Constructionism and the Grounded Theory Method

CHAPTER 20 Constructionism and the Grounded Theory Method

• Kathy Charmaz

n the introduction to this Handbook, James is grounded theory? The term refers to both A. Holstein and Jaber F. Gubrium suggest the research product and the analytic Ithat a social constructionist approach method of producing it, which I emphasize deals best with what people construct and here. The grounded theory method begins how this social construction process unfolds. with inductive strategies for collecting and They argue that the constructionist vo- analyzing qualitative data for the purpose of cabulary does not as readily address the why developing middle-range theories. Exam- questions that characterize more positivistic ining this method allows us to rethink ways inquiry.1 In their earlier methodological of bringing why questions into qualitative re- treatise, The New Language of Qualitative search. Method (Gubrium & Holstein, 1997), they A social constructionist approach to proposed that naturalistic qualitative re- grounded theory allows us to address why searchers could address why questions “by questions while preserving the complexity of considering the contingent relations be- social life. Grounded theory not only is a tween the whats and hows of social life” method for understanding research partici- (p. 200). To date, however, most qualitative pants’ social constructions but also is a research has not addressed why questions. method that researchers construct through- In contrast, the grounded theory method out inquiry. Grounded theorists adopt a few has had a long history of engaging both why strategies to focus their data gathering and questions and what and how questions. What analyzing, but what they do, how they do it,

397 398 • STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES and why they do it emerge through interact- Objectivist grounded theory (Glaser, 1978, ing in the research setting, with their data, 1992, 1998) has roots in mid-20th-century colleagues, and themselves. positivism. It explicitly aims to answer why How, when, and to what extent grounded questions. Objectivist grounded theorists theorists invoke social constructionist pre- seek explanation and prediction at a general mises depends on their epistemological level, separated and abstracted from the spe- stance and approach to research practice. cific research site and process. Unlike my From its beginnings, grounded theory has version of grounded theory, which I have offered explicit guidelines that promise flex- previously called constructivist grounded ibility and encourage innovation. Paradoxi- theory (Charmaz, 2000, 2006), 20th-century cally, these guidelines also provided suffi- constructionism treated research worlds as cient direction such that some researchers social constructions, but not research prac- have treated the method as a recipe for tices. stamping out qualitative studies. These re- The two respective emphases on under- searchers emphasize application of the standing and explanation are not entirely method—often a narrow and rigid applica- mutually exclusive. An abstract understand- tion at that. Such application limits the po- ing of particular sites and situations can al- tential of grounded theory and fosters the low social constructionists to move from lo- production of superficial studies. In con- cal worlds to a more general conceptual trast, a social constructionist approach en- level. The close attention that social con- courages innovation; researchers can de- structionist grounded theorists give their re- velop new understandings and novel search problems builds the foundations for theoretical interpretations of studied life. generic statements that they qualify accord- The value of social constructionism for ing to particular temporal, social, and situa- grounded theory studies has only begun to tional conditions. be mined. In this chapter, I show how a grounded Distinguishing between a social construc- theory informed by social constructionism tionist and an objectivist grounded theory can lead to vibrant studies with theoretical (Charmaz, 2000, 2002, 2006) provides a heu- implications that address why questions. To ristic device for understanding divisions and provide a backdrop for the discussion, I out- debates in grounded theory and indicates line the development of grounded theory ways to move the method further into social and delineate distinctions among pro- constructionism. The form of construction- ponents. By distinguishing between objec- ism I advocate includes examining (1) the tivism and constructionism in grounded relativity of the researcher’s perspectives, theory, I explicate their underlying assump- positions, practices, and research situation, tions and point out the tensions between ex- (2) the researcher’s reflexivity; and (3) depic- planation and understanding. How might tions of social constructions in the studied grounded theorists resolve these tensions? world.2 Consistent with the larger social con- How might the ways in which they construct structionist literature, I view action as a cen- their studies foster developing explanations tral focus and see it as arising within socially and understandings and thus attend to both created situations and social structures. the particular and the general? What princi- Constructionist grounded theorists attend ples might researchers adopt? To address to what and how questions. They emphasize these questions, I offer several guidelines abstract understanding of empirical phe- and look at how two grounded theorists, Su- nomena and contend that this understand- san Leigh Star (1989) and Monica Casper ing must be located in the studied specific (1998), constructed their respective analy- circumstances of the research process. ses. The Grounded Theory Method • 399

Reconstructing Contested Logics ory tools to researchers who had not studied of Grounded Theory with either Glaser or Strauss or their students.5 Many qualitative researchers relied Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss’s solely on the justificatory ammunition that (1967) original conception of grounded the- Glaser and Strauss (1967) had fired in de- ory assumed a social constructionist ap- fense of qualitative research; however, other proach to the empirical world. Like other so- researchers sought specific analytic guide- cial scientists of the time, they adopted a lines. Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) did more limited form of social constructionism not simply offer guidelines; they prescribed than what I advocate here. Glaser and procedures as a path to qualitative success. Strauss did not attend to how they affected Basics of Qualitative Research became some- the research process, produced the data, thing of a bible for novices, who often inter- represented research participants, and posi- preted the method in concrete ways that tioned their analyses.3 Their research re- muted the social constructionist elements in ports emphasized generality, not relativity, the method.6 and objectivity, not reflexivity. Meanwhile, the “qualitative revolution” Nonetheless, Glaser and Strauss laid the that Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. ix) pro- foundation for constructing sound meth- claimed had grown exponentially in and ods, as well as analyses. By adopting a few across fields. As I (Charmaz, 2000, 2006) flexible guidelines, grounded theorists have argued previously, the entire qualita- could construct their specific methodologi- tive revolution owed much to Glaser and cal strategies, as well as the content of their Strauss’s (1967) initial statement. Glaser research.4 Both method and content then and Strauss made qualitative research emerge during the research process rather defensible—even respectable—at a time than being preconceived before empirical when quantitative researchers had con- inquiry begins. trolled the framing definitions of what Until 1990, most scholars saw grounded counted as research: that is, only what these theory as a single method based on a shared methodologists could count. Glaser and logic. As both the originators and their stu- Strauss provided a strong justification for in- dents worked with the method, changes ductive qualitative inquiry that many re- emerged and debates ensued about what searchers seized to legitimize their own grounded theory entails, whose version is work; but these researchers only loosely “correct,” and which direction the method adopted the strategies, if at all. should take. How did these discussions un- Still, Glaser and Strauss (1967) inspired fold? What are their implications for a the democratization of qualitative research— grounded theory founded in social con- and of theorizing itself. No longer must a structionism? To understand these issues, I qualitative researcher have the analytic acu- take a brief look back at the emergence of men of an Erving Goffman or Anselm contested logics of the method(s). Strauss. No longer must qualitative research Glaser had supplied much of the original be a mysterious endeavor conducted by logic and form of grounded theory. Theoreti- anointed elites. Qualitative research could cal Sensitivity (1978) depicted his concept- spread beyond the confines of Chicago and indicator logic and focus on core variables. its reach. Moreover, all qualitative research- Beyond Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) original ers could aspire to theorizing and achieve statement, however, Strauss’s Qualitative their goals by following a handful of flexible Analysis for Social Scientists (1987) and guidelines. Strauss and Corbin’s Basics of Qualitative Re- Because grounded theory was decidedly search (1990, 1998) brought grounded the- inductive, scholars commonly viewed it as a 400 • STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES social constructionist method. Yet was it? ternal reality, the discovery of provisional Certainly its emphasis on building an analy- truths in this reality, the role of the observer, sis, studying processes, and attending to and an unproblematic representation of re- how people create and view their worlds had search participants. Neither belabored accu- strong social constructionist leanings. racy, but Strauss’s empirical studies with Strauss’s Chicago roots made the method Corbin (Corbin & Strauss, 1984, 1988) dem- compatible with symbolic interactionist, so- onstrate thorough description and data col- cial constructionist currents in the disci- lection in the social constructionist tradi- pline. Both Glaser and Strauss emphasized tion. emergence, but subtle differences between By the early 1990s, qualitative inquiry in them may be discerned. Glaser emphasized general and grounded theory in particular the emergence of the grounded theorist’s had gained credibility in numerous disci- ideas through studying the data. Strauss’s plines. It was a short-lived victory. Contested use of the term also suggests the influence of views continued to develop as postmod- George Herbert Mead’s (1932) analysis of ernists challenged assumptions in social time. Fundamentally social and temporal theory and qualitative research (see, e.g., processes result in the present emerging as Clough, 1992; Daly, 1997; Denzin, 1992). new and different from the past. Grounded theory came to exemplify the crit- By 1990, grounded theory had become icisms these scholars leveled at ethnography something of an orthodoxy (see Bryant & and qualitative research more generally. Charmaz, 2007). Strauss and Corbin’s (1990, Traditional qualitative research had roots in 1998) book fostered an orthodox view—but Enlightenment values, including beliefs in it differed from Glaser and Strauss’s original reason, objectivity, scientific authority, and statement and undermined Glaser’s empha- notions of progress through science. sis on emergent codes and categories and, in Grounded theory became known as the his view, diminished his considerable contri- most realist and positivist of the modernist bution to the classic statement of grounded qualitative methods (Van Maanen, 1988). theory. Glaser (1992) objected and asked For postmodernists, grounded theory epito- for retraction of the book. Other scholars mized distanced inquiry by objective experts framed the differences between Glaser and who assumed their training licensed them to Strauss and Corbin as a debate, although define and represent research participants. the latter two did not respond publicly to Glaser (1992) reappeared in methodological Glaser’s charges. No debate followed from discussions and reaffirmed his objectivist Strauss and Corbin. To date, perhaps the stance; however, his views have exerted closest statement to a response came from more influence in professional disciplines Corbin (1998) after Strauss’s death. Other such as nursing and management than in the scholars (Atkinson, Coffey, & Delamont, social sciences. 2003; Charmaz, 2000; La Rossa, 2005; The postmodernist turn renewed—and in- Locke, 1997; Kelle, 2005), however, gave the tensified and generalized—epistemological differences between the two versions sub- critiques that theorists and several qualita- stantial discussion and debate from the tive sociologists had made in the 1960s 1990s to the present, particularly in nursing (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Bruyn, 1966; (see, e.g., Boychuk Duchscher & Morgan, Cicourel, 1964).7 Postmodernist critiques 2004; May, 1996; Melia, 1996; Stern, 1994; challenged positivist assumptions in classic Wilson & Hutchinson, 1996). grounded theory statements and questioned Although Glaser’s version of grounded its continued relevance. As a form of “natu- theory differed from that of Strauss and ralist inquiry” (Gubrium & Holstein, 1997; Corbin in conception and concrete strate- Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Lofland & Lofland, gies, they shared basic premises about an ex- 1995), critics included grounded theory The Grounded Theory Method • 401 among those approaches castigated as The Constructionist Renewal epistemologically naive, voyeuristic, and in- of Grounded Theory trusive in the lives of the research participants (see, e.g., Clough, 1992). From postmodernist perspectives, the underlying Postmodern challenges from without com- assumptions in earlier grounded theory bined with positivistic inclinations from statements mirrored a modernist epistemol- within grounded theory spurred efforts to ogy. Simultaneously, the narrative turn theo- reclaim its strategies for social construction- rized and valorized respondents’ full stories, ist inquiry. Those of us who adhered to a rel- unlike the grounded theory strategy of using ativist epistemology never concurred with excerpts of their stories to build theoretical grounding grounded theory in Glaser’s mid- statements. Not surprisingly, some sociolo- 20th-century positivism. Strauss’s students gists who had previously adopted grounded and colleagues (see, e.g., Charmaz, 1991, theory methods (Ellis, 1995; Richardson, 2000; Clarke, 1998, 2005; Lempert, 1997; 1993; Riessman, 1990) sought new ap- Maines, 1984; Reif, 1975) particularly im- proaches. bued grounded theory with social construc- Other critics either misunderstood or re- tionism, whether or not they articulated jected grounded theory emphases on theory epistemological reasons for their actions. building rather than storytelling and on a No doubt, for some, grounded theory was particular process or problem rather than inherently social constructionist; yet, para- on the whole of research participants’ lives. doxically, Strauss and Corbin’s methodolog- In actuality, few grounded theory studies ical procedures gave grounded theory an build theory, but many provide an analytic objectivist cast. handle on a specific experience. Still, the growing emphasis on storytelling caused The Objectivist–Constructionist Dichotomy some critics to question grounded theorists’ use of data and their representation of re- Those grounded theorists who endorse a so- search participants, and other critics dis- cial constructionism informed by recent dained grounded theory analytic practices epistemological critiques have made explicit and claims to scientific authority. efforts to distinguish between key grounded Most critics could not see beyond Glaser theory strategies and their positivist anteced- and Strauss’s (1967) early statements of the ents (see, e.g., Bryant, 2002, 2003; grounded theory method—and other critics Castallani, Castallani, & Spray, 2003; still cannot (Dey, 1999, 2004; Layder, 1998). Charmaz, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2006; Clarke, As a result, until recently (Bryant, 2002; 2003, 2005; Henwood & Pidgeon, 2003; Charmaz, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2006; Clarke, Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006; Seale, 1999). 2003, 2005, 2006; Henwood & Pidgeon, Numerous scholars have merged grounded 2003; Willig, 2001) the flexibility and po- theory strategies with the positivism in- tential versatility of the method remained herent in Glaser’s (1978, 1992, 1998) and hidden—and its promise for innovative so- Strauss and Corbin’s (1990, 1998) versions cial constructionist study remained unful- of the method. filled. By fusing grounded theory strategies Grounded theory strategies are just that— with the way Glaser and Strauss had used the strategies for creating and interrogating our method, critics had relegated grounded the- data, not routes to knowing an objective ory to being an outdated modernist method. external reality. Objectivist versions of Discarding grounded theory guidelines, grounded theory assume a single reality along with Glaser and Strauss’s objectivist that a passive, neutral observer discovers assumptions, precluded revitalizing the through value-free inquiry. Assumptions of method through social constructionism. objectivity and neutrality make data selec- 402 • STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES tion, collection, and representation unprob- nize and conceptualize data but does not lematic; they become givens, rather than render the data objective, as Glaser (2003) constructions that occur during the research asserts. From my constructionist view, objec- process, and they shape its outcome. A naive tivity is a questionable goal, and what re- empiricism results. Objectivists assume that searchers define as objective still reflects data are self-evident and speak for them- partial knowledge and particular perspec- selves. Possibilities of partial, limited, or tives, priorities, and positions. Subjectivities missing data and multiple readings of them are embedded in data analysis, as well as in remain unseen (see also Clarke, 2005, 2006). data collection. Methodological procedures Objectivists aim to generalize through ab- neither make research objective nor pre- stractions that separate the completed clude responsibility to locate research rela- grounded theory from the conditions and tive to time, place, and situation. Grounded contingencies of its data collection and anal- theorists’ awareness of the relativism in re- ysis (see Glaser, 1998, 2001). As abstraction search practice fosters their reflexivity about increases, so does decontextualization of the how they construct their actions. Both research that gave rise to this abstraction. constructionist and objectivist versions of Objectivists seek generalizations that pro- grounded theory adopt a realist position, vide explanations and predictions. The com- but constructionists view learning about and pleted grounded theory aims for fit, work, portraying the studied world as problematic. relevance, and modifiability (Glaser, 1978). This constructionist version of grounded My constructionist approach makes the theory redirects the method from its ob- following assumptions: (1) Reality is multi- jectivist, mid-20th-century past and aligns it ple, processual, and constructed—but con- with 21st-century epistemologies (Charmaz, structed under particular conditions8; (2) 2000, 2006).9 Rather than assuming that the- the research process emerges from inter- ory emerges from data, constructionists as- action; (3) it takes into account the re- sume that researchers construct categories searcher’s positionality, as well as that of the of the data. Instead of aiming to achieve par- research participants; (4) the researcher and simonious explanations and generalizations researched coconstruct the data—data are a devoid of context, constructionists aim for product of the research process, not simply an interpretive understanding of the studied observed objects of it. Researchers are part phenomenon that accounts for context. As of the research situation, and their posi- opposed to giving priority to the re- tions, privileges, perspectives, and interac- searcher’s views, constructionists see partici- tions affect it (Charmaz, 2000, 2006; Clarke, pants’ views and voices as integral to the 2005, 2006). In this approach, research al- analysis—and its presentation. ways reflects value positions. Thus the prob- These differences between objectivist and lem becomes identifying these positions and constructionist grounded theory offer re- weighing their effect on research practice, searchers a frame to clarify their starting as- not denying their existence. Similarly, social sumptions and research actions. In practice, constructionists disavow the idea that re- however, grounded theory inquiry ranges searchers can or will begin their studies with- between objectivist and constructionist out prior knowledge and theories about approaches and has elements of both. their topics. Rather than being a tabula rasa, Objectivist grounded theory strategies en- constructionists advocate recognizing prior courage researchers to be active analysts of knowledge and theoretical preconceptions their data. The reflexivity and relativity in and subjecting them to rigorous scrutiny. this constructionist approach fosters taking The comparative method inherent in researchers several steps further through grounded theory helps researchers to scruti- critically examining their construction of the The Grounded Theory Method • 403 research process as they seek to analyze how The second principle follows. To make their research participants construct their these kinds of decisions, researchers must lives (Charmaz, 2006). think through what they are doing and how and why they are doing it. Such thinking im- plicates the researcher, who does not stand Enacting 21st-Century outside the studied process but is a part of it, Constructionist Principles as I detail subsequently. Reflexivity is central Reconstructing grounded theory with 21st- to this constructionist revision and renewal century methodological sensibilities can pre- of grounded theory. The scrutiny that serve a grounded theory while simulta- grounded theorists give their method and— neously answering varied criticisms of the by extension—themselves leads to the third method. When stripped of their epistemo- principle: improvising their methods and logical clothing, Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) analytic strategies. original flexible strategies still make for The fourth principle assumes that in or- sound research practice that researchers can der to understand how research participants invoke to produce useful—and innovative— construct their world, researchers need to social constructionist analyses. know that world from their participants’ A 21st-century social constructionist standpoints (Blumer, 1969; Goffman, 1989). grounded theory rests on certain principles, Invoking grounded theory as a “quick and as I have implied earlier. Thus grounded dirty” method impedes gaining this under- theorists who adhere to this position: standing because achieving it includes defin- ing tacit meanings and implicit actions, as • Treat the research process itself as a social well as what is directly observable and explic- construction itly stated. Obtaining thorough, rich data, in contrast, facilitates seeking and seeing tacit • Scrutinize research decisions and directions meanings and actions and constructing use- • Improvise methodological and analytic ful grounded theories, as the subsequent re- strategies throughout the research pro- search accounts attest. cess • Collect sufficient data to discern and doc- ument how research participants con- Social Constructionism struct their lives and worlds. in Grounded Theory Explicating a Basic Social Process In brief, the first principle means that using grounded theory involves more than ap- Studying a basic social process is—or was—a plying a recipe for qualitative research. This fundamental objective of classic grounded principle belies the current notion of treat- theory method.10 How do grounded theo- ing the grounded theory method as some- rists go about it? How might a social con- thing to apply and then treating the analysis structionist approach inform their research? as something a computer program com- Several studies in the sociology of science piles. Using grounded theory strategies exemplify adopting a social constructionist means responding to emergent questions, approach in grounded theory (see, e.g., new insights, and further information and Baszanger, 1998; Bowker & Star, 1999; simultaneously constructing the method of Clarke, 1998). As a case in point, I analyze analysis, as well as the analysis. No set of Susan Leigh Star’s (1989) grounded theory rules can dictate what a researcher needs to in Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the do and when he or she needs to do it (see Quest for Scientific Certainty. In this book, she Sanders, 1995). adopts social constructionist logic in her ar- 404 • STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES gument about how scientific theories be- that medical researchers and clinicians de- come entrenched. manded accurate textbooks and atlases By looking at scientific work in a specific of typical neurological conditions. Star area and era, Star (1989) reconstructs what (pp. 89–90) writes: happened and how it occurred and simultaneously constructs a theoretical argument In the process of resolving taxonomic uncer- about scientific theorizing. She pieces to- tainty, researchers thus created typical pictures gether how 19th-century brain researchers, of diseases that were eagerly adopted by the the localizationists, constructed certainty medical community. These representations in- about their theory. These early brain re- clude functional anatomical maps—such as searchers earned the name localizationists be- maps that could indicate the anatomical point cause they contended that local areas of the in the brain that was the source of loss of speech. These maps became substitutes, in the brain controlled specific neurological func- building of localization theory, for case data tions. Consistent with classical grounded that contained irregular or anomalous find- theory (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, ings. The demand for functional anatomical 1967), Star defines a process, “creating and representations in medical education, diagno- maintaining certainty” (1989, p. 87), and sis, and texts represented a market intolerant identifies subprocesses constructed through of ambiguity and of individual differences. The individual and collective actions that con- theory became unambiguously packaged into stitute the major process. Localizationists the atlas. The ideal types represented in such transformed the uncertainty that they wit- maps were presented as context-independent nessed in their laboratories and clinics into (that is, as the brain, not a brain). what Star calls “global certainty at the institutional level” (p. 87). She addresses what and In the preceding excerpt, the relationship how questions here. In examining the mech- between interaction and action with the sub- anisms of transformation, Star scrutinizes sequent result is clear. The demand came what localizationists did—a process—and first; a neurology textbook followed that how they did it—actions. Thus, she analyzes contained functional atlases, which erased how localizationists’ ordinary actions accom- anomalies and ambiguities. The subsequent plished this institutional transformation widespread adoption of the textbook made and, simultaneously, rendered local contra- the localizationists’ views the standard in the dictions invisible. field. The ideal type had become more than Through studying her data, Star (1989) a source of comparison; it became the only defines a set of actions that, taken together, serious measure. Thus Star (1989) implies accomplished the hegemony of localization that these early neurologists had accom- theory of the brain. To create and maintain plished significant boundary work that pre- certainty, localizationists engaged in the fol- vented other theories of brain function to be lowing actions: borrowing evidence from entertained. other fields, evaluating their operational Star’s attention to the sequencing of ac- procedures rather than actual technical fail- tion reveals the interconnections between ures, substituting ideal clinical pictures for knotty work problems and localizationists’ anomalous findings, generalizing from case attempts to resolve them. Establishing an results, and reducing epistemological ques- ideal typical clinical picture through the text- tions to debates about technique (Star, 1989, book atlas is just one kind of action the pp. 87–93). Star’s depiction of how localiza- localizationists undertook. Star similarly tionists substituted ideal types for irregular traces how localizationists routinely con- cases exemplifies key dimensions of her re- structed each kind of the aforementioned construction of their emergent construc- actions in which they engaged. These actions of views and actions. She points out tions arose in the exigencies of problem solv- The Grounded Theory Method • 405 ing at work. Localizationists’ other actions synthesizes what localizationists did and how reflected how they acted on their profes- they did it in one clear, direct statement: sional ideologies by explicitly constructing “Localizationists eventually intertwined strategies to defeat brain diffusionists’ op- questions about the nature of phenomena, posing theory of brain function. the strategies for organizing information Note how Star (1989) moves from action and resources, and political commitments” to outcome in the excerpt. Earlier in the (p. 196). Then, to end her book, she raises book, she provides the historical, profes- why questions and answers them in the fol- sional, and work contexts in which the lowing discussion of the implications of ana- reader can situate the actions she describes lyzing scientific work: in this section. Hence she can move directly to delineating the conditions under which The Implications of Analyzing Science actions arose. Clinicians urgently needed to as Work Research on scientific theories has rarely make definitive diagnoses. Brain research- taken into account the processes in dimen- ers needed to categorize diseases accurately. sions described above, especially the degree They both sought certainty. The lack of tol- with which these complex multiple dimensions erance for ambiguity made localization the- are interactive and developmental. What are ory appealing. Later, Star tells us that local- the implications of looking at theories in this izationists’ financial sponsors also pressed way? A conversation with Anselm Strauss pro- for generality and standardization. When vided a partial answer to this question. As I was the sponsors’ referees found irregular find- describing to him the many participants in the ings in localizationists’ experimental re- debate about localization, and the various ports, they requested that the localizationists kinds of work and uncertainties faced by par- standardize their existing results rather than ticipants, I began to frame the concept, “iner- tia.” I saw the questions becoming extraordi- redo the experiments. Here, significant ex- narily complex and, at the same time, taken for ternal bodies buttress the construction of granted by participants. In the middle of ex- “facts,” and subsequently having their impri- plaining this, and when I was feeling over- matur on the written reports serves to reify whelmed with the complexity and interdepen- this construction. dence of all the issues, Strauss asked me: what Star (1989) makes a strong case for accept- would it have taken to overthrow the theory? ing her interpretation of what localization- (p. 196) ists did and how they did it. She weaves specific evidence and telling incidents through By addressing what overthrowing the the- her narrative that support her assertions. ory would have taken and when it could have The range and thoroughness of her evi- occurred, Star answers why it did not. More- dence make her argument compelling. She over, by showing how localization became specifies how actions construct processes and remained entrenched, she offers a new and answers what and how questions. Star’s explanation of change and stability in scien- use of grounded theory logic and construc- tific theorizing. Star’s strong answers to how tion of categories is transparent at this level. questions provide the foundation for However, Star does not stop with what and advancing why questions. Throughout the how questions. As she merges processes into book, she pieces together diverse sources of major categories and chapter titles, she evidence that permit her to trace chronol- brings the reader back to her major topics ogy and to make connections between ac- and places them on center stage. Subse- tions, incidents, and outcomes. quently, the grounded theory style and logic Star (1989) presents an analysis thor- recede to the backstage. Rather than pro- oughly grounded in data. Her sorting and vide a parsimonious statement of relation- categorizing of data make sense. She takes ships between abstracted categories, Star simple, direct, but intermediate categories 406 • STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES as her headings and subheadings such as approach is an equation between knowing and “Diplomacy” (p. 134), “Compiling Credibil- working. These two kinds of events do not pro- ity” (p. 138), “Manipulating Hierarchies of ceed in parallel: they are the same activity, but Credibility” (p. 140), “Organizational Tac- differently reported. (1989, p. 197) tics” (p. 144), “Controlling the Focus of the Debate” (p. 145), and “Modes of Debate and Adapting Constructionist Grounded Theory Tacit Debates” (p. 152) to build an abstract for General Audiences analysis. Star describes and explains each category and often details a series of actions Grounded theory, particularly in its con- that constitutes the category, as she did with structionist versions, can serve audiences in “Creating and Maintaining Certainty,” dis- multiple disciplines and beyond the acad- cussed earlier. Most of these intermediate emy. As many critics have observed, authors categories are gerunds; they depict actions. often claim that grounded theory guided As such, the categories not only give the their inquiry, but their work bears no resem- reader a sense of people’s intentions and blance to it. Other authors use the method concerns, but they also specify and anchor but do not claim it.12 And numerous others the analysis. When Star uses gerunds, her adopt a couple of strategies, such as coding categories provide more information and a and some kind of memo writing, but do not clearer point of view than her other catego- engage in theoretical sampling or explica- ries. They enliven her narrative and inform tion of a major category. the reader of its direction. Taken together, Monica J. Casper’s (1998) book on fetal Star’s intermediate categories outline her surgery, The Making of the Unborn Patient: A chapters and organize her argument. Social Anatomy of Fetal Surgery, acknowledges Like other qualitative researchers, the influence of grounded theorists Clarke grounded theorists are often deservedly crit- and Strauss, but its grounded theory origins icized for moving too quickly from the spe- are less clear than Star’s. Nonetheless, Cas- cific study to a general level.11 The strength per based her book on her dissertation, of Star’s analysis permits her to move from which used grounded theory. Like many au- the particular case of localization theory to thors, Casper outlines her diverse sources of considering why scientific theories do or data for her multisite ethnography, but she do not change. Star challenges Thomas S. does not claim grounded theory analytic Kuhn’s (1970) explanation that a critical strategies. mass of anomalous findings forces a para- The social constructionism stands out in digm change. In contrast, she shows that Casper’s book, from the title through the “practical negotiations with and about analysis. Proponents have created fetal sur- anomalous events are constitutive of science gery and, with surgical techniques, have cre- at every level of organization” (Star, 1989, ated the unborn patient. Making the unborn p. 64). Star closes her book with the follow- into viable patients deserving of surgical ining explanation of the significance of her terventions took sustained effort, which con- study: tinues to be subject to disagreement and debate. Fetal surgery is not simply a natural sequel of medical progress; rather, it The study of how theories take hold and be- emerges from political advocacy, collective come seen as “natural” is important in answer- support, creation of a market, and cultural ing some basic questions in the sociology of knowledge and epistemology. This book values. The notion of the unborn patient argues that problems/theories/facts/perspec- and the legitimacy of fetal surgery are both tives are a form of collective behavior, and I crafted social constructions that occurred have provided some data about the processes within a particular historical moment and and conditions of that behavior. Implicit in this entered into larger public debates about re- The Grounded Theory Method • 407 productive politics. Informed consent is not took a critical stance toward their work. simply signed and documented. The con- Contested positions surrounding a topic sent form itself is manufactured after many such as fetal surgery, however, can force the discussions and iterations, but it often im- researcher to maintain a problematic view of plies that the procedure represents the last the data and not uncritically accept one or hope and understates its risks and conse- another position, including one’s own. quences. Several commitments shaped Casper’s Casper (1998) builds a detailed construc- work. She locates her work as contributing tionist story and places herself and her mul- to the dialogue of feminist scholars who had tiple positions and situations in it. She ac- begun to theorize the fetus and to keep knowledges multiple actors and contested women in their theories. Thus this perspec- realities, her struggles with rendering them, tive leads her to keep women at the center of and the relativity of her analysis.13 She began attention. As a result she takes into account her study as an engaged feminist and argues how fetal surgery affected their lives; she that no work—whether of fetal surgeons or does not reduce women to passive objects of sociologists—stands outside of its contexts who were acted upon. Casper acknowledges (p. 20). She states: that some critics might see her stance as bi- ased. True, but her work implicitly conveys I care too much about the issues raised by fetal an alternative interpretation of the conse- surgery and the unborn patient to assume a po- quences of her perspective. She did not limit lite, reasonable distance, and instead embrace her study to the boundaries of inquiry set by a politics of engagement that recognizes my fetal surgeons because theirs erased women own immersions in the worlds I study. I have as central participants and, by extension, been moved and transformed by this research erased questions of the effects of fetal sur- in multiple ways, and fetal surgery is some- gery on their health. thing I shall continue to think and talk about long after this book is published. My politics Feminist theory and practice gave Casper and intellectual assumptions have been shaken a series of sensitizing concepts from which time and again, precisely because fetal surgery to develop. Starting points frame but do not evokes persistent debates about fetuses, abor- determine the content of constructionist tion, women’s roles, the health-care system, grounded theory. Thus Casper remains at- and rescued technologies. (p. 25) tuned to cultural practices, conceptions of personhood, and the place of women’s bod- Note how Casper’s statement corre- ies and health in the unfolding scenarios sponds with constructivist assumptions. She that she witnessed. Casper’s feminist per- acknowledges her starting points and con- spective no doubt informed her of earlier tinued immersion in this world as a social ac- lengthy debates between prochoice and anti- tor. Yet Casper also became immersed as a abortion activists about establishing if or researcher and subsequently found her when a fetus had human qualities and whose views challenged and changed. Like the rights—the mother’s or the unborn’s—took studied phenomenon, the research process precedence. She detects meanings attached itself is never neutral or without context. It, to representations of the fetus as a free too, is an emergent social construction. The agent with its own needs and interests, a political weight of Casper’s topic magnified unique, autonomous individual, a visible this social construction of the research pro- presence, a separate being from the mother, cess. Respondents and gatekeepers alike and worthy of protection (Casper, 1998, quizzed her about her views and commit- p. 16). In keeping with sociological treat- ments. Some gatekeepers stalled, limited, or ment of work, Casper aims to show how fetal refused access to data. Others welcomed surgery is a particular type of work that oc- Casper into their worlds knowing that she curred in special work sites. 408 • STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES

Casper’s book tells a complex tale and in- Summary and Conclusion volves multiple types of data, ranging from documents to oral histories to firsthand ob- Throughout this chapter, I have built an ar- servations. How might its grounded theory gument explaining how and why social con- underpinnings be discerned? First, Casper structionists can adopt grounded theory sees the history of fetal surgery as a socially guidelines to deepen and broaden their constructed process and titles a chapter analyses and thus address why questions. A “Breaching the Womb.” Second, she inserts social constructionist approach to grounded telling in vivo codes into the headings and theory encourages researchers to make mea- subheadings of her chapters. Among them sured assessments of their methods and of are: “A Bona Fide Patient” (p. 51), “Not themselves as researchers. A close attention God’s Will” (p. 67), “A Spirit of Coopera- to what and how questions builds the foundation” (p. 110), “Folks Are Always Rubbing tion for moving to why questions, as Star’s Shoulders” (p.115), and “It’s a Reality (1989) analysis demonstrates. Thus social Dump” (p.151). Third, Casper shows how constructionists can invoke the generalizing actions, conditions, and contingencies con- logic of objectivist grounded theory but do tribute to the larger processes of conducting so in full view of their measured assess- and legitimizing fetal surgery. ments, not in absence of them. The result Does Casper develop complex grounded promises to be a nuanced analysis that ac- theory categories? Does she explain one knowledges and analyzes positionality and core variable? Does she offer precise gener- partiality, as Casper’s (1998) analysis testi- alizations abstracted from their sources? No. fies. The subsequent social constructionist Casper skillfully constructs the social con- analysis resists the tendency in objectivist struction of the unborn patient; her theoriz- grounded theory to oversimplify, erase dif- ing remains embedded in the narrative. She ferences, overlook variation, and assume presents a complex analysis of complicated neutrality throughout inquiry. Simulta- worlds, and does so in accessible terms. Al- neously, this analysis grapples with why ques- though Casper’s use of grounded theory tions and offers qualified explanations. bears little resemblance to objectivist Grounded theory is a method of explica- grounded theory, it contains crucial ele- tion and emergence. The method itself ex- ments of social constructionism consistent plicates the kinds of analytic guidelines that with my approach. These elements include many qualitative researchers implicitly (1) the attention to context; (2) the locating adopt. It also fosters explicating analytic and of actors, situations, and actions; (3) the as- methodological decisions—each step along sumption of multiple realities; and (4) the the way. By explicating their decisions, subjectivity of the researcher, noted previ- grounded theorists gain control over their ously. Casper produces an interpretive un- subject matter and their next analytic or derstanding of the arenas she entered and methodological move. The construction of points out that both her interpretations and the process, as well as the analytic product, is the studied scenes could change as emer- emergent. As I stated earlier, immediate exi- gent contingencies unfold. gencies in the field and concerns of gate- We must look at Casper’s purposes to un- keepers and participants affect this construc- derstand her strategies. From the start, she tion, and the contextual positioning of the aimed to write a book free from the esoteric research frames it. All become grist for anal- obscurity of academic discourse. Thus she ysis. In short, when social constructionists intended to make her book a vibrant specific combine their attention to context, action, sociological story anchored to a larger story and interpretation with grounded theory an- of contemporary politics and culture, and alytic strategies, they can produce dense she fulfilled her goal. analyses with explanatory power, as well as The Grounded Theory Method • 409 conceptual understanding. Simultaneously, lished Studies in Ethnomethodology in 1967. Peter their analyses attest to how furthering the so- Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s The Social Con- cial constructionist elements in grounded struction of Reality (1966) came out almost simulta- theory strengthen the method. neously with The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and built on the phe- nomenological tradition of Alfred Schutz (1967). In contrast, Strauss’s social constructionism drew • Acknowledgments on the pragmatist and symbolic interactionist tra- ditions of Blumer (1969), Dewey (1958), Mead I thank Jay Gubrium and Jim Holstein for their care- (1932, 1934), and Peirce (1958). These three de- ful reviews of an earlier draft and Tina Balderrama velopments remained relatively independent of for helping with the references. each other. Neither Strauss nor Glaser was influenced by the other developments, but Strauss remained in frequent contact with his Chicago • Notes school colleagues. Much of Strauss’s (1993) and Corbin and Strauss’s (1984, 1988) subsequent re- 1. David Silverman (2005) has made a similar search and writing contained strong construc- argument about qualitative research. He con- tionist elements; Glaser’s much less so. tends that by studying phenomena that occur nat- 4. A number of works describe the method urally, qualitative researchers can define how and its variations, so I do not detail them here. interaction ensues and what meanings it holds. See Charmaz (2000, 2003, 2006); Clarke (2005, For Silverman, answering the “how” and “what” 2006); Glaser (1978, 1998, 2003); Glaser and questions must precede the “why” questions. Strauss (1967); Strauss (1987); Strauss and 2. In earlier works, I have referred to my ap- Corbin (1990, 1998). proach as constructivist grounded theory to distin- 5. Their students’ locations also influenced guish it from objectivist iterations. The present the dissemination of grounded theory. Many chapter continues my earlier approach but more of the University of California, San Fran- frames the discussion under the more general ru- cisco, nursing doctoral students of the early years bric of social constructionism to be consistent later took positions in doctoral training programs with the purpose of this volume. Constructivist in their profession than did the sociology stu- grounded theory assumes relativity, acknowl- dents of the same era. Graduate programs in edges standpoints, and advocates reflexivity. My nursing emerged and expanded from the mid- use of constructivism assumes the existence of an 1970s through the 1980s, whereas positions in obdurate, real world that may be interpreted in graduate sociology programs shrunk. multiple ways. I do not subscribe to the radical 6. Paradoxically, the social constructionist subjectivism assumed by some advocates of logic of Corbin and Strauss’s (1988) empirical constructivism. Consistent with Marx, I assume work often is apparent. that people make their worlds but do not make 7. See Bryant and Charmaz (2007) for a dis- them as they please. Rather, worlds are con- cussion of the epistemological climate of the mid- structed under particular historical and social 1960s. conditions that shape our views, actions, and collective practices. Constructivist grounded theory 8. I come close to the Marxist view of history (Bryant, 2002; Charmaz, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2006; here because I acknowledge human agency but Clarke, 2003, 2005, 2006) has fundamental assert that it always occurs within a preexisting so- epistemological roots in sociological social cial frame with its constraints—of which we may constructionism. My position on social construc- be unaware and which may not be of our choos- tionist grounded theory in this chapter relies on ing (see also Charmaz, in press). the preceding definition and its premises. 9. My subsequent comparisons draw on 3. They did claim that their method was phe- Charmaz (in press). nomenological (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Social 10. Now Glaser (2003) disavows his earlier in- constructionist approaches had a long and varied sistence on finding and studying a basic social history but moved to the forefront of qualitative process. I have long argued that the quest for a sociology in the late 1960s. Harold Garfinkel pub- basic social process can mislead the researcher or 410 • STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES mask many processes, and therefore I agree with Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). Grounded theory in his recent view (see also Clarke, 2005). historical perspective: An epistemological account. 11. Any qualitative study without extensive In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. London: Sage. data can make only limited claims; small inter- Casper, M. (1998). The making of the unborn patient: A so- view studies that make general claims stand on cial anatomy of fetal surgery. New Brunswick, NJ: shaky ground. The generality of the claims needs Rutgers University Press. to be proportionate to the thoroughness of the Castallani, B., Castallani, J., & Spray, L. (2003). data collection. Grounded neural networking: Modeling complex 12. The genre matters here. Academic disci- quantitative data. Symbolic Interaction, 23, 577–589. plines and journals vary in their prescriptions for Charmaz, K. (1991). Good days, bad days: The self in methodological detail. Many require authors to chronic illness and time. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers specify their logic of sampling and data collec- University Press. Charmaz, K. (2000). Constructivist and objectivist tion, but not their analytic strategies. Books differ grounded theory. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln markedly in the amount and complexity of meth- (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., odological explanation, depending on the pub- pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. lisher and projected audience. Trade and cross- Charmaz, K. (2002). Grounded theory analysis. In J. F. over books (those published as scholarly works Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of inter- that will reach general educated audiences) sel- view research (pp. 675–694). Thousand Oaks, CA: dom provide more than minimal information Sage. and may not include a methodological section or Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith appendix. (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 81–110). London: Sage. 13. These dimensions of Casper’s work align Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st cen- her with the constructivist grounded theory that I tury: A qualitative method for advancing social jus- have previously delineated. tice research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. E. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507– 535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. • References Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., & Delamont, S. (2003). Key Charmaz, K. (in press). Reconstructing grounded the- themes in qualitative research: Continuities and changes. ory. In L. Bickman, P. Alasuutari, & J. Brannen New York: Rowman & Littlefield. (Eds.), Handbook of social research. London: Sage. Baszanger, I. (1998). Inventing pain medicine: From the Cicourel, A. V. (1964). Method and measurement in sociol- laboratory to the clinic. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers ogy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. University Press. Clarke, A. E. (1998). Disciplining reproduction: Modernity, Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social con- American life sciences, and the problems of sex. Berkeley: struction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. University of California Press. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Clarke, A. E. (2003). Situational analyses: Grounded Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. theory mapping after the postmodern turn. Symbolic Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Interaction, 26, 553–576. Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded the- MIT Press. ory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Boychuk Duchscher, J. E., & Morgan, D. (2004). Sage. Grounded theory: Reflections on the emerging vs. Clarke, A. E. (2006). Feminisms, grounded theory, and forcing debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(6), situational analysis. In S. Hess-Biber & D. Leckenby 605–612. (Eds.), Handbook of feminist research methods (pp. 345– Bruyn, S. T. (1966). The human perspective in sociology: 370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. The methodology of participant observation. Englewood Clough, P. T. (1992). The end(s) of ethnography: From real- Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ism to social criticism. Newbury Park: Sage. Bryant, A. (2002). Re-grounding grounded theory. Jour- Corbin, J. (1998). Comment: Alternative interpretations— nal of Information Technology Theory and Application, valid or not? Theory and Psychology, 8(1), 121–128. 4(1), 25–42. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (1984). Collaboration: Cou- Bryant, A. (2003, January). A constructive/ist re- ples working together to manage chronic illness. Im- sponse to Glaser. FQS: Forum for Qualitative Social age, 4, 109–115. Research, 4(1). Retrieved March 14, 2003, from Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (1988). Unending work and www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/-texte/1-03/1-03bryant-e. care: Managing chronic illness at home. San Francisco: htm Jossey-Bass. The Grounded Theory Method • 411

Daly, K. (1997). Replacing theory in ethnography: A Layder, D. (1998). Sociological practice: Linking theory and postmodern view. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 343–365. social research. London: Sage Denzin, N. K. (1992). Symbolic interactionism and cultural Lempert, L. (1997). The other side of help: The nega- studies: The politics of interpretation. Oxford, UK: Basil tive effects of help seeking processes of abused Blackwell. women. Qualitative Research, 20, 289–309. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Preface. In N. K. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative Newbury Park, CA: Sage. research (pp. ix–xii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Locke, K. (1997). Rewriting the discovery of grounded Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Do- theory after 25 years? Journal of Management Inquiry, ver. 5(1), 239–245. Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory. San Diego, Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (1995). Analyzing social set- CA: Academic Press. tings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Dey, I. (2004). Grounded theory. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative re- Maines, D. (1984). The social arrangements of diabetic search practice (pp. 80–93). London: Sage. self-help groups. In A. L. Strauss, J. Corbin, S. Ellis, C. (1995). Emotional and ethical quagmires of re- Fagerhaugh, B. G. Glaser, D. Maines, B. Suczek, et al. turning to the field. Journal of Contemporary Ethnogra- (Eds.), Chronic illness and the quality of life (2nd ed., phy, 24(1), 68–98. pp. 111–126). St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. May, K. (1996). Diffusion, dilution or distillation? The Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. case of grounded theory method. Qualitative Health Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, Research, 6(3), 309–311. CA: Sociology Press. Mead, G. H. (1932). The philosophy of the present. La Salle, Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. IL: Open Court. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: Uni- Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and dis- versity of Chicago Press. cussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Melia, K. M. (1996). Rediscovering Glaser. Qualitative Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Con- Health Research, 6(3), 368–378. ceptualization contrasted with description. Mill Valley, Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The develop- CA: Sociology Press. ment of constructivist grounded theory. Interna- Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? tional Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1–10. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3). Retrieved Peirce, C. S. (1958). Collected papers. Cambridge, MA: March 15, 2007, from http://www.qualitative-research. Harvard University Press. net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glaser-e-htm Reif, L. (1975). Ulcerative colitis: Strategies for manag- Glaser, B. G. (2003). Conceptualization contrasted with de- ing life. In A. L. Strauss & B. G. Glaser (Eds.), Chronic scription. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. illness and the quality of life (pp. 81–88). St. Louis, MO: Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of Mosby. grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Richardson, L. (1993). Interrupting discursive spaces: Goffman, E. (1989). On fieldwork. Journal of Contempo- Consequences for the sociological self. In N. K. rary Ethnography, 18, 123–132. Denzin (Ed.), Studies in symbolic interaction (Vol. 13, Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1997). The new lan- pp. 77–84). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. guage of qualitative method. New York: Oxford Univer- Riessman, C. K. (1990). Divorce talk. New Brunswick, sity Press. NJ: Rutgers University Press. Henwood, K., & Pidgeon, N. (2003). Grounded theory Sanders, C. R. (1995). Stranger than fiction: Insights in psychological research. In P. M. Camic, J. E. and pitfalls in post-modern ethnography. In N. K. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in Denzin (Ed.), Studies in symbolic interaction (Vol. 17, psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and pp. 89–104). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. design (pp. 131–155). Washington, DC: American Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Psychological Association. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Kelle, U. (2005, May). “Emergence” vs. “forcing” of Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. Lon- empirical data?: A crucial problem of “grounded don: Sage. theory” reconsidered. Forum: Qualitative Social Re- Silverman, D. (2005, August). Instances or sequences?: search, 6(2), Art. 27. Retrieved May 30, 2005, from Improving the state of the art of qualitative research. http/www.qualitative-research.net/fqs.texte-2-05/05-2-27-e. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(3), Art. 30. Re- htm trieved October 15, 2006, from http://www. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-05/05-3-30-e.htm (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Star, S. L. (1989). Regions of the mind: Brain research and LaRossa, R. (2005, November). Grounded theory meth- the quest for scientific certainty. Stanford, CA: Stanford ods and qualitative family research. Journal of Mar- University Press. riage and Family, 67, 837–857. Stern, P. N. (1994). Eroding grounded theory. In J. 412 • STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES

Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research meth- Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. ods (pp. 212–223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative re- Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing eth- search: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. nography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psy- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative re- chology: Adventures in theory and method. Buckingham, search: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd UK: Open University Press. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wilson, H. S., & Hutchinson, S. A. (1996). Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scien- Methodologic mistakes in grounded theory. Nursing tists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Research, 45(2), 122–124.