I finished my doctoral using Kathy's constructivist GT. It was a very rewarding exploration. By interviewing 23 Chinese wives of problem gamblers in Hong Kong, I was lucky to see the emergence of 2 new models, one research two theories constructed- the Multiple Self and Multiple Impact (MSMI) model, and Coping with Multiple Paradigms. The concept of Self is a very useful construct for me to discover the theories. It was an unforgettable research experience because one immerged into the data and thus the worlds of the paraticipants. It is challenging to engage in the business of theory construction.
Excellent interview and very good for undergrad and grad courses in Qualitative Research Methodologies. Thank you Graham R Gibbs for sharing this with us, university professors and graduate students around the world! Thank you Kathy Charmaz for sharing your thoughts!
Thank you very much for such an excellent interview. Professor Charmaz's insight as well as Professor Gibbs' style of questioning have really opened a whole new world to me. Not only have I learnt something for academic purposes, I a starting to look at everyday conversations in a different way! Thank you!
Graham - thanks for organising and making available this REALLY interesting and authoritative conversation - it has shifted my paradigm. And I have just bought the book (I don't often do that these days!). Andy
Thank you so much, I am currently critiquing a qualitative research paper which reported using GT. This interview has helped me to have a greater understanding of GT.
This interview is rich. Its relevance will outlast both scholars. It is grounded in illustrations drawn from both practice and theory. It's a road map for constructing grounded theory. Yet its treatment of core conceps and philosophical premises of the subject cuts across the entire canvass of the qualitative research approach. A must watch for anyone interested in qualitative reaearch based on a constructivist orientation. In fact, all (novice and practitioner) qualitative researchers will find this as an interesting and invaluable resource. I strongly recommend it. WATCH and LEARN. Be critical while you do. Enjoy it.
Thank you for sharing this interview. I'm a practitioner of sociology (PhD student) and qualitative methodologies specificaly Grounded Theory-approaches. Prof Charmaz has a really deep understanding on GT-issues, everyone interested in GT should hear this interview!
Thank you so much Mr. Gibbs. This interview was so very helpful to reinforce my understanding, answer some questions that I had and keep me forging ahead on my dissertations, "Why Leaders Chose to Self-Disclose a mistake, an emotion or risk being vulnerable in front of their employees."
I am curious if GT can be used as an approach to analyse texts in order to derive theory? I read that an abbreviated GT could do so but is not a preferred approach. Timeframes and delay in ethics approval means I have to do an extended literature review. So I was wondering if GT could still be used to analyse texts. And does it have to focus on interview data? I'm hoping to explore how counselling can support older people with addictions. Appreciate your advice.
TH-cam does this automatically. If you are on PC you can find the ellipses (...) under the video on the right-hand side. It's near the thumbs up and just after the "Save" button. Click on this and you will see a drop down menu with "open transcript". Click on that, and you'll see a new window appear on the right of the video. Select all (Click & Drag) then copy paste into word. You might need to paste into format, which I believe is ctrl+Shift+V It's not perfect, but it is pretty good. This also works with interviews uploaded and saved as "unlisted"
thanks a ton, perfect bliss,as i come from ayurveda background and had develped an inclination for qualitative methods,this interview is brainstorming...hope i can explore further
Dear Graham, this is a wonderful interview. Thank you so much! I also found your examples of line by line coding very useful. I'm relatively new to grounded theory and currently reading Charmaz (2006) and will begin data collection and analysis soon. Where might I find some guidelines on how to approach grounded theory with quantitative data?
Hello Dr. Graham, Thanks for sharing this informative video. I would like to ask you a question. What's the major difference between Glaser and Strauss grounded theory and Charmaz constructivist grounded theory? To me, they are intersecting and mixing up.. Could you please elaborate on the major differences between them? Thank you so much
+aalshaikhi This is a much debated issue. In my view there is very little difference between Charmaz and the early Glaser and Strauss in the processes and procedures they suggest (though remember Glaser and Strauss fell out later on precisely this issue). The main difference is a deeper, philosophical one. Charmaz is responding to the move to language that happened in qualitative research over 20 years ago. Glaser and Strauss called their approach Grounded Theory because, in the end, they thought that by using the method you could discover an indubitable account of what the respondents did, thought, believed and, crucially, what was happening. Later, constructivist researchers argued that that was impossible. All we could ever do was establish someone’s construction of things. Charmaz takes this critique on board and argues that the data we get from an interview, for example, is a co-construction between the respondent and the interviewer. The account we can get from analysing it and the interpretations we make of the data are inevitably coloured by that co-construction.
I think the that a major problem of this conversation is that it doesn't emphasise Strauss's rootedness in the objective relativism of G.H. Mead. The 'world that is there' answers to different co-constructions (Mead). In that sense it is 'constructivist' and in another (weaker) sense it is 'objectivist'. This is a much more sophisticated position that the dichotomising of 'constructivism' and 'objectivism' implied or stated throughout this conversation. I don't see Charmaz's position as much different from Strauss's.
Hello Mr Graham, my name is Fahad from Uganda East Africa, I have been following your guidelines on grounded theory parts 1,2...and i found them very useful. What i don't understand is do i need to do a lot of talking about in in my proposal if i am to use it in my dissertation? Thank you in advance.
+Scout Kato I don't really understand your question. What I can say is that qualitative analysis inevitably involves lots of talking and lots of writing. Interviews are commonly used to collect data and they need to be transcribed and processed through coding and the writing of memos. Typically, the analysis just expands the number of words you have to deal with. And of course, in your write up, in your dissertation, you will need to discuss your methods (justify the choice of methods, sampling approach, analytic activities, stages of analysis etc.) and present your results. So qualitative analysis, of any kind, involves lots of writing and re-writing.
Qualitative methodology like this suffers from such ambiguity in practice and application. I actually consider Charmaz's description of GT here to be more concrete than typical qualitative-oriented methodology explanations. Yet still, there is SO much vague instruction/description 'of what to do' and 'how to do it', that it essentially leaves a researcher to simply make things up as they go. Various times throughout the interview Gibbs asks a very direction question on how to do something, only to get a vague response by Charmaz that amounts to something along the lines of "you just know..".
I think it seems so vague because it is harder to speak in general. I recently attended a workshop with Professor Charmaz; as she explained coding in regards to a specific set of data it made more sense.
Abductive reasoning remains elusive to me. I don't understand how it's categorically different from inductive reasoning. All the explanations I've read don't really do a good job distinguishing it as a completely new way of reasoning. I don't feel like this short exchange did anything to differentiate between the two.
I resonate with your point here. How theory "emerges" from qualitative date various greatly from study to study, and even within the same strategies of inquiry. Until a qualitative methodology surfaces that can more or less provide a clear picture of point A (qualitative data) to point B (theory), qualititative research will remain inferior to quantitative approaches.
Joel Anaya I almost agree but I think the two types of data are different. One would have hard proof based on data, like the bully threw 3 punches. The other doesn't have that hard and set number but we can see other actions, like by coding several interviews we might find a pattern of actions or thoughts that provide insight. There is also the problem of the researcher. For example, in a recent workshop with Prof. Charmaz we all read the same data. most of the group picked up on the basics of the data. For me, one phrase stood out so I went back through the data with this particular action in mind. My findings based on the phrase made my outlook of the stories vary different.
![[UNCUT]"ทนายตั้ม" แฉยับ! ความลับสวรรค์ ใครคือ "บิ๊กเทวดา" ของบอสพอล l คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ l 15 ต.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ru9fpSaUwdA/mqdefault.jpg)
I finished my doctoral using Kathy's constructivist GT. It was a very rewarding exploration. By interviewing 23 Chinese wives of problem gamblers in Hong Kong, I was lucky to see the emergence of 2 new models, one research two theories constructed- the Multiple Self and Multiple Impact (MSMI) model, and Coping with Multiple Paradigms. The concept of Self is a very useful construct for me to discover the theories. It was an unforgettable research experience because one immerged into the data and thus the worlds of the paraticipants. It is challenging to engage in the business of theory construction.
Honorable mention from University of Amsterdam's online courses in Qualitative Research Methodologies.
Thank you for your work, it's inspiring.
Excellent interview and very good for undergrad and grad courses in Qualitative Research Methodologies. Thank you Graham R Gibbs for sharing this with us, university professors and graduate students around the world! Thank you Kathy Charmaz for sharing your thoughts!
Thank you very much for such an excellent interview. Professor Charmaz's insight as well as Professor Gibbs' style of questioning have really opened a whole new world to me. Not only have I learnt something for academic purposes, I a starting to look at everyday conversations in a different way! Thank you!
Thankyou for such a brilliant interview that allows a comprehensive understanding of GT from Charmaz' point of view. Very useful indeed.
Graham - thanks for organising and making available this REALLY interesting and authoritative conversation - it has shifted my paradigm. And I have just bought the book (I don't often do that these days!). Andy
Thank you so much, I am currently critiquing a qualitative research paper which reported using GT. This interview has helped me to have a greater understanding of GT.
This interview is rich. Its relevance will outlast both scholars. It is grounded in illustrations drawn from both practice and theory. It's a road map for constructing grounded theory. Yet its treatment of core conceps and philosophical premises of the subject cuts across the entire canvass of the qualitative research approach. A must watch for anyone interested in qualitative reaearch based on a constructivist orientation. In fact, all (novice and practitioner) qualitative researchers will find this as an interesting and invaluable resource. I strongly recommend it. WATCH and LEARN. Be critical while you do. Enjoy it.
this is an excellent video. thanks Graham and Kathy for doing this Dr Venkat Pulla Australian Catholic University
Thank you for sharing this interview. I'm a practitioner of sociology (PhD student) and qualitative methodologies specificaly Grounded Theory-approaches. Prof Charmaz has a really deep understanding on GT-issues, everyone interested in GT should hear this interview!
Thank you so much Mr. Gibbs. This interview was so very helpful to reinforce my understanding, answer some questions that I had and keep me forging ahead on my dissertations, "Why Leaders Chose to Self-Disclose a mistake, an emotion or risk being vulnerable in front of their employees."
Congratulations. Masterclass. Two great ones together. Regards from Alicante Faculty of Education (Spain).
Mr. Gibbs - this is an awesome program!!! Keep doing what you're doing!!!
I am curious if GT can be used as an approach to analyse texts in order to derive theory? I read that an abbreviated GT could do so but is not a preferred approach. Timeframes and delay in ethics approval means I have to do an extended literature review. So I was wondering if GT could still be used to analyse texts. And does it have to focus on interview data? I'm hoping to explore how counselling can support older people with addictions. Appreciate your advice.
Thank you for sharing!!! do you have the transcribed document for this interview?
TH-cam does this automatically. If you are on PC you can find the ellipses (...) under the video on the right-hand side. It's near the thumbs up and just after the "Save" button. Click on this and you will see a drop down menu with "open transcript".
Click on that, and you'll see a new window appear on the right of the video. Select all (Click & Drag) then copy paste into word. You might need to paste into format, which I believe is ctrl+Shift+V
It's not perfect, but it is pretty good.
This also works with interviews uploaded and saved as "unlisted"
thanks a ton, perfect bliss,as i come from ayurveda background and had develped an inclination for qualitative methods,this interview is brainstorming...hope i can explore further
Thank you very much. It was fantastic, and so understandable :) Thank you. I think, that you have just saved my phd thesis :)
this discussion will help million of students around the global,excellent interview thank u
Dear Graham, this is a wonderful interview. Thank you so much! I also found your examples of line by line coding very useful. I'm relatively new to grounded theory and currently reading Charmaz (2006) and will begin data collection and analysis soon. Where might I find some guidelines on how to approach grounded theory with quantitative data?
⁶⁶6⁶
THANK YOU for this video. I learned so much. I'm right at the stage of moving to axial coding and categories so this was helpful.
Hello Dr. Graham,
Thanks for sharing this informative video. I would like to ask you a question. What's the major difference between Glaser and Strauss grounded theory and Charmaz constructivist grounded theory? To me, they are intersecting and mixing up.. Could you please elaborate on the major differences between them?
Thank you so much
+aalshaikhi This is a much debated issue. In my view there is very little difference between Charmaz and the early Glaser and Strauss in the processes and procedures they suggest (though remember Glaser and Strauss fell out later on precisely this issue). The main difference is a deeper, philosophical one. Charmaz is responding to the move to language that happened in qualitative research over 20 years ago. Glaser and Strauss called their approach Grounded Theory because, in the end, they thought that by using the method you could discover an indubitable account of what the respondents did, thought, believed and, crucially, what was happening. Later, constructivist researchers argued that that was impossible. All we could ever do was establish someone’s construction of things. Charmaz takes this critique on board and argues that the data we get from an interview, for example, is a co-construction between the respondent and the interviewer. The account we can get from analysing it and the interpretations we make of the data are inevitably coloured by that co-construction.
Thank you Dr. Graham for your response. The difference between them makes more sense to me now.
nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2251&context=tqr
I think the that a major problem of this conversation is that it doesn't emphasise Strauss's rootedness in the objective relativism of G.H. Mead. The 'world that is there' answers to different co-constructions (Mead). In that sense it is 'constructivist' and in another (weaker) sense it is 'objectivist'. This is a much more sophisticated position that the dichotomising of 'constructivism' and 'objectivism' implied or stated throughout this conversation. I don't see Charmaz's position as much different from Strauss's.
This is brilliant! Many thanks to you both
Hello Mr Graham,
my name is Fahad from Uganda East Africa, I have been following your guidelines on grounded theory parts 1,2...and i found them very useful.
What i don't understand is do i need to do a lot of talking about in in my proposal if i am to use it in my dissertation?
Thank you in advance.
+Scout Kato I don't really understand your question. What I can say is that qualitative analysis inevitably involves lots of talking and lots of writing. Interviews are commonly used to collect data and they need to be transcribed and processed through coding and the writing of memos. Typically, the analysis just expands the number of words you have to deal with. And of course, in your write up, in your dissertation, you will need to discuss your methods (justify the choice of methods, sampling approach, analytic activities, stages of analysis etc.) and present your results. So qualitative analysis, of any kind, involves lots of writing and re-writing.
Helped a lot for my dissertation!!! Thanks for the interview!
This should be a required watch for any grad student doing qualitative research
Thank you so much for this interview and sharing it.
Thank you so much for the interview!!!
Thank you for such a fantastic video!
Thank you so much for this insightful and authoritative conversation!
Fantastic - well done and thanks for sharing
Jen Keast Unimelb
Obrigado, a entrevista foi de grande valia! 🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
Thank you very much. It was interesting. I use constructive grounded theory for my research.
Great information! I understand GT better!
Thank you! A very helpful interview!
Excellent interview
Can you please balance the sound out? You are very quiet and the Professor was very loud. Great interview though. I learned a lot.
This is very helpful! Thank you.
Qualitative methodology like this suffers from such ambiguity in practice and application. I actually consider Charmaz's description of GT here to be more concrete than typical qualitative-oriented methodology explanations. Yet still, there is SO much vague instruction/description 'of what to do' and 'how to do it', that it essentially leaves a researcher to simply make things up as they go. Various times throughout the interview Gibbs asks a very direction question on how to do something, only to get a vague response by Charmaz that amounts to something along the lines of "you just know..".
I think it seems so vague because it is harder to speak in general. I recently attended a workshop with Professor Charmaz; as she explained coding in regards to a specific set of data it made more sense.
amazing interview! save a beginner of grounded theorist!
This is very helpful! Thanks for making it!
This is fantastic. Thank you!!
Very clear and informative. Thank you.
Abductive reasoning remains elusive to me. I don't understand how it's categorically different from inductive reasoning. All the explanations I've read don't really do a good job distinguishing it as a completely new way of reasoning. I don't feel like this short exchange did anything to differentiate between the two.
I resonate with your point here. How theory "emerges" from qualitative date various greatly from study to study, and even within the same strategies of inquiry. Until a qualitative methodology surfaces that can more or less provide a clear picture of point A (qualitative data) to point B (theory), qualititative research will remain inferior to quantitative approaches.
Joel Anaya I almost agree but I think the two types of data are different. One would have hard proof based on data, like the bully threw 3 punches. The other doesn't have that hard and set number but we can see other actions, like by coding several interviews we might find a pattern of actions or thoughts that provide insight.
There is also the problem of the researcher. For example, in a recent workshop with Prof. Charmaz we all read the same data. most of the group picked up on the basics of the data. For me, one phrase stood out so I went back through the data with this particular action in mind. My findings based on the phrase made my outlook of the stories vary different.
This is wonderful!!
thank you!
UHUM!
if you know, you know
thanks!
"mhmmm!"
The first question asked was such a silly one and it effects my attitiude towards the interviewer.