Constructing. Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide Through. Qualitative Analysis. Kathy Charmaz. ($)SAGE Publications. London • Thousand Oaks • New Delhi. Preface. This book takes you through a journey of constructing grounded theory by I hope that you find my construction of grounded theory methods helpful for. PDF | On Apr 3, , Pavan Soni and others published Constructing Grounded Theory by Kathy Charmaz.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Arabic|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
PDF | On Sep 1, , Eva Brink and others published Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Constructing. Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide Through. Qualitative Analysis. Kathy Charmaz. OSAGE Publications. London Thousand Oaks New Delhi. Anselm L. Strauss's The Discovery of Grounded. Theory in marked the first systematic statement about how to construct emergent analyses. Prior to that.
Becker tells us that Goffman believed any methodological advice would go awry and researchers would blame him for the resulting mess. Offering methodological advice invites misunderstanding — and constructive critiques. Unlike Goffman, however, I welcome entering the methodological fray and invite you to join me in it. Possibilities for methodological misunderstandings may abound but also openings for methodological clarifications and advances may occur. Bringing any method beyond a recipe into public purview inevitably invites interpretation and reconstruction — and misunderstandings.
In the past, researchers have often misunderstood grounded theory methods. Published qualitative researchers add to the confusion when they cite grounded theory as their methodological approach but their work bears little resemblance to it. Numerous researchers have invoked grounded theory as a methodological rationale to justify conducting qualitative research rather than adopting its guidelines to inform their studies.
This book represents my interpretation of grounded theory and contains methodological guidelines, advice, and perspectives.
The method has evolved or 29 changed, depending on your perspective, since its originators, Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, set forth their classic statement of grounded theory in Each has shifted his position on certain points and added others. My version of grounded theory returns to the classic statements of the past century and reexamines them through a methodological lens of the present century.
Researchers can use grounded theory methods with either quantitative or qualitative data; however, they have adopted them almost exclusively in qualitative research, which I address here.
In writing this book I aim to fulfil the following objectives: 1 to offer a set of guidelines for constructing grounded theory research informed by methodological developments over the past four decades; 2 to correct some common misunderstandings about grounded theory; 3 to point out different versions of the method and shifts in position within these versions; 4 to provide sufficient explanation of the guidelines that any budding scholar can follow who has a basic knowledge of research methods; and 5 to inspire beginning and seasoned researchers to embark on a grounded theory project.
As consistent with the classic grounded theory statements of Glaser and Strauss, I emphasize the analytic aspects of inquiry while recognizing the importance of having a solid foundation in data. For the most part, I have used published data and excerpts so that you can seek the original sources, should you wish to see how excerpted data fit in their respective narratives.
David Rudeforth Marketing manager: Ben Griffin Sherwood Cover design: Wendy Scott Typeset by: Coding with Gerunds Box 5. Application or Emergence? Box 6. Explaining All-Encompassing Loss 21 Box 7. Prewriting Exercises Clustering Freewriting Figure 7.
Elaine Keane Box 9. Michelle Wolkomir Challenging Extant Theory: Stories and Silences: Disclosures and Self in Chronic Illness Box In the latter position, she leads seminars for faculty to help them complete their research and scholarly writing.
She has written, co-authored, or co-edited fourteen books including Good Days, Bad Days: It has been translated into Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Polish and Portuguese and two more translations are underway. The Second Generation.
She also writes about the experience of chronic illness, the social psychology of suffering, and academic writing for publication. Currently she is working on a text on symbolic interactionist social psychology and several papers on methods.
Professor Charmaz lectures and leads workshops on grounded theory, qualitative methods, medical sociology, and symbolic interactionism around the globe. The book will provide a path, expand your vistas, quicken your pace, and point out obstacles and opportunities along the way.
We can share the journey but the adventure is yours. I will clarify grounded theory strategies and offer guidelines, examples, and suggestions throughout. Although some authors provide methodological maps to follow, I raise questions and outline strategies to indicate possible routes to take.
At each phase of the research journey, your readings of your work guide your next moves. This combination of involvement and interpretation leads you to the next step.
The endpoint of your journey emerges from where you start, where you go, and with whom you interact, what you see and hear, and how you learn and think. In short, the finished work is a construction — yours.
Writing about methods can take unpredictable turns. These rules makes GT different from most other methods using qualitative data. No pre-research literature review. Studying the literature of the area under study gives preconceptions about what to find and the researcher gets desensitized by borrowed concepts.
Instead, the GT method increases theoretical sensitivity. The literature should instead be read in the sorting stage being treated as more data to code and compare with what has already been coded and generated. No taping. Taping and transcribing interviews is common in qualitative research, but is counter-productive and a waste of time in GT which moves fast when the researcher delimits their data by field-noting interviews and soon after generates concepts that fit with data, are relevant and work in explaining what participants are doing to resolve their main concern.
However, Kathy Charmaz counters this point, insisting that transcribing, coding, and re-coding are integral to the development of the theory.
Talking about the theory before it is written up drains the researcher of motivational energy. Talking can either render praise or criticism, and both diminish the motivational drive to write memos that develop and refine the concepts and the theory Glaser Positive feedback makes researchers content with what they have and negative feedback hampers their self-confidence.
Talking about the GT should be restricted to persons capable of helping the researcher without influencing their final judgments. Divergence[ edit ] Since their original publication in , Glaser and Strauss have disagreed on how to apply the grounded theory method, resulting in a split between Straussian and Glaserian paradigms.
This split occurred most obviously after Strauss published Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists This was followed by a rebuke by Glaser 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 and Corbin had written was not grounded theory in its "intended form" but was rather a form of qualitative data analysis.
This divergence in methodology is a subject of much academic debate, which Glaser calls a "rhetorical wrestle". Glaser continues to write about and teach the original grounded theory method.
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.
Glaser wrote "Theoretical Sensitivity" in and has since written five more books on the method and edited five readers with a collection of grounded theory articles and dissertations.
The Glaserian method 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 researcher's 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, which he calls "QDA" Qualitative Data Analysis. QDA is devoted to descriptive accuracy while the Glaserian method emphasizes conceptualization abstract of time, place and people. A theory discovered with the grounded theory method should be easy to use outside of the substantive area where it was generated. Strauss and Corbin's approach[ edit ] Generally speaking, grounded theory is an approach for looking systematically at mostly qualitative data like transcripts of interviews or protocols of observations aiming at the generation of theory.
Sometimes, grounded theory is seen as a qualitative method, but grounded theory reaches farther: it combines a specific style of research or a paradigm with pragmatic theory of action and with some methodological guidelines.
This approach was written down and systematized in the s by Anselm Strauss himself a student of Herbert Blumer and Barney Glaser a student of Paul Lazarsfeld , while working together in studying the sociology of illness at the University of California, San Francisco.
For and with their studies, they developed a methodology, which was then made explicit and became the foundation stone for an important branch of qualitative sociology. Important concepts of grounded theory method are categories, codes and codings. The research principle behind grounded theory method is neither inductive nor deductive , but combines both in a way of abductive reasoning coming from the works of Charles Sanders Peirce.
This leads to a research practice where data sampling, data analysis and theory development are not seen as distinct and disjunct, but as different steps to be repeated until one can describe and explain the phenomenon that is to be researched. This stopping point is reached when new data does not change the emerging theory anymore. These three elements are: Theoretical sensitive coding, that is, generating theoretical strong concepts from the data to explain the phenomenon researched; theoretical sampling, that is, deciding whom to interview or what to observe next according to the state of theory generation, and that implies starting data analysis with the first interview, and writing down memos and hypotheses early; the need to compare between phenomena and contexts to make the theory strong.
Differences[ edit ] Grounded theory method according to Glaser emphasizes induction or emergence, and the individual researcher's creativity within a clear frame of stages, while Strauss is more interested in validation criteria and a systematic approach.
Constructivist[ edit ] A later version of GT called constructivist GT, which was rooted in pragmatism and relativist epistemology, assumes that neither data nor theories are discovered, but are constructed by the researcher as a result of their interactions with the field and its participants.
This position takes a middle ground between the realist and postmodernist positions by assuming an "obdurate reality" at the same time as it assumes multiple perspectives on these realities. Within this approach, a literature review is used in a constructive and data-sensitive way without forcing it on data. Critical realism CR is the philosophical approach associated with Roy Bhaskar which argues for a structured and differentiated account of reality in which difference, stratification and change is central.
In contrast to positivism and idealism, CR combines a realist ontology with an interpretivist epistemology. A CR approach to GT shares with Strauss and Corbin's approach a commitment to abduction but it includes a retroductive step for identifying causes and conditions.
A critical realist grounded theory produces an explanation through an examination of the three domains of social reality: the 'real', as the domain of structures and mechanisms; the 'actual', as the domain of events; and the 'empirical', as the domain of experiences and perceptions.
Use in other research methods[ edit ] Grounded theory has provided part of the basis for the research methodology known as the data percolation methodology. A series of steps are proposed to ensure the research leads to results that are as meaningful as possible after having percolated the mass of data. Notably, the data percolation methodology, unlike grounded theory, accepts the formulation of a so-called emerging model, which, as the name suggests, evolves as the researcher moves from a grounded approach to a hypothetico-deductive method back to testing the emerging model in the research field again.
Like the grounded theory, data percolation has also been found effective in social sciences, including in analyzing functional psychopathy. As Gibbs points out, the process of grounded theory can be and has been applied to a number of different disciplines such as medicine, law, and economics to name a few. Grounded theory has gone global among the disciplines of nursing, business, and education and less so among other social-psychological-oriented disciplines such as social welfare, psychology, sociology, and art.
Grounded theory focuses more on the procedure and not on the discipline.
Rather than being limited to a particular discipline or form of data collection, grounded theory has been found useful across multiple research areas Wells In sociology, grounded theory is used to discover the meaning of spirituality in cancer patients, and how their beliefs influence their attitude towards cancer treatments. Public health researchers have used grounded theory to examine nursing home preparedness needs through the experiences of Hurricane Katrina refugees sheltered in nursing homes.
In business, grounded theory is used by managers to explain the ways in which organizational characteristics explain co-worker support. In software engineering , grounded theory has been used to study daily stand-up meetings. Grounded theories are usually ecologically valid because they are similar to the data from which they were established.
Although the constructs in a grounded theory are appropriately abstract since their goal is to explain other similar phenomenon , they are context-specific, detailed, and tightly connected to the data. Novelty: Because grounded theories are not tied to any preexisting theory, grounded theories are often fresh and new and have the potential for innovative discoveries in science and other areas. Parsimony: Parsimony involves using the simplest possible definition to explain complex phenomenon.
Grounded theories aim to provide practical and simple explanations about complex phenomena by converting them into abstract constructs and hypothesizing their relationships. They offer helpful and relatively easy-to-remember layouts for us to understand our world a little bit better.