Classic
grounded theory (CGT) methodology is a general methodology whereby the
researcher aims to develop an emergent conceptual theory from empirical data
collected by the researcher during the research study. Gaining ethical approval
from relevant ethics committees to access such data is the starting point for
processing a CGT study. The adoption of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics
and Human Rights (UNESCO, 2005) is an indication of global consensus on the importance
of research ethics. There is, however, a wide variation of health research
systems across countries and disciplines (Hearnshaw 2004). Institutional
Research Boards (IRB) or Research Ethics Committees (REC) have been established
in many countries to regulate ethical research ensuring that researchers agree
to, and adhere to, specific ethical and methodological
conditions prior to ethical approval being granted. Interestingly, both the processes and
outcomes through which the methodological aspects pertinent to CGT studies are
agreed between the researcher and ethics committee remain largely ambiguous and
vague. Therefore, meeting the requirements for ethical approval from ethics
committees, while enlisting the CGT methodology as a chosen research approach,
can be daunting for novice researchers embarking upon their first CGT study. This article has been written in response to
the main challenges encountered by the author from an Irish perspective when seeking
ethical approval to undertake a CGT research study with adults with
intellectual disabilities. The emphasis on ethical specifications meant that
the CGT author had to balance ethical principles and rules with issues of ‘not
knowing before one is in a position to know’ and ‘trusting in emergence’.
Ethical prescription challenged the emergence inherent within CGT methodology. While acknowledging the need for ethical
requirements, this paper is intended in particular to illuminate methodological
challenges which may confront novice classic grounded theorists, and offer some
insight into the practicalities of balancing the requirements of ethics
committees with the requirements of the CGT methodology. The author
demonstrates that the meticulous nature of the CGT methodology must not be
overshadowed when meeting the requirements of ethics committees. The author
seeks to encourage novice classic grounded theorists to approach ethics committees
with research proposals which reflect the fundamental principles of CGT methodology
while challenging experienced classic grounded theorists researchers to stand
firm on ethics
committees supporting such proposals.