Learning to Stay Open

When I started Stage I of this course, I understood grounded theory as a basic method for building theory from data. I still understand it that way, but my understanding has become more complicated. Grounded theory is not only a method for collecting and analyzing data. It is also a different way of thinking. It asks the researcher to slow down, stay close to the data, and resist the urge to decide too early what something means (Charmaz, 2014).

​

This is not how I usually approach research. In many of my previous courses, I have been asked to make an argument, support it, and prove a point using theory and evidence. Grounded theory feels different because it asks me to begin with curiosity rather than certainty. That has been both helpful and uncomfortable for me. It is helpful because it gives me permission to explore. It is uncomfortable because I am used to wanting a clear direction early.

​

Across Units 1 to 4, I have started to understand grounded theory as both careful and open. It is careful because it involves coding, comparison, memo writing, and close attention to the data (Charmaz, 2014). It is open because the researcher does not begin with a fixed answer or try to force the data into an argument that already exists (Charmaz, 2014; Stebbins, 2001). This first journal reflects on how my understanding of grounded theory has developed during Stage I, how the course readings have shaped my thinking, and how my possible project direction has changed as I get ready to move into Stage II.

​

Moving Beyond “Finding Themes”

One of the biggest shifts in my thinking is that grounded theory is not just about finding themes. Before this course, I probably would have described qualitative analysis as looking through data, finding common ideas, and grouping them into categories. I now understand that grounded theory asks for something more active than that.

​

Charmaz (2014) explains that coding helps the researcher ask what is happening in the data. This matters because it pushes the researcher beyond simply labelling a topic. Instead of asking only what the data is about, grounded theory asks what people are doing, how they are making meaning, and what processes are taking shape. This has been an important distinction for me.

In my municipal role, I often work with reports, public feedback, community planning documents, and partner input. I am used to looking for themes and trends. I am also used to turning information into useful decision-making material. Grounded theory asks me to slow down that process. It asks me to spend more time with the data before drawing a conclusion.

​

This is probably one of the hardest parts for me. In my work, I usually gather information to help someone make a decision, write a report, or recommend next steps. Grounded theory is different. It asks me to code, compare, write memos, and let ideas develop before deciding what the data means (Charmaz, 2014). That does not mean grounded theory is disorganized. It means the structure comes from the process, not from an answer I already had in mind.

​

I also found in vivo coding helpful. In vivo coding involves using participants’ own words as codes, which can help retain the original language and meaning in the analysis (Charmaz, 2014). I find this especially interesting because I am drawn to how people use certain words, and how those words can mean different things depending on who is speaking. Words like safety, belonging, healing, discipline, burnout, and wellness may seem simple at first, but they often carry deeper meanings. Grounded theory gives me a way to examine those meanings without assuming I already understand them.

​

Memo Writing and Thinking Out Loud

Memo writing has also become an important part of my learning in Stage I. At first, the idea of memo writing made me nervous. I do not naturally journal. I usually write things down because I need to remember them, organize information, or prepare something clear for other people. I am used to polished writing. I am not as used to messy writing.

​

However, after sitting with the idea for a while, I realized that memo writing may not be completely unfamiliar to me. In my municipal role, I write all the time. I prepare reports, organize information, explain issues, and give Council or committees a clear picture before decisions are made. Those skills may help me with memo writing, but I will need to use them differently.

​

The challenge may not be writing itself. The challenge may be letting myself write in a way that feels unfinished, uncertain, and exploratory. Memos are not final arguments. They are a place to think. They help the researcher notice early ideas, ask questions, track confusion, and follow possible connections (Charmaz, 2014). In grounded theory, memo writing helps move the analysis beyond description and toward theory (Charmaz, 2014).

​

I think this will be important for me because I can sometimes confuse not having the answer with not making progress. Memo writing may help me see that uncertainty can still be productive. A memo does not need to solve the project. It can simply capture what I am noticing and what I need to think about next.

​

Exploration and Not Forcing the Answer

Stebbins (2001) helped me understand exploratory research in a way that feels directly connected to grounded theory. One thing I found relieving in his discussion is the idea that exploratory research often begins when existing knowledge does not fully explain a situation. That takes some pressure off grounded theory for me. It reminds me that I do not need to enter the project already knowing the answer or trying to prove a specific argument.

​

This feels different from what I am used to. Across my courses, I have often had to build an argument and support it with theory and evidence. Grounded theory asks for a different kind of discipline. It is not about having no direction, but it is also not about forcing the research toward a conclusion too early. Instead, it is about carefully exploring the data, noticing what emerges, and allowing ideas to develop over time (Charmaz, 2014; Stebbins, 2001).

​

Stebbins (2001, Chapter 5) also helped me think about the kind of researcher I need to become for this project. He describes the explorer as someone who is willing to follow discovery, sit with uncertainty, and develop ideas through the research process. This made me think less about the project itself and more about my own research habits.

​

I would describe myself as a cautious explorer. I am curious and interested in complex social issues, but I also like structure and clear plans. I like knowing where something is going. This course is helping me see that I may need to balance both parts of myself. I need enough structure to move forward, but enough openness to let the data surprise me.

​

Stebbins (2001) helped me see that uncertainty is not always a weakness in exploratory research. It may actually be part of the process. That is still uncomfortable for me, but I am beginning to understand it more. Exploration is not the same as being lost. It is a careful process of staying curious, working with the data, and allowing meaning to develop.

​

Ethics and Moving Away From Work Data

My project idea has changed a lot during Stage I. At first, I considered using work-related data connected to community safety and well-being, public surveys, focus groups, hate incidents, homelessness, or municipal planning. These topics made sense because they connect to my professional role and to issues I care about.

​

However, I am now questioning whether work-related data is the best choice for this course. Even when the data is public-facing, the topic may still be too close to my role. I already have assumptions, experience, and emotional investment in many of these issues. That could make it hard for me

​

There are also practical and ethical reasons to move away from work-related data. Some data may be sensitive, even if it already exists. Some materials may not be truly public. There may be questions about confidentiality, ownership, permissions, and professional boundaries. I do not want to create unnecessary ethical concerns for a course-based project, especially when the timeline is limited.

​

This has been an important part of my learning. I am realizing that choosing a research project is not only about choosing a topic that interests me. It is also about choosing a topic that is ethical, manageable, and appropriate for the method. Grounded theory requires openness, and I may not be as open with work-related topics because I am too close to them (Charmaz, 2014).

​

Choosing something outside my municipal work may also give me more freedom to learn. If I use work-related material, I may feel pressure to produce something useful or professionally relevant. For this course, I may need a project that lets me practise coding, memo writing, comparison, and category development without feeling responsible for the real-world implications of the findings.

​

Where My Project Is Now

At this point, I am considering using a topic that is not connected to my work. The two areas I am most interested in are social media and reality television. I have not finalized the exact topic yet, but both areas feel exciting to me.

​

Social media (especially wellness culture) interests me because it uses a lot of language about self-care, discipline, burnout, healing, productivity, and getting “back on track.” These words are everywhere, but they do not always mean the same thing. For example, discipline can feel empowering, but it can also create pressure. Healing can sound gentle, but it can also become something people feel they have to do perfectly. I am also interested in how this connects to neoliberal culture, where people are often expected to manage their own well-being, productivity, and success as personal responsibilities.

​

A possible grounded theory direction in this area could be to explore how wellness influencers describe the process of ‘getting back on track’. I like this idea because it focuses on a process, which seems useful for grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014). It would allow me to code the online language and examine how people describe falling out of routine, trying to recover, and becoming well again.

Reality television also interests me because it shows how people publicly perform their identities and emotions. Reality television is not just entertainment; it often sparks public conversations about authenticity, growth, accountability, and, of course,  drama.

I am not ready to say exactly which topic I will choose yet. However, I know that I need to decide before moving into Stage II. The topic must be public, ethical, manageable, and rich enough for grounded theory analysis. I also need to confirm the topic and data source with my professor before beginning data collection or analysis.

​

Preparing for Stage II

As I move toward Stage II, I feel more aware of what grounded theory will require from me. I will need to finalize a topic, identify a clear public data source, and begin coding and memo writing. I will need to compare pieces of data, stay close to the language, and allow categories to develop rather than deciding too early what the data mean (Charmaz, 2014).

​

I also know I will need to be reflexive. Reflexivity means paying attention to myself as the researcher, not just the data. This includes noticing my assumptions, reactions, interests, and discomfort. In a topic like wellness culture or reality television, I will still bring my own experiences and interpretations.

​

The online reflections, progress reports, and this journal have helped me track how my thinking has changed. At first, these course requirements felt like separate tasks. Now I can see how they connect. The discussion posts helped me try out early ideas (especially by reading other discussion posts). The progress reports helped me pause and explain where I was in the process. This journal gives me a chance to look back across Stage I and see how much my thinking has shifted.

​

The biggest shift for me is that I no longer think grounded theory requires me to know the answer before I begin. Instead, it asks me to approach the data carefully, ethically, and with an open mind. It asks me to notice what is happening, compare ideas, write memos/journals, and let meaning develop over time (Charmaz, 2014; Stebbins, 2001).

​

As I prepare for Stage II, I am still a cautious explorer. I want a clear plan, but I am learning not to force the answer too early. That may be the most important lesson I am taking from Stage I. Grounded theory is not only about producing a research report. It is about learning how to think differently as a researcher.