RESEARCH CONTEXTUALISING - GROUNDED THEORY RESEARCH IN PRACTICE


Enabling trainee teachers to do their own research on developing practice


Grounded Theory is a chance for practitioners to step away from other people’s evidence-based research and do some of their own. Katya Kitchingman looks at how the theory can be used for learning and reflection.


As teacher educators, one of our more sacred edicts is that practice must be evidence-based, and this instils in trainees and trainers alike an unwavering respect for those established theoretical frameworks, models and theorists. However, a by-product of the reverence


we afford the literature may be a reticence to establish and formulate our own understanding of new situations. As such, literature could be perceived as a barrier to transformation and improvement. It is refreshing and empowering to provide the


space for trainee teachers to conduct their own research on their practice and the contexts in which they teach. Grounded Theory (GT) is a widely- applied methodology for qualitative research and provides this opportunity. Established by social scientists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in 1965, GT has, over the passing decades, evolved into several variants (Timonen et al 2018) and so the interpretation presented here must be viewed as just that – one interpretation. I have attempted to


A MODEL FOR USING GROUNDED THEORY IN PRACTICE


The methodology for Grounded Theory constitutes a series of phases and the iterative design dictates that the phases overlap with no false separation.


PHASE 1: DATA COLLECTION A focus group is established which begins with a question, in this case ‘Why do I experience low-level behaviour management issues in my classroom/ context?’ Trainees and teacher educators resist familiar theoretical perspectives on the assumption that theorists do not necessarily understand the unique circumstances, contexts, and educational and political landscape in which our practice occurs.


PHASE 2: LIVE CAPTURE Trainees share their experiences and notes are taken.


REFERENCES


• Bryant, A. (2009). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of Anselm Strauss. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10, Art. 2.


• Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative Marketing Research. London: Sage.


18 ISSUE 37 • AUTUMN 2019 inTUITION


• Glaser, Barney G. and Strauss, Anselm L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.


• Hammersley, Martyn & Atkinson, Paul (1983). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Tavistock. Hammersley and Atkinson 1983, p.175.


• Robson, C. and McCartan, K. (2016). Real World Research: A Resource for Users of Social Research in Applied Settings (Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd), p. 481.


• Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action, London: Temple Smith.


PHASE 3: CODING Concepts are named and labelled as they occur. Themes begin to emerge relating to the central question. For example: ‘learners are forced to re-sit maths’, ‘do not want to be there’, ‘there is a tradition of practice in my area which dictates I use uninspiring text books’, and so on. This process is captured via sticky notes, and a colourful landscape begins to emerge on a whiteboard, wall or table. The central question evolves into something more akin to ‘Why aren’t my sessions as engaging as they could be?’


PHASE 4: MEMOING The researcher attributes data (in this case emerging from discussions among the trainees) to categories, adding more as they surface and potentially removing those that may have reached a dead


end. The researcher repeatedly asks ‘what is the data doing in relation to this inquiry?’ and makes judgements about similarities, differences and relationships between the data (Timonen et al 2018). Typically those concepts that occur frequently are deemed important. Sticky notes are moved and lines drawn to represent relationships between the categories.


PHASE 5: CREATION OF GROUNDED THEORY The relationships between the concepts and categories become the building blocks of theory. Core categories that attempt to diagnose the lack of student engagement (linked to poor behaviour management) are finalised. For example, ‘learning is disconnected from the wider context’. A hypothesis emerges and this is our Grounded Theory.


outline the core principles of GT and provide ideas on how it might be used as a tool for learning and reflection. Glaser and Strauss’s tabula rasa view of


inquiry encourages researchers to analyse data with an openness to the world around them (hence it is grounded), thus generating new theories. If ‘generating theory’ sounds intimidating, Timonen, Foley and Conlon (2018) express the primary aim of GT as “achieving greater conceptual clarity” to overcome issues and improve practice.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40