Content uploaded by Judith Holton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Judith Holton on Dec 30, 2013
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
20
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
21
The Coding Process and Its Challenges1
Judith A. Holton, Ph.D.
Abstract
Coding is the core process in classic grounded theory
methodology. It is through coding that the conceptual abstraction
of data and its reintegration as theory takes place. There are two
types of coding in a classic grounded theory study:
substantive
coding
, which includes both open and selective coding procedures,
and
theoretical coding
. In substantive coding, the researcher
works with the data directly, fracturing and analysing it, initially
through
open coding
for the emergence of a
core category
and
related concepts and then subsequently through
theoretical
sampling
and
selective coding
of data to theoretically saturate the
core and related concepts.
Theoretical saturation
is achieved
through
constant comparison
of incidents (indicators) in the data
to elicit the properties and dimensions of each category (code).
This constant comparing of incidents continues until the process
yields the
interchangeability of indicators
, meaning that no new
properties or dimensions are emerging from continued coding and
comparison. At this point, the concepts have achieved theoretical
saturation and the theorist shifts attention to exploring the
emergent fit of potential theoretical codes that enable the
conceptual integration of the core and related concepts to produce
hypotheses that account for relationships between the concepts
thereby explaining the latent pattern of social behaviour that
forms the basis of the emergent theory. The coding of data in
grounded theory occurs in conjunction with analysis through a
process of
conceptual memoing
, capturing the theorist’s ideation
of the emerging theory. Memoing occurs initially at the
substantive coding level and proceeds to higher levels of
conceptual abstraction as coding proceeds to theoretical
saturation and the theorist begins to explore conceptual
reintegration through theoretical coding.
Key words: classic grounded theory, coding, conceptualization,
memoing, preconception
1 Much of this paper is extracted from Holton, J. A. (2007). The coding process and its
challenges. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. (pp.
265-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
22
Introduction
There are a number of coding challenges that may confront
those undertaking a grounded theory study. Among the most
common challenges are those of preconceiving the study through
the import of some standard qualitative research requirements,
raising the focus of coding and analysis from the descriptive to
the conceptual level and trusting one’s intuitive sense of the
conceptualization process to allow a core category to emerge, then
being comfortable to delimit data collection and coding to just the
core concept and those concepts that relate to the core. Those
inexperienced in grounded theory methodology may worry about
missing something when they leave the rest of the data behind
but it is important to remember that grounded theory is about
concepts that emerge from data, not the data per se. A fourth
major challenge for many is the use of theoretical codes. Many
who attempt grounded theory are captured by the energy of
conceptual emergence at the substantive level and settle for a few
good concepts but do not sustain the discipline and patience to
systematically integrate those concepts through theoretical
coding. This task is made more difficult if they have neglected the
important process of memoing in conjunction with coding and
analysis.
Developing one’s skills as a grounded theorist takes practice;
the method is best learned by cycling through the various
procedures learning from each attempt and developing clarity
and confidence in their application. This paper will explore each
of the aspects and challenges of coding as outlined above. I have
illustrated various aspects of coding by offering the reader details
from my experience with the methodology as employed in my
doctoral thesis (Holton, 2006).
The conceptualization of data is the foundation of grounded
theory development. The essential relationship between data and
theory is a conceptual code. Coding gets the researcher off the
empirical level by fracturing the data, then conceptualizing the
underlying pattern of a set of empirical indicators within the data
as a theory that explains what is happening in the data. Coding
gives the researcher a condensed, abstract view with scope and
dimension that encompasses otherwise seemingly disparate
phenomena. Incidents articulated in the data are analysed and
coded, using the constant comparative method, to generate
initially substantive, and later theoretical, categories.
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
23
Navigating the Coding Process
In grounded theory the analyst humbly allows the data to
control him as much as humanly possible, by writing a
theory for only what emerges through his skilled
induction. The integration of his substantive theory as it
emerges through coding and sorting is his verification
that the hypotheses and concepts fit and work and are
relevant enough to suggest. They are not proven; they are
theory (Glaser, 1992, p.87).
The coding process is not a discrete stage as it is in some research
methodologies but rather a continuous aspect of the analytic
nature of classic grounded theory. As such, knowing how and
when to engage in the various aspects of coding is essential to
capturing the conceptual power of the methodology. This requires
the analyst understand the distinctions between substantive
coding and theoretical coding, between open coding and selective
coding, as well as the cycling nature of constant comparison and
theoretical sampling in progressing the analysis toward higher
levels of conceptual abstraction, core emergence, and theoretical
integration. Beyond understanding these distinctions comes the
ability and the confidence to employ all aspects of coding as
developed over time and with continued experience. The ability to
intuitively trust in knowing when to move from one stage in the
process to another builds with experience as the analyst gains
confidence in exploring and confirming conceptual ideas as they
emerge.
Theoretical Sensitivity
The ability to conceptualize rests with the researcher’s
theoretical sensitivity; that is, their ability to generate concepts
from data and relate them according to normal models of theory
in general (Glaser, 1978, pp.1-17; 1992, pp.27-30, 49-60).
Theoretical sensitivity requires two things of the researcher:
analytic temperament and competence. The required analytic
temperament will allow the researcher to maintain analytic
distance from the data, tolerate regression and confusion, and
facilitate a trust in the power of preconscious processing for
conceptual emergence. As to analytic competence, the researcher
must be able to develop theoretical insights and abstract
conceptual ideas from various sources and types of data. Reading
widely in other disciplines is a recommended means of enhancing
theoretical sensitivity (Glaser, 1998, pp. 164-165; 2005, pp. 7-10).
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
24
Substantive Coding
Substantive coding is the process of conceptualizing the
empirical substance of the area under study: the data in which
the theory is grounded. Incidents are the empirical data (the
indicators of a category or concept) from which a grounded theory
is generated. The process proceeds from the initial open coding of
data to the emergence of a core category, followed by a delimiting
of data collection and analysis for selective coding to theoretically
saturate the core category and related categories.
Open Coding
Beginning with line-by-line open coding of data and
comparing incidents to each other in the data, the researcher
codes the data in every way possible and asks a set of questions of
the data: ‘What is this data a study of?’, ‘What category does this
incident indicate?’, What is actually happening in the data?’,
‘What is the main concern being faced by the participants?’, and
‘What accounts for the continual resolving of this concern?’
(Glaser, 1998, p.140).
These questions sustain the researcher’s
theoretical sensitivity, transcend descriptive details, and
encourage a focus on patterns among incidents that yield codes.
Line-by-line coding forces the researcher to verify and saturate
categories, minimizes missing an important category, and
ensures relevance by generating codes with emergent fit to the
substantive area under study. It also ensures relevance of the
emerging theory by enabling the researcher to see which direction
to take in theoretically sampling before becoming too selective
and focused on a particular problem. The result is a rich, dense
theory with the feeling that nothing has been left out (Glaser &
Holton, 2004, para 50).
In grounded theory, it is essential that researchers do their
own coding as coding constantly stimulates conceptual ideas. The
researcher codes for as many categories as fit successive, different
incidents. New categories emerge and new incidents fit into
existing categories. Coding may feel very awkward at first, and
the researcher may feel uncertain about labelling the codes, but
this sense of uncertainty gradually subsides with continued
efforts at analysis. Grounded theory’s tandem processes of coding
and memoing help to alleviate the pressure of uncertainty by
challenging the researcher to stop coding and capture, in the
moment, their conceptual ideas about the codes that they are
finding. As coding and memoing progress, patterns begin to
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
25
emerge. Pattern recognition gives the researcher confidence in
the coding process and in his or her innate creativity; it
encourages the researcher to continue while offering guidance on
where to go next in the data collection, coding, and analysis
process.
It is, however, at this initial stage of open coding that the
inexperienced grounded theorist may feel especially challenged
and insecure. A linear, lock-step attempt at employing the
method’s procedures without having sufficiently grasped the
iterative nature of the overall process can result in coding
confusion. Jumping to selective coding before a potential core
category has emerged; sorting memos prior to theoretical
saturation; or becoming overwhelmed by the data and concerns
with ‘worrisome accuracy’ (Glaser, 2004), particularly in the
collection and transcription of qualitative interview data, can all
result in coding chaos.
The solution, of course, is relatively simple if the researcher
simply trusts and follows the procedures of classic grounded
theory. As a starting point, selecting to use field notes enables the
researcher to dispense with the meticulous and time-consuming
efforts required to record and transcribe detailed interview data
and mitigates being overwhelmed by its descriptive detail. While
frequently discouraged by qualitative review panels and thesis
committees as lacking sufficient rigour, field notes enable the
grounded theory researcher to capture the essence of the
participant’s main concern and how that concern is resolved
without the burden of laborious transcribing followed by the
tedium of reading through and coding lengthy transcriptions.
By comparison, line-by-line coding of field notes enables the
researcher to stay focused on what is really happening and
facilitates coding on a higher conceptual level without the
distraction of endless descriptive and superfluous detail. The
process stays vibrant and generates active conceptual ideation
about what is being coded; the researcher can direct energy to
capturing this conceptual development through memoing of
thoughts as the coding progresses and patterns begin to emerge.
Giving up the assurance of taping and transcribing, however, can
be especially difficult for a seasoned researcher already trained
and experienced in qualitative research requirements for detailed
description. The impetus to shift from full coverage in data
collection to field noting is also frequently discouraged by peer
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
26
review and by thesis supervisors trained in traditional qualitative
methods.
Like many new to classic grounded theory, initial efforts at
open coding in my own doctoral research (Holton, 2006) were
heavily influenced by earlier training in qualitative research
methods. As a result, 155 codes were initially generated through
open coding of data collected and analysed between October 2001
and February 2002; several of these codes were highly descriptive
and, in some instances, somewhat repetitive. This is not unusual
at the outset of a grounded theory study where the researcher
wishes to remain as open as possible to what may emerge from
line-by-line coding and not run the risk of precluding or
predetermining what may eventually prove to be relevant to the
emerging theory. The risk of this inundation, however, is that the
analyst may be unable to transcend the descriptive detail and as
a result miss the true conceptual power of classic grounded
theory methodology. Here, the analyst must be patient in staying
with the process while striving for a higher level of abstraction in
the naming of codes. Classic grounded theory’s practice of
memoing analytic thoughts in tandem with the coding process
can facilitate this conceptual transcendence.
As I advanced my competence in conceptual coding and the
constant comparison of indicators, a significantly reduced list of
57 open codes emerged from continued data collection and
analysis between February 2002 and January 2004. I then
collapsed several of the earlier descriptive codes into the newer
conceptual codes with only 13 codes from the original list
appearing among the conceptual coding list.
Of course, as a grounded theorist develops her conceptual
coding skills, she can more readily dispense with the initial
descriptive codes and employ conceptual-level coding from the
outset of the open coding process. This takes skill in
conceptualization as well as a ready arsenal of conceptual labels;
both are developed over time and with continued practice (see
Box 1):
Box 1
At the outset of fieldwork, I collected the following excerpt from
one interview:
‘One … member described the challenge of working together on a
large project such as Habitat for Humanity. I got very excited, and
dreamed of how amazing that would be’.
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
27
My initial coding for this excerpt was Excited by Challenge and
Wishes & Dreams. This excerpt was later re-coded as Igniting
Passions (a code that emerged as a sub-core category in my
theory). In this case, Excited by Challenge emerged as a property of
Another excerpt from early data collection and open coding was, ‘I
want to stay connected because it revitalizes me. It jazzes me!’
Igniting Passions.
Initial coding for this excerpt was Feeling Energized, Staying
Connected and the in vivo code, It jazzes me!; this excerpt was also
later re-coded as Igniting Passions.
Another excerpt, ‘It reminds me of the great things that are
possible when people have a desire to work together and learn
together’.
Initial coding was Value of Participation and Motivation to
Participate; later re-coded as
Another excerpt, ‘I loved the opportunity to be the court jester,
either in a cow suit or by throwing out ideas that bordered on the
absurd. And with so many of us vying for the hat with bells on it,
the give and take just seemed to crank up the fun to a higher
notch’.
Igniting Passions.
Initial coding was Playful Participation, Assumed Role, Feeling
Energized; later re-coded as Igniting Passions.
Constant Comparison and Theoretical Sampling
As the twin foundations of grounded theory, the processes of
constant comparison and theoretical sampling guide the
development of the emergent theory. The purpose of constant
comparison is to see if the data support and continue to support
emerging categories. At the same time, the process further builds
and substantiates the emerging categories by defining their
properties and dimensions. Constant comparison resolves ‘data
overwhelm’ (Glaser, 2003, p.24). By alternating data collection
with coding and conceptual memoing, the researcher is prevented
from collecting redundant data as once a category has been
saturated (i.e., no new conceptual properties or dimensions are
emerging), the researcher ceases collecting additional data for
that particular category. Early memoing of the emerging
conceptual thoughts while actively engaged in coding and
analysing enables the researcher to continuously build theoretical
sensitivity. Early memoing also facilitates theoretical sampling as
the researcher intuitively follows and develops conceptual ideas
as they emerge through constant comparison.
The constant comparative process continues through open
coding to selective coding and involves three types of comparison.
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
28
First, incidents are compared to other incidents to establish the
underlying uniformity and varying conditions of generated
concepts and hypotheses. Then, emerging concepts are compared
to more incidents to generate new theoretical properties of the
concepts and more hypotheses. The purpose here is theoretical
elaboration, saturation, and densification of concepts. Finally,
emergent concepts are compared to each other with the purpose
of establishing the best fit between potential concepts and a set of
indicators, the conceptual levels between concepts that refer to
the same set of indicators and their integration (theoretical
coding) into hypotheses to become theory (Glaser & Holton, 2004,
para 53).
In conjunction with constant comparison, theoretical
sampling is the process whereby the researcher decides what
data to collect next and where to find them in order to continue to
develop the theory as it emerges. As such, the process of data
collection is controlled by the emerging theory. Beyond the
decisions concerning initial collection of data, further collection
cannot be planned in advance of the emerging theory. Instead,
the researcher can only discover where next to collect data by
first coding the initial data and then looking for comparison
groups by which to saturate the emerging codes and their
properties. By identifying emerging gaps in the theory, the
researcher will be guided as to where and how to collect the next
sources of data. The possibilities of multiple comparisons are
infinite and so groups must be chosen according to theoretical
criteria. The criteria (of theoretical purpose and relevance) are
applied in the ongoing joint collection and analysis of data
associated with the generation of theory. As such, they are
continually tailored to fit the data and are applied judiciously at
the right point and moment in the analysis. In this way, the
researcher can continually adjust the control of data collection to
ensure the data’s relevance to the emerging theory (Glaser &
Holton, 2004, para 51).
Interchangeability of Indicators
As noted above, grounded theory is based on a concept-
indicator model of constant comparisons of incidents to incidents
and, once a conceptual code is generated, of incidents to the
emerging concept. The concept-indicator model requires concepts
and their properties or dimensions to earn their relevance in the
theory by systematic generation and analysis of data. This forces
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
29
the researcher into confronting similarities, differences, and
degrees in consistency of meaning between indicators, generating
an underlying uniformity which in turn results in a coded
category and the beginnings of the properties of that category. In
the comparisons of further incidents to the emerging conceptual
codes, codes are sharpened to achieve best fit while further
properties are generated until the concepts are confirmed and
saturated (Glaser, 1978, pp.62-65).
Constantly comparing incidents and thereby generating new
properties of a concept can only go so far before the researcher
discovers saturation of ideas through interchangeability of
indicators (incidents). This interchangeability also facilitates
transferability of the theory to other substantive areas and opens
the potential for the generation of formal grounded theory
(Glaser, 1978) (see Box 2).
Box 2
In Holton (2006), persistent and unpredictable change in the knowledge workplace
emerged early in data collection and analysis as a significant concern of the
research participants. The concept, Changing Knowledge Workplace, was later to
prove significant to the emergent theory as one of the categories related to the
emergent core category. As such, I continued to theoretically sample for indicators
of this category. Through constant comparison, 51 indicators of the concept were
coded to achieve theoretical saturation and to provide properties and dimensions.
The number of indicators per category is not as significant as the requirement to
sample sufficiently to achieve theoretical saturation. The important thing is that
each concept has earned relevance in relation to the theory, its relevance
theoretically sampled for and sufficiently validated and its properties and
dimensions identified though constant comparison and interchangeable indicators
to theoretical saturation.
Core Category Emergence
As the researcher proceeds with constant comparison, a core
category begins to emerge. This core variable can be any kind of
theoretical code: a process, a typology, a continuum, a range,
dimensions, conditions, consequences, and so forth. Its primary
function is to integrate the theory and render it dense and
saturated. In appearing to explain how the main concern is
continually processed or resolved, the core becomes the focus of
further selective data collection and coding efforts.
Charmaz (2004, 2006) discounts the relevance of the core
category, suggesting that Glaser (2002) advocates the explicit
assertion of a main concern by the research participants and
ignores that ‘[t]he most important processes are tacit’ (Charmaz,
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
30
2004: 982). Here Charmaz misinterprets Glaser (2002b) who
actually says that the core category is discovered as it emerges
through iterative coding, conceptual memoing, and theoretically
sampling for further data to pursue and develop conceptual leads,
ensuring that all concepts earn their way into the emerging
theory. Glaser also states that the core category merits its
relevance and prominence by accounting for most of the variation
in processing the concern or issue that has emerged as the focus
of the study and by conceptually explaining the latent pattern of
social behaviour that accounts for its continual resolution. Glaser
discounts Charmaz’s notion of a constructivist grounded theory
by claiming that:
She uses constructivism to discount the participant’s
main concern, which is always relevant to ongoing
resolving behaviour, in favour of the researcher’s
professional concern, which is most often irrelevant to
behaviour in the substantive area … (Glaser, 2002, para
21).
This paper does not afford the space for an extensive exchange of
the multiple perspectives on what is and is not fundamental to
grounded theory. Suffice it to say that if one wishes to undertake
a classic grounded theory study, then the emergence of a core
category is an indisputable requirement.
It takes time and much coding and analysis to verify a core
category through saturation, relevance, and workability. The
criteria for establishing the core variable (category) within a
grounded theory are that it is central, that it relates to as many
other categories and their properties as possible, and that it
accounts for a large portion of the variation in a pattern of
behaviour. The core variable reoccurs frequently in the data and
comes to be seen as a stable pattern that is increasingly related to
other variables. It relates meaningfully and easily with other
categories. It is completely variable and has a ‘carry through’
within the emerging theory by virtue of its relevance and
explanatory power (Glaser & Holton, 2004, para 54) (see Box 3).
Box 3
In Holton (2006), three categories emerged fairly early on as of some significant
concern of the participants in the study: Changing Workplace Context, Coping with
Change, Humanizing Workplace. Through further analysis, two new categories,
Dehumanization and Rehumanizing, emerged as a better fit than Humanizing
Workplace.
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
31
As the analysis progressed, Rehumanizing appeared to account for much of the
variation around knowledge worker concerns with the changing knowledge
workplace and the resultant dehumanization they experienced. Rehumanizing
would subsequently emerge as the core category of the theory.
Delimiting for Selective Coding
Selective coding begins only after the researcher has
identified a potential core variable. Subsequent data collection
and coding is delimited to that which is relevant to the emerging
conceptual framework (the core and those categories that relate
to the core). By focusing on the core and other related categories,
subsequent data collection can go very quickly; merely minutes,
with a few field notes to be captured and analysed. In this way,
the researcher can saturate the selected categories that form the
basis of the emerging theory without collecting a lot of additional
material that has no relevance to the developing grounded theory.
This selective data collection and analysis continues until the
researcher has sufficiently elaborated and integrated the core
variable, its properties, and its theoretical connections to other
relevant categories.
Delimiting occurs at two levels. First, as the theory
integrates, it solidifies with fewer modifications needed as the
researcher compares the next incidents of a category to its
properties. Later modifications are mainly about clarifying the
logic of the theory and integrating elaborating details of
properties into the major outline of interrelated categories. As the
researcher begins to discover an underlying uniformity in the
categories and properties, the theory is reformulated with a
smaller set of higher-level concepts. This second level of
delimiting the theory reduces the original list of categories for
coding. As the theory develops, becomes reduced, and
increasingly works better in ordering a mass of data, the
researcher becomes committed to it. This allows for a delimiting
of the original list of categories for subsequent collecting and
selective coding of additional data, according to the newly
established boundaries of the theory. By delimiting the focus to
one category as the core variable, only those categories related to
that core are now included in the theory. This list of categories,
now delimited for additional selective coding, is subsequently
(and continuously) delimited through theoretical saturation of
each category.
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
32
Theoretical Saturation
One of the concerns often expressed by those new to
grounded theory is when to stop collecting data. The answer is
deceptively simple. One stops when one no longer needs to
continue. The challenge is in how to recognize that the need no
longer exists. Glaser (1978) describes this as the point of
theoretical saturation (p. 71). As noted above, the constant
comparison of interchangeable indicators in the data yields the
properties and dimensions of each category, or concept. This
process of constant comparison continues until no new properties
or dimensions are emerging. At this point, a concept has been
theoretically saturated. This ‘intense property development’
(Glaser, 2001, p.191) produces the conceptual density necessary
to lift the theory above description and enable its integration
through theoretical propositions (hypotheses) as abstract
conceptual theory. ‘Once a category is saturated it is not
necessary to theoretically sample anymore to collect data for
incident comparisons. And of course, once many interrelated
categories of a GT are saturated, theoretical completeness is
achieved for the particular research’ (Glaser, 2001, p.192) (see
Box 4).
Box 4
In Holton (2006), the core category, Rehumanizing, and 37 related concepts
became the focus of selective data collection and coding. Continued delimiting,
theoretical saturation, and conceptual integration confirmed the core category and
4 related categories as the basic social structural process of Fluctuating Support
Networks. Additionally, 3 sub-core categories and 16 conceptual properties and
dimensions of these sub-core categories were confirmed as the basic social
psychological process of Rehumanizing
Memoing
. Constant comparison continued until the
core and related categories were sufficiently saturated and further coding and
constant comparison yielded no new conceptual ideation.
The writing of theoretical memos is the core stage in the
process of generating grounded theory. If the researcher
skips this stage by going directly to sorting or writing up,
after coding, she is not doing grounded theory’ (Glaser,
1978, p.83).
Memos are theoretical notes about the data and the conceptual
connections between categories. The process runs parallel with
the coding and analysis process to capture the researcher’s
emergent ideation of substantive and theoretical codes and
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
33
categories. Memo writing is a continual process that helps to
raise the data to a conceptual level and develop the properties of
each category. Memos also guide the next steps in further data
collection, coding, and analysis. They present hypotheses about
connections between categories and their properties and begin
the integration of these connections with clusters of other
categories to generate a theory. The basic goal of memoing is to
develop ideas with complete conceptual freedom. Memos are
‘banked’ and later sorted to facilitate the integration of the
overall theory.
Memo construction differs from writing detailed description.
Although typically based on description, memos raise that
description to the theoretical level through the conceptual
rendering of the material. Early in the process, memos arise from
constant comparison of indicators to indicators, then indicators to
concepts. These memos are often very brief, just a few lines. Later
memos will be more extensive as they integrate the ideation of
the earlier memos and will, in turn, generate new memos further
raising the level of conceptualization. Sorting and writing memos
generates additional memos. Memoing in conjunction with coding
and analysis slows a researcher's pace, forcing a reasoning of the
emerging theory as categories emerge and integrate. In this way,
the researcher forestalls the premature adoption of a core
category and final theoretical framework by ensuring their fit,
relevance, and workability for the theory (see Box 5).
Box 5
In Holton (2006), during the constant comparison process, I had written over 400
memos capturing the conceptual and methodological development of my theory.
These memos ranged in length from a few lines to several pages. The following
offers a sample of the over 20 memos written in conjunction with more than 60
indicators of the category,
Igniting Passions:
A2403 Memo 3 The Passion of Vocation August 3, 2003
Networks as keeping personal and professional passions from being eroded,
depleted in the hectic, humdrum of daily organizational operations …’. Our job is
our work … our practice is our passion’. Distinguishing between ‘practice’ and
‘work’—between ‘vocation’ and ‘job’.
A2403 Memo 6 Passionate Learning August 3, 2003
‘really start to learn when they find a passion for a subject and then make a real
connection to other learners and real time practitioners’. Individual passion for
learning is stimulated and reinforced in community.
A703 Memo 11 Passion, Resistance & Bonding January 5, 2004
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
34
Re-reading field notes from interview with A, noted the many references to
passion; in particular, the connection between passion and bonding of network
members. Appears that the common passion that brings network members
together—part of the likening that creates a network—is also the ‘glue’ that bonds
network members.
She goes on to describe the ‘passionate few’ as bonding due to the resistance they
encounter from the formal system—‘the resistance serves as a way to separate out
those who really have a passion to keep working’ … So … passion creates likening;
resistance creates bonding and reinforces passions … a cyclic process that sustains
member engagement in fluctuating networks.
Memo F 1504-7 Igniting Passions February 15, 2004
Passions are ignited by challenge—the ‘against all odds’ syndrome—finding mutual
commitment to a goal that others consider impossible or crazy. Setting themselves
apart from the ‘masses’, the ordinary—taking on a challenge and making it work—
high achievement orientation—success is sweeter when shared. Believing in the
impossible and then making it happen. (Field Interview D 502)
Memo F 1504-9 Igniting Passions February 15, 2004
There’s a charge in being challenged and being creative in solving an issue, a
problem that ignites passionate engagement within a network—draws members
in. (Field Interview D 502)
Memo F 1904-6 Igniting Passions February 19, 2004
Passions are not always positive—they can also involved spirited outbursts of
anger. This is particularly the case when the core group of a network have
developed such a close group identity that it compromises their relationship with
others in the external environment—insularity leading to intolerance—impacts
upon ability of the network to function within the larger external environment of
the formal organization—interactions become personalized and highly emotional—
core becomes segregated—trust erodes and threatens sustainability … network
members may limit/reduce their participation if they feel it jeopardizes their
position within the formal organization—cannot risk the consequences. (Field
Interview D 502)
Memo A 504-13 Igniting Passions April 5, 2004
There’s a strong desire to continue to network once individual passions have been
ignited. Passions are fueled by the desire to continue to experience the energy and
synergy that result from mutual engagement—to work and learn and laugh
together. There’s a strong sense of fun, of pushing the envelope. The desire to
continue to move the network forward creates its own sense of excitement and
fuels a passionate belief in the ability to make a difference. (Field Interview O 290,
O 3101-1, N 1201, O 3001)
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
35
Theoretical Coding
Conceptual elaboration concludes when the relationships
among individually elaborated concepts emerge through the
identification and use of appropriate theoretical codes to achieve
an integrated theoretical framework for the overall grounded
theory. Theoretical codes conceptualize how the substantive codes
may relate to each other as hypotheses to be integrated into the
theory. They help the analyst maintain the conceptual level in
writing about concepts and their interrelations. Developing
theoretical sensitivity to a wide range of integrating codes
(processes, models, etc.) as used across a wide range of disciplines
enhances a researcher’s ability to see their emergent fit to a
developing theory. Reading widely opens a researcher to
serendipitous discovery of new theoretical codes from other
disciplines. Latent patterns abound in social research as in
nature; what patterns out in biology, for instance, may well
conceptually pattern in sociology, in business, or in education.
The more open one is to recognizing the larger integrative
patterns around us, the more one can exploit their imagery in
proposing theories of social behaviour (Glaser, 2005).
The researcher who does not reach outside extant theory for
theoretical coding possibilities runs the risk of producing
adequate but rather mundane conceptual theory. Such theory
makes a limited contribution to knowledge and, although
certainly preferable to purely conjectured theory, it will lack the
impact that the creative emergence of a novel or non-traditional
theoretical code may offer. The underlying imperative, however,
is that the fit must be emergent and not imposed. To earn its
relevance as a theoretical integrator of core and related variables
in a classic grounded theory study, a theoretical code must go
beyond spurious association. No matter how intellectually
seductive, fashionable, or discipline-dictated a theoretical code
may be, to cross the line from theoretical exploration to forced
integration with a preconceived theoretical model undermines the
generative nature of grounded theory.
Theoretical Integration through Hand Sorting of Memos
Theoretical sorting of the memos is the key to formulating
the theory for presentation or writing. Sorted memos generate
the emergent theoretical outline, or conceptual framework, for
the full articulation of a grounded theory through an integrated
set of hypotheses. The researcher’s memos, once sorted and fully
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
36
integrated, become the outline for presentation of the theory’s
publication.
This theoretical sorting is based on theoretical codes. As the
researcher sees similarities, connections, and underlying
uniformities, the theoretical decision about the precise location of
a particular memo is based on the theoretical coding of the data
grounding the idea. Facilitating the emergence of relevant
theoretical codes requires close attention to the ideas memoed,
submersion at the conceptual level, a balance of logic and
creativity, openness to the unexpected, and confidence in
following what emerges regardless of how counter-rational it may
seem to extant theoretical perspectives.
Thus, rich, multi-relation, multivariate theory is generated
through sorting. If the researcher omits sorting, the theory will be
linear, thin, and less than fully integrated. Without sorting, a
theory lacks the internal integration of connections among many
categories. With sorting, data and ideas are theoretically ordered.
This sorting is conceptual sorting, not data sorting. Sorting
provides theoretical completeness and generates more memos
(often on higher conceptual levels), furthering and condensing the
theory. It integrates the relevant literature into the theory,
sorting it with the memos. The researcher soon sees where each
concept fits and works within the theory, its relevance, and how it
will carry forward in the cumulative development of the theory.
Sorting prevents over-conceptualization and pre-
conceptualization, since these excesses fall away as the
researcher zeros in on the most parsimonious set of integrated
concepts (Glaser & Holton, 2004, para 69-70).
In classic grounded theory, theoretical codes are not selected
and imposed on data as a preconceived theoretical framework. To
do so is to risk logical elaboration. Instead, theoretical sorting of
memos forces the researcher to theoretically discriminate as to
where each memoed idea fits in the emerging theory. Failing to
recognize the essential requirement of hand sorting is, however,
common in accounts of the methodology. Partington (2002)
emphasizes the importance of avoiding a premature closure of the
analysis and the need to press on in the search for negative cases
in the data but makes no reference to careful hand sorting of
memos for emergent integration of the theory. Locke (2001) and
Goulding (2002) also overlook the importance of hand sorting
conceptual memos.
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
37
While Charmaz (2006) provides a lengthy discourse on
sorting, she seems to suggest that rather than allowing for the
preconscious emergence of conceptual linkages through the often
tedious hand sorting and re-sorting of memos, she advocates
instead trying on various theoretical codes for possible fit; if not
the basic social process, then perhaps Clarke’s (2005) situational
mapping or Strauss and Corbin’s (1990, 1998) conditional matrix.
Here again, we see the need to know in advance rather than
thoughtful sorting of memos for emergent fit resulting in an
overall conceptual integration with parsimony and scope (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967, p.110) (see Box 6).
Box 6
In Holton (2006), having achieved theoretical saturation of my core concept and
related categories, I proceeded to review, hand sort, and integrate those memos
related to the core, its properties, and related categories. As I began to sort memos
and look for relationships between the various concepts, theoretical codes began
to emerge as an abstract modelling of the latent structural patterns that integrated
and explained the emerging theory. The first indication of emergent theoretical
codes was memoed in an E-mail to Dr. Glaser, December 2003:
‘Rehumanizing can be viewed as a structural condition affecting the nature of
fluctuating networks of professional concern. These networks have always been
there in the workplace as they are inherent to social organization generally—but
today’s increasingly compressed and dehumanized work environments (changing
workplace context) have brought the need for rehumanizing to the fore as a means
of addressing the main concern of those involved—coping with change thereby
magnifying the BSPP [basic social psychological process] of rehumanizing as a
structural condition of the BSSP of fluctuating networks. As such, the BSSP [basic
social structural process] of fluctuating networks of professional concern has taken
on the properties of the BSPP of rehumanizing including authenticity,
depth/meaning, respect, safety, healing … As a preliminary suggestion, the stages
in the BSPP of rehumanizing may be finding, likening, igniting passions, kindred
sharing, experimenting, bonding, sustaining. Some of these may be combined as
research progresses; new ones may be identified … the structural process (of
fluctuating networks) is of significance because it explains the organization of
behaviour (as emergent informal organization) to address the main concern of the
participants—coping with change within the workplace—through a BSPP
(rehumanizing) as antidote to the dehumanizing impact of traditional formal
organizational structures. This is starting to feel ‘right’ for me—things are fitting
into place and I can now see an overall conceptual framework around which to
begin building the theory’ (J. Holton, personal communication, December 29, 2003)
While continuing to consider basic social process as an appropriate theoretical
code through which to integrate my emerging theory, I remained open to the
emergence of other theoretical codes as I continued to hand sort and integrate
memos. A final integration of the theory occurred in March 2004 with the
emergence of an additional theoretical code—amplifying causal looping.
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
38
The concept Igniting Passions (as earlier illustrated in this paper) was to emerge in
a pivotal position as the catalytic middle stage, between the sub-core processes of
Finding & Likening and Mutual Engagement (both amplifying causal loops), within
the basic social psychological process of Rehumanizing.
Analytic Rules for Conceptual Integration
There are several fundamental analytic rules that address
issues regarding the sorting, carrying forward, and integration of
concepts. These rules form the basis for the conceptual
integration, organization, and writing up of the theory. Usually,
the theory is presented as a conceptually abstract narrative that
articulates each significant concept and then, through the
articulation of theoretical propositions, the relationships between
these concepts. Here I refer the reader to Glaser (1978, pp.120-
127; Glaser & Holton, 2004) for further elaboration.
Author
Judith A. Holton, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Mount Allison University
Sackville, NB, Canada
Email: jholton@mta.ca
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
39
References
Charmaz, K. (2004). Premises, Principles, and Practices in
Qualitative Research: Revisiting the foundation.
Qualitative Health Research
, 14, 976-993.
Charmaz, K. (2006).
Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical
guide through qualitative analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Clarke, A.E. (2005).
Situational Analysis: Grounded theory after
the postmodern turn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Glaser, B. G. (1978).
Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the
methodology of grounded theory.
Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1992).
Basics of Grounded Theory: Emergence vs.
forcing.
Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1998).
Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and
discussions.
Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2001).
The Grounded Theory Perspective:
Conceptualization contrasted with description.
Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2002) Constructivist grounded theory? In
Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social
Research
. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-
02glaser-e-htm
Glaser, B. G. (2003).
The Grounded Theory Perspective II:
Description's remodeling of grounded theory methodology.
Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2004). Naturalist Inquiry and Grounded Theory. In
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative
Social Research
. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-04/1-
04glaser-e.htm
Glaser, B. G. (2005).
The Grounded Theory Perspective III:
Theoretical coding.
Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling Grounded Theory.
In
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
40
Social Research
. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-04/2-
04glaser-e.htm
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).
The Discovery of Grounded
Theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
Hawthorne,
NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Goulding, C. (2002).
Grounded theory: A practical guide for
management, business and market researchers.
London:
SAGE.
Holton, J. A. (2006). Rehumanising Knowledge Work through
Fluctuating Support Networks: A grounded theory.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Northampton,
UK.
Locke, K. (2001).
Grounded Theory in Management Research.
London: SAGE.
Partington, D. (Ed.). (2002).
Essential Skills for Management
Research.
London: SAGE.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990).
Basics of Qualitative
Research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998).
Basics of Qualitative
Research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques
(2nd
ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
