RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

GROUNDED THEORY 493
fragments are then rearranged, through coding,
to produce a new understanding that explores
similarities, differences, across a number of different
cases. The early part of coding should be confusing,
with a mass of apparently unrelated material.
However, as coding progresses and themes emerge,
the analysis becomes more organized and structured.
(Ezzy 2002: 94)
In grounded theory there are three types
of coding: open, axial and selective coding, the
intention of which is to deconstruct the data
into manageable chunks in order to facilitate an
understanding of the phenomenon in question.
Open coding involves exploring the data and
identifying units of analysis to code for meanings,
feelings, actions, events and so on. The researcher
codes up the data, creating new codes and
categories and subcategories where necessary,
and integrating codes where relevant until the
coding is complete. Axial coding seeks to make
links between categories and codes, ‘to integrate
codes around the axes of central categories’
(Ezzy 2002: 91); the essence of axial coding is
the interconnectedness of categories (Cresswell
1998: 57). Hence codes are explored, their
interrelationships are examined, and codes and
categories are compared to existing theory.
Selective coding involves identifying a core code;
the relationship between that core code and
other codes is made clear (Ezzy 2002: 93),
and the coding scheme is compared with preexisting
theory. Cresswell (1998: 57) writes that
‘in selective coding, the researcher identifies a
‘‘story line’’ and writes a story that integrates the
categories in the axial coding model’.
As coding proceeds the researcher develops
concepts and makes connections between
them. Flick et al. (2004:19)arguethat‘repeated
coding of data leads to denser concept-based
relationships and hence to a theory’, i.e. that the
richness of the data is included in the theoretical
formulation.
Constant comparison
The application of open, axial and selective coding
adopts the method of constant comparison. In
constant comparison the researcher compares the
new data with existing data and categories, so
that the categories achieve a perfect fit with
the data. If there is a poor fit between data
and categories, or indeed between theory and
data, then the categories and theories have to be
modified until all the data are accounted for. New
and emergent categories are developed in order to
be able to incorporate and accommodate data in
agoodfit,withnodiscrepantcases.Glaserand
Strauss (1967: 102) write that ‘the purpose of the
constant comparative method of joint coding and
analysis is to generate theory ...by using explicit
coding and analytic procedures’. That theory is not
intended to ‘ascertain universality or the proof
of suggested causes or other properties. Since
no proof is involved, the constant comparison
method ...requires only saturation of data – not
consideration of all available data’.
In constant comparison, then, discrepant, negative
and disconfirming cases are important in
assisting the categories and emergent (grounded)
theory to fit all the data. Constant comparison is
the process ‘by which the properties and categories
across the data are compared continuously until
no more variation occurs’ (Glaser 1996), i.e. saturation
is reached. In constant comparison data
are compared across a range of situations, times,
groups of people, and through a range of methods.
The process resonates with the methodological
notion of triangulation. Glaser and Strauss (1967:
105–13) suggest that the constant comparison
method involves four stages: comparing incidents
and data that are applicable to each category;
integrating these categories and their properties;
bounding the theory; setting out the theory. The
first stage here involves coding of incidents and
comparing them with previous incidents in the
same and different groups and with other data that
are in the same category. The second stage involves
memoing and further coding. Here ‘the constant
comparative units change from comparison of incident
with incident to comparison of incident with
properties of the category that resulted from initial
comparisons of incidents’ (Glaser and Strauss
1967: 108). The third stage – of delimitation –
occurs at the levels of the theory and the categories
Chapter 23