RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

494 CONTENT ANALYSIS AND GROUNDED THEORY
and in which the major modifications reduce as
underlying uniformities and properties are discovered
and in which theoretical saturation takes
place. The final stage – of writing theory – occurs
when the researcher has gathered and generated
coded data, memos, and a theory, and this is then
written in full.
By going through the previous sections of data,
particularly the search for confirming, negative
and discrepant cases, the researcher is able to keep
a‘runningtotal’ofthesecasesforaparticular
theory. The researcher also generates alternative
theories for the phenomena under investigation
and performs the same count of confirming,
negative and discrepant cases. Lincoln and Guba
(1985: 253) argue that the theory with the greatest
incidence of confirming cases and the lowest
incidence of negative and discrepant cases is the
most robust.
Constant comparison, LeCompte and Preissle
(1993: 256) suggest, combines the elements of
inductive category coding (discussed above) with
simultaneously comparing these with the other
events and social incidents that have been
observed and coded over time and location.
This enables social phenomena to be compared
across categories, where necessary giving rise
to new dimensions, codes and categories. Glaser
(1978) indicates that constant comparison can
proceed from the moment of starting to collect
data, to seeking key issues and categories, to
discovering recurrent events or activities in
the data that become categories of focus, to
expanding the range of categories. This process
can continue during the writing-up process,
which should be ongoing, so that a model or
explanation of the phenomena can emerge that
accounts for fundamental social processes and
relationships.
The core variables and saturation
Through the use of constant comparison a
core variable is identified: that variable which
accounts for most of the data and to which
as much as possible is related; that variable
around which most data are focused. As Flick
et al.(2004:19)suggest:‘thesuccessiveintegration
of concepts leads to one or more key categories
and thereby to the core of the emerging
theory’.
Saturation is reached when no new insights,
codes or categories are produced even when
new data are added, and when all of the data
are accounted for in the core categories and
subcategories (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 61).
As Ezzy (2002: 93) remarks: ‘saturation is achieved
when the coding that has already been completed
adequately supports and fills out the emerging
theory’. Of course one can never know for certain
that the categories are saturated, as there are
limits to induction, i.e. fresh data may come
along that refute the existing theory. The partner
of saturation is theoretical completeness, when
the theory is able to explain the data fully and
satisfactorily.
Developing grounded theory
As a consequence of theoretical sampling, coding,
constant comparison, the identification of the core
variable, and the saturation of data, categories
and codes, the grounded theory (of whatever
is being theorized) emerges from the data in
an unforced manner, accounting for all of
the data. How adequate the derived theory is
can be evaluated against several criteria. Glaser
and Strauss (1967: 237) suggest four main
criteria:
The closeness of the fit between the theory and
the data.
How readily understandable the theory is by the
lay persons working in the field, i.e. that it
makes sense to them.
The ability of the theory to be general to a
‘multitude of diverse daily situations within
the substantive area, not just to a specific type
of situation’.
The theory must allow ‘partial control over the
structure and process of daily situations as they
change through time’, i.e. it must ‘enable the
person who uses it to have enough control
in everyday situations to make its application
worth trying’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 245).