No preconceptions -The grounded theory dictum. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press Given that the dictum of no preconception is not new in GT, why did Glaser focus his attention so much on it to write a whole book on this topic? The dictum has been declared over and over again, for example in the chapter on Generating Theory in the seminal work of  In the first chapter of this book by Glaser (2013), the question why &quot;no preconception&quot; is a dictum in grounded theory (GT) methodology is answered. GT was discovered in a research field heavily focusing on testing hypotheses and verifying theories  The aim of the book was to minimize preconception and Glaser  Preconception rules the world and is explained as an important aspect of everyday life and in every step of the research process including the formulation of a problem area, the substantive coding, the theoretical coding integrating the concepts, and the impact on the entire GT process (Glaser, 2013). The method for the book is presented in chapter 7 together with some of the memos Dr. Glaser received from colleagues on preconception. In the last chapter, the reader finds a theory by Kwok, McCallin &amp; Dickson entitled &quot;Working through preconception: Moving from forcing to emergence.&quot; This theory highlights the difficulties in staying open and is followed by an appendix written by Dr. Thulesius on his experiences derived from being a GT mentor. To minimize the preconceptions, Dr. Glaser is incentivizing the no preconception and equipping for emergence

Barney Glaser

Karolinska Institutet

Pernilla Pergert

CiteSeerX

The Grounded Theory Review (2014), Volume 13, Issue 1 
 
60 
 
Book Review: Leaving Rules that Enforce Preconception 
Pernilla Pergert, Karolinska Institutet 
 
Barney Glaser (2013) No preconceptions - The grounded theory dictum.  
Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press 
 
Given that the dictum of no preconception is not new in GT, why did Glaser focus his 
attention so much on it to write a whole book on this topic? The dictum has been 
declared over and over again, for example in the chapter on Generating Theory in the 
seminal work of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and the chapters on Reading the Literature 
and Forcing the Data in Glaser’s (1998) book entitled “Doing grounded theory.” It might 
be reasonable, then, for a reader to ask why this book is needed and whether the dictum 
should not just be followed. The answer is that not allowing preconceptions to influence 
research is one of the greatest challenges and maybe even “the most difficult procedure 
of all” (Glaser, 2013, p. 133). Therefore, it is important to take it seriously; expanding on 
the issue is commendable and a welcomed contribution to the literature on classic GT.  
 
In the first chapter of this book by Glaser (2013), the question why “no 
preconception” is a dictum in grounded theory (GT) methodology is answered. GT was 
discovered in a research field heavily focusing on testing hypotheses and verifying 
theories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and emerged as a complement through the conscious 
focusing on limiting preconception and discovering theory from the data. While both 
academic rules and the methodology of GT are there to facilitate excellent research, 
academic rules require the researcher to focus on learning from previous research and 
theories while GT procedures are used to handle previous research as possible 
preconceptions.  
 
The aim of the book was to minimize preconception and Glaser (2013) wrote 
about “the importance of this book to try to stem the flow of preconceptions intruding in 
GT and affecting GT research” (p. 95). Thus, the dictum is no preconception and this is 
done, as repeatedly emphasized in the book, by applying “the rigorous steps” (Glaser, 
2013, p. 2) of GT.  
 
Preconception rules the world and is explained as an important aspect of everyday 
life and in every step of the research process including the formulation of a problem area, 
the substantive coding, the theoretical coding integrating the concepts, and the impact 
on the entire GT process (Glaser, 2013). The method for the book is presented in chapter 
7 together with some of the memos Dr. Glaser received from colleagues on 
preconception. In the last chapter, the reader finds a theory by Kwok, McCallin & Dickson 
entitled “Working through preconception: Moving from forcing to emergence.” This 
theory highlights the difficulties in staying open and is followed by an appendix written by 
Dr. Thulesius on his experiences derived from being a GT mentor. To minimize the 
preconceptions, Dr. Glaser is incentivizing the no preconception and equipping for 
emergence.  
 
The Grounded Theory Review (2014), Volume 13, Issue 1 
 
61 
 
 
 
Incentivizing no Preconception 
In the book, Glaser (2013) encouraged researchers to stay open and endure the initial 
and fundamental confusion in the research process while using the comparative method; 
he promises that it will be rewarding. The presented incentives—motivating for staying 
open and suspending preconception—are attached to positive emotions and values 
including: freedom from deduction, energy by autonomy, joy of discovery, and 
motivation from generating theory free of preconception.  
 
Equipping for Emergence 
Glaser (2013) equipped the reader for emergence by encouraging us to trust in the 
constant comparative method and in emergence. Emergence may sound as if it is 
something for which we need to wait, but while we wait, Glaser (2013) emphasized that 
we should employ the “rigorous steps” (p. 2) of GT and the constant comparative method 
without delay. Although counterintuitive to culture and life ways, Glaser (2013) stated 
that suspending preconceptions is easy early in the GT process. The researcher can trust 
that patterns will emerge; many GT researchers exist who can confirm the rewards of 
trusting the method (Pergert, 2009). Indeed, some confirmations are included as memos 
in the book. Thus, trusting the method and using the constant comparative method, will 
result in emergence. 
 
However, no research is done in isolation; most researchers are a part of, and 
dependent on, the academic world. Therefore, the inherent conflict for supervisors and 
PhD students in trying to be faithful to the classic GT methodology in such a system that 
is ruled by preconception is presented.  
 
Academic rules versus GT methodology 
Through his contrasting of academic rules and GT procedures, Glaser (2013) suggested 
that to truly handle preconception, one must leave academic rules and knowledge and go 
back to staying completely open for the time of doing the GT. He wrote that “It is often 
quite hard for the novice PhD candidate to do a classic GT dissertation without violating 
his local academic preconceptions from start of the research to its finish” (Glaser, 2013, 
p. 72). As readers, we are encouraged to be cunning; to give “lip service” (Glaser, 2013, 
p 56) to the preconceived and then, when we have reached our goal, to forget all about 
it. This approach is unappealing, though it is probably what I did myself.  I would like to 
think that it is possible to be faithful to the method while writing academically correct and 
exceptionally good proposals. In the appendix to Glaser’s (2013) work, Dr. Thulesius 
recommended to the reader to ”write up some conceptual description in your proposal or 
application to make it more competitive and true to the GT perspective” (p. 166-167). 
Such advice is sound, as I want to believe that we just need to communicate in a 
language that is understandable in the academia.  
 
I think that, with this book, Glaser (2013) contributed with a multi-dimensional 
view on preconception, not only being a consequence of the initial literature review but 
being present in every step of the research process, enforced by academic rules.  
 
 
 
The Grounded Theory Review (2014), Volume 13, Issue 1 
 
62 
 
Comprehensive view on preconception 
Glaser (2013) has demonstrated and explained how preconceptions may be enforced at 
every step of the research process in using regular academic procedures. First 
preconception may occur in the problem—when a literature reviews is done to define the 
problem area; enforcing theories, and professional concerns. That literature reviews 
should not be performed before the start of research is a well-known GT rule that is 
probably possible to pursue, using the advice of Glaser and Thulesius presented above. 
Second, preconception may occur in the questions—in using interview guides covering all 
the professional concerns including face sheet information, such as gender, preconceived 
as relevant. I would assume that semi structured interviews are the most common in GT 
studies, but Glaser once again showed how predefined questions, based on previous 
research, risk introducing preconception. Third, preconception may occur in the data 
collection—in using sound recorders that risk delaying the early start of the constant 
comparative analysis. Fourth, preconception may occur in the analysis—in using 
computers that collect more interchangeable indicators than necessary, resulting in too 
much conceptual coverage and counteracting the precocious processing. The two last 
issues will be discussed below. Furthermore, Glaser (2013) did not mince his words when 
it came to the multi-version views of GT and especially the forcing of frameworks, 
epistemologies and theoretical perspectives, as for example the Constructivist GT of 
Charmaz (2006). Finally, preconception may occur in the presentation—in using 
analogies and diagrams that force conjecture, leaving the grounding in data. I had heard 
before that diagrams should not be used because it is impossible to control how people 
interpret them. In this book, Glaser (2013) argued that there is a risk that diagrams 
introduce the reader’s preconceptions, which I think is worth considering.  
 
Even though I do appreciate this extensive presentation of risks for 
preconceptions at every step, I also agree that it is not easy to follow, especially in the 
academic world. While Glaser (2013) is trying to free the researcher from the 
preconceptions of academia to become an open and autonomous researcher, he is 
presenting a quite strict position on how to reach that freedom throughout the entire GT 
process. I have chosen to briefly comment on two of these aspects that I believe that 
many researchers in academia struggle with, including the use of software in analyzing 
and the place of sound recording in data collection in GT.  
 
The use of Software 
Glaser (2013) stated that using computer software as a tool in analyzing hinders the 
preconscious processing. I believe that we all have different experiences and our 
creativity works in different ways, as does our preconscious processing; some of us are 
more computer literate than others. I have used a software program for coding; that is, I 
did the coding myself and the program helped me to collect all the interchangeable 
indicators of the same codes together. Furthermore, different codes could easily be 
merged together and with just one click I could go back to the ground data. However, I 
could see a danger for preconceiving the integration of concepts when using the coding 
trees for organizing before it had emerged (Pergert, 2009). I think that it is important to 
be aware of risks with computer programs but also to be open to the fact that they might 
work very well for some steps of the process of analyzing for some researchers. 
 
 
The Grounded Theory Review (2014), Volume 13, Issue 1 
 
63 
 
The use of Sound Recorders 
In a previous book by Glaser (1998), the strong arguments against sound recording have 
been made: it prevents delimiting data collection and is unnecessary. In this book 
(2013), a new argument is presented and that is the risk for preconception because of 
the delay in the early start of the constant comparative method. I find myself trying to 
balance these different rules; to do academically accepted research and at the same time 
be faithful to the rules of classic GT. I have a student who used sound recording for 
interviews but at the same time took field notes to be able to analyze directly after the 
interviews without having to wait for the transcriptions. During her first six months of 
doing interviews and analyzing she felt very confused and as she was coding she was 
worried that it was only her own preconceptions. When her core category emerged she 
was able to go back to the first interviews to do a secondary analysis and she was 
delighted that she had recorded the interviews. Many academic arguments exist for 
sound recording, for example field notes could be viewed as biased and influenced by the 
researcher’s preconceptions (Pergert, 2009). Furthermore, in the book on Doing GT, 
Glaser (1998) wrote that sound recordings could be an advantage, for example, when 
the data collection is not performed by a single researcher but in a research team. 
 
 Maybe, my shortcut in trying to please everyone in balancing the rules of 
academia and classic GT is in fact a detour? Thulesius wrote in the appendix to Glaser 
(2013) that the dictum is there to help the researcher to stay open and not to restrict. 
However, some kind of compromise is needed to use classic GT in academia, not only to 
get PhD students admitted but also to get funding and to publish. While I like how Glaser 
(2013) argued for what should be done to prevent preconception to intrude in classic GT 
research he has left it quite open to the researcher to decide how to balance the 
procedures of GT and the rules of academia.  
 
Conclusion 
A choice of path is presented in the book (Glaser, 2013) when experiencing lack of 
control and confusion: to bail out by preconceiving–being safe, being knowledgeable and 
in control, or to trust the constant comparative method resulting in preconscious 
processing and emergence.  In other words, the research would be experiencing the “full 
power of GT” (Glaser, 2013 p. 18. While Glaser wants to free us to be open and 
autonomous researchers, he presented a strict view on how research should be done. 
But, even if different experiences exist regarding the manner in which the balance 
between academic demands and the demands from the GT methodology should be 
handled, the dictum of no preconception is fundamental to classic GT, and definitely 
awarding.  “Most researchers will when coding and analyzing go through the eureka 
effect of discovery and from then on suspending preconceptions becomes routine.” 
(Glaser, 2013, p. 11). 
 
 
References 
 
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative 
analysis. London: SAGE. 
 
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, CA: 
Sociology Press. 
 
The Grounded Theory Review (2014), Volume 13, Issue 1 
 
64 
 
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for 
Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine. 
 
Pergert, P. (2009). Methodological learning-by-doing: Challenges, lessons learned and 
rewards. The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 8(2), 65-75. 
Retrieved from http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2009/06/30/880/ 
 
 
 
 


Book Review: Leaving Rules that Enforce Preconception

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=115CB74CBF8A068981B89810FCE9E6BD?doi=10.1.1.1037.4112&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Book Review: Leaving Rules that Enforce Preconception

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX