Bibliography of Sources on Grounded Theory

Anchors, Foundations and Current Discussions:

A Bibliography on Grounded Theory

This semester I am taking the course CCR 632: Advanced Research Practices. After reading a series of texts on textual analysis and a variety of research methods, we were asked to choose a methodology to study this semester. While there were a few options that interested me, such as rhetorical analysis and ethnography, I chose grounded theory instead. What drew me into this methodology as one that I could potentially use in my dissertation project is its recursive and reflexive approach to creating theory. There is a lot that I still have to learn about grounded theory, so attempting to write a bibliography has been an arduous task. However, the work I present here serves as a good starting point for what I envision doing in this how-to do grounded theory project.

Following Cheryl Geisler’s suggestions in her chapter “Anchoring the Literature,” I focused my research on finding an anchor text, but in the process I realized that there are also foundational texts within the literature on grounded theory. It is important to survey the existing literature on any given topic before being able to discern what kind of contribution we would like to bring up to the academic conversation: “The rationale behind anchoring your research in the literature lies in understanding that good research does not arise in a vacuum, but builds upon the research that went before” (Geisler 4).  But it isn’t enough to know what’s out there, we should also be able to demonstrate how we’ve positioned ourselves around specific texts, and how we’ve chosen those that we deem as anchor worthy, or those that we’ve conceived of as foundational.

Geisler suggests we use a cited reference search and bibliographic databases, taking advantage of our school’s resources. In fact, Patrick Williams visited our class last week and provided us with advice built upon Geisler’s text and his own experience as a librarian. What I valued the most about his presentation was his warning against relying on just one database or being too field-specific, his suggestions of different strategies to narrow down our research, and being exposed to the different online resources that we could use in the process. Nevertheless, as I went into our university’s library website, I found myself relying on the kind of literature that has the most regard in academic circles…printed texts! So, even though I did use the libraries resources, these were based mainly on my search using the Summon tool, and the Classic Catalog.

Geisler also suggests that we find recent work on our topic. Just last week, it was brought to my attention that 2004 was ten years ago! Because of this, I was trying to find texts that were not older than that, but still included one reference from 1990 because it seems extremely pertinent based on its foundational traits. In her section on locating recent work, Geisler recommends we browse the journals in our field. It was difficult to find very specialized articles on how-to do grounded theory within rhet/comp, but I did find a lot of references to this approach in the fields of nursing and social science proper. Moreover, I paired the grounded theory query search with qualitative research, which lead me to the various edited collections from Sage publications that I am including here.

Once I found a list of ten books that dealt with my assigned methodology, I went over some of them in order to determine how they were framing their discussion, and how I was going to be using them based on Patrick Williams and Geisler’s advice. This is how I came across the repeated mention of Kathy Charmaz and Anselm Strauss. The first author is one of the assigned readings in the course, Constructing Grounded Theory, which I will count as a “word-of-mouth” reference and as my anchor text. The second seems to be one of the authors that was cited the most, thus making his Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques a foundational text. Besides these two texts, there is a list of other readings that I found, which seem to provide a useful base for my growing understanding on grounded theory.

In addition to the how-to texts, there was space for me to look into the different ways in which grounded theory can be taken up and applied in research that is related to composition and cultural rhetoric, which resonates with Geisler’s suggestion of looking in our field-specific journals. For this, I went online, specifically the two databases that Patrick Williams used as an example. First, after narrowing down the possibilities to “grounded+theory AND method* AND composition AND rhetoric” and only getting two entries in JSTOR, I opened it up to “grounded+theory AND method* AND composition OR rhetoric.” These different boolean operators provided a large number of entries on rhetoric, but as I clicked on a few, none of them really took up grounded theory perse. So I went to ProQuest central and followed the same kind of process. Although there were about 200 entries that mentioned these three terms, only a few really used grounded theory as methodology. Also, I narrowed the articles down to those that have some similarities with my own research interests. It will be useful to read about how to engage in grounded theory first, and then to study examples of how recent scholars have adopted it. However, I’ve organized the entries in alphabetical order, providing a brief explanation of why I consider these sources relevant in my study of grounded theory.

Broad, Bob. “Strategies and Passions in Empirical Qualitative Research.” Writing Studies Research in Practice: Methods and Methodologies. Eds. Nickoson, Lee and Mary P. Sheridan. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP. 197-209. Print.

• Since our professor, Rebecca Howard, prompted us to use the texts she had assigned this semester, given that they too have been carefully chosen, I looked at their index to see if grounded theory came up. That’s how I came across this entry, in which Bob Broad questions our motivation to pursue qualitative research and/or quantitative research. This is a question that came up last week, given that humanists have tried to separate themselves from the more empirical, number-driven, and truth-seeking science-oriented quantitative research methods. I especially appreciate this entry because it written for rhetoric and composition researchers, which makes it a recent discussion that is field-appropriate, as well as the fact that it takes into account, and/or questions self-motivation, or as he puts it, the passion that goes into our choices.

Briseno, Adriana, Kristen H. Perry and Victoria Purcell-Gates. “Analyzing Literacy Practice: Grounded Theory to Model. Research in the Teaching of English 45.4 (2011): 439-458. ProQuest. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.

• Not only is this collaboratively written piece field-appropriate, but it is a great example of a large scale and extensive research project that uses coding, similar to the Citation Project. The authors in this text pay close attention to their theoretical and methodological choices in a project titled The Cultural Practice of Literacy Study. They also include samples of their coding schema, such as “Table 2: Sample of the Text Type Codes and Text Forms from the CPLS Coding Manual” on page 445. What this demonstrates is that they have followed grounded theory guidelines in order to propose a “Model of Literacy Practices” (450) following the work of Brian Street, but attempting to make more explicit connections between “invisible practices” and “visible practices” (451). What drew me in the most about this article is the fact that they consider multilinguals, and even include a study by one of my former professors who studied the literacy practices of farmers in Puerto Rico.

Charmaz, Kathy. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. 2006. London: Sage Publications, 2012. Print.

• This is one of the assigned books, and the one I have designated as an anchor in my research. It seems to me that, as the title indicates, this book will be a very practical guide to follow as I attempt to determine how-to do grounded theory. As I indicated above, and as you will notice below, Kathy Charmaz was one of the figures I came across the most as I was researching grounded theory methods. Expanding upon the explanation she provides in the chapters below, the book contains sections such as “Gathering Rich Data,” “Coding in Grounded Theory,” Theoretical Sampling, Saturation, and Sorting,” “Writing the Draft” and “Reflecting on the Research Process,” among others.

—. “Grounded Theory.” Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice. Eds. Nagy Hesse-Biber, Sharlene and Patrick Leavy. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. 496-521. Print.

• Besides providing the how-to components, such as ‘collecting data,’ ‘coding’ and ‘memo writing,’ this chapter also delves into some definitional work, in addition to providing a brief historical background of grounded theory as a method. Reading over the chapter, I came across the figures of Strauss and Glasser, who seem to be key figures in the development of grounded theory. In addition, it is important to note that its inclusion in a book that is framed around approaches to qualitative research elicits a kind of introductory-level explanation.

—. “Grounded Theory as an Emergent Method.” Handbook of Emergent Methods. Eds. Nagy Hesse-Biber, Sharlene and Patrick Leavy. New York: The Guilford Press, 2008. 155-170. Print.

• Similar to the previous entry, I’m looking at the framing of this chapter within the book in which it is published. Therefore, in this chapter Charmaz makes sure to include a thorough consideration of grounded theory and the concept of emergence. To do so she includes sections titled “The Place of Emergence in Grounded Theory,” “Contested Meanings of Emergence in Grounded Theory” and “Emergence in Grounded Theory Practice,” before going into the how-to sections that she is known for. It is useful for me to notice the different moves that authors make within publishing about methods, and how they determine what to re-use or when to update their own writing.

Corbin, Juliet and Anselm Strauss. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. California: Sage Publications, 1990. Print.

• Even though I am aware that this book is not the most recent exploration of the topic, it is one of grounded theory’s foundational texts. Although I’m not sure if I will be reading the entire book, or simply use its introduction, where the authors define grounded theory, it is important for me to have one of the texts that is consistently referred to in the other entries that I’ve included here. There is a sense of legitimacy that one gets from being familiar with seminal texts about a particular scholarly practice. Hopefully this text will allow me to be able to be conversant about the foundations of grounded theory.

Dey, Ian. “Grounded Theory.” Qualitative Research Practice. Eds. Seale, Clive, et al. Great Britain: Sage Publications, 2004. 80-93. Print.

• The book in which this chapter is included is one that I had previously used as I was doing my research for my master’s thesis, so it was nice to run into a familiar text. However, I don’t think that I had considered this particular chapter, given the fact that I had decided to adopt the action research methodology instead. Dey includes sections on theoretical sampling, coding data and categorization, but he also includes sections delineating his encounters with the method, which I consider to be helpful for beginners such as myself.

Hermann, Andrew. “Narrative as An Organizing Process: Identity and Story in a Nonprofit.” Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 6.3 (2011): 246-264. ProQuest. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.

• I decided to include this entry because of two reasons. First, I was considering studying narrative analysis because I am familiar with it and have come to understand its benefits. More importantly, however, the focus around organizing here is one that I would like to learn more about, since I am trying to study the organization of the Puerto Rican indie rock scene. Conveniently enough, the subjects in this study call themselves “old punks,” so there might be some overlap there. Moreover, I have been recently invited to participate in community activism, particularly around the development of literacy practices, so I feel like this article will help me to understand one way of approaching “organizing.” Although the methodology is described as narrative ethnography, Hermann indicates that he used grounded theory to analyze his findings. Therefore, it seems that grounded theory plays a different role than it does in other articles that I refer to here.

Hildenbrand, Bruno. “Anselm Strauss.” A Companion to Qualitative Research. Eds. Flick, Uwe, et al. Trans. Bryan Jenner. 2000. Great Britain: Sage Publications, 2004. 17-23. Print.

• After coming across this chapter, I was convinced that Anselm Strauss is a foundational figure within grounded theory. This doesn’t mean that this piece is a biographical one. Instead, Hildenbrand illustrates the development of grounded theory, looking at other theoretical influences within Strauss’ work. For example, he pays attention to how Strauss is influenced by pragmatism and symbolic interactionism as foundations to his foundation. He then goes on to briefly describe the research process using Strauss’ theory. This chapter could serve as a good secondary source about the foundational work I referred to above.

Hungerford-Kresser, Holly and Amy Vetter. “Positioning and the Discourses of Urban Education: A Latino Student’s University Experience.” Urban Review 44 (2012): 219-238. ProQuest. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.

• Finding this entry is another example of how veering away from disciplinary boundaries can elicit richer understandings of our field’s impact. Besides using grounded theory as an analytical frame, the content of this chapter revolves around the experience of a Latino student going into college, and how a professor of rhetoric provided him with a positive positioning. The other kinds of positioning that he was given by professors in a State University were not as positive, ultimately resulting in academic probation. Not only is this article methodologically appropriate, but it provides insights into how urban Latin@ students are treated in institutions of higher education, a topic I am becoming increasingly more invested in. While I was not raised in an urban setting, I know what it’s like to be part of/outside the margins, so it is useful for me to know about different experiences that Latin@s face presently.

Jordan, Jay. “Second Language Users and Emerging Designs.” College Composition and Communication 61.2 (2009): W310-329. ProQuest. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.

• The abstract of the article indicates that the author is using “a grounded theory approach to describe a range of competencies that emerge in ESL users’ interactions with native-English-speaking peers and instructors” (W310). A closer look at the article demonstrates that Jordan is attempting to question our assumptions about second language users, building upon the work of Matsuda and Mihn-Zan Lu. More importantly, he asks us to reconsider Kenneth Burke’s theories in terms of expanding symbolic repertoires in intercultural interactions. I find it useful to become familiar with the work that deals with second language users, and how these are being theorized, especially since they are using grounded theory as a methodology.

Lorimer Leonard, Rebecca. “Traveling Literacies: Multilingual Writing on the Move.” Research in the Teaching of English 48.1 (2013): 13-39. ProQuest. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.

• Judging by the kinds of scholarship that are currently using grounded theory, I think I have picked a pertinent methodology to study. I look forward to finding out why all of these current works have decided to use grounded theory in their study of multilinguals or second language users. Lorimer Leonard’s attention to location and travel also correlates with my explorations of the concept of diasporican rhetorics. It is also convenient that this work is so current, since it allows me to keep in mind the kairos in which I will be working in/from.

—. “Multilingual Writing as Rhetorical Attunement.” College English 76.3 (2014): 227-247. ProQuest. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.

• Lorimer Leonard’s most recent work also uses grounded theory as a method, in addition to her attention to multilinguals’ skills. This is the kind of work that I would like to build upon. The notion of rhetorical attunement is one that I had not come across previously, but it is apparently based on multilingual scholarship as well as Ratcliffe’s rhetorical listening and also from the work of Crowley, Jarratt and Poulakos. As I’ve mentioned before, I find it comforting to come across work that I am already familiar with. In trying to learn how current scholarship has taken up grounded theory, I’ve been able to discover the recent work that has applications to the kind of work that I envision myself embarking on.

Morse, Janice, et al. Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. California: Left Coast Press, Inc. Print.

• The book includes chapters by Juliet Corbin and Kathy Charmaz, both of which have played significant roles in the entries delineated above. When I noticed that there are examples from the fields of nursing and care taking, I was a little discouraged, since my intention has been to find field-specific explorations of grounded theory. Still, I noticed that the description of the book includes the following disclaimer: “Targeted to a broad multidisciplinary readership, the books [in the Developing Qualitative Inquiry series] are intended for mid level/advanced researchers and advanced students,” so I’m maintaining an open mind as I go into the reading of this book. The inclusion of “the second generation” makes me think that this is an updated consideration of the method.

Russell Bernard, H. and Gery W. Ryan, eds. “Grounded Theory.” Analyzing Qualitative Data. USA: Sage Publications, 2010. 265-286. Print.

• This textbook provides thorough explanations of a variety of approaches to analyzing qualitative data, including discourse analysis, narrative analysis, content analysis, and, of course, grounded theory. The sections on the chapter on grounded theory refer to the scholars that have established the different kinds of approaches they present, including Charmaz’s attention to interviews and memoing, among others.

Titscher, Stefan, et al. “Grounded Theory.” Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis. Trans. Brian Jenner. 2000. Great Britain: Sage Publications, 2012. 74-89. Print.

• Because this chapter was assigned as one of the readings last week, I will consider this a word-of-mouth reference. Although we weren’t able to engage in a discussion of the chapter, it was useful for me to read an extended explanation of the method of grounded theory within text and discourse analysis.