Grounded Theory

Grounded theory was introduced by soci­ologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in 1967 as a qualitative response to the positivistic approach that dominated socio­logical research at the time.

Grounded theory encourages conflict researchers to be engaged analysts with participants, data, and emergent theories. Researchers may use a variety of data collec­tion methods such as interviewing, archiving, and ethnography. Excerpts and summaries of data are expected to demonstrate connections between data and category and offer evidence for the robustness of categories and subse­quent construction of theory built through the approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory recognizes inherent historical, social, and situational constraints placed on research actions.

The grounded theoretical approach has been used often in communication for theory building, including in conflict studies. For this review, the constant comparative method is folded under grounded theory as they are often used interchangeably. However, the constant comparative rationale is comparison of newly collected data with previous ones so theories can be formed, confirmed, or even rejected based on the introduction of new data. Grounded theory develops new empiri­cally driven theory. Research has employed both approaches in various communicative settings, including interpersonal, community, and international conflict.

In interpersonal conflict, a continuing line of research uses a grounded theory approach, and increasingly in other communication con­texts. An earlier study by Newell and Stutman (1988), for instance, used role-playing epi­sodes to generate data. Using the grounded theory method, they built a theoretical model of social confrontation based on confronta­tional episodes where rules or expectations for appropriate conduct were perceived to be violated. Five aspects were highlighted: the legitimacy of the invoked rule, the legiti­macy of any superseding rules, whether the person actually performed the behavior in question, whether the behavior constitutes a violation of the rule, and whether the accused accepts responsibility. Such an episodic, grounded theory approach was also used by Alberts and Driscoll (1992) for studying complaints between conflict couples. Based on 40 recorded episodes, they found that couples typically enact one of six complaint episodes: ignoring the complaint, changing the focus of the complaint, mitigating the severity of the complaint, validating the partner’s complaint, denying the validity of the partner’s complaint, or escalating complaint interaction.

The grounded theory approach also has been used retrospectively to collect and ana­lyze qualitative data. In their study of the “First Big Fight” (FBF), a turning point event that defines a close relationship, Siegert and Stamp (1994) collected 50 participants’ retro­spective accounts of their FBFs and found four conditions leading up to the FBF (uncertainty over commitment, jealousy, violation of expec­tations, and personality differences), three effects of the FBF (clarification of feelings, awareness of interdependence, and introduc­tion of thematic conflict), and three differ­ences between the “nonsurvivors” and the “survivors” (increasing vs.

Not only has the grounded theory method been used in relationships, but it also has been used in interpersonal health settings to study intractable conflict specifically between anesthesiologists and certified registered nurse anesthetists (Jameson, 2003). More recently, it has also been used by Lambert and Dollahite (2006) to investigate the role of religion to mediate marital conflict. Based on in-depth interviews with 57 highly religious, middle­aged married couples of Christian, Jewish, and Islamic faiths, the authors construct a phase model (conflict prevention, resolution, and reconciliation) to theorize the role religiosity plays in marital conflict. The model emerged from open, in vivo, and axial coding of inter­view data with participants. For instance, for the thematic category of “shared sacred vision and purpose” in problem prevention, Debby, a Baptist social worker remarks that

I think that the more shared perspective on life that you have, the less inherent conflicts are to begin with. So, I think having a shared faith is important in that sense, in both the big picture, and hopefully, the smaller pic­ture. But, I think for me, somehow, my faith affects how I view conflict. (p. 442)

Whereas organizational conflict can take varied forms, Buzzanell and Liu (2007) theo­rize maternity leave as a gendered conflict management process. To investigate women’s perceptions of such experiences and their conflict negotiation strategies, Buzzanell and Liu analyzed interview data from 26 women using grounded theory. They perceived their leave processes as incompatibilities among individual and organizational goals accompa­nied by increased stress and structural interde­pendencies. Negotiations with superiors were most successful when “give and take” was acknowledged by both parties. Women who used integrative negotiation strategies based on compromise, mutual interests, and asser­tiveness were more likely to manage such conflicts productively and achieve work-life balance.

In recent years, conflict studies have attended to community conflict. For instance, Smith-Sanders and Harter’s (2007) study looks at a conflict resolution program in a U.S. junior high school. Based on data col­lected through participant observation, field notes, school artifacts such as class decora­tions, as well as in-depth interviews with 25 students at the school, their study reveals through the constant comparative method how conflict is negotiated and mediated by students and teachers who try to resist the traditional binary of reason and emotion and to foster respect and responsibility. Renee, a ninth grader, reflected that

I remember when me and my friends were in this fight a while back and we kinda used a peer mediation thing. We came in here [a meeting room in the guidance office] and we all talked and told each other what we didn’t like and how to fix it. So that helped for a while then we started fighting again and this time we worked it out on our own This

time we didn’t have the people [mediators or counselor], we just did it ourselves. (p. 115)

As part of the conflict mediation program implemented at the school community, stu­dents learned to develop more complex con­flict resolution, social, and emotional skills.

In a role-playing study analyzed by use of the grounded theory method, Plowman (2008) engaged 15 graduate students in a simulated multiparty negotiation over the local hot waste issue in Utah. Eleven graduate students role-played 11 preidentified real-life stake­holder groups, such as governor, legislators for nuclear waste, lobbyist, local paper The Salt Lake Tribune, and other interest groups. A total of 10 role-play sessions were tape- recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the constant comparative method with assistance of Nvivo qualitative coding software. The study reveals that the strategy most often used was contention followed by avoidance if con­tentious strategies were not successful. When students used cooperation and compromise strategies, role players were more inclined to discuss alternatives.

In addition, grounded theory has been employed to examine intractable international conflict. Coleman, Hacking, Stover, Fisher- Yoshida, and Nowak (2008), in an attempt to understand “what moves people to work with each other rather than against each other when locked into destructive, long­term conflicts” (p. 3), reconstructs ripeness theory for intractable conflict, with “ripeness” understood as willingness to engage posi­tively with the other. Researchers developed a 10-question semistructured interview pro­tocol to explore the implicit theories, motiva­tional assumptions, and strategies and tactics used by expert practitioners working in pro­tracted conflicts. A trained team of interview­ers led private audio-taped interviews with 17 expert-scholar-practitioners who worked with protracted conflicts in a range of conflict setting at local, domestic, and global levels. Using grounded theory to analyze data, focus­ing particularly on five aspects of the data (i.e., stated explanations of actions, unstated assumptions, intentions, effects on others, and other consequences), researchers identi­fied 39 coding categories, such as the role and dimensions of trust, learning versus action (interaction), and intervener skills. Overall, the study revealed eight dimensions of con­structive engagement in systems of protracted conflict: (1) complex stakeholder networks; (2) volatility and stability; (3) complementary, competing, and contradictory motives among stakeholders; (4) a variety of constraints at several levels; (5) a series of experience, deci­sions, and actions over various conflict stages; (6) openness to change; (7) top-down and bottom-up processes of engagement; and (8) beyond negation: a multitude of constructive objectives and process.