Analysis of Grounded Theory Study as found in John Creswell's QUALITATIVE INQUIRY & RESEARCH DESIGN

     One of the fascinating results of the Grounded Theory Study about survival and coping with sexual abuse (Morrow, S. L., & Smith, M. L., 1995) was in the last paragraph of the study.  Their finding was that “dividing various aspects of the self…enabled victims to disperse trauma…”, and “multiplicity provided…a cognitive structure in which…functions…were preserved until they could be safely reintegrated "(p. 305).  I had not realized that the brain could use a strategy of walling itself off to beneficial effect.   The authors did state earlier that these kinds of denials always had a price.  But it seems that the net result was beneficial to these victims of sexual abuse. It makes sense to me that the brain has innate abilities to protect itself, much like the eye does by blinking, or the core of the body retains heat in freezing water.  I am so glad that the subjects of this research, victims of abuse, were able to function in this way, when the stark truth might have proven overwhelming.

     The Grounded Theory Study presented here has much in common with both the Narrative and Phenomenological qualitative research.  All three require permission from the subjects to be studied. So far, the three types of studies have used a relatively small number of participants. Grounded Theory Study typically has a larger number of subjects than either Narrative or Phenomenological.  Also related are the kinds of information a qualitative researchers develops.  Stories (narrative), experience and context (phenomenology), and action or interaction (grounded theory)  will be interpreted based on insight and related within a social construct.  Similarly to phenomenology research, grounded theory uses the phases of coding:  open, axial, and selective.  The coding methods explained by the grounded theory author helped to clarify coding methods.  I was better able to understand the term “saturate the categories” (p. 160) until they revealed no more new information.  The process apparently helps reduce these studies to more manageable “chunks”.  These categories are broken down during the axial phase to “explain the central phenomenon” (p. 160).  The next step is developing a paradigm called “selective coding,” with which the researcher can use a matrix to understand situations related to the central phenomenon of the piece. 

     As is the case in phenomenology, the grounded theory researcher began by “identifying an objective set of experiences in the subject’s life” to study (p. 158). The phenomenologist searches for a “criterion” sample, similar to the grounded theory’s “theoretical” sample and the “critical” sample of the narrative researcher.  Also related are the kinds of information that qualitative researchers develop.  Stories (narrative), experience and context (phenomenology), and action or interaction (grounded theory), all will be interpreted based on insight and related within a social construct.  Phenomenology and Grounded Theory require extensive interviewing, which entail bracketing and logistics. A data analysis spiral may be used in all three types of studies includes the collection of various types of data, including text, images, and writing.  It is analyzed, classified, and compared, until meaning is distilled into essential bits of information. Computer programs and files may be used in all three kinds of studies.   

           In all three cases, the research studies develop into their own realms of mind and humanity, with the hand and voice of the researcher carefully monitored.  A result is not decided on and searched for:  it is unearthed.