DOCSLIB.ORG

Constructionism and the Grounded Theory Method

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 stu- dents.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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Using Grounded Theory to Explore Learners' Perspectives of Workplace Learning
    Special Issue: Work-integrated learning research methodologies and methods Using grounded theory to explore learners’ perspectives of workplace learning JULIE BYTHEWAY1 University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Australia Grounded theory is an inductive enquiry that explains social processes in complex real-world contexts. Research methods are cumulative cyclic processes, not sequential processes. Researchers remain theoretically sensitive and approach data with no preconceived hypotheses or theoretical frameworks. Literature is reviewed as lines of enquiry and substantive theories emerge. Interviewers ask broad open questions, check understanding and prompt further description. Participants choose how they share their perspectives and experiences. Everything is considered data. Data is analyzed in cyclic processes. Initially coding uses participants’ words, and then identifies patterns, social processes and emerging substantive theories. Memos and diagrams facilitate understanding of data and literature. Grounded theory is a suitable research methodology for work-integrated learning because grounded theory explains social processes, such as learning, in complex real-world contexts, such as workplaces, where multiple influencing factors occur simultaneously. A case study illustrates how grounded theory was used to explain learning in the workplace. Keywords: Research methodology, research methods, grounded theory, inductive enquiry, work-integrated learning, teacher education GROUNDED THEORY METHODOLOGY Using an Inductive Approach Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) from pragmatism (Mead, 1967) and symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969) as “a reaction against … ‘grand’ theories produced through the logico-deductive method of science” (Denscombe, 2007, p. 100). Grounded theory does not test hypotheses nor merely describe phenomenon (Birks & Mills, 2012; Dunne, 2011). Urquhart (2013) describes grounded theory as having integrity because it “does not seek to impose preconceived ideas on the world (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Grounded Theory: Some Reflections on Paradigm, Procedures and Misconceptions
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-theses Wolverhampton Business School Management Research Centre __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Grounded Theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions by Christina Goulding Working Paper Series June 1999 Number WP006/99 ISSN Number ISSN 1363-6839 Christina Goulding Principal Lecturer University of Wolverhampton, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1902 323692 Fax: +44 (0) 1902 323755 Email: C. [email protected] © University of Wolverhampton 1999 - All rights reserved Grounded Theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions _________________________________________________________________________________________ Copyright © University of Wolverhampton 1999 All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, photocopied, recorded, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright holder. The Management Research Centre is the co-ordinating centre for research activity within Wolverhampton Business School. This working paper series provides a forum for dissemination and discussion of research in progress within the School. For further information contact: Management Research Centre Wolverhampton Business School Telford, Shropshire TF2 9NT !01902 321772 Fax 01902 321777 The Working Paper Series is edited by Kate Gilbert 2 Management Research Centre 1999 Grounded
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Grounded Theory Good For? Vivian B
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette College of Communication Faculty Research and Communication, College of Publications 3-1-2018 What Is Grounded Theory Good For? Vivian B. Martin Central Connecticut State University Clifton Scott University of North Carolina - Charlotte Bonnie Brennen Marquette University, [email protected] Meenakshi Gigi Durham University of Iowa Accepted version. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 95, No. 1 (March 1, 2018): 11-22. DOI. © 2018 by Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication. Used with permission. Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette College of Communication Faculty Research and Publications/Department of Communication This paper is NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; but the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be accessed by following the link in the citation below. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 95, No. 1 (March, 2018): 11-22. DOI. This article is © SAGE Publications and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e- Publications@Marquette. SAGE Publications does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from SAGE Publications. Contents Grounded Theory: Popular, Useful, and Misunderstood.............................................................................. 3 What GT Can Do for Journalism and Mass Communication Research ......................................................... 3 From Method to Methodology
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing the Five Approaches
    Chapter 4 Five Qualitative Approaches to Inquiry 103 with providing illustrative examples that we can continue to curtail such practices. Case study research has experienced growing recognition during the past 30 years, evidenced by its more frequent application in published research and increased avail- ability of reference works (e.g., Thomas, 2015; Yin, 2014). Encouraging the use of case study research is an expressed goal of the editors of the recent Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (Mills, Durepos, & Wiebe, 2010). Engaging researchers are a focus of a number of publications aimed at guiding those new to the approach (e.g., Baxter & Jack, 2008; Flyvbjerg, 2006). Comparing the Five Approaches All five approaches have in common the general process of research that begins with a research problem and proceeds to the questions, the data, the data analysis and interpretations, and the research report. Qualitative researchers have found it helpful to see at this point an overall sketch for each of the five approaches. From these sketches of the five approaches, we can identify fundamental differences amongdistribute. these types of qualitative research. Finally, we compare the five approaches relating the dimensions of foundational considerations (Table 4.1), data procedures (Table 4.2), and research reporting (Table 4.3). or In Table 4.1, we present four dimensions for distinguishing among the founda- tional considerations for the five approaches. At a most fundamental level, the five differ in what they are trying to accomplish—their foci or the primary objectives of the studies. Exploring a life is different from generating a theory or describing the behavior of a cultural group.
    [Show full text]
  • Grounded Theory As an Emergent Method
    CHAPTER 7 Grounded Theory as an Emergent Method Kathy Charmaz uring its 40-year history, grounded the- How does grounded theory fit the defini- ory has served as a major method for tion of an emergent method? In which ways Dconducting emergent qualitative re- does the grounded theory method advance search.1 What is an emergent method? I start the development of emergent methods? with a working definition of an emergent Grounded theory is predicated on an emer- method as inductive, indeterminate, and gent logic. This method starts with a system- open-ended. An emergent method begins atic, inductive approach to collecting and with the empirical world and builds an in- analyzing data to develop theoretical analy- ductive understanding of it as events unfold ses. The method also includes checking and knowledge accrues. Social scientists emergent categories that emerge from suc- who use emergent methods can study re- cessive levels of analysis through hypotheti- search problems that arise in the empirical cal and deductive reasoning. Grounded the- world and can pursue unanticipated direc- ory offers systematic analytic strategies that tions of inquiry in this world. Emergent combine explicitness and flexibility. methods are particularly well suited for Fundamental tenets of the grounded the- studying uncharted, contingent, or dynamic ory method include: (1) minimizing precon- phenomena. These methods also allow for ceived ideas about the research problem and new properties of the studied phenomenon the data, (2) using simultaneous data collec- to appear that, in turn, shape new con- tion and analysis to inform each other, (3) ditions and consequences to be studied.
    [Show full text]
  • Grounded Theory Research Methods in Architecture & Design
    THE POWER OF WORDS: GROUNDED THEORY RESEARCH METHODS IN ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN Christina Bollo1, Tom Collins2 1University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia 2Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana ABSTRACT: Grounded Theory (GT) is a systematic methodology used to reveal patterns in qualitative data and to develop theoretical positions or frameworks from these patterns—the theory is “grounded” in the words. Since its inception in the late 1960s, GT has emerged as a preeminent qualitative research methodology and is widely used in diverse disciplines such as nursing, education, and the social sciences where researchers look to better understand the why and how questions related to human decision making and action—questions that frequently interest architects and designers. Grounded Theory is a robust and intuitive approach and set of procedures suitable for a wide variety of architectural research objectives that should be considered and used more often. It can be used as a stand-alone qualitative method or in conjunction with quantitative methods as part of a mixed methods approach. This paper includes an elegant plan of action for researchers who are not content to let the richness of interviews and observations go to waste. The process for beginning a Grounded Theory analysis is laid out simply with key references highlighted. GT is equally powerful in analyzing existing data, resulting in new answers and unexpected questions. KEYWORDS: Grounded Theory, qualitative methods, participant narratives, research methods, complexity INTRODUCTION Architectural researchers and practitioners often rely on various qualitative research methods. Grounded Theory (GT) is one of several qualitative methodological traditions. Other traditions include narrative psychology, phenomenology, ethnography, incident technique, intuitive inquiry, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • CHALLENGES to GROUNDED THEORY the Specificity of Grounded Theory As a Social Science Theory
    Lars Mjøset Department of Sociology and Human Geography University of Oslo PO Box 1096, Blindern 0317 Oslo Norway [email protected] Paper for the 37th World congress of the International Institute of Sociology, Stockholm July 5-9, 2005 CHALLENGES TO GROUNDED THEORY The specificity of grounded theory as a social science theory The following two schemes are drawn from a comparison of the various meanings given to the term “theory” in social science (Mjøset 2001, revised Mjøset 2004). Table 1 challenges the persistent dualism invoked in discussions on the philosophy of the social sciences. A distinction between three practical philosophies of social science — common attitudes (habits of thought) among groups of researchers — are offered as a more productive alternative. Very briefly Any scholar who has done social reserch for some time knows that a large group of social scientists conduct research and legitimate what they are doing in ways that refer to routines similar to those employed in various natural sciences (experimental designs, mathematical modelling techniques, etc.). We also know that there is another group of scholars who proceed in ways that remind us of work in the humanities (interpreting texts, reconstructing culturally significant events, reflecting on the existential challenges of our time, etc.). I do not mean that they rigidly copy these other fields of science, but that their inspiration is mainly drawn from models and philosophies of science relating to these fields, and they communicate well with the two other camps respectively. But let us think of a third group, one which is not usually distinguished.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Glossary Adapting Coding from Grounded Theory: a Data-Driven
    Glossary Adapting coding from grounded theory: a data-driven strategy for generating categories, adapting open coding from grounded theory. It involves three steps: (1) identifying concepts in your material, based on similarities and differences; (2) grouping similar concepts into categories; (3) generating structure by distinguishing between main categories and subcategories. Blind coding: see coding. CAQDAS: computer-aided qualitative data analysis software. Category: Categories are the building blocks of coding frames, each category corresponding to a relevant meaning. Categories can be main categories or subcategories. Main category (dimension): captures aspects of meaning on which your analysis is focused. Residual category (miscellaneous category): functions as a container for unanticipated information that is relevant to your research question, but is not described by any of the other, substantive (sub)categories in your coding frame. Subcategory: captures what is said with respect to your main categories. Co-occurrence (of categories): Categories are said to co-occur if the same unit of analysis has been assigned to these (main) categories or if adjacent units of coding have been assigned to these categories. Examining your findings for co-occurrences is part of data exploration towards presenting your results in qualitative style. Coder: person who does the coding in QCA. Coding: The term has a broad meaning in qualitative research in general and a narrow meaning specific to QCA. In the broader sense ‘coding’ is used as an umbrella term to refer to a variety of methods for analysing qualitative data and establishing links between data, other data, and concepts. In the context of QCA, ‘coding’ refers to that step in QCA where you assign a unit of your material (a unit of coding) to one of the (sub)categories in your coding frame.
    [Show full text]
  • Informed Grounded Theory
    Informed grounded theory Robert Thornberg Linköping University Post Print N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original article. This is an electronic version of an article published in: Robert Thornberg , Informed grounded theory, 2012, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, (56), 3, 243-259. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research is available online at informaworldTM: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.581686 Copyright: Taylor & Francis (Routledge) http://www.routledge.com/ Postprint available at: Linköping University Electronic Press http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-69969 Informed Grounded Theory Robert Thornberg Linköping University, Sweden There is a widespread idea that in grounded theory (GT) research, the researcher has to delay the literature review until the end of the analysis to avoid contamination – a dictum that might turn educational researchers away from GT. Nevertheless, in this article the author (a) problematizes the dictum of delaying a literature review in classic grounded theory, (b) pre- sents arguments for using extant literature in the substantive field within a constructivist grounded theory, and (c) suggests data sensitizing principles in using literature, which are: theoretical agnosticism, theoretical pluralism, theoretical sampling of literature, staying grounded, theoretical playfulness, memoing extant knowledge associations, and constant reflexivity. Keywords: grounded theory, literature, qualitative analysis, constructivism, theoretical sensitivity Informed Grounded Theory The grounded theory (GT) approach is a widely cited and frequently used approach in a wide range of disciplines and subject areas, including the field of qualitative research in education (for examples of recently publicized GT studies in educational research, see Cherubini, Niemczyk, Hodson, & McGean, 2010; Drugli, Clifford, & Larsson, 2008; Givon & Court, 2010; Leino, 2006; Smart & Brent, 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview with Kathy Charmaz: on Constructing Grounded Theory by Antony J
    Qualitative Sociology Review Volume II , Issue 3 – December 2006 Special: An Interview with Kathy Charmaz: On Constructing Grounded Theory by Antony J. Puddephatt Cornell University, USA Kathleen C. Charmaz completed her dissertation at the University of California at San Francisco under the supervision of the late Anselm Strauss, and is now Professor in the Department of Sociology at Sonoma State University. She served as the editor for Symbolic Interaction between 1999-2003, amidst her many other commitments to numerous academic journals and professional organizations. Dr. Charmaz’s areas of expertise span the sociology of health and illness, death and dying, as well as qualitative methods, grounded theory, the study of academic writing, and a host of other topics, which she has often presented as guest lectures and keynote addresses the world over. Recently, Professor Charmaz has written extensively about grounded theory, challenging the objectivist leanings of the traditional model, and, by drawing on her roots in symbolic interactionism, extending the breadth and potential of grounded theory in a number of exciting ways. The culmination of this work can be seen in her recently published book Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis (2006). The following interview aims to explore Dr. Charmaz’s most recent views on grounded theory, discuss her new book, and consider some of the debates and challenges to her theory over the years from people like Barney Glaser. The interview took place between Professor Charmaz and myself by phone on July 25, 2006. The interview was tape-recorded, transcribed and then edited to enhance the flow of the discussion, and to eliminate some extraneous material.
    [Show full text]
  • Grounded Theory: a Methodological Spiral from Positivism to Postmodernism
    JAN RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Grounded theory: a methodological spiral from positivism to postmodernism Jane Mills, Ysanne Chapman, Ann Bonner & Karen Francis Accepted for publication 22 December 2006 Jane Mills MN RN MILLS J., CHAPMAN Y., BONNER A. & FRANCIS K. (2007) Grounded theory: a PhD Candidate methodological spiral from positivism to postmodernism. Journal of Advanced School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash Nursing 58(1), 72–79 University, Churchill, Victoria, Australia doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04228.x Ysanne Chapman PhD RN Associate Professor of Nursing Abstract School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash Title. Grounded theory: a methodological spiral from positivism to postmodernism University, Churchill, Victoria, Australia Aim. Our aim in this paper is to explain a methodological/methods package devised to incorporate situational and social world mapping with frame analysis, based on a Ann Bonner PhD RN grounded theory study of Australian rural nurses’ experiences of mentoring. Senior Lecturer Background. Situational analysis, as conceived by Adele Clarke, shifts the research School of Nursing Sciences, James Cook methodology of grounded theory from being located within a postpositivist para- University, Townsville, Queensland, digm to a postmodern paradigm. Clarke uses three types of maps during this pro- Australia cess: situational, social world and positional, in combination with discourse Karen Francis PhD RN analysis. Professor of Rural Nursing Method. During our grounded theory study, the process of concurrent interview School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash data generation and analysis incorporated situational and social world mapping University, Churchill, Victoria, Australia techniques. An outcome of this was our increased awareness of how outside actors influenced participants in their constructions of mentoring.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracing the History of Grounded Theory Methodology: from Formation to Fragmentation
    The Qualitative Report Volume 19 Number 52 Article 1 12-29-2014 Tracing the History of Grounded Theory Methodology: From Formation to Fragmentation Méabh Kenny University College Cork, [email protected] Robert Fourie University College Cork, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr Part of the Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Commons, and the Social Statistics Commons Recommended APA Citation Kenny, M., & Fourie, R. (2014). Tracing the History of Grounded Theory Methodology: From Formation to Fragmentation. The Qualitative Report, 19(52), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1416 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The Qualitative Report at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Qualitative Report by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tracing the History of Grounded Theory Methodology: From Formation to Fragmentation Abstract There are very few articles, which track the history of Grounded Theory (GT) methodology from its tentative conception to its present divisions. This journal article addresses the dearth by tracing the history of GT methodology from its conception in the 1960’s, discussing the context of its composition, character, and contribution. Subsequently, the article follows the maturation of GT which is characterised by a series of contentious and, at times, antagonistic academic debates. The crux of these debates centres on disputes over core tenets of GT and have resulted in three dominant and divergent configurations of the GT methodology: Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT.
    [Show full text]