The Co-current Grounded Theory Iterations Sample Paper

Introduction

Grounded theory (GT) is one of the most well-known and relevant approaches to generating meaningful hypotheses in qualitative research. This method allows to inducement of ideas directly from the collected data, and experts have perceived it as a central qualitative methodology since the 1960s. However, as Carlin and Kim (2019) note, the modern iterations of GT have significantly deviated from its original definition, creating multiple co-current versions of the theory. The authors argue that this approach is detrimental to the primary principles of qualitative research and examine several fundamental causes to prove their perspective (Carlin & Kim, 2019). Ultimately, the current review thoroughly examines the article by Carlin and Kim on the co-current versions of GT and proposes a personal position on the topic.

Article Overview and Main Considerations

Qualitative research comprises a vast diversity of methodologies, emphasizing unique aspects of data collection and analysis. Within this framework, GT refers to the induction of theories directly from data to mitigate any potential bias from the existing literature or researchers’ perspectives (Carlin & Kim, 2019). This definition was the core understanding of GT proposed by its original authors – Glasser and Strauss – in the 1960s (Carlin & Kim, 2019). However, the primary point of the examined article transparently emphasizes that the understanding of GT has deviated from its original definition and that it can no longer be perceived as GT. Thus, this development has created a large number of the co-current GT versions that, in theory, derive from the 1960s’ theory but do not adhere to its primary principles. To prove this point, the authors discuss three issues – “the cumulation problem, theoretical imperialism, and the tutorial” (Carlin & Kim, 2019, p. 30). They primarily examine the existing literature on GT deviations in various interdisciplinary studies to understand the topic and identify the associated problems.

The first fundamental cause of the emerging co-current GT versions is the cumulation problem. It generally refers to the existing body of knowledge on various subjects and the inability of the researchers to benefit from it in a meaningful manner (Carlin & Kim, 2019). Based on the reviewed example in dentistry and information science, the authors claim that modern GT versions do not add cumulative value to the existing literature. As a result, these iterations lose the fundamental aspect of GT by pursuing original ideas instead of inducing theories from data.

Consequently, the authors address the problem of theoretical imperialism and the neglect of data categories. Generally, this idea refers to the methodological approach to utilizing external classifications that are not directly related to the current research (Carlin & Kim, 2019). In other words, researchers use additional instruments and category sets to classify their data instead of inducing theories and ideas directly from the acquired information. According to the authors, it is a fundamental problem that separates the co-current GT versions from the original definition.

Lastly, the authors discuss the issue of “tutorial” and the overall deviation from the 1960s GT concept. In their early works, Glasser and Strauss emphasized the utmost significance of unbiased review to analyze data and the credibility of GT itself (Carlin & Kim, 2019). However, with time, the modern GT variations have applied the 1960s principles without doubting the framework, which, in itself, contradicts the original GT’s premise. Moreover, the co-current iterations sacrifice credibility and meaningful contribution to emphasize “flexibility” as the new most significant value of GT (Carlin & Kim, 2019, p. 36). Ultimately, these issues are the most pressing concerns in the modern GT variations, which might lead to data bias, lack of meaningful contribution, and the betrayal of the initial GT principles.

Reflection and Personal Position

After reviewing the article, I have realized that I agree with most of the authors’ theses. Yet, I find the evidence lacking to prove that it is a “worrisome” and “concerning” trend. Reviewing each premise in greater detail, I believe that the examined issues are natural continuations of GT theory with insignificant drawbacks. For instance, I understand that theoretical imperialism violates the original definition of GT since it derives information from external sources instead of acquired data. Therefore, I agree that some of the co-current GT variations do not adhere to the original definition and should probably be renamed. Yet, I am not entirely convinced how this argument relates to concerns of data validity, reliability, and credibility.

At the same time, I wholly agree that the cumulative problem and the “tutorial” issue are pressing concerns in qualitative research and GT, in particular. Nevertheless, I believe they are more related to general concerns that diminish the research quality than to GT legacy. In other words, these problems can be summarized as the failure to meaningfully incorporate the existing literature and eliminate research bias. For instance, according to Charmaz and Thornberg (2021) and Birks et al. (2019), these are general concerns for qualitative research. I believe that these problems relate more to GT precisely because GT is a relevant methodology with a large number of followers. Therefore, since many aspiring researchers utilize GT in their works, multiple mistakes in literature review and deviations from the original theory inevitably occur. However, I believe that it is a natural evolution of the research method, and while I appreciate the authors’ message, I do not think it is a worrisome trend.

I believe that such derivations are a logical continuation of a relevant theory, which is more likely beneficial for qualitative research. A large number of contemporary studies propose new approaches within the GT framework and outline their differences from the classic theory. For instance, Nelson (2020) examines the computational grounded theory and its potential in qualitative research, even though Carlin and Kim (2019) exposed their distaste for software methods and researcher inputs. Similarly, Singh and Estefan (2018) discuss the similarities and differences between the original GT theory and postpositivist/constructivist methodologies. These works demonstrate that the GT iterations and the diversity of approaches are not exclusively negative trends. Ultimately, concerning my position, I believe that the co-current GT versions are not a negative sign for qualitative research or GT legacy but rather a logical and natural continuation of the theory.

Conclusion

The article by Carlin and Kim has thoroughly evaluated the co-current GT iterations and their primary problems, including theoretical imperialism, the cumulative problem, “tutorial,” and the betrayal of the original principles. According to the authors, these issues are worrisome trends for the understanding of GT and qualitative research in the academic community. In my opinion, all of their discussed points are credible arguments, indicating that the co-current GT versions differ significantly from the original definition. However, I do not entirely agree with the authors concerning the negative aspect of this evolution. In my opinion, some of the stated points relate more to the general research concerns and should be perceived as such. Nevertheless, the review of the article by Carlin and Kim and the consequent reflection on the topic has significantly deepened my understanding of GT and qualitative research, and I have enjoyed writing this critical review.

References

Birks, M., Hoare, K., & Mills, J. (2019). Grounded theory: the FAQs. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18.

Carlin, A. P., & Kim, Y. H. (2019). Teaching qualitative research: Versions of grounded theory. The Grounded Theory Review, 18(1), 29-43.

Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 305-327.

Nelson, L. K. (2020). Computational grounded theory: A methodological framework. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(1), 3-42.

Singh, S., & Estefan, A. (2018). Selecting a grounded theory approach for nursing research. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 5.

Photography As A Contemporary Art Form

Modern art has no precise definition: it remains an elastic term that can have a variety of meanings. Nevertheless, it is customary to say that the term refers to works created around the period 1870-1970. In this era, photography, in addition to establishing itself as an art form, preserving and developing its own aesthetic value and identity, has also turned into a full-fledged material for other art forms. At a time when there is an intense synthesis of the arts, photography has shown its plasticity as a material that can be used in any combination with other modes of figurative expression. An important feature of this period is the absence of the subject who creates the work. The work of the camera comes to the fore, hence, the requirements and approaches to the evaluation of the image change; the focus of attention shifts to the technical execution rather than to the spiritual component. The notion of photography as a necessary and expected component of the contemporary creative process in the new millennium has been strongly reinforced. The unique facets of visual image creation not only influence the optical techniques and modes of dissemination of photography as contemporary art (Duganne et al., 2020). They also make viewers pickier about which images belong to the realm of art in light of this new, more expanded presence of photography in modern life.

In this context, it becomes clear that the contemporary art of photography is conditioned by the individuality and energy of its creators. Their works, retain the brilliant dialogic nature that makes photography an art within the changing and ever-expanding sphere of this activity. Current attitudes to the postmodern image coincide in many respects with Kant’s aesthetics, turned toward general philosophical concerns (Duganne et al., 2020). The boundaries of art are shaky, but still, they can be drawn with sufficient certainty; postmodernism, from this point of view, is not nature, science, or craft. Nevertheless, an incomparably more significant influence on the development of the postmodern had the ideas of Marx (Duganne et al., 2020). Marxism speaks of capitalism as the main determinant of social consumption, which cannot but affect art. The latter, under the influence of market rationalism, becomes postmodern in the classical sense. This is because with all its attendant trappings, the economy’s market structure turned photographers into artisan entrepreneurs, adjusting their activities to the laws of supply and demand.

Reference

Duganne, E., Diack, H., & Weissman, T. (2020). Global photography: A critical history. Routledge.

Kant, I., & Bernard, J. H. (2021). Critique of judgement. Independently published.

Julius Caesar, The Dictator Of The Roman Empire

Julius Caesar was one of the most famous rulers of Rome who became a dictator of the Roman Empire. However, his rule was shortened by the assassination of Caesar by his rivals. Julius Caesar was a man who was capable of many things due to the fact that he was born into a noble family and received a good education. Besides politics, his talents included military art, finance, and poetry (Plutarch). As a governor of Gaul, Caesar was able to accommodate the amount of wealth, power, and influence that became a threat to Pompey, who was his main political rival at the time.

After Caesar became a dictator, his first changes in the Roman Empire included the enlargement of the senate, certain governmental reforms, and a decrease of Rome’s debt. Other positive changes included Caesar’s sponsorship of the building of the Forum Iulium and two city-states, Carthage and Corinth (Plutarch). Due to being the governor of Gaul, Caesar understood and respected the importance of foreigners to the Roman Empire; therefore, he granted citizenship to those who lived within the Roman Republic.

The source that was used for this assignment is “The Life of Julius Caesar,” written by Plutarch, which is one of the main sources of Ancient Roman history on Julius Caesar. The cycle Parallel Lives that includes the lives of the famous Romans was written at the beginning second century AD, which is nearly 250 years after the death of Julius Caesar himself. In his writing, Plutarch allows himself to cite other sources extensively. For example, he uses Caesar’s own work de Bello Gallico and De Bello Civil along with Suetonius’s The Twelve Caesars (Fraser.80). However, although “The Life of Julius Caesar” is a valid factual source, Plutarch, like many ancient historians, is biased towards Julius Caesar for him being an enemy of democracy.

Works Cited

Fraser, Robert. “Biography as Representation: Plutarch’s Parallel Lives.” After Ancient Biography. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2020. 73-98.

Plutarch. “The Life of Julius Caesar”. Parallel Lives. published in Vol. VII of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919. Web.

error: Content is protected !!