Scribd
Upload
35 views3 pages

ANH - Research Methods Learning2

The document discusses common misconceptions about grounded theory methodology. It explains that grounded theory is not excuse to ignore literature, is not just presentation of raw data, is not used for theory testing or word counts, requires more than formulaic techniques, and developing theory from data requires balancing induction and deduction rather than being purely inductive.

Uploaded by

Tram Anh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
35 views3 pages

ANH - Research Methods Learning2

The document discusses common misconceptions about grounded theory methodology. It explains that grounded theory is not excuse to ignore literature, is not just presentation of raw data, is not used for theory testing or word counts, requires more than formulaic techniques, and developing theory from data requires balancing induction and deduction rather than being purely inductive.

Uploaded by

Tram Anh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

GROUNDED THEORY

Suddaby (2006) confirms that he does not suggest that such techniques as analysis via correlation,
word counts, and pure introspection cannot be used in grounded theory studies. What is his point
here? What are the problems with these techniques? Suddaby (2006) notices that some researchers
who are unfamiliar with qualitative research often use grounded theory as “rhetorical sleight of hand.”
The focus of Suddaby’s (2006) paper is to discuss misconceptions of grounded theory.

 Grounded theory is best understood historically.


- Glaser and Strauss (1967) developed grounded theory as “a reaction against the extreme positivism
that had permeated most social research.” Glaser and Strauss “challenged the prevalent assumptions
of “grand theory,” the notion that the purpose of social research is to uncover pre-existing and
universal explanations of social behaviour” (Suddaby, 2006, p. 633).
- Glaser and Strauss looked to:
 The pragmatism of Charles Saunders Peirce (1839-1914)
 Early symbolic interactionists, particularly George Herbert Mead (1863-1931)
These two scholars that Glaser and Strauss “rejected the notion that scientific truth reflects an
independent external reality.”

 According to Suddaby (2006), Glaser and Strauss describe the organic process of theory
emergence based on:
- How well data fit conceptual categories identified by an observer
- How well the categories explain or predict ongoing interpretations
- How relevant the categories are to the core issues being observed

 The two key concepts that grounded theory method was built upon:
- “constant comparison”: data are collected and analysed simultaneously
- “theoretical sampling”: decisions about which data should be collected next are determined by the
theory that is being constructed

 Grounded theory is more appropriate when researchers want to make knowledge claims
about how individuals interpret reality
 Six common misconceptions of grounded theory
- “Grounded theory is not an excuse to ignore the literature”
Researchers’ misassumption that review on extant literature can impact their theory generation.
Therefore, they did the study in an unstructured procedure without acknowledging prior literature.
This way of doing grounded theory is misled by the misreading of Glaser and Strauss’s text in their
book on grounded theory. Although Glaser and Strauss go against grand theory, they do not intend to
encourage researchers who use grounded theory to ignore previous literature.
They distinguish substantive theory and grounded theory, but give a strategic link between these two
kinds of theory. Substantive theory is the theory “grounded in extant research in a particular subject”
(Suddaby, 2006, p. 635). Formal grounded theory is desirably stimulated by substantive theory.
Prior knowledge or literature can be a “real danger” if it “contaminates” researchers’ perspectives.
Suddaby (2006) suggests several ways of countering the danger:
 Draw from the several substantive areas that are frequently reflected in a given daily reality
rather than only one single substantive area.
 Make sure that the research is constantly aware that he or she can be affected by the pre-
existing conceptualizations of the subject area.
 Not to overextend the research objective.
One sentence that I found very interesting in Suddaby’s (2006) paper is: “The reality of grounded
theory research is always one of trying to achieve a practical middle ground between a theory-laden
view of the world and an unfettered empiricism.” What does this mean? So grounded is not a grand
theory which is highly abstract. Grounded theory is the theory which is grounded in data. It is in the
middle ground between the theory laden view of world and the unfettered empiricism. Wow, that is
not easy to grasp this idea.
- “Grounded theory is not a presentation of raw data”
There is a problem of confusing grounded theory with phenomenology. While phenomenological
research focuses on every detailed data that interviewees give about their subjective experience,
grounded theory focuses on “lifting” the data to a conceptual level. In other words, researchers using
grounded theory aim to abstract subjective experience “into theoretical statements about causal
relations between actors.” While in phenomenology the interest lies in the stories themselves, “in
grounded theory stories are the means of eliciting information on the social situation under
examination.”
Unlike in phenomenology, in grounded theory, interviews are rarely used as a sole means of data
collection.
What is the primary means of verification in grounded theory? Well, there is a process called
“category saturation” which means researchers “must continue to collect data until no evidence
appears.”
- “Grounded theory is not theory testing, content analysis, or word counts”
“Keep in mind that the purpose of grounded theory is not to make truth statements about reality, but,
rather, to elicit fresh understandings about patterned relationships between social actors and
how these relationships and interactions actively construct reality” (Glaser and Strauss, 1967,
cited in Suddaby, 2006, p. 634).
Grounded theory is not theory testing, content analysis, or word counts. Nevertheless, content analysis
and word counting can form part of grounded theory studies. The difference is that grounded theory
“describes an overall method for systematically gathering and analysing data, but content analysis
describes a specific context within which a distinct type of data can be gathered and analysed.” Word
counting is a subset of content analysis.
- “Grounded theory is not simply routine application of formulaic technique to data”
There are cases in which researchers follow a rigid procedures or routine for grounded theory
technique but achieve passable results. “Qualitative software programs can be useful in organising
and coding date, but cannot be used as a substitute for the interpretation of data.” The successful
grounded research depends on the ongoing interaction between the researcher and data. “That is to say
the researcher’s analytic ability, theoretical sensitivity, and sensitivity to the subtleties of the
action/interaction.”
- “Grounded theory is not perfect”
Grounded theory was developed as “a practical approach to help researchers understand complex
social processes and as a method that might occupy a pragmatic middle ground between slippery
epistemological boundaries.” There are two types of researchers who use grounded theory. Purists are
those who write about without actively engaging in the method. Purists tend to repeat the myths that
Suddaby (2006) discusses.
A healthy tension between methodologists and practitioners is desirable but researchers should avoid
fundamentalist tendencies. Fundamentalists tend to describe grounded theory as inherently inductive.
In fact it is not the case. “Effective grounded theory requires an interplay between induction and
deduction (as in all science) (Strauss and Corbin, 1988, p. 137, cited in Suddaby, 2006, p. 639).

- “Grounded theory is not easy”


It is not as easy as many people think. The link between the researcher and his or her research is not
separate. Therefore, the researcher should be aware of their own personal bias, world-views, and
assumptions while collecting, interpreting and analysing data. It is not an easy job for inexperienced
researchers.
- “Grounded theory is not an excuse for the absence of a methodology”

CASE STUDY

References
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory - Strategies for QR.
Suddaby, R. (2006) 'From the editors: What grounded theory is not', Academy of management
journal, 49(4), pp. 633-642.

You might also like