk in the woods, I \\nremember how my family used to \\ncamp when I was a kid. \\nTheme 1: Pat experiences, \\npositive and negative, \\ninfluence the present \\nexperience. \\n2.5, 1.0 \\nI really like the first half an hour \\nor so of a walk in the woods, \\nbut after that I find I stop paying \\nattention and start to think of other \\nthings I need to be doing. \\nTheme 2: Unpredictable \\nelements of the experience \\nand the environment interfere \\nwith the ability to become \\nimmersed in nature. \\n1.75, 3.0 \\nI really enjoy hiking, but I have run \\ninto some pretty scary weather. \\n1.5, 3.5 \\nI was enjoying the walk with my \\nfamily until my daughter was stung \\nby a bee. \\n1.0, 0.5 \\nI am very anxious about running \\ninto a bear. \\n0.75, 2.2 \\nSomeone in the group got sick \\nand we had to get him medical \\nhelp. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVISUALIZATION \\n89 \\nThe scores on the two scales in this hypothetical example yield a moderately strong, posi-\\ntive statistical correlation. The limitation of basing conclusions on this quantitative index is that \\nit obscures the distribution of the scores across the space depicted in the matrix. It supports the \\nidea that there is a relationship but does not tell us anything that is theoretically intriguing about \\nwhat influences that relationship. It conceals substantial variability in the immersion experience \\nthat could be explored through further analysis. Further analysis could well lead our imaginary \\nresearcher to conclude that it is difficult to replicate the idealized immersion experience of the \\nlaboratory in the real world where bugs, bears, insects, and weather can interfere with the abil-\\nity to savor the experience of a walk in the woods. \\nCONCLUSIONS \\nThe use of visual displays that integrate qualitative and quantitative data in ways that advance \\ntheory development has not previously been explored (Buckley & Waring, 2013). In this chap-\\nter, I took on the task of reconceptualizing some procedures like timelining, concept mapping, \\nand geospatial mapping, which have previously been viewed exclusively as qualitative methods \\nas mixed methods procedures that can be used with grounded theory. There are many creative \\nways that qualitative and quantitative can be integrated in a visual display that extend well \\nbeyond the over-used practice of quantifying qualitative data. \\nThere are a number of ways that a visualization can contribute to developing theoretical \\ninsight. When a researcher is looking to develop, test or refine a theory, a visual display can help the \\nresearcher to specify patterns and to detect relationships between constructs (Bazeley & Jackson, \\n2013). The juxtaposition of qualitative and quantitative data can help a researcher envision a core \\nconstruct that might capture an instrumental feature of a social process or to identify and recognize \\nconditions that mediate an expected outcome. It can also provide evidence of change over time. \\nOne of the challenges in reporting mixed methods, including in the final formatting of a \\nvisual display, is to find effective ways to communicate with what is often a cross-disciplinary \\naudience (Hay, 2016). Members of this audience may share some content expertise, but it is \\noften the case that their interest is as much about how the methodology is used as about what \\nis learned from it. Figures and tables can be off-putting to readers when they are too complex, \\nspan more than a single page, use abbreviations that are not self-explanatory, or are packed with \\nsmall print and a lot of detail. \\nGuidelines for constructing effective joint and integrative displays \\nDespite the variability that can be found in the way integrative and joint displays are con-\\nstructed, there are some common guidelines that can boost their effectiveness during the \\nreporting process. These include the following: \\n1 \\nProvide a title for the display that acknowledges it demonstrates integration when it’s \\nappropriate. \\n2 \\nEven if they have been defined in the text, avoid abbreviations that are likely to be unfamiliar \\nto many readers. This includes using abbreviations for variable names from computer output. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n90 \\nVISUALIZATION \\n3 \\nAll abbreviations and symbols should be explained in a footnote to the table or figure. \\n4 \\nClearly label what is qualitative data and what is qualitative data. \\n5 \\nAvoid duplicating data across tables and figures. \\n6 \\nTake advantage of using color and shading in journals in situations where an article will be \\ndisplayed online. \\n7 \\nAvoid inserting page shots of output from statistical software, especially those that use vari-\\nable names that are not self-explanatory. T\\no consider the limitations of this, see an example \\nof MM-GTM by Yang, Richardson, French, and Lehman (2011). \\n8 \\nAcknowledge inconsistencies between findings from the different data sources by creating \\na symbol system. For example, a dotted line around a box can be used to signal weak or \\ncontradictory support for a variable. \\nAdding to the architecture of the cross-cutting themes \\nTable 4.6 adds yet another layer to the cross-cutting themes identified in the first chapter, by \\nfilling in information about key points from this chapter. The table is organized around three \\nclusters of concepts: (a) integrated mixed methods designs, (b) MM-GTM, and (c) complexity \\nand dissonance. \\nTABLE 4.6 Linking Key Themes from Chapter 4 to Cross-Cutting Themes \\nCluster \\nMajor Themes that \\nChapter 4 – Key Points \\nCross Chapters \\nIntegrated \\napproaches to \\nmixed methods \\nresearch \\nMixed methods and \\ngrounded theory \\nIntegrated mixed \\nmethods approaches \\nFully integrated mixed \\nmethods research \\n(FIMMR) \\nMMR contribution to \\nexplanatory power \\nJoint and integrative visual displays are \\na strategic way to integrate findings from \\ndifferent methods during analysis. They can \\nalso be used to involve participants during \\ndata collection. \\nJoint and integrative visual displays can provide \\na way to visualize patterns and connections that \\nhave theoretical implications. \\nConstructing a database that merges data on \\nqualitative and quantitative constructs is the key \\nto meaningful integration. \\nQuantifying qualitative data for analysis is an \\nover-used strategy in mixed methods research. \\nIn some fully integrated mixed method (FIMMR) \\ndesigns, the qualitative and quantitative phases \\nmay be difficult to disentangle, while in other \\ncases, the phases are quite distinct. FIMMR \\ndesigns can be executed in a concurrent or \\nsequential manner. \\nTimelines, matrices, concept maps, and other \\ntypes of integrative visual displays can be used \\nboth to collect and analyze data. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nVISUALIZATION \\n91 \\nCluster \\nMajor Themes that \\nCross Chapters \\nChapter 4 – Key Points \\nComplexity and \\ndissonance \\nThe link between mixed \\nmethods and complexity \\nVisual displays can reveal diverse perspectives \\nand expose dissonance between findings from \\ndifferent analytical methods. \\nThe contribution of \\nparadox and dissonance \\nto explanatory power \\nAppendix A consists of a multi-page table that summarizes the key points by the cross-\\ncutting themes for all the chapters. \\nBridging to the next chapter \\nWe saw the potential of dissonance to make a contribution to analytical insight in all three of \\nthe case examples considered in this chapter. For example, there was a sizable gap between \\nthe views of participants in the mapping activity reported by T\\neixeira (2014, 2016) and the \\ntheory the researcher adopted. The economists exploring changes in economic well-being \\nin the timelining example found that a widely adapted measure could not capture the multi-\\ndimensional nature of the phenomenon. The design of the instrument used to collect data in \\nthe example weighing the relationship between an immersive experience in a walk in the forest \\nand physical and psychological well-being yielded a diverse array of conditions that were very \\nlikely to mitigate a positive outcome. \\nWhile many might find these kinds of gaps disconcerting and possibly an indication \\nof poor research, I am in agreement with those that argue that the opportunity to explore \\ndifferences that emerge when findings from different data sets are considered together as \\na characteristic that distinguishes mixed methods as a methodology. Erzberger and Kelle \\n(2003) maintain, for example, that divergent findings should not necessarily be taken as an \\nindication of poor-quality data or research methods but should be considered “as a pointer \\nto new theoretical insight” (p.  475). Authors of an early textbook about mixed meth-\\nods, Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie, value theoretical consistency and interpretive \\nagreement, but acknowledge inconsistency between the inferences that emerge from dif-\\nferent methods “might be considered a unique benefit from conducting mixed methods \\nresearch” (2008, p. 116). \\nIn the next chapter, we link to one of the cross-cutting themes by exploring the possibility \\nthat inconsistencies in the findings generated by different methods is indeed a principal value-\\nadded of pairing mixed methods with grounded theory. In that chapter, first we pick up the \\ntask of demonstrating how dissonance between findings can contribute to theoretical insight \\nin MM-GTM. Second, we explore the conditions when this is most likely. We also look at \\nthe flip side of the issue by excavating situations where exceptions to a pattern may carry little \\nsignificance. We revisit the argument for the importance of visual displays by exploring the role \\nthey can play in documenting the credibility of conclusions. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n92 \\nVISUALIZATION \\nREVIEW QUESTIONS \\n1 \\nHow might a joint display or an integrative display be used for a case-based analysis? \\n2 \\nWhat kinds of variables could be quantified in a research project collecting data through a \\ntimelining activity? \\n3 \\nIn what ways can a visual display contribute to theoretical insight? \\nSUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITY \\n1 \\nGuetterman, T. (2019, August). Using joint displays to integrate qualitative and quantita-\\ntive data. Y\\nou-Tube Video from International Institute of Qualitative Inquiry/Mixed \\nMethods International Research Association Webinar Series. www.youtube.com/ \\nwatch?v=U5Jv9qY7OQA \\n\\n\\n \\n  \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nCHAPTER 5 \\nLeveraging dissonance \\nto advance theoretical \\nreasoning \\nThe opportunity to engage dissonance and incongruities in the results emerging from different methods is \\na unique benefit of a mixed methods approach. When pursued systematically, these often generate original \\ninsight. \\nTERMS INTRODUCED IN THE CHAPTER \\n• \\nInitiation rationale \\n• \\nRupture theorizing \\n• \\nTheoretical sensitivity \\n• \\nTheoretical triangulation \\n• \\nVerification \\n• \\nWarranting \\nINTRODUCTION \\nMany find it unsettling when their qualitative and quantitative analytical procedures yield results \\nthat run counter to their initial drive to build credibility by seeking another method to confirm \\nfindings. There certainly are occasions when unexpected or counter intuitive findings are not \\nworth the investment of time and resources to pursue, including when there is only a small \\namount of data to support them or there are clear indications that the data or instruments were \\nused in ways that were methodologically flawed. There are other circumstances when there are \\ndistinct benefits, including to the rigor of the research, when unexpected findings are pursued \\nthrough additional analysis and/or data collection. “Divergent findings should not always be \\nconsidered as an indicator of a poor research design; instead they may be considered a pointer \\nto new theoretical insight,” Erzberger and Kelle wrote (2003, p. 475). \\nThe commitment to engage difference and to pursue paradox and contradiction is central \\nenough to the methodology that undergirds mixed methods to warrant a separate designation \\nin a widely used framework that identifies the principal rationales for its use. The originators \\nof a classification system for the rationales for using mixed methods that continues to be widely \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n94 \\nDISSONANCE \\napplied, Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) followed Rossman and Wilson (1985) in sin-\\ngling out what they referred to as the initiation rationale. This is one of the five principal ratio-\\nnales for integrating data that involves additional rounds of data collection and analysis to further explore \\nunexpected, contradictory, or paradoxical findings. Rossman and Wilson (1985, p. 637) described the \\ninitiation purpose in this way: “Initiation is an analytical function that turns ideas around. It \\ninitiates new interpretations, suggests areas for further exploration, or recasts the entire research \\nquestions.” The word “initiation” signals the expectation that the discovery of contradiction \\ninitiates additional analysis. Greene et al. defined this rationale with these words: “Seeks the \\ndiscovery of paradox and contradiction, new perspectives and frameworks, the recasting of \\nquestions or results from one method with questions or results from another method” (1989, \\np. 259). Greene et al. observed that qualitative and quantitative data tend to be given equal \\nweight in this type of study. \\nInitiation is an analytical function that turns ideas around. It initiates new interpretations, \\nsuggests areas for further exploration, or recasts the entire research question. \\n(Rossman & Wilson, 1985, p. 637) \\nThe initiation rationale extends to research seeking to make meaning from gaps and \\nsilences and to consider what is missing or not there. In some situations, this can involve \\nexposing assumptions in conventional measures used in research about a phenomenon and \\nwhat they conceal. The pursuit of gaps and silences is evident, for example, in a study by \\nWeiss, Mayer, and Kreider (2003) that probably set out to contest what now seems an outdated \\nhypotheses that working mothers are less engaged in their children’s schoolwork than mothers \\nnot employed outside of the home. These authors described their turn to mixed methods as \\nan “act of desperation” as they discovered that the conventional way mothers’ engagement was \\nmeasured erased any of the mothers’ activities that occurred in locations outside of the school \\ncomplex. \\nFielding (2012) argues that the “radical potential” of mixed methods lies not in terms \\nof confirmation but its contribution to “sophisticated analytical conceptualization” (p. 125). \\nAs is exemplified in a study by Jang, McDougall, Herbert, and Russell (2008) about school \\nsuccess in challenging circumstances, this often occurs when results of statistical analysis gloss \\nover differences between sites or participants that are evident in the more nuanced qualita-\\ntive data. It is the central thesis of this chapter that the discovery of empirically supported \\nincongruities or gaps between the findings drawn from an initial analysis of data from differ-\\nent sources, when framed within an understanding of the literature and solid data, can spark \\noriginal insight. \\nPurpose, contribution, and key points \\nThe chapter expands ideas about how robust MM-GTM research can be designed and \\nexecuted by addressing two main purposes. The first is to build an argument for the \\npotential for unexpected and sometimes paradoxical findings that emerge from the inte-\\ngration of different sources of data, analytical procedures, methods, and/or theoretical \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDISSONANCE \\n95 \\nperspectives to contribute to original theoretical and methodological insight. The second \\npurpose is to illustrate a range of procedures, including those associated with grounded \\ntheory, to explore or interrogate provocative and theoretically meaningful inferences in a \\nsystematic way. \\nFor purposes of the discussion here, the terms dissonant, paradoxical, incongruent, and dis-\\ncordant are used interchangeably to refer to situations where the integration of data, methods, \\ntheoretical frameworks, and/or perspectives produces unexpected findings. With the intent to \\nexplore their contribution to theoretical insight, I bring forward examples of articles that use \\nmixed methods with grounded theory procedures that provide more than common reflexivity \\nabout the strategies they used to investigate dissonant findings. This approach necessarily pri-\\noritizes research that gives comparable weight to both qualitative and quantitative procedures. \\nIt excludes examples where researchers reconciled inconsistencies between findings from dif-\\nferent sources of data by setting aside one set of findings because of methodological limitations \\nor philosophical priorities. \\nGoals for the chapter are: \\n1 \\nExplore different sources of dissonance. \\n2 \\nConsider how views about discordant findings are influenced by philosophical paradigm. \\n3 \\nIdentify ways that the intent to engage multiple perspectives can be incorporated into the \\nway a study is designed. \\n4 \\nSummarize a range of analytical procedures that can be used to explore dissonance in a \\nMM-GTM study. \\n5 \\nInvestigate the ways that dissonance was leveraged to generate original insight in the case \\nexemplars. \\n6 \\nIntroduce ways that findings can be warranted. \\nPrincipal takeaways from the chapter \\nAs with each of the four chapters that have preceded this one, the principal takeaways from the \\nchapter align and expand four cross-cutting themes that are summarized in Appendix C. The \\nprincipal points made in this chapter are: \\n1 \\nWhen it is not due to methodological weaknesses, dissonance between results from differ-\\nent methods often signals complexity in the phenomenon being studied. \\n2 \\nDissonance is more likely to materialize in mixed method designs where there is ongoing \\ninteraction between the qualitative and quantitative strands than in a component mixed \\nmethod design where the interaction between qualitative and quantitative phases of the \\nresearch is limited to the point of drawing conclusion. \\n3 \\nDifferent schools of thought about grounded theory are associated with different para-\\ndigms. These differ in the priority they award to diverse viewpoints, exceptions, and/or \\ndisconfirming evidence. \\n4 \\nThe theoretical implications of dissonant findings cannot be fully appreciated without \\nfamiliarity with the literature associated with the phenomenon. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n  \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n96 \\nDISSONANCE \\n5 \\nCase-based analysis can be used to investigate disconfirming cases and unexpected \\nfindings. \\n6 \\nRupture theorizing occurs when results from the empirical analysis challenge an extant \\nmeasure, instrument, or theoretical framework. \\n7 \\nThe link between major findings and empirical data can be documented with a figure \\nor table. \\nOrganization of the chapter \\nThe chapter begins broadly with a discussion of different sources of dissonances in mixed \\nmethods research, including when findings from different sources of data or analytical pro-\\ncedures are not in agreement, when findings dispute extant theory, or when the analysis \\nreveals limitations of a widely used measure or instrument. It shifts next to an acknowledg-\\nment that attitudes toward dissonance and how it should be resolved vary by philosophical \\nparadigm. The remaining sections of the chapter are designed to arm the reader with a \\nwide array of procedures they could deploy to engage unexpected findings. It provides an \\nextended discussion of two exemplars and a number of examples that used mixed methods \\nwith grounded theory to systematically investigate discordant findings. A third example \\nutilized mixed methods and case study to build theory. The chapter closes by considering \\nthe implications of prioritizing dissonance, and consequently complexity, in the design of \\nMM-GTM. \\nDIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ABOUT THE CENTRALITY \\nOF DISSONANCE TO THE RESEARCH PROCESS \\nAttitudes about what is the appropriate way to address exceptions to research findings and \\ndissonance is influenced by philosophical assumptions or paradigm (Creamer, 2018c). Propo-\\nnents of different schools of thought about grounded theory take different positions on the \\nnecessity and even relevance of exceptions to the categories, themes, and overall framework \\nthat emerge. This is true about a commitment to verification as well (Dey, 1999). Verifica-\\ntion refers to procedures to verify findings that contribute to the rigor of a research study, construct valid-\\nity, and in some contexts the reliability of findings. Recognizing that grounded theory has been \\napproached from diverse perspectives, including in ways that have an effect on viewpoints \\nabout the role of verification, is an important element of developing the methodological \\nexpertise needed to report findings in a credible way. \\nThere is a good bit of variability in the position that is taken about the importance of veri-\\nfying findings in grounded theory approaches (Morgan, 2020). The originators and some of \\ntheir proponents resist the idea that there is a need to verify findings (Dey, 1999). On the other \\nhand, Strauss recognized the role of exceptions. He linked the role of exceptions to theoretical \\nsampling and saw them as playing a role in developing the properties of a category (Apramian, \\nCristancho, Watling, & Lingard, 2017). With its relativist assumptions, those writing from a \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDISSONANCE \\n97 \\nconstructivist perspective do not devote much attention to exceptions or to verifying findings. \\nIt is not in the philosophical tenants of constructivism to differentiate between contradictory \\nperspectives (Fielding, 2009). Morgan (2020) describes Charmaz as “explicitly unwilling to \\naccept the idea of verification” (p. 71). Dey expressed reservations about a methodology that \\n“so resolutely refuses any refutations” (1999, p. 213). \\nThe role of dissonance and the intrigue of paradox move to center stage for those whose \\nviews put them outside a strictly relativist stance. The description of difference and exception \\nis central to purpose of theory development from a postmodern perspective (Apramian et al., \\n2017). From this perspective, differences between findings from different sources of data are \\nnot a methodological weakness that must be overcome or reconciled. Those operating by and \\nlarge from a postmodern frame “accept difference as inevitable and ever-present” (Freshwater, \\n2007, p. 135). In mixed methods, this extends to philosophical grounding in dialectical plural-\\nism and an approach that centers the intent to consider multiple viewpoints, perspective, and \\nstandpoints in its definition (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). \\nThe decision to pursue contradictions that emerge both within and across methods \\nwith further analysis and/or data collection shares with a constructivist approach the view \\nthat there may well be more than one “right” answer. This may be the reason Charmaz \\nand a Swedish academic Robert Thornberg (2020) positioned themselves as among those \\nwho ascribe to a more recent, non-positivist methodology that embraces dissonance. They \\ndescribe this type of methodology as “acknowledging multiple realities, seeking diverse per-\\nspectives, and engaging in critical analysis throughout the research process” (Charmaz & \\nThornberg, 2020, p. 7). It is an entirely different matter to acknowledge diverse perspectives \\nthan it is to promote procedures that explore and ultimately find a reasonable explanation \\nfor dissonance. \\nTable 5.1 singles out some of the major distinctions in perspectives about exceptions and \\ndissonance among proponents of the four “schools of thought” associated with grounded \\ntheory, as broadly sketched by Apramian et al. (2017), Rieger (2018), and Sebastian (2019). \\nNone of these authors recognize pragmatism as an analytical logic used with grounded theory \\n(cf. Morgan, 2020). The table lists associated spokespersons, perspectives about exceptions and \\ndissonance, implications for mixed methods designs, and limitations of this methodological \\nperspective. \\nHadley (2019a) points out that the different approaches should not be viewed as contradic-\\ntory but as part of a loosely interconnected network. An advantage of sketching out different \\nviewpoints about the role of exceptions and dissonance in grounded theory is that it allows \\nthe up-and-coming researcher the opportunity to clarify his or her own views about it. Post-\\npositivist and modernists lean toward a strategy that allows for the systematic elimination of \\nalternative explanations. Those whose mindset moves between constructivism into post mod-\\nernism are likely to be most enthusiastic about experimenting with many of the strategies I \\ndescribe in the next sections of the chapter. \\nThe variety of approaches to GTM need not be constructed as contradictory, but as part \\nof interactive, interdependent network. \\n(Hadley, 2019a, p. 568) \\n\\n\\n  \\n \\n \\n \\n98 \\nDISSONANCE \\nTABLE 5.1 Varying Points of View about Exceptions, Dissonance, and the Need for \\nVerification in Grounded Theory and the Implications for Mixed Method Designs, by School \\nof Thought \\nSchool of \\nPerspective about \\nImplications for Mixed \\nLimitations of \\nThought/ \\nDissonance \\nMethods Designs \\nthe Approach to \\nSpokesperson \\nMM-GT \\nClassic Glaserian \\nResists the idea of the \\nWell adapted to a design \\nUnderplay the \\ngrounded theory \\nneed for verification or for \\nwhere the qualitative \\npotential to use \\nStraussian \\ngrounded theory \\nexplaining deviant cases \\nas antithetical to an \\ninductive approach (Dey, \\nand quantitative strands \\nare separated with the \\nqualitative methods used \\ngrounded theory \\nprocedures to \\nadd to or refine an \\n1999). \\nfirst to generate theory \\nexisting theory. \\nCharmaz’s \\nconstructivist \\ngrounded theory \\nView different \\nperspectives as endemic \\nto the method and not \\nsomething that requires \\nreconciliation. \\ninductively, followed by a \\nquantitative phase where \\nits generalizability is tested. \\nDissonance between \\nfindings from different \\nmethods less likely to occur \\nwith this approach. \\nPostmodern \\nExceptions are part of \\nAdaptable to more iterative \\nBlurs the \\nClarkeian \\ncomplexity. Difference is \\napproaches to mixed \\ndistinction \\ngrounded theory \\na fundamental part of the \\nmethods where findings \\nbetween qualitative \\ntheory-building process \\nfrom one method may drive \\nand quantitative \\n(Apramian et al., 2017). \\nfurther data collection and \\nmethods. \\nanalysis in another. \\nPOTENTIAL SOURCES OF DISSONANCE THAT EMERGE \\nOVER THE LIFE OF A RESEARCH PROJECT \\nIn grounded theory, being open to new or unexpected interpretations and their theoretical \\nimplications is part of theoretical sensitivity. This is defined as having sufficient familiarity with \\nrelevant bodies of literature to recognize the theoretical implications of findings. Theoretical sensitiv-\\nity allows the investigator to recognize nuances in the data and subtle differences in the way \\nparticipants are using language. It paves the way for agility in combining the literature, data, \\nexperience, and prior knowledge (Suddaby, 2006). \\nThe discipline of generating multiple explanations \\nThe potential to leverage dissonance can be built into framing the need for a study and through \\nits analytical procedures. It can also be like an uninvited guest who arrives with little advance \\nwarning asking to spend a few nights sleeping on your couch. Unexpected or incongruent \\nfindings can encourage the discipline of the alternative hypotheses or multiple explanations \\n(Eisenhardt, 1989; Edwards, 2008). It does not introduce conflict when there is the epistemo-\\nlogical conviction that there is one best answer that will prevail (Creamer, 2004). This is the \\n“disciplined consideration” of a range of possible explanations before conclusions are drawn \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDISSONANCE \\n99 \\n(Thorne, Kirkham, & O’Flynn-Magee, 2004). It is also the process of deliberately seeking \\nevidence that would disprove one hypothesis or explanation over another that is so central to \\nscience (Edwards, 2008). This type of strategy for building strong conclusions can “unfreeze \\nthinking” by driving an investigator to go beyond initial impressions and avoid foreclosing pre-\\nmaturely on the obvious explanation (Eisenhardt, 1989). T\\neams that are constituted with mem-\\nbers with expertise in diverse areas can offset bias and contribute to the disciplined approach to \\nalternative explanations (Eisenhardt, 1989). A quizzical mindset can register gaps in the theory \\nabout the aspects of the phenomenon that are rendered invisible when applied to existing \\ntheory (Rule & John, 2015). \\nA strategy to generate multiple explanations for a finding is well adapted to a grounded \\ntheory approach designed to generate a theoretical framework. This could occur, for example, \\nwith a theme or theoretical proposition that suggests a link between a contextual factor and \\nan outcome. It can contribute to strong analytical conclusions in resisting what Johnson and \\nSchoonenboom (2015) refer to as a binary “either/or logic.” Associating this with a dialectical \\nperspective that is compatible with grounded theory, these authors recommend: “Instead of \\nusing an ‘either/or’ logic, we need a ‘both/and’ logic in which different forms of evidence are \\nbought into dialogue, constantly compared, and combined into a whole that is more than the \\nsum of the parts” (p. 591). We will see how an investigator might document support for a range \\nof alternative hypotheses in the final section of this chapter devoted to using visual displays to \\nwarrant findings. \\nUnexpected sources of dissonance \\nResearch projects have habit of unfolding in ways that are not entirely predictable. This is part \\nof the real-world messiness of research that demands adaptability in research designs (Plano \\nClark & Ivankova, 2016; Sanscartier, 2018). Due to the inclusion of multiple perspectives and \\napproaches mixed methods research is inherently complex, dynamic, and undetermined in \\npractice because “insights and tensions cannot be fully anticipated or predicted” (Plano Clark & \\nIvankova, 2016, p. 277). As we see in the example by T\\neixeira (2014, 2016) in the preceding \\nchapter, the “mess” and the tensions introduced by unexpected findings are often air-brushed \\nout of reporting. This can be understated as in T\\neixeira’s case (2014, 2016) where a single \\nsentence acknowledges that participants in her study resisted the negative language she used to \\ncharacterize the urban spaces she studied. \\nThe ambiguity and uncertainty associated with this type complexity can emerge at any point \\nin the research process. It can be introduced during the design phase when an investigator must \\ntackle differences in the epistemological assumptions of different methods. This might occur, for \\nexample, when a grounded theorist using mixed methods finds it philosophically unacceptable \\nto ignore what was learned in an earlier, quantitative phase of the project. “Mess” also makes an \\nappearance once research is underway and the empirical findings diverge from what is expected \\n(Sanscartier, 2018). Dynamics among team members and contextual factors, like differences \\nbetween research sites, is yet a third source of complexity that can emerge while research is \\nunderway. In participatory action research or evaluation research, engagement with stakehold-\\ners often introduces unexpected views or needs. The type of complexity often encountered in \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n100 \\nDISSONANCE \\nDesign \\nMethods \\nData \\nContext \\nTeam \\nLiterature \\nFIGURE 5.1 Potential Sources of Dissonance in a MM-GTM Study \\nmixed method research requires that investigators have the skills to spontaneously and creatively \\nadapt the research design to their environment (Poth, 2020; Sanscartier, 2018). \\nFigure 5.1 identifies some of the potential sources of unexpected dissonance that might \\narise in a MM-GTM study. These can occur at any point in the research process, including dur-\\ning the design phase, during implementation, and in the follow-up phase of reporting. \\nDissonance introduced through team dynamics and the engagement with diverse bodies of \\nliterature or expertise are elements that weave throughout the research process. \\nFactors that mitigate the significance of unexpected findings \\nAs intriguing and intuitively appealing as some unexpected findings can prove to be, there are \\nsituations where competing demands make them impractical to pursue. Practical reservations \\npresent themselves when the finding would lead researchers away from the declared purpose of \\nthe research, require an investment of time and resources that is not feasible at the moment, or \\nbe too detrimental to the established timeline. A lack of sufficient empirical foundation is an \\nadditional reason why a researcher might be forced to set aside tantalizing findings for another \\nday. The most important of these is when empirical grounding is not robust enough to war-\\nrant their pursuit (Bazeley, 2018a). Methodological limitations include miscalculation in the \\nresearch design, quantitative measures with low reliability or statistical power, and small sample \\nsizes in either the qualitative or quantitative data (Edwards, 2008). In cases where methodolo-\\ngists on a team believe that qualitative and quantitative data cannot be combined because they \\nare different paradigms, “uncovering points of disagreements may be the best that researchers \\ncan achieve” (Loo & Lowe, 2011, p. 33). This is one explanation for why some authors allow \\n\\n\\n \\nDISSONANCE \\n101 \\nmultiple interpretations to stand alongside each other during reporting and defer their resolu-\\ntion to the reader (Moran-Ellis et al., 2006). \\nDESIGNING FOR DISSONANCE \\nThere are a wide range of ways that the assumption that engaging dissonance and multiple \\nexplanations is associated with stronger inferences and original insight can be woven into the \\ndesign of a research a project (Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2015). Designing for divergence \\nin anticipation of better understanding reflects a methodological commitment to dialectical \\npluralism (Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2015). Some of these procedures can be built into the \\ndesign of a research study from the outset, while others emerge as a response to the unexpected \\nways a research project often unfolds. \\nTable 5.2 provides a list of some of the procedures that recognize the benefit of a dialecti-\\ncal orientation to inference quality. Although many can weave throughout different phases of a \\nresearch project, the table organizes the strategies most closely associated with the design phase, \\nanalysis, and reporting. \\nThe strategies listed in this table are not limited to MM-GTM. They have wide applica-\\nbility to other types of mixed methods studies. The centrality of an ongoing dialectical dance \\nbetween existing literature and theories about the phenomenon is underscored with its appear-\\nance in multiple places in the table. Embedded these types of strategies in the initial planning of \\na study has the potential to invite the kind of creative tensions that lead to new insight. \\nTABLE 5.2 Procedures that Leverage Dissonance in Ways that Advance Theoretical \\nReasoning \\nPhase \\nProcedure \\nDesign \\nFrame the need for a study with competing theoretical frameworks and/or in \\nresults reported in the literature. \\nAnalysis \\nGenerate theoretical propositions form a case-based analysis or through an \\nintegrated joint display. \\nGenerate and test alternative explanations for key results. \\nExplore group differences. \\nExplore cases that seem to be exceptions through theoretical sampling. \\nExplore unexpected outcomes and the conditions associated with them. \\nCreate a coding system that incorporates multiple competing explanations. \\nTest results through theoretical sampling with new data. \\nConsult literature in other domains to explain unexpected findings. \\nGet stakeholder input on discordant findings. \\nReporting \\nWarrant conclusions by documenting the link between data and findings \\nthrough a visual display. \\nCommunicate information about findings that are not consistent in a visual \\ndisplay through dotted lines, shading, or other graphic tools. \\nSeek explanations for unexpected findings in the literature in other disciplines. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n102 \\nDISSONANCE \\nAlthough it is certainly a way to generate interest in a publication, I have encountered few \\nexamples of articles that are framed in ways that suggest the drive to understand dissonant findings \\nor dissonance between findings reported in the literature was the driver for an initial plan for how \\nthe research would be executed. In the next section of the chapter, I explore three exemplars that \\ntackled dissonance as part of the theory-building process during at least one phase of the analyti-\\ncal process. All differ from a classic approach to grounded theory and the view that engagement \\nwith the literature should be postponed until an analytical framework begins to solidify. Each of \\nthe exemplars was launched with familiarity with the literature, including theoretical frameworks. \\nIn all cases, authors described a process where there was back and forth with the literature during \\nanalysis that is recognized as part of an abductive approach (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). \\nTHE CHAPTER EXEMPLARS \\nThe exemplars underscore how commonplace it is for researchers to find that unexpected \\nincongruities emerge when qualitative and quantitative data or analytical procedures are \\nactively engaged during analysis for purposes of developing a grounded theory or elaborat-\\ning an explanatory framework already available in the literature. In each of the exemplars, \\nwrestling with unanticipated findings through additional analysis sparked original insight. \\nThe chapter exemplars each used different procedures to interrogate incongruities. The \\nfirst exemplar by Kaplan and Duchon (1988) comes from the field of management. It is the \\nonly exemplar to explicitly frame the study as MM-GTM. These authors found that examin-\\ning group differences helped to explain unexpected findings. The second exemplar, Carmona \\n(2015), comes from the field of urban planning. Carmona engaged diverse perspectives from \\nthe literature by building case profiles that integrated qualitative, quantitative and visual data \\nabout a carefully selected sample of public spaces in a city. The third and final exemplar from \\nWesely (2010) reflects on the process used to find an explanation for findings that challenged \\nthe theoretical assumption that in the context of a voluntary language immersion program, that \\nmotivation and persistence are linked in a significant positive way. \\nTable 5.3 singles out innovative features of each of the three chapter exemplars. \\nInnovative features of the first chapter exemplar are explored next, as are the tensions \\nintroduced by team dynamics where members clearly distinguished their expertise as either \\nquantitative or qualitative. \\nTABLE 5.3 Innovative Features of the Chapter Exemplars \\nExample \\nInnovative Feature \\nKaplan & Duchon (1988) \\nExplored group differences to explain dissonance. \\nCarmona (2015) \\nIntegrated visual, quantitative, and qualitative data for a case-\\nbased analysis of public spaces in a city; generated theoretical \\npropositions from the cases grouped by type. \\nWesely (2010) \\nEngaged competing theoretical perspective after unexpected \\nfindings emerged. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDISSONANCE \\n103 \\nExemplar 1: developing an explanation for contradictory findings \\nby investigating differences between groups or sites \\nDespite its publication in 1988 when mixed methods had barely begun to be formalized as \\na distinct methodology, a methodologically oriented article by Bonnie Kaplan and Dennis \\nDuchon has qualities that make it still innovative today. There is an explicit acknowledgment \\nin this article that the authors combined qualitative and quantitative methods with grounded \\ntheory. The reference list includes quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods references that \\nsuggest an uncommon breadth of methodological expertise. The methods are still relevant, if \\nperhaps the findings now seem out-of-date. \\nThere are reasons related to reflexivity and research methods that undergird the choice \\nto single out the Kaplan and Duchon (1988) as an exemplar. I consider it worthy of replica-\\ntion; first, because of the reflexivity about the research process that is reported, and second, \\nbecause of the refusal to disregard discrepant findings, and third, the methodological transpar-\\nency afforded by amount of text that is devoted to highlighting the value-added of combining \\nmethods. Mixed methods made two contributions in this study. The first relates to triangula-\\ntion. Findings confirmed an original conceptual model. The second relates to what is referred \\nto in mixed methods as an expansion purpose. Findings also elaborated the existing theoretical \\nframework by introducing a new construct in the form of a condition. Kaplan and Duchon \\nsummarized the contribution of mixed methods this way: “Mixing methods can also lead to \\nnew insights and modes of analysis of that are unlikely to occur if one method if one method is \\nused alone” (Kaplan & Duchon, 1988, p. 582). \\nBox 5.1 summarizes key features of the Kaplan and Duchon article (1988). This includes \\nthe purpose of the research, information related to the design of the study, including the timing \\nof data collection and analysis, how integration occurred, unexpected findings, and the nature \\nof the theory produced. \\nSeveral elements of the research design of the study reported by Kaplan and Duchon (1988) \\nare also unusual. The first is the utility shown for developing a grounded theory model at the \\nmid-point of the analysis as a way to propose an explanation for the discrepancies observed. \\nThis followed an initial round of analysis where the qualitative and quantitative data were \\nanalyzed separately by different investigators. Most original is the choice to re-analyze the \\nquantitative questionnaire data based on new variables introduced by the grounded theory \\nmodel that emerged from the initial phase of qualitative analysis. The additional round of data \\nanalysis contributed to the conceptual framework by providing statistical support to document \\nthe intermediary role of work orientation in explaining attitudes about the implementation of \\nnew management software. \\nPart of the reflexivity evident in this article is its documentation of the dissonance intro-\\nduced by team dynamics. The article also points to the tensions on the original four-member \\nteam because it involved members who are not methodological boundary spanners but uni-\\nlateral in their ideas about how to approach research. The article authors who were what \\nremained of the original team, refer to the “tenacity” that was required of the lead author \\nnot to abandon the insight she drew from the initial independent analysis of the qualitative \\ndata. The co-authors acknowledged that it took intense and ongoing negotiations to find \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n104 \\nDISSONANCE \\nBOX 5.1 \\nExploring Group Differences in a Study About the Implementation \\nof Management Software by Kaplan and Duchon (1988) \\nPurpose: This methodological article reports on the first phase of a multi-\\nmethod longitudinal project. The purpose of the study was to explore what \\nhappens when a new management information system was installed in com-\\nmercial laboratory settings. The authors developed and tested a grounded \\ntheory model. \\nDesign: In some ways, this study fits a core component design and can be \\nreferred to as using an exploratory, two-phase sequential mixed methods \\ndesign. Multiple forms of a qualitative data were collected first, followed by the \\nconstruction of a questionnaire. Analysis occurred in more than two phases, \\nhowever. The contradictions between the inferences drawn from the indepen-\\ndent analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data and the construction of a \\ngrounded theory model at the mid-point meant that researchers returned to \\nreanalyze the questionnaire data during a third phase of analysis. \\nIntegration: Data from the first phase of analysis were linked to the second \\nbecause they were used for purposes of instrument development. Later in \\nthe analytical process, the approaches were merged in the construction of a \\ngrounded theory model. \\nUnexpected findings: Results from an independent analysis of the qualitative \\nand quantitative data were contradictory. The initial analysis of survey data did \\nnot support the findings from the qualitative data analysis that indicated strong \\ndifferences in the work orientation of laboratory team members in different \\nsettings. \\nTheory produced: The theoretical model developed distinguished between \\nlaboratory workers by the priority they placed on the product or on the pro-\\ncesses associated with producing them through benchwork. Those who pri-\\noritize their job as producing reports saw the new management system as \\nhelpful, while those who prioritized the process viewed it as increasing the \\nworkload. \\na way to integrate the findings from the qualitative and quantitative analysis. They wrote it \\nrequired: “a strong determination to accommodate each approach and to reconcile appar-\\nently conflicting data resulted in an interpretation that synthesized the evidence” (Kaplan & \\nDuchon, 1988, p. 582). Transparency about the challenges faced by members of the team \\n\\n\\n \\n  \\n                                                                     \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDISSONANCE \\n105 \\nwith non-overlapping areas of expertise introduced a polyvocality to the text that is rare \\n(Creamer, 2011). \\nIn Chapters 2 and 3, we considered the ways that a case-based approach can be leveraged \\nin MM-GTM to yield new insight in much the same way a theoretical memo can. Investigators \\ncan use a case-based approach to integrate qualitative and quantitative data in a narrative or a \\nvisualization in ways that resemble a theoretical memo. In the section that follows, we expand \\nthe discussion of a mixed methods approach to case-based analysis by looking at the roles it can \\nplay to advance understanding of discordant data. \\nEXPLORING DISSONANCE WITH A CASE-BASED APPROACH \\nIN MM-GTM \\nEisenhardt (1989) centers the exploration of paradoxical evidence through the analysis of mul-\\ntiple case studies. In another article that pre-dates the formalization of mixed methods as a \\ndistinct methodology, Eisenhardt (1989) wrote about the ways that multiple investigators and \\nmultiple sources of data can “foster diverse perspectives” and strengthen the grounding of a \\nstudy (p. 533). She maintains the emphasis on diverse points of view as the purpose of cross-case \\ncomparisons that can force investigators to look beyond initial impressions and “see evidence \\nthrough multiple lenses” (p. 533). \\nBuilding theory from case studies centers directly on the juxtaposition of contradictory or \\nparadoxical evidence. “That is, attempts to reconcile evidence across cases, types of data, \\nand different investigators, and between cases and the literature increase the likelihood of \\ncreative reframing into new theoretical vision.” \\n(Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 546) \\nOther examples of the ways that a case-based analysis could be used to understand dis-\\nsonance include: \\n1 \\nConstructing a detailed case to explain what appear to be exceptions to the theoretical \\nframework that has been developed. \\n2 \\nShifting away from a qualitative approach by extracting variables, such as about conditions \\nthat impact an outcome, and quantifying them in ways that would allow for statistical analysis. \\n3 \\nConstructing cases to compare how individuals or groups experience a social process and \\nto find clues about causal factors that explain why it happens. \\n4 \\nGenerating a set of theoretical propositions or themes from cross-case comparisons. \\nIncluding visual data in a case-based analysis \\nCase-based analysis does not necessarily have to rest on a narrative form. It is possible to \\nenvision that a case could include not only words and numbers, but also visuals like photo-\\ngraphs or diagrams. We see that, for example, in a study about weight that integrated multiple \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n106 \\nDISSONANCE \\ndifferent types of data, including a timeline, record of weight change over time, and visuals \\nlike photographs and images drawn by a participant (i.e., Chamberlain, Cain, Sheridan, & \\nDupuis, 2011). These do not necessarily have to be presented in a narrative form to prove \\nuseful during analysis. \\nIt is possible to envision the use of visual data as part of the data in a case-based analysis of \\nthe type we see with the next exemplar with a hypothetical example involving a public space. \\nIn this case, imagine the types of spaces that have been included in office buildings, residence \\nhalls, and libraries that have been designed with the intent to facilitate collaboration. Table 5.4 \\nis not from a real-world study. It integrates three kinds of data about a single location in the \\nlibrary at my own university to illustrate a creative approach to presenting a case study that \\nincorporates visual data. This is the type of grounded visualization described by Knigge and \\nCope (2006). \\nA real-world study would import many examples of this type of data into qualitative soft-\\nware for analysis. This hypothetical example of case-based analysis that includes qualitative, \\nquantitative, and visual data about a physical location will resurface later in the chapter in the \\nsection about documenting sources of data that support alternative hypotheses. \\nThe case study captured in Table 5.4 has two visual components. One column contains a \\nphotograph of the space. A second column pinpoints its location on a blueprint. This type of \\ndata could prove useful in a later stage of analysis in this imagined study by providing a way to \\nmeasure aspects of the space, such as access to an exit or bathroom, which might influence how \\noften the space is used by student groups. The third column integrates qualitative and quan-\\ntitative data, as well as the results from qualitative and quantitative analytical procedures. The \\nsuccinctness of the data presented about the case and the way it is displayed in table form could \\nserve as vehicle to facilitate cross-case comparisons. \\nMy intent in synthesizing information about a mixed methods exemplar from urban \\nplanning that follows in the next section is not to endorse the idea that it should be replicated \\nin its entirety. Instead, it is my goal to provide enough information about it that a reader \\nmight come out with some creative ideas about how some elements of its approach to data \\ncollection and/or analysis could be adapted to other contexts. Although the study as a whole \\nhas its weaknesses, the use of integrated mixed methods case studies described in the article \\nmight inspire others to think creatively about ways to incorporate visual data in a case-based \\nanalysis. \\nTABLE 5.4 Example of Data for a Case-Based Analysis with Visual Components \\nData: Square footage \\nData: Distance from exit \\nData: Noise and traffic level \\nData: Index of frequency of usage \\nResults of QUANT analytical procedure: \\nMeasure of overall student satisfaction. \\nResults of QUAL analysis: Favored aspect: \\nmobility of walls \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDISSONANCE \\n107 \\nExemplar 2: using mixed method case studies for purposes of theory \\ndevelopment and elaboration \\nThe second exemplar from urban planning by Matthew Carmona (2015) featured in this chapter \\nwas framed from the onset by a bold intent to disrupt existing ways of theorizing public spaces \\nin urban settings. Carmona (2015) reveals his impossibly ambitious intent when he declares \\nthat the goal of the project was “re-theorization of the nature of contemporary public space” \\n(p. 374) in a way that counters a dominant narrative that characterize urban spaces, like squares \\nand parks, negatively in terms of decline, crime, loss, and decay. This is the very language that \\nwe witnessed in the previous chapter in the article by T\\neixeira (2016) about grounded visualiza-\\ntion. T\\neixeira adapted that language of “urban decay” and the theoretical assumptions of its link \\nto crime from the literature even as she acknowledged that it was language that her adolescent \\nparticipants resisted. \\nBox 5.2 singles out key design feature of the Carmona (2015) article. \\nBOX 5.2 \\nUsing Mixed Method Case Studies to Theorize Public Space in \\nLondon by Carmona (2015) \\nPurpose: The purpose of the project is explicitly theoretical. Its purpose was to \\nuse mixed methods case studies to develop and generalize a theory about “the \\nmultiple processes of designing, developing, using, and managing public space” \\nin an urban setting (p. 377). \\nDesign: The mixed method project unfolded in two sequential phases. The first \\nphase began with field observation of 130 public spaces distributed throughout \\nLondon. Features of these spaces, like accessibility and comfort, were cata-\\nloged using a pre-determined typology and these data were subsequently used \\nto identify a stratified, purposeful sample of cases that represented a broader \\nclass of cases. The second phase of the research was devoted to the case-\\nbased analysis. \\nIntegration: Integration of findings from different analytical procedures and \\nsources of data was embedded throughout this research project in a fully inte-\\ngrated way. There were multiple levels of increasingly abstract analysis. During \\nthe first phase of the analysis, theoretical propositions resembling themes were \\ndrawn from individual cases (a public location) that were constructed using mul-\\ntiple sources of data, including photographs and maps showing the location and \\nsize of the space. During the second phase of the analysis, cases were grouped \\nby type (e.g., domestic spaces, consumer spaces, service spaces, etc.) and an \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n108 \\nDISSONANCE \\nadditional set of theoretical propositions/themes were generated from comparing \\ncases in the group. \\nUnexpected findings: The “counter narrative” presented by the author presents \\na theoretical perspective that is in “rupture” with the idea that all public spaces \\nshould share the same design features. The strength of a city is that there are \\nmany public spaces and that these meet the needs of a diverse population by \\nserving diverse needs. \\nTheory produced: The article concludes with what could be considered a \\nseries of ten, inter-related theoretical propositions. The product of the research \\nis described as theory, but it falls short of presenting a coherent conceptual \\nframework or structure. \\nCarmona characterized both the intent and outcome of his mixed method project in ways \\nthat resonate with what Walsh (2015) referred to as “rupture theorizing.” As compared to \\n“incremental theorizing” which is far more common, rupture theorizing occurs when results from the \\nempirical analysis challenge an accepted measure, instrument, or a theoretical framework. Researchers that \\nproduce rupture theories reframe conventional constructs in radically new ways (Walsh, 2015). \\nDuring reporting, they refer to their contribution as diverging from conventional practices for \\nmeasuring the construct or for understanding it. \\nLanguage used throughout Carmona’s article (2015) signals his intent to disrupt conven-\\ntional views. Examples of wording appearing in this article that communicate an aim that is \\nconsistent with rupture theorizing include the following: \\n• \\nProduce a “counter narrative” that “subverts” the dominant narrative. \\n(p. 397, 398) \\n• \\nChallenge “formula-driven approaches.” \\n(p. 395) \\n• \\nEspouse a “questioning approach.” \\n(p. 396) \\n• \\n“Turn critiques on their head.” \\n(p. 397) \\nThe theory produced subverts the normative convention that assumes that there “is a \\nsingle, idealized blueprint for public spaces” in an urban setting in favor of a more complex \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDISSONANCE \\n109 \\nnarrative that accepts that “users are diverse and will seek different things from their spaces” \\n(Carmona, 2015, p. 398). Dissonance framed the final, meta-analytical framework because the \\ncase-study work “ultimately challenged many of the global space critiques” (p. 381). \\nUsing case-based analysis to develop theory \\nCarmona’s (2015) research displays originality involving mixed methods and theory devel-\\nopment, but it cannot be said to use grounded theory procedures. The author’s purpose for \\nusing mixed methods is explicitly linked to developing a theory. Carmona, and no doubt \\nan invisible team of other researchers, declared that he used mixed methods to develop \\nin-depth, mixed method case studies of 14 public spaces in the city of London “as a basis \\nfrom which to generate (and generalize) theory” (2015, p. 397). The analyses had a strong \\nemergent quality, but in setting up the study to weigh findings against the critique in the \\nliterature, it has a deductive drive that is an uneasy fit with the grounded theory methods. \\nThe author observed that the benefits of going back and forth between findings from \\ndifferent analytical procedures were both to triangulate results from different analytical pro-\\ncedures and to build theory. An iterative approach to data analysis means that there was back \\nand forth between an exploratory and a confirmatory stance and different types of data. \\nAccording to Carmona (2015), the back and forth between results from different analytical \\nprocedures made it possible to see connections between different sources of data “that might \\notherwise not be so obvious” (p. 381). \\nProviding evidence of originality \\nOne way that originality is demonstrated in this ambitious piece of research is in the breadth \\nand creativity of the sources of data and the range of analytical procedures utilized. Data \\nwere collected through participant observation, documentary evidence, user assessment, \\ninformal interviews, geospatial data, content analysis of reviews in popular media, and time-\\nlapse photography. Data for each case included a photograph; a map pinpointing its shape, \\nsize, and location in the city; and additional details about when it was constructed, its func-\\ntion, and whether it was a public or private space. Data for each of the 14 public spaces \\nwere summarized as one row in an integrative table, rather than in the more conventional \\nnarrative form. \\nThe case-based analysis in this exemplar became increasingly abstract as it moved from a \\nmicro-level, to a meso-level, to a macro-level perspective and in ways that ultimately led to \\nthe development of an overarching theoretical framework. The first level of analysis was at the \\nmicro-level. It cataloged the characteristics of a large number of public spaces in the city of \\nLondon. The second level of analysis was at the meso-level or group level. It focused on devel-\\noping a list of themes about a class or group of spaces that shared similar physical attributes. \\nThe third iteration of the analysis is at the macro-level. Themes or theoretical propositions were \\ndeveloped during this iteration of the case-based analysis that singled out the similarities and \\ndifferences between the groups of case studies clustered by type. \\n\\n\\n110 \\nDISSONANCE \\nIteration of the \\nAnalysis \\nIncreasing Levels of Abstraction \\nConstruct a meta \\nframework.\\nDevelop theoretical \\npropositions. \\nIntegrative Strategy \\nIntegrate data \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nMacro \\nMeso \\nLevel of Analysis \\nMicro \\nCross-group \\ncomparison. \\nCases grouped by \\ntype. \\nUnit of Analysis \\nA case about a single \\nlocation. \\nFIGURE 5.2 Embodying a Stair-Step Process to Develop Theory from a Mixed Method \\nCase-Based Analysis \\nFigure 5.2 is my attempt to visualize the steps used in the exemplar to develop a theoretical \\nframework from a mixed method case-based approach to analysis. The figure incorporates the \\nvisual metaphor of a stairstep to characterize the analytical process and how the level of abstrac-\\ntion increased across each of three iterations of the analysis. A micro-level of analysis refers in \\nthis case to an analysis based on individual cases; meso-level refers to analysis built from insight \\ngained by comparing cases within a group; and macro-level analysis emerges from insight \\ngained by a cross-case comparison across groups. \\nThe unit of analysis, level of analysis, and integrative strategy changed over the course of \\nthe process of building theory in the Carmona (2015) study. \\nMethodological tensions introduced by the exemplar \\nCarmona’s 2015 article is explicitly labeled as empirical mixed methods research with the \\npurpose of theory development. It lacks details about the procedures that normally would \\nbe developed in greater detail in a methodological article. It is clear that results from the \\ndifferent research methods like the analysis of historical documents were incorporated in \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n  \\nDISSONANCE \\n111 \\nthe cases, but no details are provided about how these analyses were conducted. A further \\ncritique is about the lack of transparency in the article about other members of the team \\nand how they worked together during data collection and analysis. Unlike the first exemplar \\nby Kaplan and Duchon (1988), which is characterized by polyvocality, Carmon’s article is \\nwritten with a single authorial voice. It erases what was no doubt the very significant con-\\ntribution of members of the team that must have been involved in such a long-term and \\nlarge-scale project. \\nEven though it is unlikely that a doctoral student or early career investigator could tackle \\nsuch an ambitious project in its entirety, the use of mixed method case studies to develop \\na theoretical process through an iterative process could be emulated in other contexts. The \\nprocedure used to generate theoretical propositions from a group of cases that shared a similar \\nfunction, could be adapted to research about other physical locations that serve educational \\npurposes, promote well-being, or foster community. This could include, for example, research \\nconsidering the layout of classrooms, playgrounds, parks and green spaces, homeless shelters, or \\nfood distribution centers. \\nThe final exemplar in this chapter did not use visual data or a case-based analysis. It’s \\nunusual in its recognition of the role extant theoretical frameworks played in explaining dis-\\nsonant findings. \\nExemplar 3: drawing on multiple theoretical frameworks \\nduring analysis \\nA methodologically oriented article published by Pam Wesely (2010) illustrates the discipline \\nof generating alternative explanation. The approach used by Weseley could be referred to a \\ntheoretical triangulation. Theoretical triangulation contributes to internal validity by drawing on \\nmultiple theoretical frameworks as a means to explain findings and weigh competing explanations. The \\nresearch reported by Wesely (2010) is original in that it was not only purposeful about pursuing \\ncounterintuitive results during analyses but that the investigator drew on multiple theoretical \\nframeworks from the literature to guide later stages of the analysis. Theoretical triangulation can \\nserve as a test for internal validity by virtue of its ability to incorporate competing hypotheses \\n(Jick, 1979). \\nThe puzzle Wesely (2010) was left to explain at the mid-point of the mixed analysis she \\nconducted for her dissertation research was related to the inadequacy of her original theoretical \\nframing in motivation theory to explain the quantitative findings about student attrition and \\npersistence in a language immersion program. The students who were most interested in lan-\\nguage and most motivated to learn it, were not necessarily the ones who remained enrolled in \\nthe program. Defending her decision to use multiple theoretical frameworks, Wesely observed: \\n“Accessing multiple theoretical frameworks is important in a mixed methods study when \\nthe primary theoretical framework corresponds strictly with either quantitative or qualitative \\napproaches” (2010, p. 297). \\nBox 5.3 summarizes key design features of this fully integrated MM-GTM study about a \\nlanguage immersion program by Wesely (2010). It reflects mixed priority because the conclu-\\nsions derived from mixed method analytical techniques. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n  \\n \\n112 \\nDISSONANCE \\nBOX 5.3 \\nAn Exploration of the Link Between Motivation and Persistence in \\na Language Immersion Program by Wesely (2010) \\nPurpose: The purpose of the study and the purpose of the article are different. \\nThe purpose of the study is framed in a quantitative way. It was to explore stu-\\ndents’ motivation to learn another language and its relationship to attrition from \\nan intensive language immersion program. The purpose of the article is explicitly \\nframed to explore the complexities of the relationship between language learn-\\ning and motivation. \\nDesign:The article is organized by six distinct phases of analysis that followed \\ndata collection. The first, second, and fourth phases were qualitative. The third \\nanalyzed survey data. Mixed methods were used in the fifth and six phases. \\nIntegration: The secondary theoretical frameworks influenced how integration \\noccurred during the later phases of analysis. Coders refined the initial, inductive \\ncoding scheme and grouped statements to reflect additional theoretical frame-\\nworks identified from the literature. Two additional theoretical frameworks were \\nadded to the constructs to the socio-educational model: attribution theory and \\ninvestment theory. \\nUnexpected findings: Students’ attitudes toward learning a language did NOT \\nnecessarily have a strong impact on their decision to persist in an immersion \\nlanguage program. They did, however, seem to have a profound misunderstand-\\ning of what language learning entailed. \\nTheory produced: Attitudes toward language learning were related to motiva-\\ntion, but not the intention to persist in language study. In other word, highly \\nmotivated students who appreciated languages might well leave a program for \\nreasons unrelated to the program or language. \\nThe exemplar featured in Box 5.3 is unusual in that the author explicitly positioned the \\nparadigmatic grounding of her research. She described her approach as consistent with the \\ndialectical perspective, writing: “My philosophy of mixed methods research corresponds with \\nthe dialectic thesis where opposing viewpoints of different methods and their interaction can \\ncreate tension and be revealing in their own way” (Wesely, 2010, p. 300). She used a type of \\ndialogical mixing (Creamer & Edwards, 2019) in the fourth phase of the analysis where she \\nrefined and added codes to her qualitative analysis to reflect the theoretical constructs and \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDISSONANCE \\n113 \\nvying theoretical explanations that emerged from engagement in a more expansive body of \\nliterature. While she did not produce an over-arching explanatory framework, her findings \\nwere complementary in that she found it necessary to add a new set of constructs to explain \\nthe contradictory findings. \\nWARRANTING INFERENCES THROUGH VISUAL DISPLAYS \\nTransparency about methods and procedures is prized by all research approaches but is no \\nguarantee of the credibility or validity of findings (Maxwell, 2013). Warranting is a type of \\nmethodological transparency in reporting that supports the credibility of conclusion, generally through a \\nvisual display that documents the empirical support for them. Bazeley described a warranted statement \\nas “An assertion that is warranted is one that is convincingly argued and supported by research \\nevidence” (Bazeley, 2018a, p. 278). Other methodologists well known to the mixed methods \\ncommunity suggest that a conclusion is warranted or defensible “in terms of documenting \\nresults, substantiating results, and validating conclusions” (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Johnson, \\n2012). The task of documenting a conclusion is particularly critical when a conclusion is para-\\ndoxical or runs counter to long-held views. \\nWarranting is most commonly provided through a visual display like a table or figure. “It \\nis critical to invest in developing well-crafted tables, appendixes, and visual aids to demonstrate \\nthe underlying empirical support and the anticipated richness of the case data, and to tie those \\ntables clearly to the text,” Eisenhardt and Graebner advise (2007, p. 29). In mixed methods, \\nwarranting can be accomplished through different types of visual displays, including a joint dis-\\nplay that integrates qualitative and quantitative data or findings. A concordance table is one type \\nof joint display to documents the strength of support for themes or theoretical propositions. \\nTriangulating through a concordance table \\nA concordance table is a type of a joint display that combines findings from qualitative \\nand quantitative data. Its purpose is related to warranting because it shows the extent that \\nkey conclusions, inferences, themes, and/or hypotheses are corroborated by analysis from \\nmore than one source of data. These can contribute to theoretical insight when they are \\norganized by theoretical propositions (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). This type of table \\ngenerally reveals areas where findings are consistent, as well as areas where they are not in \\naccord. Acknowledging themes or constructs where findings are inconsistent is an item that \\nis often incorporated in standards for reporting in mixed methods (e.g., Wisdom, Cavaleri, \\nOnwuegbuzie, & Green, 2012). \\nTable 5.5 is a shell of a simple concordance table. It is organized by themes that might \\nemerge from a qualitative analysis, from an abductive one that spread across both qualitative \\nand quantitative data, or from quantitative analytical procedures. This hypothetical concordance \\ntable is comparing the extent that different hypotheses from a theoretical model were judged \\nto be supported by the case data. It is only showing a few cases. More would be required in a \\nreal-world example. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n114 \\nDISSONANCE \\nTABLE 5.5 Shell of a Concordance Table Illustrating a Way to Document Strength of \\nSupport Across Cases \\nTheoretical Proposition \\nCase 1 \\nCase 2 \\nCase 3 \\nProposition # 1 \\nLow \\nModerate \\nModerate \\nProposition # 2 \\nStrong \\nStrong \\nLow \\nThis type of table could also be organized by participant or by source of data. A type of extreme \\ncase sampling could be used if the number of cases or participants was large enough. Contrast-\\ning patterns in the data can more readily be observed by sampling very high and very low \\nperforming cases (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). In some circumstances, it could prove useful \\nto develop a scheme to quantify values in the table by assigning a number to “absent,” “low,” \\n“moderate,” and “strong” and using this transformed data in further quantitative analysis. \\nWalsh (2015) included a more elaborate type of concordance table in an appendix to a \\npaper reporting on her MM-GTM study about factors the influence the adoption of a new \\ninformation system (p. 25, table not included). Walsh’s table is like an integrated database. It lists \\nsix theoretical codes or propositions, identifies that extent the generalizability had been dem-\\nonstrated, and reports findings from the secondary data, primary qualitative data, and primary \\nquantitative data. Walsh describes the theoretical codes or propositions as emerging “through \\nconstant iterations between quantitative and qualitative data as they were collected and through \\nthe analysis of all of our data as one set” (2015, p. 14). \\nA concordance table can play multiple roles for both the investigator and members of the \\naudience of the article. For the investigator, the table and others like it could play a formative role \\nby helping the researcher weigh the strength of the support and what it might add to the theory \\nthat is being developed. The role of the literature in understanding and elaborating the theoreti-\\ncal propositions was so strong that Walsh (2015) included it in her merged data set and referred \\nto it as secondary data. For a reader or audience member, the table is summative. It provides a \\nlarge enough slice of the data to offer a keyhole into an investigator’s line of reasoning. When \\nthere is enough data in the table, it allows a reader or audience member to form his or her own \\nconclusions and to reach a judgment about whether the line of reasoning is convincing. Tables \\nwith raw data, as we see in the appendix supplied by Walsh (2015), make it possible for another \\ninvestigator to build on the work and to see if it is possible to reproduce the findings. \\nUsing a joint display to warrant conclusions from a study \\nA joint display that integrates qualitative and quantitative data can serve to warrant conclusions \\nwhen it is arrayed in such a way as to communicate a pattern of association between variables \\nthat becomes central to an explanatory framework. This table is different from a concordance \\ntable in that it does not document record levels of agreement between different sources of data or \\ncases but is used to highlight patterns or to summarize key qualitative and quantitative findings. \\nAn article by Eisenhardt (1989) that partnered grounded theory and case study methods \\nincluded a joint display that integrated findings from the analysis of qualitative and quantitative \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\nDISSONANCE \\n115 \\nTABLE 5.6 Excerpt from a Joint Display from Castro et al. (2010) that Reveals a Clear \\nPattern \\nCase Number Life Satisfaction Quoted Statement About \\nStory Lines \\nScore \\nMachismo Self-Identification \\nHighest on Life Satisfaction \\nID 133 \\n2.17 \\n“I care about my family”; “For me \\nit’s acting like a gentleman” \\nID 147 \\n1.57 \\n“I’m respectful of women”; “I \\nnever bring shame to the family” \\nID 164 \\n1.50 \\n“I do my best to take care of my \\nfamily” \\nID343 \\n1.48 \\n“I treat women with respect and \\ndon’t beat them” \\nStory Line 1: Men who \\nvalue and engage in family \\ncaretaking exhibit high levels \\nof caballerismo (positive \\nmachismo) in their male \\ngender role identity, are \\ngiving and responsible, and \\nthey also experience high \\nlevels of life satisfaction. \\ndata about the leadership style of chief executive officers in nine for profit firms (see Table 3, \\np. 543; table not included). The organization of the table underscores key results from the study. \\nA link is shown between qualitative quotes and a “CEO Power Score.” The alignment of the \\ntwo sources of data revealed a strong pattern of association between an authoritarian leadership \\nstyle and more consensus-oriented approaches. The table is not reproduced here because the \\ncost of reproduction is prohibitive. \\nThe insight that can be gained by aligning a score on a quantitative indicator with excerpts \\nfrom qualitative data in a way that reveals a pattern is also evident in an example of a mixed \\nmethods study by Castro, Kellison, Boyd, and Kopak (2010). One of the last tables in that \\narticle demonstrates a link between qualitative data reflecting views of masculinity and a quanti-\\ntative index of well-being. One reason this table is effective is that it sorted not by participant or \\ncase, but by a well-being score. An excerpt from interview data is aligned with the well-being \\nscore. It provides credibility for a single conclusion. That is that there is a relationship between \\nviews about masculinity (machismo) and well-being. \\nTable 5.6 reproduces a small portion of the joint display from Castro et al. 2010, Table 3 \\n(p. 355) that is available through fair use policies. The column on the far right refers to a “sto-\\nryline” that was generated by exploring the alignment of the qualitative and quantitative data. \\nIn the terminology of MM-GTM, this might be referred to as a theoretical proposition that \\nintegrates qualitative and quantitative data. \\nThe format of this table could be helpful to communicate the empirical support for key \\ntheoretical propositions emerging from a MM-GTM study. \\nDocumenting support for alternative explanations through a visual display \\nDocumentation that ensures the reader that systematic attention has been devoted to gauging \\nthe empirical support for a set of alternative explanations for key findings is part of most of the \\nreporting guidelines developed by many professional associations. Ruling out rival explanations \\nstrengthens internal validity (Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2015). While the topic of alternative \\n\\n\\n \\n116 \\nDISSONANCE \\nTABLE 5.7 Documenting the Systematic Testing of Alternative Explanations from the \\nHypothetical Collaborative Space Study \\nAlternative Hypothesis About the Usefulness \\nSource of Data \\nof Collaborative Spaces \\nSpace Usage \\nStructured \\nInterviews \\nData \\nObservation \\nStudents prefer locations that are easy to get to. \\nX \\nStudents prefer private spaces. \\nX \\nStudents prefer spaces that are in the center of \\nX \\ntraffic flow. \\nStudents prefer spaces with movable furniture. \\nX \\nX \\nX \\nStudents prefer spaces with technical supports \\nX \\nthat make it possible to project a computer \\nscreen. \\nexplanations often earns at best a single sentence during reporting, documenting what steps \\nwere taken to process competing explanations for key findings can enhance the credibility of an \\nargument and the likelihood that others will find it useful. \\nTable 5.7 picks up on the hypothetical study of collaborative spaces on a university campus \\ndescribed in an earlier section in the chapter about using qualitative, quantitative, and visual \\ndata for case-based analysis. In this case, we are imagining how a visual display or data matrix \\ncould be used to document or warrant that alternative explanations about space use were pur-\\nsued systematically. Several theoretical propositions or hypotheses are listed in the table, along \\nwith an indication if there was support from them in any or all of three different sources of \\ndata: space usage statics, a structured observation protocol, and individual interviews. T\\nwo of \\nthe sources of data are quantitative (a structured observation protocol and space usage statis-\\ntics); while one is conventionally assumed to be qualitative. The theoretical propositions could \\nemerge as categories emerging during the process of coding the qualitative data. \\nThe table illustrates how it is possible to build an argument for credibility of findings \\nthrough a visual display. Findings from the three sources of data listed only triangulated on one \\nitem appearing in the table that is related to the flexible ways a space might be used: Students \\nprefer space with movable furniture. Differences between interview data and the two quantita-\\ntive indicators suggest that what a student might voice as a preference during an interview is \\nnot necessarily reflected in the way they end up acting. \\nCONCLUSIONS \\nWhether it emerges from differences of opinion between collaborators or the different angles \\npresented when more than one method is used, a central feature of the experience of executing \\nMM-GTM with a dialectical perspective is that it introduces diverse perspectives. Dissonance, \\nincongruities, unexpected or paradoxical findings simultaneously generate complexity while \\nat the same time reflecting it. Unexpected findings that confound expectations can introduce \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDISSONANCE \\n117 \\ndelays and generate surprise and uncertainty. This has the benefit of forcing the conscientious \\ninvestigator to avoid foreclosing prematurely on a quick or obvious answer, while at the same \\ntime making it difficult to achieve saturation about core constructs. Dissonance is not the \\nexception but the rule in real-world research framed as MM-GTM. \\nThe complexity introduced when findings from the analysis of different sources of data are \\nintegrated in interactive ways is one reason for the variability in the way MM-GTM research \\nexecuted. Referring to it as mixed grounded theory (MGT), Johnson and Walsh (2019) found it \\nchallenging to use conventional terminology or a conventional notation system to deconstruct \\nthe timing and sequence of articles reporting on MM-GTM. They commented about their \\nvariety, writing: “There are perhaps an infinite number of versions of MGT to be explored and \\n‘invented’ by practicing researchers in the production of knowledge” (Johnson & Walsh, 2019, \\np. 523). The variety that is evident in MM-GTM, when an integrated approach is used, resists \\ncategorizing them or approaching them in a formulaic way. “Following textbook prescriptions \\nand laying down approved research designs may be a necessary rite of passage but the benefits of \\nmixing flow from creative innovation and conceptualization rather than a pragmatic approach” \\n(Fielding, 2012, p. 126). \\nBuilding on the cross-cutting themes \\nThe role of dissonance in MM-GTM is one of the cross-cutting themes that makes an appear-\\nance in all of the chapters in this book. The same can be said for case-based analysis. Table 5.8 \\ncontributes a final layer to the cross-cutting themes and to building an argument of MM-GTM \\nas a distinct methodology. The table is organized around three clusters of concepts: (a) inte-\\ngrated mixed methods designs, (b) MM-GTM, and (c) complexity and dissonance. \\nA summary of all findings for all the cross-cutting themes appears in Appendix A. \\nLooking forward to the next chapter \\nThe final chapter revisits several issues that have been introduced already and introduces \\nsome new topics. It reinforces the argument for the variety, if not idiosyncrasy, that is evident \\nTABLE 5.8 Additions from Chapter 5 to the Architecture of the Cross-Cutting Themes \\nThemes \\nIntegrated Approaches \\nMixed Method \\nComplexity and \\nto Mixed Methods \\nGrounded Theory \\nDissonance \\nResearch \\n(MM-GTM) \\nChapter 5 \\nA study can be designed \\nFindings can be \\nIntegrating qualitative \\nto explore divergence, \\nwarranted through \\nand quantitative data \\nLeveraging \\nincluding between \\njoint displays and \\nin case studies is one \\nDissonance for \\ntheoretical perspectives \\nother types of visual \\ntool to investigate \\nTheoretical \\navailable in the literature, \\ndisplays. \\ndissonant data and \\nand Analytical \\nbut more often dissonance \\nto weigh the level of \\nInsight \\nis encountered \\nsupport for theoretical \\nunexpectedly. \\npropositions. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n118 \\nDISSONANCE \\nin integrated MM-GTM and the difficulty that creates for attempts to apply conventional \\nmixed methods language and design templates to what are often complex, multi-phase stud-\\nies. It expands the discussion about gauging quality in MM-GTM that began in this chapter \\nwith the introduction of the notion of using visual displays to build and argument for the \\ncredibility of findings. It argues for foregrounding some indicators of quality well known to \\nqualitative researchers, including saturation, methodological transparency, reflexivity, origi-\\nnality, and utility. \\nREVIEW QUESTIONS \\n1 \\nIn what ways can unexpected, counterintuitive, or dissonant findings contribute to theo-\\nretical insight? \\n2 \\nWhat analytical strategies can used to engage dissonant findings productively? \\n3 \\nWhat differences are there in views about the role of dissonance in exceptions among the \\n“schools of thought” surrounding grounded theory? \\nSUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITY \\n1 \\nConsider several examples of reflexive accounts about the experience of using grounded \\ntheory in a doctoral dissertation (e.g., Alammar, Intezari, Cardow, & Pauleen, 2018; Nel-\\nson, 2017; Nagel, Burns, Tilley, & Aubin, 2015). Analyze these to identify what proved \\nmost challenging about using grounded theory for novice researchers. \\n\\n\\n \\n  \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nCHAPTER 6 \\nHighlighting quality \\nthrough reporting \\nA specific research design or method is no guarantee that a study is scientific or that the results are credible or \\nuseful. This chapter considers different strategies that can be used to gauge the quality of MM-GTM research, \\nincluding in the ways that research procedures or a final theoretical framework can be visualized effectively in a \\ntable or figure. A list of indicators of quality is discussed that extends beyond a singular reliance on transpar-\\nency about research methods during reporting. \\nTERMS INTRODUCED IN THE CHAPTER \\n• \\nMethodological transparency \\n• \\nProcedural diagram \\n• \\nReflexivity \\nINTRODUCTION \\nIan Dey, author of an influential second-generation textbook about grounded theory, \\nunderscored the great variety of ways that grounded theory has been adapted in the real \\nworld of research practice. Dey was unusually direct in the words he chose to make the \\npoint that there is no one codified approach to grounded theory: “There is no such thing \\nas ‘grounded theory’ if we mean by that a single, unified methodology, tightly defined \\nand clearly specified. Instead, we have different interpretations of grounded theory,” Dey \\nwrote (2004, p. 80). The benefit to recognizing the diverse ways grounded theory meth-\\nods have been applied in research practice is that it signals its potential to meet diverse \\npurposes and to adapt to situation-specific approaches that honor the complexity of real-\\nworld problems. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n120 \\nREPORTING \\nPurpose, contribution, and key points \\nThis chapter brings the book to a close by introducing some ideas about reporting and evaluat-\\ning quality in MM-GTM, while at the same time pulling together threads from earlier chapters. \\nBy focusing on saturation, methodological transparency, reflexivity, utility, and originality as \\ncriteria for evaluating the quality of reports about MM-GTM studies and projects, the chapter \\npromotes a set of criteria that apply to other qualitative research methods as well. The chapters \\nadds to the argument about the power of a visual display to both imagine and report a holistic \\ntheoretical framework. \\nAims of the chapter \\nThe chapter suggests different strategies that can be used not only to gauge the quality of MM-\\nGTM during reporting, but to embed them in the way a project is conceived. Specific aims of \\nthe chapter are to: \\n1 \\nSummarize characteristics of the chapter exemplars and what they tell us about the way \\nmixed methods and grounded theory have been used across the globe. \\n2 \\nReview the foundations of the methodological rationale for combining mixed methods \\nand grounded theory and the argument that it is a distinct methodology. \\n3 \\nAcknowledge tensions between MM-GTM and classic or formal grounded theory. \\n4 \\nDemonstrate ways to visualize a theoretical model developed through MM-GTM. \\n5 \\nConsider ways that an interactive approach to MM-GTM can be embodied in a procedural \\ndiagram. \\n6 \\nIdentify criteria to evaluate the quality of the research methods and theoretical and analyti-\\ncal outputs of MM-GTM. \\n7 \\nRecognize challenges to conducting MM-GTM. \\nKey takeaways from the chapter \\nThe following lists principal takeaways from this final chapter: \\n1 \\nThe impressive variety in the ways MM-GTM has been implemented makes it nearly \\nimpossible to categorize them. \\n2 \\nMM-GTM is a distinct but eminently adaptable methodology that has as its foundation a \\nshared set of assumptions about the way knowledge is constructed. \\n3 \\nThe assumptions of an interactive approach to MM-GTM are probably not compatible \\nwith a classic or formal approach to grounded theory. \\n4 \\nA figure that depicts a theoretical or explanatory framework in a parsimonious way may \\nwell be the single most important element in the judgment of quality about a manuscript \\nwith a theoretical purpose. \\n5 \\nAn expansive view of criteria for weighing the merits of a MM-GTM include indicators \\nrelated to the research methods (transparency, saturation, reflexivity) and the analytical and \\nconceptual outputs (utility and originality) that apply equally to reporting in many research \\napproaches. \\n\\n\\n \\n                                                              \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nREPORTING \\n121 \\nOrganization of the chapter \\nThe chapter is organized in three major parts. The rationale for the methodological similarities \\nbetween mixed methods and grounded theory is re-iterated in the first section of this chapter. \\nThis is followed by an exploration of different ways that a grounded theory model developed \\nthrough mixed methods can be presented, including in conventional and less conventional \\nways. Then we shift our attention to considering how a generic set of quality criteria can \\napply to MM-GTM. Finally, the chapter begins to come to a close by identifying challenges \\nresearchers face, which are unique to MM-GTM. I end the chapter and the book by recogniz-\\ning intriguing topics that I was not able tackle within the confines of this book but would be \\nwell worth pursuing elsewhere. \\nCONSIDERING THE VARIETY EVIDENT IN THE CHAPTER \\nEXEMPLARS \\nIn a recent exploration of the use of mixed method grounded theory reported by Johnson and \\nWalsh (2019) illustrates the challenge of trying to catalog and label complex research using the \\nconventional annotation system that has been widely adapted as a shorthand in mixed methods. \\nJohnson and Walsh (2019) set out, much as Walsh (2015) did a few years earlier, to categorize \\nexamples of MM-GTM using conventions that distinguish the timing of the phases of the \\nresearch process and that communicate whether priority is awarded to a qualitative or quantita-\\ntive logic. \\nThe experience Johnson and Walsh (2019) report illustrates the inherent paradox in try-\\ning to catalog and label complex research. They were only able to identify a few commonali-\\nties among the six illustrative cases MM-GTM designs they were able to categorize using a \\nstandard notation system employed by mixed method researchers (see Table 25.1, p. 525, not \\nincluded here). Of the six cases featured in Johnson and Walsh’s table (2019), an equal number \\nanalyzed the qualitative and quantitative strands separately as did those that approached data \\nanalysis in an integrated way. Of the cases categorized as integrated, an exploratory stance was \\ncarried through in the analysis of both the qualitative and quantitative data. One important \\nsimilarity between the illustrative cases is that they all gave comparable weight to the quantita-\\ntive and qualitative phases. \\nThe conclusions Johnson and Walsh (2019) reached after trying to categorize even a \\nsmall number of MM-GTM articles match observations that Sharlene Hesse-Biber (2018) \\nmade about qualitative dominant mixed method designs. Hesse-Biber argued that the emer-\\ngent quality that is evident in some or all of the phases of the research process makes it dif-\\nficult to affix a label from a specific mixed method design up-front. “Locking one’s mixed \\nmethods project into a particular mixed methods design template a priori would be particu-\\nlarly challenging when doing research from a qualitatively driven standpoint,” Hesse-Biber \\nwrote (2018, p. 449). \\nJohnson and Walsh’s (2019) analysis led them to conclude that the variety among MM-\\nGTM reports is so notable that it supports Walsh’s (2015) earlier conviction that every \\nproject is like a specialized ecosystem with its own unique methodology that combines \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n122 \\nREPORTING \\nbeliefs and practices with a specific combination of methods and techniques. “Each research \\nproject may be considered as having a specific methodology,” Walsh wrote in the earlier \\n(2015, p. 4). \\nWithin acceptable limits, methods are reinvented every time they are used to accommo-\\ndate the real world of research practice. \\n(Sandelowski, Voils, Leeman, & Crandell, 2012, p. 320) \\nThat there is no single, formulaic way to implement a MM-GTM study is also evident \\nin the exemplars that are showcased in this book. “Variety” is the single word spotlighted \\nin Chapter 2. There the attention is not to try to categorize the ways the research was con-\\nducted but to the ways that MM-GTM can be paired with other qualitative approaches like \\ncase study. \\nA list of the exemplars appears as Table 1.1 and in Appendix A. Both grounded theory and \\nmixed methods are awarded meaningful attention in each of the exemplars. A list of additional \\nexamples of MM-GTM appears in Appendix B. By and large, there is less transparency about \\nresearch methods in the articles listed in Appendix B. \\nThe diversity that is evident in the set of exemplars featured in this textbook extends \\nto disciplinary affiliation, geographical location, and the type of journal where the article \\nappeared. Diversity is manifested in the following ways in the group of exemplars identified \\nin this text: \\n1 \\nThe disciplinary affiliation of the first author of each exemplar extends beyond the fields \\nof education and health where grounded theory is used most widely. Five emerged from \\nauthors in health-related field, one from management, one from social work, one from \\nurban affairs, and one from child psychology. \\n2 \\nThe usefulness that has been found for mixed methods across the globe is evident in the \\ninstitutional affiliation of the first author of each exemplar. Five of the first authors are \\naffiliated with an institution in the United States, two in the United Kingdom, one in \\nJapan, and one in Canada. \\n3 \\nMost mixed method research is published in disciplinary journals, rather than method-\\nological ones. This is evident in the exemplars as well. Only three of the exemplars featured \\nin this text appeared in specialized, methodologically oriented journals. \\nGiven the admonishment that many doctoral student are given to avoid studies with a \\ncomplex research design, it is gratifying to realize that three of the exemplars were completed \\nas part of the requirements for a doctoral dissertation (i.e., Catallo, Jack, Ciliska, & MacMillan, \\n2013; Kawamura, Ivankova, Kohler, Purumean-Chaney, 2009; Shim et al., 2017). Each of these \\ncome from the health field where doctoral research is not as individualistic as it often thought \\nto be in other applied fields, particularly education, where research is less likely to occur within \\nthe context of a larger team receiving support from external funding. Another unexpected \\nfinding is that authors of three of the nine exemplars benefited from the tutelage of a well-\\nrecognized expert in mixed methods (i.e., Kawamura et al., 2009; Kaplan & Duchon, 1988; \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nREPORTING \\n123 \\nShim et al., 2017). With MM-GTM as with any other methodology, there are innumerable \\nbenefits to the novice researcher committed to producing cutting edge research to seek out a \\nscholar who is engaged in a contemporary dialog about a research method and willing to share \\nhis or her expertise. \\nARTICULATING A METHODOLOGICAL RATIONALE FOR MM-GTM \\nA methodological rationale that supports the compatibility between mixed methods and some \\napproaches to grounded theory was introduced in the first chapter. A figure provided there \\n(Figure 1.2.) highlights paradigmatic assumptions that underlie that two research approaches \\nthat are compatible. Areas of compatibility include: (a) the iterative nature of the constant com-\\nparative method, (b) abduction as an analytical logic, (c) the adaptability of both approaches \\nto diverse philosophical paradigms, and (d) their ability to accommodate complexity. Another \\nfigure in Chapter 1 (see Figure 1.3) adds to the argument about the philosophical and analytical \\ncompatibility of the two approaches by highlighting areas where each makes a distinct contri-\\nbution. Most notably for grounded theory this includes prioritization of an exploratory stance \\nthat allows the unexpected to emerge. For mixed methods, this could include a commitment \\nto a dialectical approach to mixed methods (Johnson, 2012) to engage multiple perspectives \\nand viewpoints. \\nThe methodological rationale I advance moves considerably beyond the additive logic \\nlong advocated by influence leaders in grounded theory, almost all of whom recognized \\nthe potential to use both qualitative and quantitative data with grounded theory. My posi-\\ntion extends the idea of MM-GTM as both a methodology by embedding an abductive \\nlogic into core grounded theory procedures. This is likely to produce findings that cannot \\nbe disaggregated and reported separately in an article about the qualitative methods and \\nanother about the quantitative methods. An integrated approach to MM-GTM downplays \\ntrivialization of the qualitative component of a MM-GTM study, including by the simplistic \\nassumption that in mixed methods qualitative analysis is primarily accomplished by quanti-\\nfying qualitative data. \\nThe methodological rationale I have developed downplays the argument often presented \\nin the early days of the development of mixed methods in the 1980s when one of the arguments \\nfor its legitimacy was that using more than one method makes it possible to offset the weak-\\nnesses of another method (Creamer, 2018a). The methodological rationale I present is more \\nabout the value-added of linking different research methods. It is not a critique of the more \\ncontentious aspects of grounded theory, most notably about the role of the literature and the \\npotential for a truly inductive approach. \\nThe methodological framework I provide for MM-GTM is not conveniently housed \\nwithin a single “school of thought” about grounded theory. While my perspective shares \\nqualities with the constructivist approach to grounded theory that Charmaz (2014a) cham-\\npioned, my interest in producing a theoretical model shares and some features of Corbin and \\nStrauss (2008). The emphasis I place on dissonance, paradox, and the messiness of research \\nin the real discloses an affiliation with a postmodern perspective advanced by Clarke (2005). \\n\\n\\n  \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n124 \\nREPORTING \\nTensions between MM-GTM and a classic or formal approach \\nto grounded theory \\nCritical researchers “pick and choose” from different approaches to grounded theory (Sebas-\\ntian, 2019, p. 6). The methodological rationale for pairing grounded theory and mixed meth-\\nods and the description of the way that its procedures can be extended to include a dialectical \\nperspective borrows from more than one approach to grounded theory. It is most at odds with \\nthe philosophical assumptions of classic or formal approach to grounded theory. Areas where \\nthe position I take about epistemology and methods departs most noticeably from a classic or \\nformal approach to grounded theory include the following: \\n1 \\nPrioritizing of abduction rather than induction as the principal, if not the only, analytical logic. \\n2 \\nEndorsing ongoing engagement with relevant literature throughout the research process \\nrather than simply as a sensitizing concept. \\n3 \\nReservations about the idea that it is critical for a researcher to “bracket” out his or her \\nown experiences and preconceptions. \\n4 \\nValuing both the process and product of grounded theory by recognizing the act of the-\\norizing as Charmaz (2014a) presents it, but also its potential to generate a theoretical \\nframework or paradigm as Strauss and Corbin (1990) referred to in early versions of their \\ntextbook. \\n5 \\nSuggesting that MM-GTM can be used to elaborate or extend theory as well as to generate it. \\n6 \\nRecognizing that it is very likely that an investigator might launch the coding process with \\na set of pre-established codes adapted from the literature or from previous phases of the \\nresearch project. \\n7 \\nWelcoming the idea that grounded theory can be applied to data collected through diverse \\nmeans, including through visualizations or from the internet. \\n8 \\nDescribing situations where grounded theory approach can be added unexpectedly to \\nwhat was planned as a quantitative study to explain unexpected or contradictory findings. \\n9 \\nShowcasing the potential of dissonance and exceptions as a source of original insight. \\nSome of the items appearing in the aforementioned list have the potential to enhance the use-\\nfulness of MM-GTM in settings beyond nursing and education where grounded theory has \\nbeen used most widely. The idea that MM-GTM can be used to elaborate an existing theory \\ncan extend the likelihood it could prove useful in non-applied disciplinary contexts, like psy-\\nchology or in health felds, where a researcher is expected to launch each and every project with \\na well-substantiated theoretical perspective. \\nPairing MM-GTM with other qualitative approaches \\nThe rationale that highlights the compatibility between mixed methods and grounded theory \\ncan extend to other qualitative traditions, including discourse analysis (Hadley, 2019a, 2019b; \\nJohnson, 2014), case study (Cook & Kamalodeen, 2020), narrative analysis (Floersch, Long-\\nhofer, Kranke, & T\\nownsend, 2010), and participatory action research (Ivankova, 2015). This \\ntype of three-way pairing of methodologies, like mixed methods plus grounded theory plus \\n\\n\\n \\n \\nREPORTING \\n125 \\ncase study, is not unusual. Any use of more than one research method is considered an advanced \\nmixed method design. In their systematic review of MM-GTM articles, Guetterman, Bab-\\nchuck, Howell Smith, and Stevens (2017) calculated that more than 25% of the 61 articles \\nthey analyzed were using an advanced mixed method design. These included action research, \\nlongitudinal studies, and community-based participatory action research. \\nThe idea of a study that uses an advanced mixed methods design that includes more than \\none qualitative method is still open for debate. Janice Morse, a long-time editor of the Interna-\\ntional Journal of Qualitative Inquiry who has a long history of engagement with both qualitative \\nand mixed method research, is among those who are comfortable with the position that as long \\nas findings are integrated, two qualitative approaches can be accurately described as mixed \\nmethods (Morse, 2010). \\nMM-GTM can be extended to include findings that emerge from not just one but several \\nqualitative approaches. This might be the case, for example, with inductively driven mixed \\nmethod case study research (Cook & Kamalodeen, 2020). We saw additional examples of the \\nway that MM-GTM has been paired with more than a single qualitative approach. This includes \\nthe three-way pairing of MM-GTM with event analysis in the exemplar by Evans, Coon, and \\nUme (2011) as well as with the exemplar by Westhues et al. (2008) that paired MM-GTM with \\ncommunity-based participatory action research. Both of these are featured as exemplars in the \\nchapter about variety (Chapter 2). One advantage of mixing findings from multiple qualitative \\nmethods is that it is possible to circumvent the ever-present debates about paradigm compat-\\nibility by approaching each method from a single paradigm like constructivism. \\nAn example from four US-based authors from social work illustrates how the label “mixed \\nmethod” can be applied appropriately to the process of integrating findings from more than one \\nqualitative approach. In a study about adolescents’ perspectives about psychotropic treatment, \\nFloersch et  al. (2010) integrated thematic, grounded theory, and narrative methods. They \\nlabeled their approach as “a multi-analytic, mixed, or hybrid approach to qualitative analysis” \\n(p. 15). Floersch et al. (2010) conducted the analysis sequentially, developing core themes in the \\nfirst phase of analysis using thematic analysis. Turning to line-by-line coding of interview data \\nwas done as a second step with the purpose of seeing the connections between key constructs \\nthrough axial coding. Narrative analysis was used in the third to phase to recognizing temporal-\\nity in the experience and to understand shifts in views that occurred before, during, and after \\ntreatment began. The intent to integrate findings from the different qualitative approaches \\nextended to producing “an integrated conceptual framework” (Floersch et al., 2010, p. 1). \\nThe task of communicating theoretical insight from a MM-GTM study is aided by a \\ngraphic or visualization. In the next section, we consider two examples of the use of a compos-\\nite model to communicate a theoretical framework during reporting. Authors of both of these \\nmodels further help to communicate their findings by the way they organized their findings \\nsections. \\nVISUALIZING A THEORETICAL MODEL DEVELOPED WITH MM-GTM \\nOnly a small proportion of investigators that use both grounded theory and mixed methods \\nextend the analytical process to include a visualization or graphic that embodies a theoretical \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n126 \\nREPORTING \\nframework. It is much more common to find examples that short-circuit the analytical process \\nafter generating a list of categories. Others move it one step closer to a theoretical framework \\nby producing a set of themes (also called theoretical propositions) that link constructs. During \\nanalysis, diagrams can help a researcher make sense of relationships that may not have been \\npreviously explicit (Buckley & Waring, 2009). In this way, diagramming is an active part of the \\ntheory generation. \\nIn addition to their role during analysis, translating a theoretical model into a visual display \\nprovides a succinct way for an investigator or group of investigators with a realist orientation to com-\\nmunicate a complex theory (Buckley & Waring, 2009). A realist orientation is one that envisions \\ncausality in a qualitative way (Maxwell, 2012). Buckley and Waring (2009) provide several examples \\nof ways that grounded theory models have been depicted. A figure that embodies a theoretical or \\nexplanatory framework in a parsimonious way may well be the single most important element in \\nthe judgment of quality about a manuscript with a purpose to develop or refine a theoretical theory. \\nThe most common approach in MM-GTM is to generate or refine a theoretical model \\nin a strand of research devoted to a qualitative approach. We saw that, for example, in two \\nMM-GTM exemplars discussed an earlier chapter (i.e., Catallo et al., 2013; Kaplan & Duchon, \\n1988). In research about an intervention in a medical setting designed to create a safe environ-\\nment for battered women to speak candidly about their injuries, Catallo et al. (2013) turned to \\ngrounded theory to develop a model to explain a non-significant results in what was otherwise \\na quantitative study. Kaplan and Duchon (1988) also dedicated a phase of the research project \\nto qualitative analysis, again for the purpose of explaining non-significant quantitative findings. \\nIn both cases, the theoretical model was built or elaborated through qualitative methods. \\nIntegrated approaches to a grounded theory visualization \\nSome authors of MM-GTM studies have taken a more unconventional and integrated approach \\nto developing or elaborating a theoretical framework. T\\nwo of these (Kawamura et al., 2009; \\nShim et al., 2017) presented a final grounded theory model that fits the definition of an inte-\\ngrated visual display. Both of these sets of authors depicted their final theoretical model in a \\nway that included constructs and links between constructs that were identified through both \\nqualitative and quantitative procedures. A figure that depicts a final grounded theory that was \\ngenerated entirely through qualitative procedures is not a joint display. \\nThe final models presented by Kawamura et al. (2009) and Shim et al. (2017) recognize \\nthe possibility that findings from qualitative and quantitative analytical procedures do not always \\ncohere to reveal a unified story line. Each of their models includes a notation system to indicate \\nwhen findings from the analysis of different types of data were consistent or inconsistent. The \\nutility of signaling parts of a theoretical model where findings did not entirely cohere is that it \\nis an invitation for future research. \\nThe integrated composite model presented in the chapter exemplar \\nThe exemplar featured in this chapter is one of several articles authored by Minjung Shim \\nthat reported on research that she did for her doctoral dissertation about the impact of \\na health intervention targeted at ameliorating chronic pain through dance and movement \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nREPORTING \\n127 \\ntherapy (Shim et al., 2017). I singled out this article for inclusion in this final chapter as \\nan exemplar primarily because of the quality and transparency of reporting, including by \\nproviding a figure that visualizes a “grounded theory meta-model” (p. 36). In the first phase \\nof what is described as a three-phase process, Shim was strategic but departed from a classic \\napproach to grounded theory by first developing a preliminary conceptual model based on \\nthe literature and interviews with practitioners. The model was revised in the third and final \\nphase of the process. \\nBox 6.1 uses the customary template to summarize key features of the 2017 article by \\nShim et al. (2017). It identifies the purpose of the article, features of the way the research was \\nexecuted, and how integration occurred. It also incorporates information about the way Shim \\ncreated an integrated joint display to identify inconsistencies between participants and sources \\nof data. \\nBOX 6.1 \\nShim et al.’s (2017) MM-GTM Study About a Health Intervention \\nPurpose: Produced from research Shim’s did for her dissertation, this article is \\none of several she produced to describe the impact of an intervention that was \\ndesigned to test the impacts of dance or movement therapy on the management \\nof chronic pain. \\nDesign: Shim et al. labeled her research as using a sequential exploratory-con-\\nfirmatory MM-GTM design, citing a fairly early version of Strauss and Corbin \\n(1998). The procedural diagram included in the article depicts the research as \\noccurring across three phases, each involving some type of mixing. The first \\nphase is described as exploratory where an initial model was developed that \\ncombined the literature and the results from the analysis of interview data. In \\nthe second experimental phase, standardized survey data and qualitative data \\nfrom journals and interviews were constructed to test and refine the model. The \\nthird phase of the research involved the construction of a final composite model. \\nIntegration: This is a fully integrated, multi-phase mixed methods study. Shim \\nenhanced awareness of the significance of mixing methods through a number \\nof joint displays that compared qualitative and quantitative findings on the same \\nconstructs. \\nUnexpected findings: Shim et al. annotated the final composite model by using \\nan asterisk to indicate when qualitative and quantitative results were consistent. \\nThese largely involved the identification of intervening conditions, like peer sup-\\nport, that influenced project outcomes. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n  \\n128 \\nREPORTING \\nTheory produced: The final composite model embodies the multi-dimension-\\nality that is characteristic of a formal or classic grounded theory. It singles out \\nan underlying social process (referred to as learning new ways of living in the \\nbody and being in the world), as well as the personal and clinical conditions that \\ninfluence it. The authors used an asterisk as a simple but effective way to signal \\ncorroboration between the qualitative and quantitative data. \\nThe article by Shim et al. (2017) includes a figure of the theoretical model that some refer \\nto as a formal grounded theory. They developed a graphic to embody a theoretical model (see \\nFigure 4, p. 36) that is based on components from Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) conditional \\nmatrix. The model identifies a core construct around which all other constructs are linked \\n(learning new ways of living in the body and being in the world), outcomes (both anticipated \\nand unanticipated), intervening conditions (factors that mediated the main therapy process), \\nand other contextual conditions, like evidence of a social support network, that impact the \\neffectiveness of the therapy in achieving its intended outcomes. \\nA time-ordered process is at the center of Shim et al.’s theoretical model. This is a prior-\\nity in Charmaz’s (2014a) constructivist approach to grounded theory. As is the case with many \\nhealth-related or educational interventions, the process at the center of this grounded theory \\nmodel is steps on the journey to behavior change. The model no doubt went through many \\niterations over the life of the project. Subjecting the theory to multiple revisions contributes to \\ntheoretical saturation (Shim, Johnson, Bradt, & Gasson, 2020). \\nFigure 6.1 reproduces (with copyright permission) the composite grounded theory \\nmodel that is depicted in Figure 4 (p. 36) from Shim et al. (2017). Shim et al. adapted a \\nsimilar strategy as Kawamura et al. (2009) in using textual symbols. An asterisk is used to \\nalert readers to elements of the model where findings from qualitative and quantitative data \\nwere consistent. The asterisks appearing in the final composite model produced by Shim \\net al. indicate that both qualitative and quantitative data were collected about the majority of \\nconstructs in the model. \\nBoth Kawamura et al. (2009) and Shim et al. (2017) found the truth in Sanscartier’s (2018) \\nobservation that when multiple sources of data are analyzed and integrated, findings do not \\nalways cohere to present a single or coherent view of reality. In the process of exploring com-\\nplexity, Sanscartier (2018) observed that norm of presenting findings “as unified, singular real-\\nity” (p. 3) can mask divergent views and findings. He maintains that the danger in presenting a \\ntheoretical model in a visual is the risk over simplifying reality. \\nAn additional reporting feature: addressing inconsistent data \\nthrough a joint display \\nIn addition to enhancing the quality of reporting by organizing the findings section of the \\narticle that appeared in the European Journal of Integrative Medicine around key components of a \\nconditional matrix from Strauss and Corbin (1990), Shim et al. (2017) added another layer of \\n\\n\\n \\n \\nREPORTING \\n129 \\nFIGURE 6.1 A Final Composite Grounded Theory Model from Shim et al. (2017) \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n130 \\nREPORTING \\ntransparency through a joint display (see Table 6, p. 33; table not shown). The purpose of what \\nthey referred to as “a joint display of comparisons”was “to assess to what extent the quantitative \\nand qualitative results converge/diverge” (p. 31). This table provides assurances that the investi-\\ngators enhanced validity by taking steps to more fully understand discrepant data. \\nWRESTLING WITH WAYS TO GAUGE QUALITY IN MM-GTM \\nThere is a substantial body of methodological literature devoted to the task of identifying \\ncriteria to weigh the quality of empirical research and reporting. This extends to mixed \\nmethods where I have questioned the practice of the practice to apply one set of criteria \\nto the qualitative research methods and a second one to the quantitative methods because \\nit totally disregards integration (Creamer, 2018a). The Mixed Method Evaluation Rubric \\n(MMER) that I introduced in my 2018 textbook, An Introduction to Fully Integrated Mixed \\nMethod Research, is the only one of a cluster of rubrics to include a set of criteria specifi-\\ncally targeting integration. The construct referred to as “interpretive comprehensive” in the \\nMMER is also the only rubric to include items related to validity. It contains items such \\nas recognizing alternative explanations and acknowledging inconsistencies between findings \\nfrom different sources of data. \\nI am a proponent of a more generic set of criteria that cross methods and that priori-\\ntizes attention to the act of integration that is so central to any definition of mixed methods \\n(Creamer, 2018a). A UK methodologist with expertise in a variety of methods, Stephen \\nGorard, takes the position that many core criteria of research quality cross methods one step \\nfurther. He argues that many shared assumptions and practices cross not only methods but \\nacademic fields. He writes: “at its core, the nature of scientific inquiry is the same in all fields” \\n(Gorard, 2004, p. 12). \\nStandards of quality in reporting in mixed methods, such as those published by the National \\nInstitute of Health (Creswell, Klassen, Plano Clark, & Clegg Smith, 2011) and the American \\nPsychological Association (Levitt et al., 2018), simplify the task of gauging quality by provid-\\ning a checklist of items that should be included in a research report. In mixed methods, this \\nincludes applying a label to name the research design, specifying the timing of data collection \\nand analysis, and making a comment about the priority awarded to the qualitative and quantita-\\ntive strands, among other things. While clear-cut and easy to implement, this type of standard \\nfor reporting leaves unclear ways to address the quality of the research methods and the way \\nthey were executed and if the product generates any new analytical insight. Gorard objects to \\nequating research design with quality. He writes: “A specific design or method does not make \\na study scientific” (Gorard, 2004, p. 12). \\nCriteria for weighing the merits of research conducted using MM-GTM extend beyond \\nthe expectation for transparency in reporting. An expansive view of criteria for weighing the \\nmerits of a MM-GTM include indicators related to the research methods (transparency, satura-\\ntion, reflexivity) and the analytical and conceptual outputs (utility and originality) that apply \\nequally to reporting in many research approaches. Methodological transparency refers to \\nproviding enough detail about the research methods for a reviewer or reader to be able to draw conclusions \\nabout its credibility. From a post-positivist, but not necessarily a constructivist perspective, the \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nREPORTING \\n131 \\nexpectation for methodological transparency extends to providing sufficient documentation \\n(i.e., warranting) to support conclusions. \\nA specific design or method does not make a study scientific. \\n(Gorard, 2004, p. 12) \\nIn MM-GTM, methodological transparency requires identifying how core grounded pro-\\ncedures were implemented and details about how integration occurred and what it accom-\\nplished. On the other hand, saturation is a type of quality criterion that is core to procedures \\nused in grounded theory. It is a signal that data collection is sufficient when no new properties \\nof a category emerge that contribute to further analytical insight. \\nThe application of saturation, transparency, reflexivity, utility, and originality as indicators \\nof the quality of reporting we explore further in this final section of Chapter 6. \\nSaturation \\nSaturation often appears in lists of the core procedure in grounded theory. In grounded \\ntheory, saturation is applied relative to theoretical categories. The most frequent way it \\nis described is as a signal that data collection is sufficient when no new properties of the \\ncategories emerge that contribute further analytical insight. According to Charmaz (2014), \\nsaturation is accomplished when no new properties about a category emerge. Acknowledg-\\ning the challenge of this task in a complex design, Dey (1999) is more pragmatic. He prefers \\nthe term theoretical sufficiency. Eisenhardt similarly sets a less absolute goal for satura-\\ntion, observing that the process ends when “marginal improvement becomes small” (1989, \\np. 533). \\nThe ability to achieve a reasonable degree of saturation depends on sampling strategy and \\nsample size. One of the greatest limitations of grounded theory studies is inadequate sample \\nsize (Morse & Clark, 2019). Saturation is linked to theoretical sampling and “means more than \\na one-time check” (Charmaz, 2014a, p. 215). The more multi-dimensional the core construct \\nand complex the model, the less likely that saturation can be achieved without an uncommon \\namount of data. An expectation to saturate categories and their properties can have an impact \\non a final composite model. It is very likely to produce a more streamlined or parsimonious \\nfinal theoretical model or statement. \\nMethodological transparency \\nStandards for quality of reporting that have been adapted for mixed methods emphasize meth-\\nodological transparency about the research procedures, particularly about integration, and the \\nutilization of method-appropriate terminology (e.g., Creswell et al., 2011; Levitt et al., 2018). \\nIn MM-GTM the expectation for methodological transparency extends to using appropriate \\nterminology and an explanation about how core grounded theory analytical procedures, like \\ntheoretical sampling, were executed. The emphasis on methodological transparency is evident \\nin the first analysis of a body of MM-GTM research articles where quality was assessed by the \\n\\n\\n \\n132 \\nREPORTING \\nnumber of core grounded theory procedures that were identified and explained (e.g., Guetter-\\nman et al., 2017), without attending to integration. \\nTransparency about research methods is strongly related to the utility of the research for \\nother investigators and to understanding how the research was conducted. It is no guarantee \\nthat a study is rigorous or that the conclusions are valid or warranted (Maxwell, 2013). In \\nMM-GTM, evaluative criteria extend to finding a way to warrant the conclusions, including \\nkey themes or constructs and relationships depicted in a final composite theoretical model. \\nThe process of warranting a conclusion refers to documenting the link between data and key \\nfindings. In mixed methods, findings are often warranted through a table or figure or table that \\nincorporates qualitative and quantitative data and traces the link between data and themes or \\nhypothesis that are central to the conclusions. \\nConventional approaches to reporting mixed method research can camouflage how much \\ninteraction there was between the qualitative and quantitative data, methods, or strands of a \\nstudy. It is a challenge to determine if integration occurred and, if so for what purpose, when \\nthe qualitative and quantitative findings are reported in separate manuscripts (Archibald, Radil, \\nZhang, & Hanson, 2015; Bryman, 2007). Conventional approaches to reporting that divide \\nquantitative and qualitative findings in separate sections can impose a barrier to integrating \\nresults (Reeping, Tayler, Knight, & Edwards, 2019). Standard strategies for organizing manu-\\nscripts that downplay the contribution of the integration of different sources of data or analyti-\\ncal techniques can be offset by devoting a section to integration and by using visual displays that \\njuxtapose or link data from different sources. \\nProcedural diagrams \\nProcedural diagrams are a staple of reporting mixed methods research and part of the expecta-\\ntion for methodological transparency (Creamer, 2020). A procedural diagram is a process-\\noriented figure like a flowchart that contributes to transparency by clearly describing important steps in \\nthe research process. It is a type of integrated visual display that contributes to transparency by \\nclearly communicating important steps in the research process. One of challenges in reporting \\nintroduced by a fully integrated mixed method design is to find innovative ways to summarize \\nkey steps in a dynamic, interactive process in a procedural diagram, especially when interaction \\namong team members proves instrumental to the insight drawn (Creamer, 2020). A proce-\\ndural diagram bolsters the credibility of the research by providing enough documentation for a \\nreader or audience member to reach a judgment about whether procedures were executed in \\na systematic way. \\nA procedural diagram often goes through multiple iterations as an investigator or research \\nteam moves from an initial proposal to the task of reporting it to a wider audience. The final \\nversion of a procedural diagram that appears in a journal article or as part of a research presenta-\\ntion necessarily simplifies the research process. It distills key steps, planned or not, that proved \\ninstrumental to the research process. Particularly in complex multi-phase projects, the final ver-\\nsion of the procedural diagram very likely differs in substantive ways from an initial conception \\nconstructed months, if not years, ahead of time. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nREPORTING \\n133 \\nBusiness tycoon Warren Buffet is reputed to have said, “The rearview mirror is always \\nclearer than the windshield.” What that means in this context is that choosing an appropri-\\nate label and designing a procedural diagram that accurately reflects how research unfolded \\nis something that cannot be fully envisioned until it is completed. Conventional tem-\\nplates (see Creswell & Plano, 2011) for depicting a basic design have to be adapted for an \\nadvanced design, including in situations where there is a high level of interaction between \\ncollaborators or between findings emerging from different sources of data (Creamer, 2020). \\nConventional approaches to reporting that divide quantitative and qualitative findings in \\nseparate sections can prove to be a barrier to integrating results (Reeping & Edwards, \\n2020). \\nThe procedural diagram provided by the exemplar featured in the preceding chapter by \\nWesely (2010) about the role of motivation in persistence in a language immersion program, \\nillustrates some techniques that can be used to embody a complex, integrated mixed methods \\nstudy with a grounded theory component and a mixed priority. The figure is unusual because it \\ndoes not include both data collection and analysis. It concentrates only on the phases of analysis. \\nIt uses a horizontal orientation that is generally used in mixed methods to depict a sequential \\ndesign. Wesely’s figure depicts a research project that was executed in six phases. Curved lines \\nin the figure show the interaction between findings emerging from the qualitative and quantita-\\ntive strands. \\nFigure 6.2 reproduces (with copyright permission) the procedural diagram provided by \\nWesely (2010, p. 302). \\nSeveral additional strategies used by Wesely (2010) could be useful to others intent on \\nrepresenting an interactive mixed methods design. Observe, first, that although there was a \\nfeedback loop later in the process, that qualitative and quantitative data were first analyzed \\nseparately. A footnote to the table notes that different types of shading were used to distinguish \\nqualitative data or analytical procedures, quantitative data or analytical procedures. Particularly \\nof note is that multiple forms of shading were used to indicate when qualitative and quantitative \\nphases were integrated. \\nFIGURE 6.2 Wesely’s (2010) Procedural Diagram Showing in Interactive Design \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n134 \\nREPORTING \\nReflexivity \\nReflexivity is an additional dimension of quality that is part of the expectation for transpar-\\nency, particularly in qualitative research. An expectation that has an effect on both the way research is \\nexecuted and reported, reflexivity involves considering ways that a lone researcher or, in a team setting, the \\nway that team dynamics, influence the way research was executed and/or its outcomes. It includes recog-\\nnizing the ways that the researcher has an effect on the research process (Hall & Callery, 2001). \\nReflexivity is more challenging in the type of team-based research that is to so common with \\nlarge scale mixed methods projects. In this setting, reflexivity includes considering the ways that \\nteam dynamics influenced the insight that was generated. This extends to acknowledging ways \\nthat differences in interpretation informed the research process. \\nReflexivity serves multiple purposes. Sometimes referred to as positionality, reflexivity is con-\\nventionally thought of as a fixture of reporting that contributes to understanding the research and \\nweighing its credibility. Framed at a time when positivism and, later, post-positivism dominated \\nscientific thinking as a strategy to offset “bias” and bolster “objectivity” by setting aside preconcep-\\ntions, more contemporary views frame reflexivity as an act that helps a reader or audience mem-\\nber understand how a theoretical perspective, like feminism or critical race theory, informed the \\nchoices made in a research project. This type of reflexivity can be seen in an account by Malagon \\net al. (2009) that explores the use of grounded theory with critical race theory. \\nThere is a place for reflexivity about paradigmatic positioning at the beginning of a research \\nproject as well. Describing his journey from thinking he would be forced to choose just one \\napproach to grounded theory during his doctoral research, Irish author James Nelson (2017) \\nrecommends reading enough of the methodological literature about grounded theory to grasp \\nthe different approaches (“schools of thought”) as an important intellectual exercise that sensi-\\ntizes the researcher to the choices that are available in designing and executing a study. While \\nnavigating the different points of view about grounded theory and uncovering some of the \\nmore hegemonic elements of its politics, Nelson found it liberating when he came upon Dey’s \\n(2004) observation that there is no one single unified grounded theory methodology, but many. \\nIn a complex project where there is a high level of interaction among team members \\nabout findings that emerge, the expectation for reflexivity often extends to explaining how \\ndiverse approaches to interpreting findings were navigated. Rather than sweeping these kinds \\nof differences under the rug, this can involve a polyvocal approach that acknowledges differ-\\nences of perspectives (Creamer, 2011). Polyvocality enlivens voice in a text. More importantly, \\nit has implications for social justice as well. It offsets the inclination to allow a single authorial \\nvoice to dominate and to erase the contributions of those with less power or authority. \\nThe exemplar written by Bonnie Kaplan and Dennis Duchon (1988) and reported in \\nthe preceding chapter about research involving the implementation of an information system \\nprovides an example of the type of reflexivity that communicates respect for different perspec-\\ntives. In some cases, this can be tensions introduced at a point in time or in an academic field \\nwhere a qualitative research is awarded less regard. In the discussion section of the article, after \\ndescribing how the qualitative researcher (Kaplan) pushed the quantitative research (Duchon) \\nto re-analyze the quantitative data in light of the grounded theory model she produced from \\nthe qualitative data, the authors stressed the value-added of wrestling with these tensions. They \\npointed to the value-added to producing synthetic insight when they observed in the discussion \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nREPORTING \\n135 \\nsection that it took “a strong determination to accommodate each approach and to reconcile \\napparently conflicting data resulted in an interpretation that synthesized the evidence” (Kaplan \\n& Duchon, 1988, p. 582). Overlap in areas of expertise can make it easier to negotiate the kinds \\nof tensions introduced when findings from different sources of data are engaged in meaningful \\nways (Bryman, 2007). \\nUtility \\nPragmatically oriented researchers have been at the forefront of advocating utility as a key indi-\\ncator of quality. The pragmatic view is that the key issue is if research produces conceptual and \\ntheoretical insight that is useful (Bryant, 2009). This includes scientific usefulness in generating \\nnew research as well as utility in practice (Corley & Gioia, 2011). In practice-oriented fields, \\nlike management, information systems, nursing and other medical fields, and education, it \\nincludes the synergy produced in generating new ideas for evidence-based practice. \\nOriginality \\nOriginality is related to the novelty of the analytical insight or the way it is displayed in a \\nfigure or table and the extent it adds to what has previously been known about the phe-\\nnomenon. The argument for an original contribution is something a researcher generally \\npursues in the discussion section of a manuscript where authors are expected to re-integrate \\ntheir findings with the literature, including theories (Morse, 2020). In MM-GTM, a novel \\ncontribution might be the addition of a recognition of how contextual factors, like a margin-\\nalized status, can interrupt conventional patterns of association. A nuanced yet parsimonious \\nfigure that integrates findings from multiple sources of data or research methods is one way \\nto demonstrate originality. \\nTable 6.1 builds on the idea that indicators of quality include both a contribution to \\nknowledge and to practice. It is informed by two projects where I had the opportunity to \\nserve as an external evaluator for funded grants about the role of an undergraduate research \\nexperience in promoting an interest in a career that involves research. One was with a team of \\ncollaborators from engineering education. This is the team I referred to in Chapter 3 in a sec-\\ntion about using integrated memos as the basis for a case-based analysis (see Lee et al., 2019). \\nThe second was a funded project led by two faculty members in geology at Concord College \\n(Allen, Kuehn, & Creamer, 2020). A dissertation completed by a former doctoral student advi-\\nsee about the undergraduate research experiences by Janice Austin (Austin, 2017) served as an \\nadditional source of ideas for Table 6.1. \\nTable 6.1 is a hypothetical example that offers a template for the task of re-integrating find-\\nings with the literature in a succinct way that highlights the contribution. This could help an \\ninvestigator build the case for the originality and utility of the research. It lists examples of the \\ntypes of theoretical propositions that might be generated in a grounded theory study, extracts \\nrelated information from the literature that would normally be accompanied by a reference, \\nand then explicitly identifies what the research adds to existing knowledge and suggests about \\npractice. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n136 \\nREPORTING \\nTABLE 6.1 Documenting the Contribution of Selected Theoretical Propositions from a \\nGrounded Theory Model: A Hypothetical Example \\nTheoretical \\nCurrent State of \\nContribution to \\nContributions to \\nProposition \\nKnowledge* \\nKnowledge \\nPractice \\nIdentity as a \\nAs they are making \\nIn engineering, experience \\nStudents benefit \\nresearcher is \\nthe choice of an \\nwith real-world research \\nfrom the opportunity \\nonly one of many \\nacademic field to \\nprojects often shake \\nto reflect on their \\nemerging identities \\nstudy, developmentally \\nconfidence in the idea that \\nideas about the \\na novice researcher \\nmany students are at a \\nthere are clear right and \\nnature of knowledge \\njuggles. \\nstage where they view \\nwrong answers. \\nand how the way it \\nknowledge as fixed and \\nis constructed differs \\ncharacterized by a right \\nacross academic \\nand wrong. \\ndisciplines. \\nPeers play as strong \\nMentors play a critical \\nThe inter-disciplinary and \\nIt is helpful to \\na role as a research \\nrole in promoting a \\nteam-based nature of \\nprovide training \\nmentor in shaping \\nstudent’s interest in \\nmuch research challenges \\nabout ways to be an \\nan identity as a \\nscience or engineering. \\nideas that interpersonal \\neffective member of \\nresearcher. \\nskills are unimportant \\na research team. \\nin engineering and the \\nsciences. \\nReal-world impact \\n Students are often \\nThe routine and repetitive \\nIt is important for \\nis an important \\nmotivated to enroll in a \\nnature of experiments \\nresearchers to \\nmotivator for \\nscience or engineering \\nthat occur in a controlled \\nhighlight the real-\\ninterest in a career \\nmajor by a conviction \\nlaboratory setting can \\nworld implications of \\nin science or \\nof their potential to \\ndampen the conviction \\nresearch. \\nengineering.\\ngenerate social and \\nabout the global impact of \\nglobal benefits. \\nscience and engineering. \\n* Each of the entries in this column would be supported by a series of references. \\nCHALLENGES FACED BY INVESTIGATORS USING MM-GTM \\nMost research in the human and social sciences, including in health-related fields and busi-\\nness management, is complex and multi-phase. It has a habit of sending an investigator down \\nmany “rabbit holes.” Even though we constantly have an eye on the clock, the calendar, and \\nresources, I would say the type of messiness introduced by unexpected, but substantiated \\nfindings, is part of what fuels an interest in research that for many academics extends over the \\nentire course of a career. Professional standards for reporting, professional conventions, and \\nword limits for journal articles add to the challenge of reporting a methodologically nuanced \\nresearch project. \\nMM-GTM introduces its own set of challenges, particularly for the novice researcher. \\nThese include: (a) juggling the proliferation of terminology that is introduced when two or \\nmore research methods are used, (b) establishing a meaningful sample size, and (c) reflecting \\nsensitivity to different approaches to grounded theory by carefully incorporating appropriate \\nreferences. Each of these is discussed in the following section. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nREPORTING \\n137 \\nJuggling a surplus of technical language \\nUsing research methods as established as grounded theory and mixed theory introduces the \\nneed to navigate the distinct dictionaries of terms associated with each in ways that demonstrate \\nthat the researcher has expertise in both methods. This is especially the case when publishing \\nin a methodological journal where a fairly sophisticated level of knowledge is required. In \\nMM-GTM, methodological transparency requires identifying core grounded procedures. The \\nspecialized terminology associated with a research method is a shorthand that facilitates com-\\nmunication among the informed but that can simultaneously be alienating to those unfamiliar \\nwith it. The challenge is to deploy specialized terminology accurately and in ways that do not \\noverburden the text. \\nThe purpose of the project and the nature of the audience both have something to do with \\nthe choice to prioritize the language of one method over another. For example, mixed meth-\\nods might be downplayed when the submission is made to a qualitative journal. On the other \\nhand, the mixed method component might be highlighted in quantitative journal. A balanced \\napproach that awards the same amount of space to each method in a manuscript could work \\nwell when the journal is a methodological one. Regardless of the priority awarded to any one \\nmethod, knowing enough about each method to be successful at publishing is certainly pos-\\nsible, but challenging in MM-GTM. \\nExtending the conception of a meaningful sample size \\nArtificially setting a sample size is a risky venture in both grounded theory and MM-GTM. \\nThe expectation for ongoing waves of theoretical sampling, including to pursue exceptions \\nor unexpected findings, is one reason for this. A second is the drive to achieve theoreti-\\ncal saturation/sufficiency with multiple, inter-related constructs. Although classic grounded \\ntheorist may be satisfied with a small sample (Charmaz & Thornberg, 2020), a token number \\nof participants can limit the amount of data available to a researcher. Except in certain types \\nof research like biography, it restricts the ability to achieve analytical density, to publish in a \\nreputable venue, and to build an agenda for future research. Morse is blunt in the language \\nshe used when she observed: “Small sample studies, although they proliferate, are not usually \\nimplementable and do not make a substantial contribution” (Morse, 2020, p. 3). Similarly, \\na homogenous sample can delude a researcher into thinking saturation has been achieved \\n(Morse, 2020). \\nOn the other hand, the labor-intensive nature of emergent coding procedures, particu-\\nlarly if it involves line-by-line coding, sets practical limits on how much data can be managed \\nin the grounded theory portion of a MM-GTM study. This might be the case, for example, \\nin a study that extracts a large amount of data from social media platforms, Y\\nouTube videos, \\nor webpages. In this kind of situation, a reasonable solution is to develop or refine a coding \\nscheme with a systematically selected (not purposeful or convenience) sub-sample of data. In \\nsome contexts, text mining approaches can prove useful to confirm properties of a category, to \\ntrace steps or transitions in a process, or to verify links between categories suggested by Inaba \\nand Kakai (2019). \\n\\n\\n \\n138 \\nREPORTING \\nBeing sensitive to different schools of thought \\nAuthors of a number of reflective accounts reporting on the experience of using grounded \\ntheory or MM-GTM for doctoral research, have commented on the challenge of juggling not \\nonly of the different points of views of the founders of grounded theory, but also between the \\nsecond generation of scholars, often their students, who, like Charmaz, followed them but \\nbought an entirely different paradigmatic perspective to the enterprise (e.g., Alammar, Intezari, \\nCardow, & Pauleen, 2018; Nagel, Burns, Tilley, & Aubin, 2015; Nelson, 2017). \\nDeveloping familiarity with the differences in viewpoints between leaders of the different \\nschools of thought about grounded theory is not as daunting a task as it might seem to be at the \\nonset. Although each brings a slightly different stance to it, there is no shortage of summaries \\nthat have been published recently that single out key topics where the perspectives differ (e.g., \\nApramian, Cristancho, Watling, & Lingard, 2017; Reiger, 2018; McCall & Edwards, 2021; \\nSebastian, 2019). These streamline the task of distinguishing the points of views and can help to \\nincrease the likelihood that supporting references are used in an informed way during report-\\ning. Apramian et al. (2017) are among those who insist that differences between the schools of \\nthought associated with grounded theory have been exaggerated and that lines between them \\nare far more permeable than is suggested in some of the literature. \\nMany investigators approach grounded theory in ways that borrow from more than one \\nschool of thought or epistemological perspective. Recognizing these differences through \\ninformed use of supporting references adds credibility to research and the expertise of the \\nauthors. We see that tensions play out in an example of MM-GTM that is listed with other \\nexample in Appendix B, which methodological limitations. Laws et al. (2015) in a MM-GTM \\nreported results from an intervention designed to promote obesity prevention in early life. \\nThese authors claim to use “grounded theory principles” (p. 4). Charmaz’s 2014a book is the \\nonly item related to grounded theory to appear in the reference list. Laws et al. (2015) pre-\\nsented a theoretical model and summarized it using language from Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) \\nconditional or consequential matrix (context, strategies, conditions, contextual factors, and \\noutcomes) that is not associated with Charmaz. As I highlighted in the chapter about process \\n(Chapter 3) by using a block quote, Charmaz used explicit language to voice her interest in \\ntheorizing and not theory. The type of generic attribution we see in this article is not unusual \\nin reporting about grounded theory studies. It weakens the credibility of the research by com-\\nmunicating  only a very narrow familiarity with the methodological literature. \\nDeveloping an expansive view of expertise \\nMany of most well-known academics have dedicated a lifetime to fine-tuning their expertise \\nin a research method and/or substantive content area. While it has long been a point of pride \\nto situate one’s identity as either a qualitative researcher or a quantitative one, to be a reputable \\nmixed method researcher in these complex times demands expertise that extends beyond this \\narbitrary distinction. UK researcher and prolific author T\\nony Onwuegbuzie (2012) was one of \\nthe first to articulate that to be a “mixed researcher” requires familiarity with (and no doubt \\nrespect for) both qualitative and quantitative research methods. This same call for a more expan-\\nsive view of expertise extends to engaging what has been published about a phenomenon in \\n\\n\\nREPORTING \\n139 \\nmore than one academic field or discipline. A more expansive conception of methodological \\nexpertise better positions a researcher to choose and to adapt the methods that are most suited \\nto the problem at hand. \\nResearch methods are not frozen in time. Changes in methods are occurring in what \\nsenior scholar Janice Morse describes as “breath-taking speed” (2020, p. 2). One implication \\nof this is pressure for researchers to engage not only the classic or cannon about a research \\nmethod, but also methodological literature and examples from diverse disciplines that reflect \\nmore contemporary applications. By and large, textbooks that played a formative role in shap-\\ning understanding of a methodology become in a way historical artifacts of the socio-cultural \\nmovement at the time and are replaced by a second and third generation of books that reflect \\nmore contemporary perspectives. Developing methodological expertise requires reading a \\nbreadth of different viewpoints about any method. Increasingly, this can be accomplished at no \\ncost by consulting with videos available through the internet. The expertise to utilize multiple \\napproaches demands that researchers continually engage and re-engage with contemporary \\nviewpoints about qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. It often means a \\nreading list that extends into unfamiliar fields and disciplines. Reading broadly means making a \\npoint not to read just familiar names from the Western world, but to search out publications by \\nauthors writing from within an array of different socio-political contexts. \\nAdvancing methodological training through professional development activities, now \\nreadily available online, can promote dialog that bridges disciplinary domains. It builds fluency \\nwith a dictionary of the terminology associated with different research methods. It contributes \\nto the ability of researchers to develop the confidence about the potential for creativity and \\nnew insight when mixed methods is recognized as a methodology that extends well beyond the \\ninitial act of collecting qualitative and quantitative data. \\nCONCLUSIONS \\nNo methodology is without its detractors. Among those frustrated with how grounded the-\\nory is used routinely, there is a concern that it reduced to a mechanical approach to coding, \\nregardless of the context or purpose, at the cost of its most important outcome – an explana-\\ntory framework. Others have voiced reservations about that are fundamental to its core meth-\\nodological assumption, including the possibility, or even desirability, of entering a research \\nproject in an “objective” way with no a priori assumptions, or of the feasibility of “discover-\\ning” a theory without consulting the literature. Investigators of a postmodern persuasion may \\nwell challenge the presentation of composite theoretical models as reductionist and simplistic. \\nDetractors of mixed methods point criticize its apparent receptivity to combining methods that \\nreflect different paradigmatic assumptions. Some question the feasibility of developing expertise \\nin multiple methods. Investigators can be advised that both mixed methods and grounded are \\ntoo complex, and possibly too ambitious, for the novice researcher. \\nCertainty is a mirage in a complex, rapidly changing world. I could not disagree more \\nwith the advice to novice researchers to avoid advanced mixed methods designs, like those \\nthat are used when methods are combined. Both mixed methods and grounded theory can be \\nconducted from grounding in a wide range of paradigmatic positions. Each offers a broad set \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n140 \\nREPORTING \\nof guidelines and a palette of procedures to tackle the complexity that is introduced, including \\nin an intervention, when the core constructs, like trauma or identify or caregiving, are multi-\\ndimensional and subject to a multi-layered set of micro- and macro-level contextual conditions. \\nInnovation is not achieved simply by applying a standardized procedure (Erzberger & Kelle, \\n2003). Rather than offering the certainty of a simplistic formulaic approach, I have explored \\nMM-GTM as basic scaffolding for an investigator or a set of investigators to customize a range \\nof tools that are suitable to contemporary problems and contexts. \\nTruly novel discoveries are never the result of simply applying some standardized procedure. \\n(Erzberger & Kelle, 2003, p. 465) \\nThe chapter closes by summarizing the cross-cutting themes and recognizing important \\ntopics that have yet to be addressed about MM-GTM. \\nCross-cutting themes \\nI have brought each of the preceding chapters to a close by summarizing the ways that what \\nwas discussed in the chapter added to three cross-cutting themes. These are about (a) inte-\\ngrated approaches to mixed methods research as compared to those that by and large keep \\nthe qualitative and quantitative strands separate, (b) MM-GTM, and (c) the role of complex-\\nity and dissonance in executing research as well as in advancing the analytical insight that is \\ngenerated. \\nAppendix C provides the reader a concise overview of the architecture of the book by \\ndistilling key points from each chapter about each of the cross-cutting themes. It is organized \\nby chapter and theme. It integrates information from the summaries that have appeared in each \\nchapter. The following further condenses key takeaways from the text about MM-GTM: \\n1 \\nMM-GTM is an advanced mixed method design that is generally conducted with a multi-\\nphase research design. \\n2 \\nFrom a pragmatic or dialectical perspective, areas of overlap in the philosophical founda-\\ntions of mixed methods and grounded theory include extending the constant compara-\\ntive method to include different types of data and embedding an abductive logic in core \\ngrounded theory procedures, including theoretical coding, theoretical sampling, diagram-\\nming, and the construction of analytic memos. \\n3 \\nThe monumental variety in the ways MM-GTM research has been conducted defies clas-\\nsification. The variety includes its pairing with more than one qualitative method, includ-\\ning participatory action research, discourse analysis, and case study to name just a few. \\n4 \\nMM-GTM can be used to build a conceptual or theoretical framework or to elaborate an \\nexisting theoretical framework from the literature. \\n5 \\nIntegrative joint displays and case-based analysis play an instrumental role in advancing \\nanalytical and theoretical insight. \\n6 \\nDissonance between findings from different methods or evidence of gaps that they suggest \\ncan introduce an unexpected element to the analysis that produces explanatory inferences \\nor theoretical propositions. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nREPORTING \\n141 \\nTopics left unaddressed \\nI should not, I suppose, be surprised to reach the end of this book to find that there are a \\nnumber of topics that I have not addressed that could be addressed in a book about mixed \\nmethods approaches to grounded theory. Most notable among these is quantitative approaches \\nto grounded theory. With the exception of Walsh (2014), I have not devoted much space to \\nquantitative dominant MM-GTM. These omissions are largely a reflection of my own interests \\nand should not be taken as a statement about their quality or dismissal of the possibility they \\ncould be legitimate examples of MM-GTM. \\nThere are some topics that I intended to address but I could not. The main reason for this \\nis largely that, as I did in my first book (Creamer, 2018a), the commentary I have been able \\nto provide has been shaped by the exemplars I located. In a few cases, these are extended by \\nhypothetical examples. This explains, for example, the omission of a discussion about causal-\\nity in grounded theory that is associated with a realist perspective. This is present in method-\\nological literature but virtually absent in examples of MM-GTM with a genuine qualitative \\ncomponent where claims about prediction and causality are rarely made. Consistent with the \\nresearch trajectory launched in my early days as a faculty member (see Schneider, 1998), it was \\nmy intention to devote a good bit of space to feminist MM-GTM. A constructivist orienta-\\ntion to grounded theory is well adapted to feminist positionality. There are many examples \\nof grounded theory studies conducted from a feminist standpoint and of those that deploy \\nmultiple methods. I was not able to locate one that reflected feminist MM-GTM in ways that \\nawarded comparable attention to both mixed methods and grounded theory. For someone \\ninterested in building on the topic of this book, there is much more that could be written about \\nMM-GTM with case study and case-based analysis. \\nREVIEW QUESTIONS \\n1 \\nWhat are some of the similarities in the philosophical foundations of mixed methods and \\ngrounded theory? \\n2 \\nIn what ways are there important differences in the philosophical assumptions of mixed \\nmethods and grounded theory? \\n3 \\nWhat are steps an investigator to highlight the quality, originality, and utility of the research \\nthat is being reported? \\n4 \\nHow can an investigator communicate through a final, composite model that there is con-\\ntradictory evidence about some of the findings? \\nSUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITY \\n1 \\nBefore fleshing out your ideas about launching a research project, it can be surprisingly \\nliberating to read a critique about grounded theory and one about mixed methods. For \\nmixed methods, I suggest a highly cited article by Guest (2012). An alternative would be \\n\\n\\n142 \\nREPORTING \\nto read the last chapter about controversies by Creamer (2018a). An article by Thomas and \\nJames (2006) problematizes three issues about grounded theory, including what is meant by \\nthe word “theory,” “ground,” and “discovery.” Reading a critique by someone who is well \\nversed in the history and nuances of a research methodology can be liberating because it \\nassures an investigator that there are many different ways to approach even the most widely \\nused methodologies. \\n\\n\\nGlossary \\n(with a notation of the chapter where the term is frst introduced) \\nAbduction. Abduction is one of three approaches to reasoning that include induction (gen-\\neralizing from the specific to the general) and deduction (generalizing from the general \\nto the specific). It is the process of generating multiple possible explanations for an \\nunexpected or surprising finding and then systematically investigating these. (Chapter 1) \\nAnalytic density. Associated with validity, analytic density refers to envisioning constructs \\nin a multi-dimensional way or to developing or elaborating an explanatory framework \\nin a way that adds conceptual nuance or richness to the findings. (Chapter 1) \\nCase-based analysis. Qualitative and quantitative data are integrated in a narrative or visu-\\nalization for further analysis. (Chapter 3) \\nConcept map. A diagram that is constructed by participants and/or the researcher that \\nserves as visual data in analysis. These often create a network of clustered words or con-\\ncepts. (Chapter 4) \\nConceptual framework. A conceptual framework offers a tentative explanatory frame-\\nwork that is based on a synthesis of related literature and what is known in a practical \\nway about a phenomenon. (Chapter 1) \\nConstant comparative method. An analytical strategy where data, and eventually emerg-\\ning constructs and themes, are continuously compared and contrasted as data collection \\nand analysis unfolds. (Chapter 1) \\nDesign. A map or plan about how an empirical study is executed. (Chapter 2) \\nFormal or classic grounded theory. A formal or classic grounded theory is envisioned in \\na multi-level way. Stages in the progression through a temporal process are at the center \\nof a visualization of formal or grounded theory. Other elements include references to \\noutcomes (anticipated or not), intervening conditions that mediate the outcome, and \\ncontextual factors. (Chapter 2) \\nFully integrated mixed method research. A research methodology where the inte-\\ngration of qualitative and quantitative data and/or analytical procedures is embedded \\nthrough all phases of the research process from the formulation of the research questions, \\nto data collection and sampling, during analysis, and during the process of drawing con-\\nclusions. (Chapter 1) \\n\\n\\n \\n144 \\nGLOSSARY \\nFully integrated mixed method grounded theory methodology (FIMM-GTM). \\nUses grounded theory procedures and strategies to integrate different sources of data \\nthroughout the research process, including during data analyses, to produce and some-\\ntimes test a theoretical framework. (Chapter 1) \\nGraphic elicitation. A data collection procedure where participants physically create and/ \\nor verbally edit a diagram or other visual display. (Chapter 4) \\nGrounded theory. Often confused with a set of procedures to guide the coding and analysis \\nof qualitative data, grounded theory is first and foremost a methodology that provides \\na comprehensive approach to generate a theoretical framework inductively from data. \\n(Chapter 1) \\nInitiation rationale. One of the five principal rationales for integrating data that involves \\nadditional rounds of data collection and analysis to further explore unexpected, contra-\\ndictory, or paradoxical findings. (Chapter 5) \\nIntegrated case-based analysis. A mixed methods analytical strategy that leverages data \\ngenerated from qualitative and quantitative methods into a narrative or visualizations in \\nways that inform the analysis. (Chapter 3) \\nIntegrated analytical memo. Integrates data collected with qualitative and quantitative \\nmethods to advance theoretical insight. (Chapter 3) \\nIntegrated theoretical coding. A mixed methods analytical strategy that engages find-\\nings from more than one type of data to generate theoretical propositions or hypotheses \\nabout the relationship among categories. (Chapter 3) \\nIntegrated theoretical sampling. Engages multiple sources of data to advance theoretical \\ninsight about categories, concepts, relationships, and themes. (Chapter 3) \\nIntegrative display. A figure or table that integrates data from multiple sources one during \\nanalysis for purposes of advancing analytical or theoretical insight. (Chapter 4) \\nJoint display. A table or figure that arrays and sometimes links qualitative and quantitative \\ndata about the same constructs, research questions, or themes. (Chapter 4) \\nMatrix mapping. An interactive graphic elicitation method that asks participants to, first, \\nenter the intersection of a quantitative score on a scale on the vertical axis and, second, \\nscore on a scale on the horizontal axis and then to annotate the point of intersection with \\na few words that describe it. (Chapter 4) \\nMethodological dynamism. Refers to how methods evolve and remain viable over time. \\n(Chapter 2) \\nMethodological transparency. Providing sufficient details about research methods during \\nreporting for a reviewer or a reader to be able to reach a judgment about the credibility \\nof the research. (Chapter 6) \\nMixed method research. A systematic approach to data collection and analysis that com-\\nbines different sources of data and quantitative and qualitative analytical procedures \\nwith the intention to engage multiple perspectives in order to more fully understand \\ncomplex social phenomenon. (Chapter 1) \\nMixed method grounded theory methodology (MM-GTM). A methodology that \\nembeds a dialectical logic in the constant comparative method and grounded theory \\nprocedures to develop a mid-level theoretical framework or to elaborate an existing one. \\n(Chapter 1) \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\nGLOSSARY \\n145 \\nMulti-method research. Research that incorporates multiple sources of data and/or meth-\\nods but does not integrate them in a substantive way. (Chapter 1) \\nParticipatory photo mapping. A graphic elicitation method that integrates photography, \\ncommunity mapping, and walk-along interviews to learn about people’s experiences in \\na spatial context (Texiiera, 2014). It can also utilize diagramming. (Chapter 4) \\nProcedural diagram. A procedural diagram is a process-oriented figure like a flowchart \\nthat contributes to transparency by clearly describing important steps in the research \\nprocess. (Chapter 6) \\nQuantitizing. A type of data transformation where qualitative data are quantified for pur-\\nposes of statistical analysis. (Chapter 4) \\nReflexivity. An expectation that has an effect on both the way research is executed and \\nreported, reflexivity involves considering ways that a lone researcher or, in a team set-\\nting, the way that team dynamics, influence the way research was executed and/or its \\noutcomes. (Chapter 6) \\nRupture theorizing. Rupture theorizing occurs when results from the empirical analysis \\nchallenges a long-standing measure, instrument, or theoretical framework. (Chapter 5) \\nSaturation. One of the core procedures in grounded theory. It is a signal that data collec-\\ntion is sufficient when no new properties of a category emerge that contribute to further \\nanalytical insight. (Chapter 3) \\nTheory. A cohesive explanatory framework generated empirically through a systematic set \\nof procedures. (Chapter 1) \\nTheoretical coding. Theoretical coding generates constructs that conceptualize the rela-\\ntionships between categories. (Chapter 3) \\nTheoretical sampling. An emergent and purposeful approach to sampling that follows and \\ninitial purposeful sampling that is designed to advance theoretical insight by adding to \\nthe understanding of concepts, categories, relationships and themes. (Chapter 3) \\nTheoretical sensitivity. Having sufficient familiarity with relevant bodies of literature to \\nrecognize the theoretical implications of findings. (Chapter 5) \\nTheoretical triangulation. Contributes to internal validity by drawing on multiple theo-\\nretical frameworks as a means to explain findings and weigh competing explanations. \\n(Chapter 5) \\nTimelining. A participatory graphic elicitation method that encourages the con-\\nstruction of rich, time-ordered narratives of peoples’ life and experiences that is \\naccomplished through diagramming or sketching combined with an open-ended \\ninterview. (Chapter 4) \\nVerification. Refers to procedures to verify findings that contribute to the rigor of a research \\nstudy, construct validity, and in some contexts the reliability of findings. (Chapter 5) \\nWarranting. A type of methodological transparency in reporting that supports the cred-\\nibility of conclusion, generally through a visual display. (Chapter 5) \\n\\n\\n\\n\\nAppendices \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n  \\n  \\n \\n \\nAPPENDIX A \\nList of exemplars by chapter \\nCHAPTER 1: ESTABLISHING LANGUAGE AND PURPOSE \\nKawamura, Y\\n., Ivankova, N., Kohler, C., & Purumean-Chaney, S. (2009). Utilizing mixed \\nmethods to assess parasocial interaction of an entertainment-education program audience. \\nInternational Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3, 88–104. \\nCHAPTER 2: VARIED APPROACHES TO USING MIXED \\nMETHODS WITH THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS \\nCatallo, C., Ciliska, D., & MacMillan, H.L. (2012). Minimizing the risk of intrusion: A \\ngrounded theory of intimate partner violence disclosure in emergency departments. Jour-\\nnal of Advanced Nursing, 69(6), 1366–1376. \\nEvans, B. C., Coon, D. W\\n., & Ume, E. (2011). Use of theoretical frameworks as a pragmatic \\nguide for mixed methods studies: A methodological necessity. Journal of Mixed Methods \\nResearch, 5(4), 276–292. \\nWesthues, A., Ochocka, J., Jacobson, N., Simich, L., Maiter, S., Janzen, R., & Fleras, A. (2008). \\nDeveloping theory from complexity: Reflections on a collaborative mixed method partici-\\npatory action research study. Qualitative Health Research, 18(5), 701–717. \\nCHAPTER 3: MIXED METHODS AND THE PROCESS \\nOF THEORIZING \\nJones, L., & Kafetsios, K. (2005). Exposure to political violence and psychological well-being \\nin Bosnian adolescents: A mixed method approach. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, \\n10(2), 157–176. \\n\\n\\n \\n                                        \\n150 \\nAPPENDICES \\nCHAPTER 5: LEVERAGING DISSONANCE TO ADVANCE \\nTHEORETICAL REASONING \\nCarmona, M. (2015). Re-theorizing contemporary public space: A new narrative and a new \\nnormative. Journal of Urbanism, 8(4), 373–405. \\nKaplan, B., & Duchon, D. (1988, December). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods \\nin information systems research: A case study. Management Information Systems Quarterly, \\n571–586. \\nWesely, P\\n. (2010). Language learning motivation in early adolescents: Using mixed methods \\nresearch to explore contradiction. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 295–312. \\nCHAPTER 6: HIGHLIGHTING QUALITY THROUGH REPORTING \\nShim, J., Johnson, R. B., Gasson, S., Goodill, S., Jermyn, R., & Bradt, J. (2017). A model of \\ndance/movement therapy for resilience-building in people living with chronic pain. Euro-\\npean Journal of Integrative Medicine, 9, 27–40. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nAPPENDIX B \\nList of examples of \\nMM-GTM* \\nAgerfalk, P. J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2008). Outsourcing to an unknown workforce: Exploring open \\nsourcing as a global sourcing strategy. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 385–409. \\nAlexandre, R., Walsh, I., & Michel, K. (2016). Is SAM still alive? A bibliometric and interpretive map-\\nping of the strategic alignment field. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 25(2), 75–103. \\nBall, S. B. (2013). Accelerated baccalaureate nursing students use of emotional intelligence in nursing \\nas “caring for a human being”: A mixed methods grounded theory study. International Journal of \\nNursing Education Scholarship, 10(1), 293–300. \\nBarley, S. R., & Meyerson, D. E. (2011). E-mail as a source and symbol of stress. Organization Science, \\n22(4), 887–906. \\nBussing, R., Koro-Ljunberg, M., Gary, F., Mason, D. M., & Garvan, C. W. (2005, March–April). \\nExploring help-seeking for ADHD symptoms: A mixed methods approach. Harvard Review of Psy-\\nchiatry, 85–101. \\n*Carmona, M. (2015). Re-theorizing contemporary public space: A new narrative and a new norma-\\ntive. Journal of Urbanism, 8(4), 373–405. \\n*Catallo, C., Ciliska, D., & MacMillan, H.L. (2012). Minimizing the risk of intrusion: A grounded \\ntheory of intimate partner violence disclosure in emergency departments. Journal of Advanced Nurs-\\ning, 69(6), 1366–1376. \\nDeVito Dabbs, A., Hoffman, L. A., Swigart, V., Happ, M. B., Iacona, A.,& Dauber, J. H. (2004). Using \\nconceptual triangulation to develop an integrated model of the symptom experiences of acute \\nrejection after lung transplantation. Advances in Nursing Science, 27(2), 138–149. \\n*Evans, B. C., Coon, D. W., & Ume, E. (2011). Use of theoretical frameworks as a pragmatic guide \\nfor mixed methods studies: A methodological necessity. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(4), \\n276–292. \\nFloersch, J., Longhofer, J. L., Kranke, D., & Townsend, L. (2010). Integrating thematic, grounded \\ntheory and narrative analysis. Qualitative Social Work. http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/ \\n02/24/1473325010362330 \\nForrest, L., Huprich, S., Jacobs, S. C., Elman, N., Veilleux, J., C., & Kaslow, N. J. (2013). Training \\ndirectors’ perceptions of faculty behaviors when dealing with trainee competence problems: A \\nmixed method pilot study. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 7(1), 23–32. \\nGallagher, J. A., Hall, E. L., Anderson, T. L., & Del Rosario, K. L. (2013). A mixed-methods explora-\\ntion of Christian working mothers’ personal strivings. Journal of Psychology Theology, 41(1), 48–60. \\nGasson, S., & Waters, J. (2013). Using a grounded theory approach to study online collaborative \\nbehaviors. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 95–118. \\nGrant, A. M., Berg, J. M., & Cable, D. M. (2014). Job titles as identity badges: How self-reflective titles \\ncan reduce emotional exhaustion. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1201–1225. \\n*Refers to articles singled out for discussion as exemplars. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n152 \\nAPPENDICES \\nHarms, K., King, J., & Francis, C. (2009). Behavioral changes based on a course in agroecology: A \\nmixed methods study. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 38, 183–194. \\nHarrison, Y. D., & Murray, V. (2012). Perspectives on the leadership of chairs of nonprofit organiza-\\ntion boards of directors: A grounded theory mixed-method study. Nonprofit Management and Leader-\\nship, 22(4), 411–437. \\nHausman, A. (2000). A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying \\nbehavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(5), 403–419. \\n*Jones, L., & Kafetsios, K. (2005). Exposure to political violence and psychological well-being in Bos-\\nnian adolescents: A mixed method approach. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 10(2), 157–176. \\n*Kaplan, B., & Duchon, D. (1988, December). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in \\ninformation systems research: A case study. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 571–586. \\n*Kawamura, Y., Ivankova, N., Kohler, C., & Purumean-Chaney, S. (2009). Utilizing mixed methods \\nto assess parasocial interaction of an entertainment-education program audience. International Jour-\\nnal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3, 88–104. \\nKing, K. P. (2010). Advancing educational podcasting and faculty inquiry with a grounded research \\nmodel: Building on current mixed-methods research across contexts. The Journal of Continuing \\nHigher Education, 58, 143–155. \\nLaws, R., Campbell, K. J., Plight, P., Ball, K., Lynch, J., Russell, G., Taylor, R.,& Denney-Wilson, \\nE. (2015). Obesity prevention in early life: An opportunity to better support the role of maternal \\nand health nurses in Australia. BMC Nursing, 14, 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-015-0077-7 \\nMcFerran, K., Roberts, M., & O’Grady, L. (2010). Music therapy with bereaved teenagers: A mixed \\nmethods perspective. Death Studies, 34, 541–565. \\nMeschede, T., Thomas, H., Mann, A., Stagg, A., & Shapiro, T. (2016). Wealth mobility of families \\nraising children in the twenty-first century. Race and Social Problems, 8, 77–92. \\nMilford, T. M., & Tippett, C. D. (2013). Preservice teachers’s images of scientists: Do prior science \\nexperiences make a difference? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 745–762. \\nMorgan, D. G., & Stewart, N. J. (2002). Theory building through mixed-method evaluation of a \\ndementia special care unit. Research in Nursing and Health, 25, 479–488. \\nNelson, A., Cordova, D., Walters, A., & Szecsy, E. (2016). Storytelling for empowerment for Latino \\nteens: Increasing HIV prevention knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31(2), \\n202–231. \\n*Shim, M., Johnson, R. B., Gasson, S., Goodill, S., Jermyn, R., & Bradt, J. (2017). A model of dance/ \\nmovement therapy for resilience-building in people living with chronic pain. European Journal of \\nIntegrative Medicine, 9, 27–40. \\nTeixeira, S. (2016). Beyond broken windows: Youth perspectives on housing abandonment and its \\nimpact on individual and community well-being. Child Indicators of Research, 9(3), 582–607. \\nThornberg, R., & Knutsen, S. (2011). Teenagers’ explanations of bullying. Child & Youth Care Forum, \\n40(3), 177–192. \\nTu, M. (2018). An exploratory study of Internet of Things (IoT) adoption intention in logistics and \\nsupply chain management. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(1), 131–151. \\nWall, J. D., & Knapp, J. (2014). Learning computing topics in undergraduate information systems \\ncourses: Managing perceived difficulty. Journal of Information Systems Education, 25(3), 245–259. \\nWalsh, I. (2014). A strategic path to study IT use through users’ IT culture and IT needs: A mixed-\\nmethod grounded theory. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23, 146–173. \\n*Westhues, A., Ochocka, J., Jacobson, N., Simich, L., Maiter, S., Janzen, R., & Fleras, A. (2008). \\nDeveloping theory from complexity: Reflections on a collaborative mixed method participatory \\naction research study. Qualitative Health Research, 18(5), 701–717. \\nYang, D. Z., Richardson, J. C., French, B. F., & Lehman, J. D. (2011). The development of a content \\nanalysis model for assessing students’ cognitive learning in asynchronous online discussions. Educa-\\ntional Technology Research and Development, 59, 43–70. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nAPPENDIX C \\nSummary by chapter and \\ncross-cutting theme \\nChapter \\nCross-Cutting Themes \\nIntegrated Approaches to \\nMixed Method \\nComplexity and \\nMixed Methods Research \\nGrounded Theory \\nDissonance \\nMethodology \\n(MM-GTM) \\nChapter 1: \\nDEFINITIONS \\nEstablishing \\nLanguage and \\nPurpose \\nIntegrated research uses \\nstrategies that intentionally \\npromote interdependence \\nbetween their sources \\nof data, methods, or \\napproaches. \\nThe most effective way \\nto become an integrated \\nresearcher is to be \\ncompetent in more than one \\nqualitative and quantitative \\nresearch method. \\nFully integrated mixed \\nmethod grounded theory \\n(FIMM-GT) uses grounded \\ntheory procedures with both \\nqualitative and quantitative \\ndata and integrates them in \\nsubstantive ways throughout \\nthe research process to \\nproduce and sometimes \\ntest a theoretical framework. \\nIntegration generally serves \\nmultiple purposes in this \\ntype of study. \\nConventional \\nperspectives maintain \\nthe independence of \\nthe stands and the view \\nthe purpose MM-GTM \\nto build theory with \\nqualitative procedures \\nand to test it with \\nquantitative ones. \\nIn MM-GTM, the \\nconstant comparative \\nmethod can be \\napplied to quantitative, \\nqualitative, and mixed \\ndata. \\nA dynamic design \\nis needed to adapt \\nto rapidly changing \\nresearch environments, \\nunexpected results, \\nand to negotiate \\ndifferent perspectives \\nteam members bring \\nto research initiatives. \\nA process that is \\ndeliberate about \\nengaging the \\ndissonance and \\nparadox that is \\nintroduced by \\nabduction is the \\nlynchpin that reaches \\nacross mixed methods, \\ngrounded theory, and \\ncomplexity. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n154 \\nAPPENDICES \\nChapter \\nCross-Cutting Themes \\nIntegrated Approaches to \\nMixed Methods Research \\nMixed Method \\nGrounded Theory \\nMethodology \\n(MM-GTM) \\nComplexity and \\nDissonance \\nChapter 2: \\nVARIETY \\nVaried \\nApproaches to \\nUsing Mixed \\nMethods with \\nTheoretical \\nFrameworks \\nChapter 3: \\nPROCESS \\nMixed \\nMethods and \\nthe Process of \\nTheorizing \\nChapter \\n4: VISUAL \\nDISPLAYS \\nAdvancing \\nTheoretical \\nReasoning \\nwith \\nVisualizations \\nConceptualizing a problem \\nand research questions in \\na multi-dimensional way is \\na foundation for thinking \\ntheoretically and advances \\nan integrated approach to \\nmixed methods. \\nLaunching a project with \\na conceptual framework \\ndeveloped during the \\nprocess of consulting a \\ncross-disciplinary body \\nof literature facilitates \\nintegration across research \\nphases. \\nA narrative or visualization \\nthat integrates qualitative \\nand quantitative data can be \\nused as the basis for a case-\\nbased analysis. \\nFully integrated mixed \\nmethod grounded theory \\n(FIMM-GTM) embeds both \\nqualitative and quantitative \\ndata in basic grounded \\ntheory procedures like \\ntheoretical coding, \\ndiagramming, analytical \\nmemoing, theoretical \\nsampling, and saturation. \\nWhile integrative and joint \\ndisplays play a critical role \\nduring reporting, they can \\nalso play an instrumental role \\nin advancing analytical and \\ntheoretical insight. \\nIt is possible to sustain \\nan inductive/exploratory \\ndrive in a study that is \\nframed by a theoretical \\nframework from the \\nliterature at the onset. \\nMM-GTM has informed \\nresearch in a wide \\nvariety of different ways. \\nIt is its adaptability and \\nvariety that sustains its \\ncontinued usefulness. \\nMM-GTM has been \\npaired with a variety \\nof other qualitative \\nresearch approaches, \\nincluding participatory \\naction research. \\nThe inductive and \\nexploratory component \\nin MM-GTM means \\nthat new insight with \\ntheoretical implications \\ncan emerge even in a \\nstudy with a purpose to \\ntest an existing theory \\nor hypothesis. \\nThe constant \\ncomparative method is \\nnot simply an inductive \\nanalytical approach, \\nbut one that also \\nengages deduction and \\nabduction. \\nVisual displays have the \\npotential to generate \\ntheoretical insight by \\nhelping a researcher \\nenvision patterns and \\nrelationships among \\nconstructs. \\nA theoretical \\nframework can provide \\nan explanation for \\nunexpected findings. \\nAn expectation for \\nplurality and dialectical \\nexchange is built \\ninto the design of a \\nMM-GTM participatory \\naction research. \\nDissonance between \\nfindings from different \\nmethods or evidence \\nof gaps that they \\nsuggest can introduce \\nan unexpected \\nelement to the \\nanalysis that produces \\nexplanatory inferences \\nor theoretical \\npropositions. \\nTheoretical sampling \\ncan be directed by \\nunexpected findings. \\nJoint and integrative \\ndisplays can reveal \\ndiverse perspectives \\nand expose \\ndissonance between \\nfindings from different \\nanalytical methods. \\n(Continued) \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\nAPPENDICES \\n155 \\nChapter \\nCross-Cutting Themes \\nIntegrated Approaches to \\nMixed Methods Research \\nMixed Method \\nGrounded Theory \\nMethodology \\n(MM-GTM) \\nComplexity and \\nDissonance \\nChapter 5: \\nDISSONANCE \\nLeveraging \\nDissonance \\nfor \\nTheoretical \\nand Analytical \\nInsight \\nChapter 6: \\nREPORTING \\nHighlighting \\nQuality in \\nReporting \\nIn some fully integrated \\nmixed method (FIMMR) \\ndesigns, the qualitative and \\nquantitative phases may be \\ndifficult to disentangle, while \\nin other cases, the phases \\nare quite distinct. FIMMR \\ndesigns can be executed in \\na concurrent or sequential \\nmanner. \\nA visual display can be used \\nto structure data collection \\nthat simultaneously collects \\nqualitative and quantitative \\ndata. \\nA study can be designed to \\nexplore divergence, including \\nbetween theoretical \\nperspectives previously \\nconsidered in the literature, \\nbut more often dissonance is \\nencountered unexpectedly. \\nQualitative and quantitative \\nfindings can be integrated \\nin a composite theoretical \\nmodel. \\nData generated from \\ntimelines, concept \\nmaps, matrices, and \\nmapping exercises \\nthat combine multiple \\nsources of data can \\nbe used as the basis \\nof case-based analysis \\nand facilitate cross-\\ncase comparison. \\nThe credibility of \\nfindings can be \\nwarranted through \\ndifferent types of joint \\ndisplays. \\nMixed methods and \\ngrounded theory \\nshare several key \\nepistemological \\nassumptions. \\nMM-GTM is an \\nadvanced design that is \\noften executed in more \\nthan two phases. \\nThere is huge variety in \\nthe way that MM-GTM \\nstudies have been \\naccomplished. \\nIntegrating data from \\ndifferent analytical \\nprocedures for a \\ncase-based analysis is \\none tool to investigate \\ndissonant data and \\nto weigh the level of \\nsupport for theoretical \\npropositions. \\n\\n\\n \\nReferences \\nAgerfalk, P\\n. J. (2014). Insufficient theoretical contribution: A conclusive rationale for rejection? European \\nJournal of Information Systems, 23, 593–599. \\nAlammar, F\\n. M., Intezari, A., Cardow, A., & Pauleen, D. J. (2018). Grounded theory in practice: Novice \\nresearchers’ choice between Straussian and Glaserian. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(2), 225–245. \\nAllen, J., Kuehn, S., & Creamer, E. G. (2020, May). A boost for the CURE: Improving learning out-\\ncomes with curriculum based undergraduate research. GSA Today, 30. https://doi.org/10.1130/ \\nGSATG458GW \\nApramian, T., Cristancho, S., Watling, C., & Lingard, L. (2017). (Re) grounding grounded theory: A \\nclose reading of theory in four schools of thought. Qualitative Research, 17(4), 359–376. \\nArchibald, M. M., Radil, A. I., Zhang, X., & Hanson, W\\n. E. (2015). Current mixed methods practices in \\nqualitative research: A content analysis of leading journals. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, \\n14(2), 1–33. \\nAustin, J. (2017). Incidents in the undergraduate research experience that contribute to an interest in science, technol-\\nogy, engineering, and math (STEM) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute \\nand State University, Blacksburg, VA. \\nBazeley, P\\n. (2018a). Integrating analyses in mixed methods research. London, UK: Sage. \\nBazeley, P\\n. (2018b). “Mixed methods in my bones”: Transcending the qualitative-quantitative divide. \\nInternational Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 334–341. \\nBazeley, P\\n., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVIVO (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, \\nCA: Sage Publications. \\nBenoliel, J. Q. (1996). Grounded theory and nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), \\n406–428. \\nBirks, M.,& Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage \\nPublications. \\nBoeije, H., Slagt, M., & van Wesel, F\\n. (2013). The contribution of mixed methods research to the field of \\nchildhood trauma: A narrative review focused on integration. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(4), \\n347–369. \\nBooth, A., Carroll, C., Ilott, I., Low, L. L., & Cooper, K. (2013). Desperately seeking dissonance: Iden-\\ntifying the disconfirming case in qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 23(1), \\n126–141. \\nBoychuk Duchscher, J. E., & Morgan, D. (2004). Grounded theory: Reflections on the emergence vs \\nforcing debate. Methodological Issues in Nursing, 48(6), 605–612. \\nBravington, A., & King, N. (2018). Putting graphic elicitation into practice: T\\nools and typologies for the \\nuse of participant-led diagrams in qualitative research interviews. Qualitative Research, 19(5), 502–523. \\nBruce, C. D. (2007). Questions arising about emergence, data collection, and its interaction with analysis \\nin a grounded theory study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(1), 1–12. \\nBryant, A. (2002). Re-grounding grounded theory. Journal of Information Technology and Theory and Appli-\\ncation, 4, 25–42. \\n\\n\\n \\nREFERENCES \\n157 \\nBryant, A. (2009). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of Anselm Strauss. FQS: Forum: \\nQualitative Social Research, 10(3), Art 2, no page numbers. \\nBryant, A. (2017). Grounded theory and grounded theorizing: Pragmatism in research practice. New Y\\nork, NY: \\nOxford University Press. \\nBryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2019). The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory. London, UK: Sage. \\nBuckley, C., & Waring, M. J. (2009). The evolving nature of grounded theory: Experiential reflections \\non the potential of the method for analyzing children’s attitudes towards physical activity. International \\nJournal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 317–334. \\nBuckley, C., & Waring, M. J. (2013). Using diagrams to support the research process: Examples from \\ngrounded theory. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 148–172. \\nBurch, P\\n., & Heinrich, C. J. (2017). Mixed methods for policy research and program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, \\nCA: Sage Publications. \\nBussing, R., Koro-Ljungberg, M. K., Gary, F\\n., Mason, D., & Garvan, C. (2005). Exploring help-seeking \\nfor ADHD symptoms: A mixed methods approach. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 13(2), 85–101. \\nBussing, R., Koro-Ljungberg, M. K., Noguchi, K., Mason, D., Mayerson, G., & Garvan, C.W\\n. (2012). \\nWillingness to use ADHD treatments: A mixed methods study of perceptions by adolescents, parents, \\nhealth professionals, and teachers. Social Science and Medicine, 74, 92–100. \\nBustamante, C. (2017). TPACK and teachers of Spanish: Development of a theory-based joint display \\nin mixed method case study research. Journal of Mixed Method Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/ \\n1558689817712119 \\nCarmona, M. (2015). Re-theorizing contemporary public space: A new narrative and a new normative. \\nJournal of Urbanism, 8(4), 373–405. \\nCastro, F\\n. G., Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S. J., & Kopak, A. (2010). A methodology for conducting integrative \\nmixed methods research and data analysis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 342–360. \\nCatallo, C. J., Ciliska, D., & MacMillan, H.L. (2012). Minimizing the risk of intrusion: A grounded \\ntheory of intimate partner violence disclosure in emergency departments. Journal of Advanced Nursing, \\n69(6), 1366–1376. \\nCatallo, C. J., Jack, S. M., Ciliska, D., & MacMillan, H. L. (2013). Mixing a grounded theory approach \\nwith a randomized controlled trial related to intimate partner violence: What challenges arise for \\nmixed methods research? Nursing Research and Practice, 1–12. doi:10.1155/2013/798213 \\nChamberlain, K., Cain, T., Sheridan, J., & Dupuis, A. (2011). Pluralism in qualitative research: From \\nmultiple methods to integrated methods. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 8, 151–169. \\nCharmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nCharmaz, K. (2014a). Constructing grounded theory (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nCharmaz, K. (2014b). Grounded theory in a global perspective: Reviews by international researchers. \\nQualitative Inquiry, 20(9), 1074–1084. \\nCharmaz, K. (2017a). Special invited paper: Continuities, contradictions, and critical inquiry in grounded \\ntheory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–8. \\nCharmaz, K. (2017b). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, \\n23(1), 34–45. \\nCharmaz, K. (2019). “With constructivist grounded theory you can’t hide”: Social justice research and \\ncritical inquiry in the public sphere. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(2), 165–176. \\nCharmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2020). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in \\nPsychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/147480887.2020.1780357 \\nClarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after a postmodern term. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage \\nPublications. \\nClarke, A. E., & Friese, C. (2007). Grounded theorizing using situational analysis. In A. Bryant & K. \\nCharmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 363–397). London, UK: Sage. \\nCollins, C. S., & Stockton, C. M. (2018). The central role of theory in qualitative research. International \\nJournal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1–10. \\nCollins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2012). Securing a place at the table: A review \\nand extension of legitimation criteria for the conduct of mixed research. American Behavioral Scientist, \\n56(6), 849–865. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n158 \\nREFERENCES \\nConlon, C., Carney, G., Timonen, V\\n., & Scharf, T. (2015). “Emergent reconstruction” in grounded \\ntheory: Learning from team-based interview research. Qualitative Research, 15(1), 39–57. \\nCook, L. D., & Kamalodeen, K. J. (2020). Combining mixed methods and case study research (MM+CSR) \\nto give mixed methods case study designs. Caribbean Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 47–76. \\nCorbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (3rd \\nedition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nCorley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoreti-\\ncal contribution. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. \\nCreamer, E. G. (2004). Collaborators’ attitudes about differences of opinion. Journal of Higher Education, \\n75(5), 556–571. \\nCreamer, E. G. (2011). Experimenting with voice and reflexivity to produce multi-voiced texts. In C. \\nConrad & R. C. Serlin (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook for Research in Education (2nd edition, pp. 367–380). \\nThousand Oaks, CA: Sage. \\nCreamer, E. G. (2016). A primer about mixed methods in an educational context. International Journal of \\nLearning, Teaching, and Educational Research, 15(8). www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/700 \\nCreamer, E. G. (2018a). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage \\nPublications. \\nCreamer, E. G. (2018b). Enlarging the conceptualization of mixed method approaches to grounded the-\\nory with intervention research. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 919–934. http://journals.sagepub. \\ncom/doi/10.1177/0002764218772642 \\nCreamer, E. G. (2018c). Paradigms in play: Using case studies to explore the value-added of diver-\\ngent findings in mixed methods research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), \\n30–40. \\nCreamer, E. G. (2018d). Editorial: Striving for methodological integrity in mixed methods research: The \\ndifference between mixed methods and mixed up methods. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(4). \\nhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jee.20240 \\nCreamer, E. G. (2020). Visualizing dynamic fully integrated mixed method designs. International Journal of \\nMultiple Research Approaches, 12(1), 1–13. \\nCreamer, E. G. (2021, March). Extending the value-added of mixed methods in sustainability research. \\nIn A. Factor & J.P\\n. Ulhoi (Eds.), Sustainability and small to medium-sized enterprises: Lessons from mixed \\nmethods research (pp. 177–191). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. \\nCreamer, E. G., & Edwards, C. D. (2019). Embedding the dialogic in mixed method approaches to theory \\ndevelopment. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 42(3), 239–251. https://doi.org \\n/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1598357 \\nCreamer, E. G., Guetterman, T., Govia, I., & Fetters, M. (2020, December). Challenging procedures \\nused in systematic reviews by promoting a case-based approach to the analysis of qualitative methods \\nin nursing trials. Nursing Inquiry. Early view. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12393 \\nCreamer, E. G., & Schoonenboom, J. L. (2018). Introduction: Inter-method mixing as a gateway to \\nmethodological mixing. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 879–886. \\nCreswell, J. W\\n., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V\\n. L., & Clegg Smith, K. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods \\nresearch in health sciences. Bethesda, MD: Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research, National \\nInstitute of Health. \\nCreswell, J. W\\n., & Plano, C. V\\n. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd edition). Thou-\\nsand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nCreswell, J. W\\n., Shope, R., Plano Clark, V\\n. L., & Green, D. O. (2006). How interpretive qualitative \\nresearch extends mixed methods research. Research in Schools, 13(1), 1–11. \\nCronin, A., Alexander, V\\n. D., Fielding, J., Moran-Ellis, J., & Thomas, H. (2007). The analytic integration \\nof qualitative data sources. In P\\n. Alasuutari, L. Brickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), SAGE handbook of social \\nresearch methods (pp. 572–584). London, UK: Sage. \\nDavis, P\\n., & Baulch, B. (2011). Parallel realities: Exploring poverty dynamics using mixed methods in rural \\nBangladesh. Journal of Development Studies, 47(1), 118–143. \\nDey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. London, UK: Routledge. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\nREFERENCES \\n159 \\nDey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. London, UK: Academic Press. \\nDey, I. (2004). Grounded theory. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, I. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative \\nresearch practice (pp. 80–93). London, UK: Sage. \\nDickinson, W\\n. B. (2010). Visual displays for mixed methods findings. In A. Tashakkori & C. T\\neddlie (Eds.), \\nSAGE handbook of social and behavioral research (2nd edition, pp. 469–504). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. \\nDunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of \\nSocial Research Methodology, 14(2), 111–124. \\nEccles, M., Grimshaw, J., Walker, A., Johnston, M., & Pitts, N. (2005). Changing the behavior of health-\\ncare professionals: The use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. Journal of Clinical \\nEpidemiology, 58, 107–112. \\nEdwards, J. R. (2008). T\\no prosper, organization psychology should . . . overcome methodological barriers \\nto progress. Journal of Organization Behavior, 29, 469–491. \\nEisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, \\n14(4), 532–550. \\nEisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. \\nThe Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. \\nErzberger, C., & Kelle, U. (2003). Making inferences in mixed methods: The rules of integration. In A. \\nTashakkori & C. T\\neddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 457–490). \\nThousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nEvans, B. C., Coon, D. W\\n., & Ume, E. (2011). Use of theoretical frameworks as a pragmatic guide for \\nmixed methods studies: A methodological necessity. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(4), 276–292. \\nEvans, B. C., Crogan, N., Belyea, M., & Coon, D. W\\n. (2009). Utility of the life course perspective in \\nresearch with Mexican American caregivers of older adults. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 20, 5–14. \\nFaber, C. J., Benson, L. C., Kajfez, R. L., Kennedy, M. S., Less, D. M., McAlister, A. M., & WU, G. \\n(2019). Dynamics of researcher identity and epistemology: The development of a grounded theory model. 2019 \\nASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Tampa, Florida. \\nFielding, N. G. (2009). Going out on a limb: Postmodernism and multiple method research. Current \\nSociology, 57, 427–447. \\nFielding, N. G. (2012). Triangulation and mixed method designs: Data integration with new research \\ntechnologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124–136. \\nFielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking data: The articulation of qualitative and quantitative methods \\nin social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. \\nFlanagan, P\\n. J., McGrath, M. M., Meyer, E. C., & Coll, C.T. (1995). Adolescent development and transi-\\ntions to motherhood. American Academy of Pediatrics, 96(2), 273–282. \\nFlick, U. (2017). Mantras and myths: The disenchantment of mixed-methods research and revising trian-\\ngulation as a perspective. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 46–57. \\nFloersch, J., Longhofer, J. L., Kranke, D., & T\\nownsend, L. (2010). Integrating thematic, grounded theory \\nand narrative analysis. Qualitative Social Work. http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/02/24/1 \\n473325010362330 \\nFreshwater, D. (2007). Reading mixed methods research: Contexts for criticism. Journal of Mixed Methods \\nResearch, 1(2), 133–146. \\nGasson, S. (2009). Employing a grounded theory for MIS research. In D. Yk, L. B. Williams, S. L. Schen-\\nberger, & M. Wade (Eds.), Handbook of research on contemporary theoretical models in information systems \\n(pp. 34–56). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing. \\nGasson, S., & Waters, J. (2013). Using a grounded theory approach to study online collaborative behav-\\niors. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 95–118. \\nGibson, C. B. (2017). Elaboration, generalization, triangulation, and interpretation: On enhancing the \\nvalue of mixed method research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 193–223. \\nGioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management \\nReview, 15(4), 584–602. \\nGlaser, B. (1978a). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociological Press. \\nGlaser, B. (1978b). All is data. Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 6(2), no page numbers. \\n\\n\\n \\n160 \\nREFERENCES \\nGlaser, B. (1992). Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. \\nGlaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Y\\nork: \\nAldine. \\nGorard, S. (2004). Sceptical or clerical? Theory as a barrier to the combination of research methods. \\nJournal of Educational Enquiry, 5(1), 1–21. \\nGorard, S. (2010). Research design, as independent of methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. T\\neddlie (Eds.), \\nSAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral sciences (2nd edition, pp. 237–251). Thousand \\nOaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nGreckhamer, T., & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2006). The erosion of a method: Examples from grounded \\ntheory. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(6), 729–750. \\nGreene, J. C. (2005). The generative potential of mixed methods inquiry. Journal of Research & Method in \\nEducation, 28(2), 207–2011. \\nGreene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Wiley Publishers. \\nGreene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods \\nResearch, 2(1), 7–22. \\nGreene, J. C., Caracelli, V\\n. J., & Graham, W\\n. F\\n. (1989). T\\noward a conceptual framework for mixed-method \\nevaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. \\nGuest, G. (2012). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Meth-\\nods Research, 7(2), 141–151. \\nGuetterman, T. C., Babchuck, W\\n. A., Howell Smith, M. C., & Stevens, J. (2017). Contemporary \\napproaches to mixed methods-grounded theory research: A field-based analysis. Journal of Mixed Meth-\\nods Research, 13(2), 179–195. \\nGuetterman, T. C., Creswell, J. W\\n., & Kuckartz, U. (2015). Using joint displays and MAXQDA soft-\\nware to represent the results of mixed methods research. In M. T. McCrudden, G. Schraw, & C. W\\n. \\nBuckendahl (Eds.), In use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and reporting data \\n(pp. 145–175). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. \\nGuetterman, T. C., & Fetters, M. D. (2018). T\\nwo methodological approaches to the integration of mixed \\nmethods and case study designs: A systematic review. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 900–918. \\nGuetterman, T. C., Fetters, M. D., & Creswell, J. W\\n. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results \\nin health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), \\n554–561. \\nHadley, G. (2019a). Grounded theory in applied linguistics research. London, UK: Routledge. \\nHadley, G. (2019b). Critical grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of \\ncurrent developments in grounded theory (pp. 564–589). London, UK: Sage. \\nHall, K. P\\n. (2010). Advancing educational podcasting and faculty inquiry with a grounded research model: \\nBuilding on current mixed-methods research across contexts. The Journal of Continuing Higher Educa-\\ntion, 58, 143–155. \\nHall, W\\n. A., & Callery, P\\n. (2001). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and \\nrelationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 257–272. \\nHapp, M. B., Dabbs, A. D., Tate, J., Hricik, A., & Erlen, J. (2006). Exemplars of mixed methods data \\ncombination and analysis. Nursing Research, 55(28), 343–349. \\nHarrison, Y\\n. D., & Murray, V\\n. (2012). Perspectives on the leadership of chairs of nonprofit organization \\nboards of directors: A grounded theory mixed-method study. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, \\n22(4), 411–437. \\nHausman, A. (2000). A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying behavior. \\nJournal of Consumer Marketing, 17(5), 403–419. \\nHay, M. C. (Ed.). (2016). Methods that matter: Integrating mixed methods for more effective social science research. \\nChicago: The University of Chicago Press. \\nHesse-Biber, S. N. (2018). T\\noward an understanding of a qualitatively driven mixed methods data col-\\nlection and analysis: Moving toward a theoretically centered mixed methods praxis. In U. Flick (Ed.), \\nThe SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 545–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\n\\n\\n \\nREFERENCES \\n161 \\nHesse-Biber, S. N., & Flowers, H. (2019). Using a feminist grounded theory approach in mixed methods \\nresearch. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded \\ntheory (pp. 497–516). London, UK: Sage. \\nHesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P\\n. (2008). Pushing on the methodological boundaries: The growing need \\nfor emergent methods within and across disciplines. In S.N. Hesse-Biber & P\\n. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook \\nof emergent methods (pp. 1–16). New Y\\nork, NY: Guilford Press. \\nHiles, D. (2012). Mixed methods and the problem of the logic of inquiry. Draft paper presented at the QMiP \\nsymposium on “Mixed Methods in Psychology”. Annual BPS Conference, London, April 18–20, \\n2012. \\nHites, L. S., Fifolt, M., Beck, H., Su, W\\n., Kerbawy, S., Wakelee, J., & Nassell, A. (2013). A geospatial \\nmixed methods approach to assessing campus safety. Evaluation Review, 37(5), 347–369. \\nHolton, J. D. (2008). Grounded theory as a general research methodology. Grounded Theory Review, 7(2), \\n67–93. \\nHolton, J. D., & Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded theory: Applications with qualitative and quantitative data. \\nThousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nHowell Smith, M. C., Babchuk, W\\n. A., Stevens, J., Garrett, A. L., Wang, S. C., & Guetterman, T. C. \\n(2019). Modeling the use of mixed methods-grounded theory: Developing scales a new measurement \\nmodel. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(2), 184–206. \\nHume, C., Salmon, J., & Ball, K. (2005). Children’s perceptions of their homes and neighborhood envi-\\nronments, and their association with objectively measured physical activity: A qualitative and quantita-\\ntive study. Health Education Research, 20(1), 1–13. \\nHunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2015). Designing multimethod research. In R. B. Johnson (Ed.), The Oxford \\nhandbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 185–205). Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni-\\nversity Press. \\nHunter, A., Murphy, K., Grealish, A., Casey, D., & Keady, J. (2011). Navigating the grounded theory \\nterrain: Part 1. Nurse Researcher, 18(4), 6–10. \\nInaba, M., & Kakai, H. (2019). Grounded text mining approach: A synergy between grounded theory \\nand text mining approaches. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory \\n(pp. 332–351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nIrwin, S. (2008). Data analysis and interpretation: Emergent issues in linking qualitative and quantitative \\nevidence. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P\\n. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 415–435). New \\nY\\nork, NY: Guilford Press. \\nIvankova, I. (2015). Mixed methods applications in action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nIvankova, N., & Wingo, N. (2018). Applying mixed methods in action research: Methodological poten-\\ntials and advantages. In E. G. Creamer & J. L. Schoonenboon (Eds.), American Behavioral Scientist, \\n62(7), 978–997. \\nJaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills. New Y\\nork, NY: Guilford Press. \\nJang, E., McDougall, D. E., Herbert, M., & Russell, P\\n. (2008). Integrative data analytic strategies in research \\nin school success in challenging circumstances. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 221–247. \\nJick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative \\nScience Quarterly, 24, 602–611. \\nJohnson, L. (2014). Adapting and combining constructivist grounded theory and discourse analysis: A \\npractical guide for research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 8(1), 117–133. \\nJohnson, R. B. (2012). Guest editor’s editorial: Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has \\ncome. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 751–754. \\nJohnson, R. B., McGowan, M. W\\n., & Turner, L. A. (2010). Grounded theory in practice: Inherently a \\nmixed method? Research in the Schools, 17(2), 65–78. \\nJohnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). T\\noward a definition of mixed methods \\nresearch. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. \\nJohnson, R. B., & Schoonenboom, J. (2015). Adding qualitative and mixed methods research to health \\nintervention studies: Interacting with differences. Qualitative Health Research, 26(5), 587–602. \\n\\n\\n162 \\nREFERENCES \\nJohnson, R. B., & Walsh, I. (2019). Mixed grounded theory: Merging grounded theory with mixed \\nmethods and multimethod research. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current \\ndevelopments in grounded theory (pp. 517–531). London, UK: Sage. \\nJohnson, R. E., Grove, A. L., & Clarke, A. (2019). Pillar integration process: A joint display technique to \\nintegrate data in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 301–320. \\nJones, L., & Kafetsios, K. (2005). Exposure to political violence and psychological well-being in Bosnian \\nadolescents: A mixed method approach. Clinical and Child Psychiatry, 19(2), 157–176. \\nKajfez, R., Lee, D., Ehlert, K., Faber, C., Benson, L., & Kennedy, M. (2021). A mixed methods approach \\nto understanding researcher identity. Studies in Engineering Education, 2(1), 1–15. \\nKaplan, B., & Duchon, D. (1988, December). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in infor-\\nmation systems research: A case study. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 12(4), 571–586. \\nKawamura, Y\\n., Ivankova, N., Kohler, C., & Purumean-Chaney, S. (2009). Utilizing mixed methods to \\nassess parasocial interaction of an entertainment-education program audience. International Journal of \\nMultiple Research Approaches, 3, 88–104. \\nKearney, W\\n. S., Kelsey, C., & Herrington, D. (2013). Mindful leaders in highly effectives schools: A mixed-\\nmethod application of Hoy-s M-scale. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(3), 316–335. \\nKeddy, B., Sims, S. L., & Stern, P\\n. N. (1996). Grounded theory as feminist research methodology. Journal \\nof Advanced Nursing, 23, 448–453. \\nKelle, U. (2001). Sociological explanations between micro and macro and the integration of qualitative \\nand quantitative methods. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), no page numbers. \\nKesby, M. (2000). Participatory diagramming: Deploying qualitative methods through an action research \\nepistemology. Area, 32(4), 423–435. \\nKnigge, L.,& Cope, M. (2006). Grounded visualization: Integrating the analysis of qualitative and quan-\\ntitative data through grounded theory and visualizations. Environment and Planning, 38, 2021–2037. \\nKoopmans, M. (2017). Mixed methods in search of a problem: Perspectives from complexity theory. \\nJournal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(1), 16–18. \\nKushner, K. E., & Morrow, R. (2003). Grounded theory, feminist theory, critical theory: T\\noward theo-\\nretical triangulation. Advances in Nursing Science, 26(1), 30–43. \\nKutnak, M. J., Jr. (2017). The process of design for general classroom facilities in higher education institutions. \\nDegree: PhD, Higher Education, Virginia T\\nech. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/77575 \\nLaws, R., Campbell, K. J., Van der Plight, P\\n., Ball, K., Lynch, J., Russell, G., Taylor, R., & Wilson, E. \\nD. (2015). Obesity prevention in early life: An opportunity to better support the role of maternal and \\nchild health nurses in Australia. BMC Nursing, 14, 26. doi:10.1186/s12912-015-0077-7 \\nLee, D., McAlister, A., Ehlert, K., Faber, C., Kajfez, R., Creamer, E.,& Kennedy, M. (2019). Enhancing \\nresearch quality through use of analytical memo writing in a mixed methods grounded theory study implemented \\nby a multi-institution research team. Proceedings of the IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education Conference, \\nOctober 16–19, Cincinnati, OH. \\nLeech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and \\nQuantity, 43, 265–275. \\nLempert, L. B. (2007). Asking questions of the data: Memo writing in the grounded theory tradition. \\nIn A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 245–264). Thousand \\nOaks, CA: Sage. \\nLevina, N., & Vaast, E. (2008). Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries \\nin offshore collaboration. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 307–332. \\nLevitt, H. M., Creswell, J. W\\n., Josselson, R., Bamberg, M., Frost, D. M., & Suarez-Orozco, C. (2018). \\nJournal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed meth-\\nods research in psychology: The APA publications and communications task force report. American \\nPsychologist, 73(1), 26–46. \\nLocke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role \\nof doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6), 907–918. \\nLoo, I. D., & Lowe, A. (2011). Mixed methods research: Don’t “just do it”. Qualitative Research in Account-\\ning and Management, 8(1), 22–38. \\n\\n\\n \\n \\nREFERENCES \\n163 \\nMalagon, M. C., Huber, L. P\\n., & Velez, V\\n. N. (2009). Our experiences, our methods: Using grounded \\ntheory to inform critical race theory methodology. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 8(1), 253–272. \\nMark, J. (2017, March 2). Get out of here: Scientists examines the benefits of forests, birdsong, and run-\\nning water. The New York Times Book Review. www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/books/review/nature-\\nfix-florence-williams.html (Retrieved March 31, 2020). \\nMason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9–25. \\ndoi:10.1177/1468794106058866 \\nMaxwell, J. A. (2012). The importance of qualitative research in causal explanation in education. Qualita-\\ntive Inquiry, 18(8), 655–661. \\nMaxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nMaxwell, J. A., Chmiel, M., & Rogers, S. E. (2015). Designing integration in multimethod and mixed \\nmethods research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and \\nmixed methods research inquiry (pp. 223–239). Oxford, UK: Sage. \\nMaxwell, J. A., & Loomis, D. (2003). Mixed method design: An alternative approach. In A. Tashakkori & \\nC. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral analysis (pp. 241–271). New Y\\nork, \\nNY: Guilford Press. \\nMaxwell, J. A., & Mittapalli, K. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & \\nC. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 145–168). Thousand \\nOaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nMcCall, C., & Edwards, C. D. (2021). New perspectives for implementing grounded theory. Studies in \\nEngineering Education, 1(2), 93–107. \\nMcCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Buckendahl, C. W\\n. (2015). Use of visual displays in research and testing. \\nCharlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. \\nMcFerran, K., Roberts, M., & O’Grady, L. (2010). Music therapy with bereaved teenagers: A mixed \\nmethods perspective. Death Studies, 34, 541–565. \\nMcGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. (2007). Grounded theory research: Literature reviewing and \\nreflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(3), 334–342. \\nMendlinger, S., & Cwikel, J. (2008). Spiraling between qualitative and quantitative data on women’s health \\nbehaviors: A double helix model for mixed methods. Qualitative Health Research, 18(2), 280–293. \\nMerriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th edi-\\ntion). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons. \\nMertens, D. M. (2015). Mixed methods and wicked problems. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 3–6. \\nMiles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd edition). \\nThousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nMills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. Interna-\\ntional Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25–35. \\nMoran-Ellis, J., Alexander, V\\n. D., Cronin, A., Dickenson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J., & Thomas, H. (2006). \\nTriangulation and integration: Processes, claims, and implications. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 45–59. \\nMorgan, D. G., & Stewart, N. J. (2002). Theory building through mixed-method evaluation of a dementia \\nspecial care unit. Research in Nursing and Health, 25, 479–488. \\nMorgan, D. L. (2013). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053. \\nMorgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Thousand Oaks, \\nCA: Sage Publications. \\nMorgan, D. L. (2015). From themes to hypotheses: Following up with quantitative methods. Qualitative \\nHealth Research, 25(6), 789–793. \\nMorgan, D. L. (2020). Pragmatism as the basis for grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 25(1), 64–73. \\nMorse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147–149. \\nMorse, J. M. (2010). Simultaneous and sequential qualitative mixed methods designs. Qualitative Inquiry, \\n16(6), 483–491. \\nMorse, J. M. (2015). Issues in qualitatively driven mixed method designs: Walking through a mixed-\\nmethod project. In S. Hesse-Biber & B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed \\nmethods research inquiry (pp. 206–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\n\\n\\n \\n164 \\nREFERENCES \\nMorse, J. M. (2020). The challenging face of qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, \\n19, 1–7. \\nMorse, J. M., & Clark, L. (2019). The nuances of grounded theory sampling and the pivotal role of \\ntheoretical sampling. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments in \\ngrounded theory. London, UK: Sage. \\nMorse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left \\nCoast Press. \\nMorse, J. M., Stern, P\\n. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A. E. (2009). Developing \\ngrounded theory: The second generation. New Y\\nork, NY: Routledge. \\nNagel, D. A., Burns, V\\n. F\\n., Tilley, C., & Aubin, D. (2015). When novice researchers adopt constructiv-\\nist grounded theory: Navigating less travelled paradigmatic methodological paths in PhD dissertation \\nwork. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 20, 365–383. \\nNastasi, B. K., Hitchcock, J. H., & Brown, L. M. (2010). An inclusive framework for conceptualizing \\nmixed method design typologies. In A. Tashakkori & C. T\\neddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed meth-\\nods in social and behavioral research (2nd edition, pp. 305–338). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nNelson, J. (2017). Using conceptual depth criteria: Addressing the challenge of reaching saturation in \\nqualitative research. Qualitative Research, 17(5), 554–570. \\nNightingale, A. (2003). A feminist in the forest: Situated knowledges and mixed methods in natural \\nresearch management. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 2(1), 77–90. \\nOmoquit, M., Tso, P\\n., Varga-Atkins, T., O’Brien, M., & Wheeldon, J. (2013). Diagrammatic elicitation: \\nDefining the use of diagrams in data collection. The Qualitative Report, 18(30), 1–12. \\nOnwuegbuzie, A. J. (2012). Introduction: Putting the MIXED back into quantitative and qualitative \\nresearch in educational research and beyond: Moving toward the radical middle. International Journal of \\nMultiple Research Approaches, 6(3), 192–219. \\nOnwuegbuzie, A. J., & Dickinson, W\\n. B. (2008). Mixed methods analysis and information visualizations: \\nGraphical display for effective communication of research results. The Qualitative Report, 13(2), 204–227. \\nOnwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2019). On qualitizing. International Journal of Multiple Research \\nApproaches, 11(2), 98–131. \\nOnwuegbuzie, A. J., & T\\neddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In \\nA. Tashakkori & C. T\\neddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351– \\n383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nPatton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage \\nPublications. \\nPearce, L. D. (2015). Thinking outside of the Q boxes: Further motivating a mixed research perspective. \\nIn S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research \\ninquiry (pp. 42–56). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. \\nPlano Clark, V\\n. L., & Ivankova, N. V\\n. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Mixed Methods \\nResearch Series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nPlano Clark, V\\n. L., & Sanders, K. (2015). The use of visual displays in mixed methods research: Strategies \\nfor effectively integrating quantitative and qualitative components of a study. In M. T. McCrudden, \\nG. Schraw, & C. Buckendahl (Eds.), Use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and \\nreporting data (pp. 177–206). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. \\nPoth, C. N. (2018a). Innovation in mixed methods research: A practical guide to integrative thinking with complex-\\nity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nPoth, C. N. (2018b). The curious case of complexity: Implications for mixed methods practice. Interna-\\ntional Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 1–9. \\nPoth, C. N. (2020). Confronting complex problems with adaptive mixed methods research practices. \\nCaribbean Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 29–46. \\nProsser, J. (2007). Visual methods and the visual culture of schools. Visual Studies, 22(1), 13–30. \\nRalph, N., Birks, M., & Chapman, Y\\n. (2015). The methodological dynamism of grounded theory. Inter-\\nnational Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1–6. \\n\\n\\nREFERENCES \\n165 \\nReeping, D., & Edwards, C. (2020, August). Exemplars of integration in engineering education’s use of mixed \\nmethods research. ASEE 2020 Annual Conference and Exposition. doi:10.18260/1-2-34623 \\nReeping, D., Tayler, A. R., Knight, D. B., & Edwards, C. (2019). Mixed methods analysis strategies in \\nprogram evaluation: Beyond “a little quant here, a little qual there”. Journal of Engineering Education, \\n108(20), 178–196. \\nReicherz, J. (2007). Abduction: The logic of discovery. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE \\nhandbook of grounded theory (pp. 214–228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nRieger, K. L. (2018). Discriminating among grounded theory approaches. Nursing Inquiry, 26. https:// \\ndoi.org/10.1111/nin.12261 \\nRocheleau, D. (1995). Maps, numbers, text, and context: Mixing methods in feminist political ecology. \\nProfessional Geographer, 47(4), 458–466. \\nRossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative \\nmethods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 627–643. \\nRucks-Ahidiana, Z., & Bierbaum, A. H. (2015). Qualitative spaces: Integrating spatial analysis for a mixed \\nmethods approach. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(2), 92–103. \\nRule, P\\n., & John, M. (2015). A necessary dialogue: Theory in case study research. International Journal of \\nQualitative Methods, 14(4), no page numbers. doi:10.1177/1609406915611575 \\nSaint Arnault, D. (2009). Cultural determinants of help seeking: A model of research practice. Research and \\nTheory for Nursing Practice: An International Journal, 23(4), 259–278. \\nSaint Arnault, D., & Fetters, M. D. (2011). RO1 funding for mixed methods research: Lessons learned \\nfrom the “mixed methods analysis of Japanese depression” project. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, \\n5(4), 309–329. \\nSaldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nSandelowski, M. (1993). Theory unmasked: The uses and guises of theory in qualitative research. Research \\nin Nursing and Health, 15, 213–218. \\nSandelowski, M. (2014). Unmixing mixed-methods research. Research in Nursing in Health, 37, 3–8. \\nSandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, \\n208–222. \\nSandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., Leeman, J., & Crandell, J. L. (2012). Mapping the mixed methods-mixed \\nresearch synthesis terrain. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 317–331. \\nSanscartier, M. D. (2018). The craft attitude: Navigating mess in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed \\nMethods Research, 14(1), 47–62. \\nSantiago-Brown, I., Jerram, C., Metcalfe, A., & Collins, C. (2014). What does sustainability mean? \\nKnowledge gleaned from applying mixed methods research to wine grape growing. Journal of Mixed \\nMethods Research, 9(3), 232–251. \\nSchneider, A. (1998, September 11). Why don’t women publish as much as men? The Chronicle of Higher \\nEducation, pp. A14–A16. \\nSchoonenboom, J. (2019). Develop your case! How controversial case, subcases, and moderated can \\nguide you through mixed methods data analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–13. doi:10.3389/ \\nfpsyg.2019.01369 \\nSebastian, K. (2019). Distinguishing between the types of grounded theory: Classical, interpretive, and \\nconstructivist. Journal for Social Thought, 3(1), 1–9. \\nSeidel, S., & Urquhart, C. (2013). On emergence and forcing in information systems grounded theory \\nstudies: The case of Strauss and Corbin. Journal of Information Technology, 28, 237–260. \\nShannon-Baker, P\\n., & Edwards, C. (2018). The affordances and challenges to incorporating visual meth-\\nods in mixed methods research. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 935–955. \\nSheridan, J., Chamberlain, K., & Dupuis, A. (2011). Timelining: Visualizing experience. Qualitative \\nResearch, 11(5), 552–569. \\nShim, J., Johnson, R. B., Gasson, S., Goodill, S., Jermyn, R., & Bradt, J. (2017). A model of dance/move-\\nment therapy for resilience-building in people living with chronic pain. European Journal of Integrative \\nMedicine, 9, 27–40. \\n\\n\\n166 \\nREFERENCES \\nShim, M., Johnson, B., Bradt, J., & Gasson, S. (2020). A mixed methods-grounded theory design for \\nproducing more refined theoretical models. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(1), 61–86. \\nStrauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (1st edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage \\nPublications. \\nStrauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded \\ntheory (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nSuddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, \\n49(4), 633–642. \\nSweeney, S. M., & Von Hagen, L. A. (2015). Middle school students’ perceptions of safety: A mixed \\nmethods study. Journal of School Health, 85(10), 688–696. \\nTashakkori, A., & T\\neddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral science \\nresearch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nTashakkori, A., & T\\neddlie, C. (2008). Quality of inferences in mixed methods research: Calling for an \\nintegrative framework. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 101–119). \\nThousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \\nTeixeira, S. (2014). “It seems like no one care”: Participatory photo mapping to understand youth per-\\nspectives on property vacancy. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30(3), 390–414. \\nTeixeira, S. (2016). Beyond broken windows: Y\\nouth perspectives on housing abandonment and its impact \\non individual and community well-being. Child Indicators of Research, 9(3), 582–607. \\nThomas, G. (2010). Doing case study: Abduction not induction, phronesis not theory. Qualitative Inquiry, \\n16(7), 575–582. \\nThomas, G., & James, J. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: Some questions about theory, ground, and \\ndiscovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32(6), 767–795. \\nThornberg, R. (2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), \\n243–259. \\nThorne, S., Kirkham, S. R., & O’Flynn-Magee, K. (2004). The analytic challenge in interpre-\\ntive description. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1). https://journals.sagepub.com/ \\ndoi/10.1177/160940690400300101 \\nTiefenbacher, J. P\\n. (2013). Themes of U.S. wine advertising and the use of geography and place to market \\nwine. EchoGeo, 23. doi:10.4000/echogeo.13378 \\nTimmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory \\nto abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. \\nTimonen, V\\n., Foley, G., & Conlon, C. (2018). Challenges when using grounded theory: A pragmatic \\nintroduction to doing GT research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1–10. \\nUrquhart, C. (2007). The evolving nature of grounded theory method: The case of the information \\nsystems disciplines. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. \\n339–351). London, UK: Sage. \\nUmoquit, M., Tso, P\\n., Varga-Atkins, T., O’Brien, M., & Wheeldon, J. (2013). Diagrammatic elicitation: \\nDefining the use of diagrams in data collection. The Qualitative Report, 18, 1–12. \\nUrquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. (2010). Putting the “theory” back into grounded theory: \\nGuidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems, 20, 357–381. \\nUrquhart, K. (2013). Grounded theory for qualitative research: A practical guide. London, UK: Sage. \\nVan Maanen, J., Sorensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. (2007). Introduction to special topic forum: The inter-\\nplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1145–1154. \\nWalker, R. E., Block, J., & Kawachi, I. (2012). Do residents of food deserts express different food buy-\\ning preferences compared to residents of food oases? A mixed-methods analysis. International Journal of \\nBehavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-41 \\nWalsh, I. (2014). A strategic path to study IT use through users’ IT culture and IT needs: A mixed-method \\ngrounded theory. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23, 146–173. \\nWalsh, I. (2015). Using quantitative data in mixed-design grounded theory studies: An enhanced path \\nformal grounded theory in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 24, 531–557. \\n\\n\\nREFERENCES \\n167 \\nWang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs \\nassessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387. \\nWatson, A. (2019). Methods braiding: A technique for arts-based and mixed methods research. Sociological \\nResearch Online, 25(1), 66–83. \\nWeed, M. (2009). Research quality considerations for grounded theory research in sports and exercise \\npsychology. Psychology of Sports Medicine, 10, 502–510. \\nWeick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, \\n14(4), 516–531. \\nWeick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385–290. \\nWeisner, T. S. (2016). Findings that matter: A commentary. In M. C. Hay (Ed.), Methods that matter: \\nIntegrating mixed methods for more effective social science research (pp. 391–408). Chicago: The University \\nof Chicago Press. \\nWeiss, H. B., Kreider, H., Mayer, E., Hencke, R., & Vaughn, M. A. (2005). Working it out: The chron-\\nicle of a mixed-method analysis. In Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods \\nand the study of childhood and family life (pp. 47–64). Baltimore, MD: John D. and Catherine T. MacAr-\\nthur Foundation Series on Mental Health and Development. \\nWeiss, H. B., Mayer, E., & Kreider, H. (2003). Making it work: Low-income working mothers’ involve-\\nment in their children’s education. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 879–901. \\nWesely, P\\n. (2010). Language learning motivation in early adolescents: Using mixed methods research to \\nexplore contradiction. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 295–312. \\nWesthues, A., Ochocka, J., Jacobson, N., Simich, L., Maiter, S., Janzen, R., & Fleras, A. (2008). Devel-\\noping theory from complexity: Reflections on a collaborative mixed method participatory action \\nresearch study. Qualitative Health Research, 18(5), 701–717. \\nWhiteside, M., Mills, J., & McCalman, J. (2012). Using secondary data for grounded theory analysis. \\nAustralian Social Work, 63(4), 504–516. \\nWhittemore, R. (2005). Analysis of integration in nursing science and practice. Journal of Nursing Scholar-\\nship, 37(3), 261–267. \\nWilliams, S., & Keady, J. (2012). Centre stage diagrams: A new method to develop constructivist grounded \\ntheory-late-stage Parkinson’s disease as a case exemplar. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 218–238. \\nWindsor, L. C. (2013). Using concept mapping in community-based participatory research: A mixed \\nmethods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 274–293. \\nWisdom, J. P\\n., Cavaleri, M. A., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Green, C. A. (2012). Methodological reporting \\nin qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods health services research articles. Health Services Research, \\n47(2), 721–741. \\nWuest, J. (1995). Feminist grounded theory: An exploration of the congruency and tensions between two \\ntraditions in knowledge discovery. Qualitative Health Research, 5(1), 127–137. \\nWuest, J., & Hodgins, M. J. (2011). Reflections on methodological approaches and conceptual contribu-\\ntions in a program of caregiving research: Development and testing of Wuest’s theory of family care-\\ngiving. Qualitative Health Research, 21(2), 151–161. \\nYang, D. Z., Richardson, J. C., French, B. F\\n., & Lehman, J. D. (2011). The development of a content \\nanalysis model for assessing students’ cognitive learning in asynchronous online discussions. Educational \\nTechnology Research and Development, 59, 43–70. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9166-1 \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nIndex \\nNote: Page numbers in italics indicate a figure and page numbers in bold indicate a table on the corresponding page. \\nabduction 17–18; abductive reasoning, as mixed \\nmethods approach extension 51; integrated \\nanalysis using 48–49 \\nAgerfalk, P\\n. J. 4 \\nAlexander, V\\n. D. 49 \\nanalytic density 10 \\nApramian, T. 47, 97, 138 \\nAustin, J. 135 \\nBabchuck, W\\n. A. 8, 125 \\nBaulch, B. 82–84 \\nBazeley, P\\n. xx, 63, 78, 113 \\nBenson, L. 64 \\nbi-dimensional approach 30 \\nBirks, M. 74 \\nBosnian War 68 \\nBoyd, S. J. 88, 115 \\nBrown, L. M. 42 \\nBryant, A. 48, 53, 122 \\nBuckley, C. 74, 126 \\nBuffet, Warren 133 \\n“burden” theoretical code 60 \\nBussing, R. 52, 59–62, 66, 82 \\nCaracelli, V\\n. J. 94 \\nCarmona, M. 102, 107–109, 111 \\ncase-based approach in MM-GTM 105; exploring \\ndissonance with 105; macro-level perspective \\n109; meso-level perspective 109; micro-level \\nperspective 109; mixed method case studies \\n107–109; multiple theoretical frameworks \\n111–113; providing evidence of originality \\n109–110; stair-step process 110; theoretical \\ntriangulation 111; visual data in 105–106 \\ncase-based timeline 82–84, 83 \\ncase study 124 \\nCastro, F\\n. G. 88, 115 \\nCatallo, C. J. 14, 36, 38–40, 43, 63, 126 \\ncausality 61, 96–98 \\nchange maps 40 \\nCharmaz, K. xx, 4, 6–7, 28–29, 34, 47–48, 54, 60, \\n65, 74, 97, 98, 123–124, 128, 131, 138 \\nCiliska, D. 38, 63 \\nClark, A. 30, 87 \\nClassic Glaserian grounded theory 98 \\nclose-ended questions 60 \\ncommunity-based participatory action project \\n(CBPR) 36, 41 \\ncomplexity 19 \\ncomposite grounded theory model 129 \\ncomprehensiveness 12 \\nComputer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis \\nSoftware (CAQDAS) 40, 80 \\nconcept maps 40, 77 \\nconceptual framework 5 \\nconcordance table, triangulating through 113–114 \\nConlon, C. 52 \\nconstant comparative method 16–17; iterative exchange \\nembedded in 16–17; linking to an abductive logic 17 \\nconstructivist grounded theory 9, 64, 98 \\ncontext 29 \\nCoon, D. W\\n. 125 \\nCope, M. 75, 80–81, 106 \\nCorbin, J. 40, 65, 74, 123–124, 128, 138 \\ncore grounded theory procedures 54–56, 55–56; \\ncoding 55; constant comparative method 55; core \\ncategory 55; frequency of the use of 57; logic model, \\nconditional matrix, or formal grounded theory model \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nINDEX \\n169 \\n55; memo writing 55; qualitative and quantitative data \\nin 57–58; saturation 55; social process 55; theoretical \\ncoding 55; theoretical sampling 55 \\nCreswell, J. W\\n. 23, 28 \\nCronin, A. 49, 52–54 \\ncross case analysis 64 \\ncross-cutting themes 24–25, 43–44, 70–71, 90–91, \\n117, 140 \\ncrossover methodology 2–3 \\ndata analysis in MM-GTM 49–51 \\nDavis, P\\n. 82–84 \\nDey, I. 33, 97, 119, 131, 134 \\ndiagram 77 \\ndialectical stance 14 \\ndiscourse analysis 124 \\nDiscovery of Grounded Theory, The 23 \\ndissonance in MM-GTM, leveraging to advance \\ntheoretical reasoning 93–118; case-based approach \\nin MM-GTM 105; centrality of dissonance to \\nresearch process 96–98; contradictory findings, \\nexplanation for 103–105; cross-cutting themes, \\nbuilding on 117; designing for 101–102, 101; \\ndiscipline of generating multiple explanations \\n98–99; initiation rationale 94; potential sources \\nof dissonance 98–100; unexpected sources of \\ndissonance 99–100; varying points of view 98; \\nvisual data in a case-based analysis 105–106; \\nsee also visual displays, warranting inferences through \\ndiversity 122 \\nDuchon, D. 102–103, 111, 126, 134 \\nDunne, C. 34 \\necomaps 77 \\nEdwards, C. 77 \\nEisenhardt, K. M. 64, 66, 105, 113–114 \\nErzberger, C. 91, 93 \\nEvans, B. C. 31, 35, 37, 125 \\nevidence-based explanatory models 2 \\nfeminist grounded theory 26, 28, 70 \\nFielding, J. 11, 49, 94 \\nFielding, N. xxi \\nfinal composite model from Kawamura, 11–12, 13 \\nFlick, U. 26 \\nFloersch, J. 125 \\nFlowers, H. 23 \\nFoley, G. 52 \\nformal grounded theory 40 \\nfully integrated approach to mixed methods \\n(FIMMR) 78–79 \\nfully integrated mixed method grounded theory \\nmethodology (FIMM-GTM) 8, 58 \\nfully integrated mixed method research (FIMMR) 8 \\nGasson, S. 17 \\nGlaser, B. 5–7, 9, 28–29, 34, 47, 66, 128 \\nGorard, S. 43 \\nGraebner, M. 113 \\nGraham, W\\n. F\\n. 94 \\ngrand theories 29, 46 \\ngraphic elicitation 72 \\nGreene, J. C. 7, 9, 14, 94 \\ngrounded theory 2, 4–6; conceptual framework 5; \\ngrounded theory method (GTM) 14, 33–34, \\n40; meta-model 127; mixed methods and 6–7; \\nsocial-psychological processes 6 \\ngrounded visualization 75–76 \\nGrove, A. L. 87 \\nGuetterman, T. C. 8, 21, 57, 125 \\nHadley, G. 97 \\nHerbert, M. 94 \\nHesse-Biber, S. N. 23, 26, 28, 121 \\nHiles, D. 50 \\nHitchcock, J. H. 42 \\nHolton, J. D. 7, 34, 57 \\nHowell Smith, M. C. 8, 125 \\nInaba, M. 137 \\ninductive–deductive–abductive analytical cycle 50 \\ninitiation rationale 94 \\nintegrated analysis using abduction 48–49 \\nintegrated analytical memo 62–63 \\nintegrated approaches to a grounded theory \\nvisualization 126 \\nintegrated case-based analysis 63 \\nintegrated methodological approaches 2 \\nintegrated theoretical coding 59–62; causal pathways \\nproduced by Bussing 61; close-ended questions \\n60; conceptual model from Bussing et al. 60; \\nopen-ended questions 60 \\nintegrated theoretical sampling 66 \\nintegrative case-based memo 64–65 \\nintegrative display 77 \\nintegrative MMR-GTM 50 \\nintegrative visual displays 74–75; concept map 77; data \\nanalysis 76; data collection 76; diagram 77; drawing \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n170 \\nINDEX \\nconclusions 76; integrative display 77; joint display \\n77; mapping 77; matrix mapping 77; mixed \\nmethods used to generate analytical insight 78–79; \\nparticipatory photo mapping (PPM) 79; purposes \\nserved by 76; reporting 76; timelining 77; types 77 \\ninterpretive comprehensive 130 \\nIntroduction to Fully Integrated Mixed Method Research, \\nAn 130 \\ninvestigators using MM-GTM 136–139; challenges \\nfaced by 136; expansive view of expertise, \\ndeveloping 138–139; meaningful sample size 137; \\ntechnical language 137 \\nIrwin, S. 31 \\nIvankova, N. 11 \\nJang, E. 94 \\nJohnson, B. R. 10 \\nJohnson, L. 9 \\nJohnson, R. B. 9–10, 14, 23, 87, 99, 117, 119, 121 \\njoint displays 74–75, 128–130; addressing \\ninconsistent data through 128–130; to advance \\nanalysis 77, 87–89; of comparisons 130; final \\ncomposite grounded theory model from Shim \\net al. 129; qualitative data 88–89; quantitative \\ndata 88; to warrant conclusions 114–115 \\nJones, L. 52, 67, 68, 82 \\nKafetsios, K. 52, 67, 68, 82 \\nKakai, H. 137 \\nKaplan, B. 102–103, 111, 126, 134 \\nKawamura, Y\\n. 11–12, 126, 128 \\nKeady, J. 85 \\nKelle, U. 91, 93 \\nKellison, J. G. 88, 115 \\nKnigge, L. 75, 80–81, 106 \\nKopak, A. 88, 115 \\nKreider, H. 94 \\nKutnak, M. 81 \\nlanguage and purpose, establishing 1–25; \\nmulti-method research 2; purpose 2–3; \\ncontribution 2–3 \\nLaws, R. 138 \\nLee, D. 52, 59, 64 \\nLehman, J. D. 33 \\nLempert, L. B. 64 \\nleverage dissonance and paradox 13–14 \\nliterature review 3, 26, 28–30, 34–35, 35, 100; \\nin MM-GTM, 51; methodological 138–139; \\ntheoretical coding 58–62, 114 \\nLocke, K. 18 \\nMacMillan, H. L. 38, 63 \\nmacro-level constructs 29 \\nMalagon, M. C. 134 \\nmapping 77 \\nmapping software (ArcGis) 80 \\nMark, J. 85–86 \\nMason, J. 11 \\nmatrix mapping, integrating data through 77, 84–85; \\nconducive to MM-GTM 85–87; design of 87; \\ngenerating analytical insight from 86; qualitative \\nsoftware 84 \\nMayer, E. 94 \\nMcCalman, J. 52 \\nMcDougall, D. E. 94 \\nMertens, D. M. xxi \\nmeso-level constructs 29 \\nmethodological adaptability of grounded theory 33 \\nmethodological dynamism 33 \\nmethodological rationale for MM-GTM, \\narticulating 123–125; methodological \\ntransparency 131–132; originality 135; \\nprocedural diagrams 132–133; quality gauge \\nways in 130–131; reflexivity 134–135; saturation \\n131; utility 135; visualizing a theoretical model \\ndeveloped 125–126 \\nmethodological transparency 130–132 \\nMexican American immigrants 31, 35 \\nmicro-level constructs 29 \\nmiddle range theory 46 \\nMills, J. 52, 74 \\nmixed analysis through integrated case-based memos \\n62–63 \\nmixed grounded theory (MGT) 117, 119 \\nMixed Method Evaluation Rubric (MMER) 130 \\nmixed method grounded theory methodology \\n(MM-GTM) 3, 7; analytic logic 15, 20; analytic \\nprocedures 15, 20; “classic” approach to 9–10; \\ncompatibility with multiple paradigms 16; \\ncontextual issues 15; contributions of each \\nmethod 19–20; cross-cutting themes 24–25; an \\nexemplar of 11–13; formal approach to grounded \\ntheory versus 124; integrated approaches to, \\n\\n\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nINDEX \\n171 \\ndistinguishing exemplars of 20–23; as an invitation \\nto leverage dissonance and paradox 13–14; link to \\ncomplexity 19; as a methodology, conceptualizing \\n14–16; multiple sources of data in, analyzing 18; \\npairing with other qualitative approaches 124–125; \\nprevalence, indications of 8–9; qualitative phase 9; \\nquantitative phase 9; research design 15 \\nmixed methods 6–7, 51; analytic density 10; in \\nbuilding explanatory power 10–11; grounded \\ntheory and 6–7; prioritizing the role of 10–11; \\n“radical potential” of 10; research 7; used to \\ngenerate analytical insight 78–79 \\nmixed methods and the process of theorizing 46–71; \\nabductive reasoning to the constant comparative \\nmethod 51; core grounded theory procedures \\n54–56; cross-cutting themes 70–71; integrated \\nanalysis using abduction 48–49; integrated case-\\nbased memos, analysis through 62–63; integrated \\ntheoretical sampling 66; integrative MMR-GTM \\n50; interactive approach to data analysis 49–51; \\nsaturation 66–68; theoretical coding 58–59; \\ntheoretical sampling 65–66; theoretical sampling \\nwith a promising lead 68–69 \\nmixed methods with theoretical frameworks \\n26–45; contribution 27; cross-cutting themes \\n43–44; “design” word, implications of 28–29; \\ndemonstrating variability with a group of exemplars \\nin 35–36; explore counterintuitive findings \\n(Exemplar 2) 38–40; formal grounded theory 40; \\nlife course perspective 37; macro-level constructs \\n29; meso-level constructs 29; methodological \\nadaptability 33; micro-level constructs 29; \\nmulti-dimensionality in research questions, \\nembedding 30–31; multi-layered social contexts \\n29; objectives 27; purpose 27; research problem in, \\nconceptualizing 29–30, 30; study design, theory \\nuse (Exemplar 1) 36–38; theoretical model as an \\noutcome, developing 41–42; theoretical reasoning, \\nliterature contribution to 35; varied approaches to \\nusing 26–45 \\nmixed priority 8, 111, 133 \\nmoderating cases 63 \\nMoran-Ellis, J. 49 \\nMorgan, D. G. 16, 97 \\nMorse, J. M. 14, 66, 125, 139 \\nmulti-dimensionality 2; framing a research problem in \\n29–30, 30; in research questions, embedding 30–31 \\nmulti-dimensional theorizing 31–33; conceptual \\nframework 31; exemplar that models 31–33; from \\nEvans 32; initial visualization 31; qualitative data \\n32; quantitative data 32 \\nmulti-method research 2–3 \\nMyers, M. 33 \\nnarrative analysis 124 \\nNature Fix 85 \\nNelson, J. 134 \\nNiehaus, L. 14 \\nOnwuegbuzie, A. 138 \\nopen-ended questions 60 \\nparadigm(s) 15, 125; feminist 80; multiple 16; \\nphilosophical 96, 123 \\nparticipatory action research (PAR) 2, 41, 124 \\nparticipatory photo mapping (PPM) 79 \\nPlano, C. V\\n. 28 \\npositivism/postpositivsm 16, 56, 79, 97, 130, 134 \\nPostmodern Clarkeian grounded theory 98 \\nPoth, C. xxi \\npragmatism 16–17, 97 \\nprocedural diagrams 132–133 \\nquality: assessing in MM-GTM 130–131; \\nhighlighting through reporting 119–141 \\nQUAL+QUAN combination logic 21 \\nradical potential 10–11, 94 \\nrandomized controlled trial (RCT) 38 \\nreflexivity 134–135 \\nreporting: conventional approaches to 132–134; \\nhighlighting through 119–141; inconsistent data \\n128–130; integrative visual displays 76; mixed \\nmethods 89, 130; on MM-GTM 117, 130, 132; \\nshortcomings in 54; visualization in 74 \\nresearch design 10, 15; adaptability in 99; complex \\n19, 122; implications of 28; quality and 130 \\nRieger, K. L. 97 \\nRossman, G. B. 94 \\nrupture theorizing 108 \\nRussell, P\\n. 94 \\nSaint Arnault, D. 66 \\nSaldaña, Johnny 58, 61 \\n\\n\\n \\n172 \\nINDEX \\nSandelowski, M. 4, 30, 35, 48 \\nSanscartier, M. D. 128 \\nsaturation 66–68, 131 \\nSchoonenboom, J. L. 63, 99 \\nSebastian, K. 97 \\nSeidel, S. 14, 33, 40 \\nShannon-Baker, P\\n. 77 \\nShim, J. 10, 126–128 \\nsocial-psychological process 6 \\nspiraling cycles of ideas and evidence 63 \\nStevens, J. 8, 125 \\nStrauss, A. 9, 28–29, 40, 47, 65–66, 74, 96, 123–124, \\n128, 138 \\nStraussian grounded theory 98 \\nSuddaby, R. 17 \\nTashakkori, A. 91 \\nTavory, I. 48 \\nTaylor, R. 64 \\nteam-based project 38 \\nT\\neddlie, C. 91 \\nT\\neixeira, S. 80, 99, 107 \\ntheme see cross-cutting themes \\ntheoretical coding 58–62; see also integrated \\ntheoretical coding \\ntheoretical propositions 126 \\ntheoretical reasoning advancing with visualizations \\n72–92; integrative displays 74–75; joint displays \\n74–75; literature contribution to 35; matrix-\\nmapping, integrating data through 84–85; visual \\nmethods, grounded theory, and mixed methods, \\noverlap between 75–76; see also integrative visual \\ndisplays; joint displays; timelining as visualization \\nstrategy \\ntheoretical sampling 65–66, 68–69 \\ntheoretical sensitivity 98 \\ntheoretical triangulation 111 \\ntheory 3–14; “burden” theoretical code 60; case-\\nbased approach in MM-GTM 111–113; Classic \\nGlaserian grounded 98; composite grounded \\nmodel 129; constructivist grounded 9, 64, 98; \\ndefining 3–14; feminist grounded 26, 28, 70; \\nformal grounded 40; fully integrated mixed \\nmethod research (FIMMR) 8; grand 29, 46; in \\nbuilding explanatory power 10–11; middle range \\n46; mixed grounded theory (MGT) 117, 119; \\nmixed methods and grounded 6–7; Postmodern \\nClarkeian grounded 98; Straussian grounded 98; \\nsee also specific theories/types \\nThomas, H. 49 \\nThornberg, R. 4, 34, 97 \\ntimelining as visualization strategy 77, 81–82; \\ncase-based analysis and 82–84; in integration of \\ndifferent types of data 81–82; in understanding \\npoverty status 82–84 \\ntime-ordered process 128 \\nTimmermans, S. 48 \\nTimonen, V\\n. 52 \\ntriangulating through concordance table 113–114 \\nUme, E. 125 \\nunexpected sources of dissonance 99–100; factors \\nthat mitigate 100–101; in MM-GTM study 100 \\nUrquhart, C. 14, 33, 40 \\nutility 135 \\nvariety 122 \\nverification 96 \\nvisual data in case-based analysis 105–106 \\nvisual displays 2, 75–76, 113 \\nvisual displays, warranting inferences through \\n113–116; documenting support for alternative \\nexplanations 115–116; joint display to warrant \\nconclusions from a study 114–115; triangulating \\nthrough concordance table 113–114 \\nWalsh, I. 7, 10, 16, 17, 23, 57–58, 117, 119, 121–122 \\nWaring, M. J. 74, 126 \\nwarranting 50, 83; concordance table, triangulating \\nthrough 113–114; inferences through visual \\ndisplays 113–116; joint display use in 114–115 \\nWaters, J. 17 \\nWeed, M. 43 \\nWeiss, H. B. 51, 94 \\nWesely, P\\n. 102, 111, 133 \\nWesthues, A. 41–42, 125 \\nWhiteside, M. 52, 66 \\nWilliams, S. L. 85 \\nWilson, B. L. 94 \\nWindsor, L. C. 84\",\"difficulty\":\"hard\",\"domain\":\"Multi-Document QA\",\"length\":\"long\",\"question\":\"In both The Varieties of Grounded Theory and Advancing Grounded Theory with Mixed Methods, the authors examine the philosophical and practical implications of integrating grounded theory with other methodologies. Considering the flexibility of grounded theory and the structured nature of mixed methods, what is the most nuanced challenge that researchers face when attempting to synthesize these two approaches for theory development?\",\"sub_domain\":\"Academic\"}","display_format":"text","language":"","answer_status":"published","assets":[],"source_url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/zai-org/LongBench-v2","history":"initial import","indexing_mode":"noindex","subproblems":[],"grids":[]}