Farkas, Kerrir R.H., and Christina Haas. “A Grounded Theory Approach for Studying Writing and Literacy.” Practicing Research in Writing Studies: Reflexive and Ethically Responsible Research, by Katrina M. Powell and Pamela Takayoshi, Hampton Press, 2012, pp. 81–95.

Summary of the article:

In this article, authors Kerrie R.H. Farkas and Christina Haas, provide an overview of what grounded theory is and provide an example of its application, ultimately making a case for “the aptness of a grounded theory approach for literary research” (81). The overview of grounded theory describes how it is a “constructivist methodology” that is built through “constant comparison.” The article provides an example of using grounded theory in the context of workplace literacy, specifically at Women’s Choices Services (WCS), an “urban abortion clinic.” Ultimately, the article demonstrates how grounded theory can build from observation in “an area of complex human practice.”

A bank of useful quotations from the article:

“A grounded theory is iteratively built with painstaking attention to specific data, which are studied in context, compared, and assigned codes. Resultant categories are then compared, dimensionalized, combined, and distinguished to construct. more abstract (but still data-based) categories and, eventually, core categories (of which the resultant substantive theory consists.) Through an iterative process of “constant comparison” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), data are compared with data in an attempt to build more inclusive categories. However, because of the direct links between data, codes, and categories (and because the codings are always documented in memos), the theory that is eventually built can be traced to very specific data points. Although not replicable in the strict sense, other researchers ideally should be able to see how codes, categories, and core categories are tied to specific data points.” (83)

“The goal of grounded theory is not a solution to a problem or the answer to a question, although grounded theory, like all research, is inherently about problems and questions. Rather, the goal of grounded theory is a set of working relations–a theory—a fluid structure built through systematic analysis and writing.” (84)

“The basic analytic step in Movement 1 is to pull apart, as data are described both within and outside their contexts; actions and texts are cataloged variously–by type, by temporal sequence, by participant. By examining data in these various configurations, they are pulled out of sequence or location, setting the stage for new insights and configurations to emerge later, in Movement 2. In such a way, theory is discovered in data (Glaser & Strauss, 1987).” (87)

“This simple description of initial procedures illustrates an important principle in the grounded theory approach: The distinction between data collection and data coding is only possible in the abstract. As soon as the researcher begins to “describe,” however objectively, the act of interpretation, or coding, has begun.” (87)

“Movement 2–pulling in or redoing—is the counterpart to Movement 1. After the phenomena under study are “fractured” in Movement 1, the researchers begin to integrate the data in new ways and to build new understandings of the phenomena. The two movements are, of course, temporally related in that Movement 2 must, of necessity, follow Movement l. Whereas Movement 1 might be characterized as an expansive move, Movement 2 can be understood as a contracting move. Additionally, although a wide-angle lens is appropriate for Movement 1, the two phases of Movement 2, selective coding and integration, require a more fine-grained look.” (89)

Reflection:

In this article, authors Kerrie R.H. Farkas and Christina Haas, emphasize both the relationship and tension between “a situated ‘particular’ and a ‘larger vision.’” They go on to discuss how grounded theory tackles dilemmas that arise from this tension for qualitative researchers. Farkas and Haas describe these dilemmas as “the data dilemma, the theory dilemma, and the viewpoint dilemma” (82). The data dilemma is described as having to make sense of a large amount of data, which can be overwhelming. Farkas and Haas state that grounded theory addresses this by conducting analysis from the very beginning and the analysis then guides further data collection. The theory dilemma is described as worry that one’s data will not align with one’s theory. In response, the authors state that since grounded theory “itself is a process” data does not have to fit into a theory but rather “each theoretical tenet or category is traceable to particular data points” and even data that may be considered an outlier may be useful (84). Lastly, the viewpoint dilemma is described as tension between the perspective of the participant and the researcher. The authors state that in grounded theory, instead of constructing a narrative that fuses perspectives, “experience (both participant experience and researcher experience) is understood in new ways” and “neither the viewpoint of the researcher nor the viewpoint of the participants can remain intact” (85).

The article then moves into an example of using grounded theory in the context of workplace literacy, specifically at Women’s Choices Services (WCS), an “urban abortion clinic.” The authors share their “modified grounded theory approach” which they state is “simplified, truncated, and by necessity, incomplete” (85). They contextualize this in naming aspects of grounded theory not present in their treatment and naming that their objective is to “argue for the value of a grounded theory approach for writing researchers” (85). The authors outline their approach in a table and then proceed to explain each component of the table. Their table, “Movements, Phases, and Activities in Grounded Theory Approach” outlines “two interrelated movements, four iterative phases, and three recurrent activities” (86):

Movement 1: Pushing out/undoing/fracturing

Phase 1: open coding

Phase 2: dimensionalizing

Recurrent activities: constant comparison, memo writing

_______________________________________________________

Movement 2: Pulling in/redoing/building theory

Phase 3: selective coding

Phase 4: integration (via induction or theoretical sensitivity)

Recurrent activities: mapping, memo writing

The authors explain how in Movement 1 they started collecting, logging and describing texts “in everyday use” at the clinic. This first list of data already involved coding by location (“waiting room, in files, on the counter”) and type of display (“on the walls” or “stacked in front of the check-in window”). The next step of dimensionalizing involved identifying features, from yes-no dyad like “signed” to things like “frequency of use,” which allowed for identifying “both general trends and outliers” (88). In Movement 2, they go on to explain their next steps of “selective coding” to identify core categories and “integration” where core categories and related data are integrated into a “tentative, substantive theory.” The authors provide an example of “inductive integration” and of “theoretical sensitivity” related to their integration phase. The authors close out a description of their approach with a section about their recurring activities (constant comparison, mapping and memo writing). Their constant comparison involved comparing the properties of data; their mapping included mapping of relationships between concepts as well as mapping physical space and ‘literary hot spots;’ and their memo writing involved “cataloging, listing impressions, and writing down verbatim quotes” (92).

Overall, I found this article useful in that it made core concepts of grounded theory clear and accessible. I do think that an example from a classroom would have been even more useful in relaying how this approach can help in a writing studies context. I also wish the authors shared more about what the theory they built ended up being. However, as the authors mentioned, what they presented in the article is incomplete and they don’t want what they present to be used as a shortcut or hands-on guide. Their goal of wanting researchers to want to use grounded theory in studies of writing was achieved in that this was my first introduction to grounded theory and through understanding it I am less intimidated by it and can imagine a grounded theory approach for a classroom context. There could be so much observed and coded – from classroom dynamics, participation in responses to certain readings, free-writing responses over the course of a quarter. Before I would ever design a study that uses grounded theory, I would want to learn more from examples of research that apply grounded theory to a writing studies classroom.