Grounded theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
It has been suggested that Grounded theory (Glaser), Grounded theory (Strauss) and Grounded Theory Institute be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) |
Grounded Theory (GT) is a systematic qualitative research methodology in the social sciences emphasizing generation of theory from data in the process of conducting research.
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
It is a research method that operates almost in a reverse fashion to traditional research and at first may appear to be in contradiction of the scientific method. Rather than beginning by researching & developing a hypothesis, a variety of data collection methods are the first step. From the data collected from this first step, the key points are marked with a series of codes, which are extracted from the text. The codes are grouped into similar concepts, in order to make them more workable. From these concepts categories are formed, which are the basis for the creation of a theory, or a reverse engineered hypothesis. This contradicts the traditional model of research, where the researcher chooses a theoretical framework, and only then applies this model to the studied phenomenon[1]
[edit] Four Stages of Analysis
| Stage | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Codes | Identifying anchors that allow the key points of the data to be gathered |
| Concepts | Collections of codes of similar content that allows the data to be grouped |
| Categories | Broad groups of similar concepts that are used to generate a theory |
| Theory | A collection of explanations that explain the subject of the research |
[edit] Development
It was developed by two sociologists, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. Their collaboration in research on dying hospital patients led them to write the book Awareness of Dying. In this research they developed the constant comparative method later known as Grounded Theory; see The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
[edit] Split in methodology
Since their original publication in 1967, Glaser and Strauss have disagreed on 'how to do' GT resulting in a split in the theory between Glaserian and Straussian paradigms. This split occurred most obviously after Strauss published Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (1987). Thereafter Strauss in 1990 published Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques together with Juliet Corbin. This was followed by a rebuke by Glaser (1992) who set out, chapter by chapter, to highlight the differences in what he argued was original grounded theory and why, according to Glaser, what Strauss had written was not grounded theory in its intended form. This divergence in the GT methodology is a subject of much academic debate, which Glaser (1998) calls a "rhetorical wrestle".
According to Kelle (2005), "the controversy between Glaser and Strauss boils down to the question of whether the researcher uses a well defined "coding paradigm" and always looks systematically for "causal conditions," "phenomena/context, intervening conditions, action strategies" and "consequences" in the data, or whether theoretical codes are employed as they emerge in the same way as substantive codes emerge, but drawing on a huge fund of "coding families. Both strategies have their pros and cons. Novices who wish to get clear advice on how to structure data material may be satisfied with the use of the coding paradigm. Since the paradigm consists of theoretical terms which carry only limited empirical content the risk is not very high that data are forced by its application. However, it must not be forgotten that it is linked to a certain micro-sociological perspective. Many researchers may concur with that approach especially since qualitative research always had a relation to micro-sociological action theory, but others who want to employ a macro-sociological and system theory perspective may feel that the use of the coding paradigm would lead them astray." [2]
The Glaserian strategy is not a qualitative research method, but claims the dictum "all is data". This means that not only interview or observational data but also surveys or statistical analyses or "whatever comes the researchers way while studying a substantive area" (Glaser quote) can be used in the comparative process as well as literature data from science or media or even fiction. Thus the method according to Glaser is not limited to the realm of qualitative research, by Glaser called QDA (Qualitative Data Analysis). QDA is devoted to descriptive accuracy while the Glaserian method emphasizes conceptualization abstract of time, place and people. A grounded theory concept should be easy to use outside of the substantive area where it was generated.
[edit] Criticism
Critiques of grounded theory have focused on its status as theory (is what is produced really 'theory'?), on the notion of 'ground' (why is an idea of grounding the result important in qualitative inquiry?) and on the claim to use and develop inductive knowledge. With its quasi-scientific procedures, grounded theory seems to be aping the methods of the natural sciences and making claims to explanation and prediction that are unwarrantable in social science. These criticisms are summed up e.g. by Thomas and James (2006).
Grounded theory was developed in a period when other qualitative methods were often considered not scientific and became the main qualitative method accepted as academic enough. Thus, especially in American academia qualitative research is often equated to grounded theory. This is criticized by qualitative researchers using other methodologies (such as traditional ethnography, narratology, storytelling, etc.).
[edit] References
- ^ Allen, G. (2003). A critique of using grounded theory as a research method, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2(1) pp 1-10
- ^ Kelle, U. (2005). "Emergence" vs. "Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial Problem of "Grounded Theory" Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 6(2), Art. 27, paragraphs 49 & 50. [1]
[edit] External links
- The Grounded Theory Institute (Glaser tradition)
- Chinese version of introduction (Text in Chinese, References in English)
- Grounded Theory Review
- Sociology Press
- An Introduction to GT by the Action Research Unit, Southern Cross University Management School
[edit] Further reading
- Grounded theory (Glaser) - an overview of grounded theory according to Glaser.
- Grounded theory (Strauss) tells about grounded theory in the tradition of Strauss and later of Juliet Corbin.
- Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
- Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Kelle, Udo (2005). "Emergence" vs. "Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial Problem of "Grounded Theory" Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 6(2), Art. 27, paragraphs 49 & 50. [2]
- Mey, G. & Mruck, K. (Eds.) (2007). Grounded Theory Reader (HSR-Supplement 19). Cologne: ZHSF. 337 pages
- Thomas, G. & James, D. (2006). Re-inventing grounded theory: some questions about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32 (6), 767–795.
- Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. London: Sage.
