The Discovery of Grounded Theory Strategies for Qualitative Research

BARNEY G GLASER AND ANSELM L STRAUSS University of Califoinia San Francisco Medical Center

ALDINE PUBLISHING COMPANY / Chicago The Discovery of Grounded Theory

mainl

sis

of

strategy dures

slight

positions

this

of

which

as

standable

w

terpretations

show,

major

social

of

of

selves

thereby

with

)rks—provides

grounded

improved

Previous

yet

As

theory

in

theory

Most

is

how

and

knowledge

research—can

current

only task

sociologists

we

to

such

few

on

be

that

and

the

writing

conceive

to

how

from

accurate

definitions,

from

confronting

more

a theories

books

theory

methods

a

and

sociologists

we equally

beginning,

examples.

sociology

them-v

to

data—systematically

us

data—which

rigorously

shall

applications.

makes

on

serifv

engaged

on

is

as

facts

with

of

be

a important

for

sociological

methods

because

a

fits

emphasize

this

general

furthered.

sociology

beginning

we

theories.

on

any

rather

and

discovering

can

relevant

empirical

in

tested.

nature,

shall

the

be

formulation

layman

research

we

1

at

of

method

enterprise

than

verification

obtained

today,

often

This

We

many

social

method

for

predictions,

In

call

venture

And

grounded obtained

situations,

Grounded

this

believe

offering

ahke,

furthering

The

suggests

of soon

state

grounded

pomts

research

for,

so

comparative

book

of

premature.

has

and

in

we

Most

discover,

positions.

as

of

how

Discovery

that

the

and

explanations,

clear-cut

theory.

been

we hots

we

offer

an

we

theory,

and

the

have

the

the

important,

development

theory—is

overempha

address

believe

analyzed

shall

theory

this

I

concerned

Theory

discovery

is

there

discovery

discovery

analysis.

4

counter-

Because

focused

and

under

proce

major

try

book.

our

our

can

are

in

of

to

in

a

it a

he ter

crating

Press, data

purposefully

ery

how

ing

wish

in

mandate

choose

flict

existence

Grounded

because

cussion on

resolution if

flict

scene,

it.

is

For

between

have their

concepts resultant

hut research wishes

task

discussing

was

not

deals

logically

of

1.

The

gives

Our

Since

Surely

verification—will

verifications

“serendipity”;

is

many

systematically

many

Nlerton

concerning

1949),

a

confronting

zeal

barely

of

concerned

totally

cingle

created

the

which

basic

rise

should

book—especially to

with

theory

of

for

a

generating

of

verification

and

de-emphasis

of

Theory

discovering

sociologists,

no to

the

desire

research.

desire

sociologists

to

Chapter

never

too

necessary

hypothesis

such

excellent

started

our

theme this

lost,

a

test

svill

through

“theoretic

conflict

when

Social h

not

with ness

great

that

reached

primacy

beginning

to

potheses

conflict

sc

a

to

either

in

receive

III.

obtained

hypothesis, be

C

grounded

conffiet.

in generate

‘s.

theor\

theory

to

Theory

Testing

generate

sociologists

research indicate

specific

on

olog

an

has

research.

during

between

our

en

however,

functions taken

have

on

generate.

the

a

existing

when

adherence

ur,ar.ticipated,

takes

surprise

of

relative

primacy

through

book

notion

are

the

formulation

goes

and

from

W

Rather,

modifying

feed

been

theory

as

This

purpose.

researches,

theory

the

many

theor

of

we

among

erih

Social relevant

prior

indicating

is

THE

uridouhtcdls

hand

basic.

do

of

back

theories

research,”

vould

Concept

social course

social

emphasis

the

diverted

discuss

the

on

nd

not

to

DISCOVEaY

our

facets

is.

ii

Structure

into

often

step

of

anomalous,

Nlerton

in

discovers’

discovery

reflecting

sociologists,

g

research.

verification

of

the

al

of

clearly

theory, research, 1

a

does

for

position

haud

and

31

and

some

or

trained

The

the

that

of

course

and

becomes

current

any

from

grc

in

was

a

the

not

modify

there

OF

generating

I

closest

discovering

current

with

Glenc’oe,

given

not

of

It theory

of

and

and

we

of

forms

preoccupied

given GROUNDEO

catch

the

grounded

puts

area

is

this

need

the

that

grounded

Every

but

as

theory

exists

also

strategic

endorse

theory,

that

verifyIng

consciously

he sociological

researches

secondary,

opposition

processes

the

the

the

truism

that

emphasis

research.

that

Ill

came

that to

sn

this

a

a

idea

discov

chap

theory

a

verify THEOR1

theory

from

social

Thus,

chief

basic

what

Free con

gen with

find

con

they

dis

was

the

the

one

of

it:

in

this

lIc

stract hut

area

ahzat

that

discovered

the

From

under

meaningfully and

by meet

gories

point,

must

in

so

search;

theory

modes

research

ology

ations: tical

br to

in

enable

compare

generating

of

to

generated

ChapLer

The

3.

2.

must

qi.tantitative

To

issue the

the

give

that

taken

theoretical its

best

ion.

The research

the

work

to

In

Of

significant

the

Discovery

these

also

applications—prediction

must

sociologist

study.

generate

to

supposed

is

data

principic

which

of

should

have

course,

more

they

prediction

(4)

the

theory

crucial

approach

data

interrelated

on

toward

students

a

be

II

it

when

conceptualization

by

requirements

be

by

grounded

under

practitioner

strategy

a

fully

to

with

must

particular

readily

for

we

relevant

of

categories

peispective

the of

the

examination

readily

advance

provide

any

studies

logical

will

provide

should

theory

ones

social

Grounded

uses.

put

in

data;

researcher

generating

hall

theory

an be

study; other

and

concept

and

Chapters

fit

understandable

into

for

can

clear

initial,

theoiy

develop

jobs

We

(not

research.

to

from

and

when

that deduction

explanation

and

clear

areas discuss

to

in

understanding

a

that

must

conceptions

by

applies

handling

Theory

anti

use.

be

can

shall

perspective

does

of

sociology;

significant

forcibly)

enough

of

work. 3

his

II fills

ç

will

for

“work”

systematic 5)

is

these

his theory.

enough

verified

be

the

of

and

fit

be

theory

By

scrutiny

and

not

a

contrast

what

Then

to

this

operationalized

help

concepts

describing

behavior.

will

the

way

from

data,

XI.

able

“fit”

And

approach

guide

are

to

of

data

explanation

we

to

large

applicable

him

situation

of

Our

usually categories

one

of

in

be beha

(3)

laymen.

of

we

in

on

appropriate. 2

and

we

to

sociologists

since mean

a

laymen

discovers’

this

to

theory.

arriving

the

present

see

readily

and

in

sociology

can

behavior—a

priori

explain

mean

basic

order, to

facilitate

reality

Thus

mean

some

and

ior;

data.

reles

research,

position

he

the

he

provide

in

that

be being

Theory

to

involved

quanbtative

(2)

explaining.

ant and

should

able

position

operationalized assumptions.

usable

at

We

theory by

as

we and

relatively

control

categories

that

of

and

they

the

this

of

a

theory

data

are:

researched,

to

The

shall

the

suggest

hypotheses

theory with

tabula

to

a

any

future

indicated

the

providing

operation behavior

stance

that

be

must

style

be

in

and in

under-

theory

in of

discuss

theory

(1)

is

view

theory

useful

suited

cate

ways,

sure

prac

rasa.

soci

situ

the

The able

are

can

ab

that

and

be

re

for

as

to

In to 4 THE DiSCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY The Discocery of Grounded Theory 5 stand it, while sociologists who work in other areas will recog ouslv connected, omitting of many other possible explanations. nize an understandable theory linked with the data of a given s a tacked-on explanation so often is, area, Another opportunistic use of theory that cannot occur with Theory based on data ca sually rot be conipletcly refuted groinded theory is uhat may bc termed “exampling.” A by more data r replaced by another theory. Since it is too searcher can easily find examples for dreamed-up, speculative, intimately linked to data, it is destined to last despite its inevi or logically deduced theory after the idea has occurred. But table modification and reformulation. The most striking exam since the idea has not been derived from the example, seldom ples are Weher’s theory of bureaucracy and Durkheim’s theory can the example correct or change it (even if the author is of suicide. These theories have endured for decades, stimulating willing), since the example was selectively chosen for its con a variety of research and study, constantly exciting students and firming power. Therefore, one receives the image of a proof professors alike to try to modify them by clever ways of testing when there is none, and the theory obtains a richness of detail and reformulation In contrast, logically deduced theories based that it did not cam, on ungrounded assumptions, such as some well-known ones on There is also a middle zone between grounded and logico the “social system” and on “social action” can lead their folloss- deductive theorizing, in which the sociologist chooses examples ers far astray in tring to advance sociology. However, systematically and then allows them to feed hack to give theo grounded theories—which take hard study4 of much data—are retical control over his formulations: but often it is hard to fig worth the precious time and focus of all of us in our research, ure out when this is happening, even when we are clearly told. study and teaching, Much of C. Wright Mills’ work, we believe, is exampled with Grounded theory can help to forestall the opportunistic use only little theoretical control, though he claimed that data dis of theories that have dubious fit and working capacity. So ciplined his theory. In contrast, grounded theory is derived often in journals we read a highly empirical study which at its from data and then illustrated by characteristic examples of conclusion has a tacked-on explanation taken from a logically 5data. deduced theory. The author tries to give his data a more gen In contrasting grounded theory with logico-deductive theory eral sociological meaning, as well as to account for or interpret and discussing and assessing their relatixe merits in ability to what he found. He uses this strategy because he has not been fit and work (predict. explain, and be relevant), we have taken trained to generate a theory from the data he is reporting so the position that the adequacy of a theory for sociology today that it will help interpret or explain the data in a general man cannot he divorced from the process by which it is generated. ner, lie does this also because he has been trained only to Thus one canon for judging the usefulness of a theory is how research and verify his facts, not also to research and generate it was generated—and we suggest that it is likely to be a better his explanation of them. The explanation is added afterward. theory to the degree that it has been inductively developed Far instance. many papers dealing with deviance conclude with from social research, We also believe that other canons for an interpretation based on Merton’s anomie theory, a classic assessing a theory, such as logical consistency, clarity. parsi example of this use of logically deduced theory. An author monv, density, scope, integration, as well as its fit and its ability could, of course, borrow the grounded theory of another soci to work, are also significantly dependent on how the theory was ologist for its general relevance, but—since this kind of theory generated. They are not, as some theorists of a logico-deductive fits and works—it would readily he seen whether it is clearly persuasion would claim, completely independent of the proc applicable and relevant in this new situation. It cannot he tenu esses of generation. This notion of independence too often ends up being taken as a license to generate theory from any source— 4. And also in trYing to advance their personal careers, for one cannot empirically dissociate the need to generate theore from the need to advance 5.See. for example. Howard S Becker et al., Boys in lVhite (Chicago: careers in sociology. University of Chicago Press. 1961 6 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY The Discovery of Grounded Theory happenstance. fantasy, dream life, common sense, or conjecture u ork’. Only sociologists are trained to want it, to look for it. — and then dress it up as a bit of logical deduction. and to generate it Probably we need to emphasize here hat we shall discuss Besides reminding colleagues of a somewhat slighted task, later moic explicitl . Cencr’iting a theory from data means that also are trying through this hook to strengthen the man most hypotheses and concepts not only come from the data, but date for generating theory, to help provide a defense against are systematically worked out in relation to the data during doctrinaire approaches to verification, and to reawaken and the course of the research Generating a theory incolves a broaden the picture of what sociologists can do with their process of research. By contrast, the source of certain ideas, or time and efforts. It should also help students to defend them even “models,” can come from sources other than the data. The selves against verifiers who would teach them to deny the biographies of scientists are replete with stories of occasional s aliditv of their own scientific intelligence. By making genera flashes of insight, of seminal ideas, garnered from sources out tion a legitimate enterprise, and suggesting methods for it, we side the data. But the generation of theory from such insights hope to provide the ingredients of a defense against internalized must then be brought into relation to the data, or there is great professional mandates dictating that sociologists research and danger that theory and empirical world will mismatch. We shall write in the verification rhetoric, and against the protests of discuss this issue again more fully, particularly in Chapter XI colleagues who object to their freedom in research from the on ‘Insight, Theory Development, and Reality.” rigorous rules of verification (so stifling to the creative energies For many colleagues, our position will be at best a hypotlie required for discovering theory). us, to be tested in the years to come; while for many others it In trying to stimulate all sociologists to discover grounded is proven fact, and for still others an article of faith, However theory—from those who are only at the dissertation stage of colleagues max’ respond, our position is not logical; it is phe their careers to those who are already “retired” professors-—we nomenological. We could not suggest a process of generating hope to contribute toward the equalizing of efforts in gen theory if we did not believe that people who might use it erating theory, which are now often limited to the earlier would arrive at results that potentially may be judged as suc stages of a sociological career. Foi’ example, Hammon. in cessful. Furthermore, we believe that grounded theory will be presenting us with chronicles of some of the best sociological more successful than theories logically deduced from a priori research (those with the highest theoretical yield), has chosen assumptions. Our position. we hasten to add, does not at all mainly chronicles of dissertations or studies done as soon as the imply that the generation of new theory should proceed in dissertation was finished.’ Similar studies could be done by isolation from existing grounded theory. (We shall discuss this mature sociologists, and with more speed (less fumbling, clearer in Chapter II.) purpose) and more sophisticated theoretical yields. Indeed, that the growth of a theorist is linked to the increasing sophistication of his output is clearly seen in the work of men like Goffman, Purposes of This Book Lipset and Wilbert Moore, Yet many sociologists as they mature disiegard whate er fledgling potential for generating This book is intended to underscore the basic sociological theory they showed in their dissertations and early monographs. activity that only sociologists van do: generating sociological They cease or slow up their research and writing of monographs theory Description. ethnographv, fact-finding, verification (call and turn to scholarship and the mastery of others’ works, par them what you will are all done well by professionals in other ticularlv earlier “great man” theories. One respected scholar, by fields and by layman in various But investigatory agencies. 6. Philip E. Hammond (Ed.). Sociologists at Work (New York: Basic these people cannot generate sociological theory from their Books 1964).

verification.

to

discovering

(luire that

in and

ination

and

for

room the

of contrast

Our

integrated ries be

should ing;

already

any

dcsc’ribing,

give

theory.

criteria grounded

any

of

to graphs

would

by

virtue

8

Hammond,

generate

8.

explicitness

in

Our

try

students

What

able

Throughout

systematizing

theory’s

they

publish beating

saying,

ssill

strategies

for

leasing

theon

Compare

Mehille

theory.

colleagues

for

our

to

of

leading

like

not

principal

This

for

and

until

are

to

to

will

[end

including

his

generate

about

own

(see theory

grounded theory

ont

op.

judging

the

Though use

explaining,

in

that

curb

their

him

to

Dalton,

acceptance deeply We

start

theme

position

join

to The

they

to

and

do

cit.,

the

effect,

see

to

attempt

Merton’s

ways

Chapter it

this this

an

urge

into

they

end

us

own

aim

the

not

anyone’s

worrying

them, 8

pp

“irrelevant” effectively

that general

that theory!

overdrawn

proceed

“Preconceptions

both

older

effective

pervades

the

involved

in book’s

book

difficult,

and

intellectual

up

theory

insist

of

rendition

5’-.38

them

at

will

is

methods

telling

it

predicting,

worth

strictures

will

by

to

VI).

propositions

verification,

to

thin, a

sociologists

prominence,

is

we

teach,

comparative

creativity usefulness

recent

discuss

that

with to

“drugging

about

not

stimulate

means

richness

the bc

we

it

in

to

those

Our

call

explanation of

unclear continue

for

of

is

on

a

THE

the

help

generating

a

all

submission.”

in

shall

discussed

whole

apply

residual

for

sociological

an suggestions

teaching

theory

bit

codification

generating

interpreting

who

methods

Methods

for

theory, DISCOVERY

of analyst

they

and

cease

for

for

systematize

more

has

exciting

other

in

more

the

connotation!

for

writing

evaluating

book,

have

method

or

purpose,

those

generating

the

encouraged

allow,

in

should

chore reader’s

the

in

use

writing

as in

theory,

engage

the

theory?

theorists

method

and

an

not

of

OF

Men

richness It

theory.

for

well

meeting,

adventure.

most

Our Part

monographs

sociologists

in

theory,

and

effort

next

GROUNDED

is

even

for

in

yet

processes

Op.

encourage

systematizing their

Who

and

the

research,

our

as

imagination

but

in

suggestions

this

their

Mans’

part,

their I

attempted

testing

theory;

generating

generation

to

cit.,

this

We

to

grounded

a

demand,

of

which

worth

not intent

Manage,”

provides

theoriz

not

that

age

degree

codify

coerce

infor

mono

THEORY

p.

keep

trend.

trust

theo

well

who

may

for

and

just

14.

re for

of

it.

in

he

of

to

tion

logico-deductive

verification,

tive

contemporary

Chapter

relations We

ter

we

Vii

flieon 1 —sve

important

a

/

designed

analysis

sampling—the

comparative

IV

-nd

groups.

volves

a

grounded

—and

published

theme work—and

examples

suggested

purpose—though spersed the

thinking

The

cpeciallv

number

strategy

Before

In

In

IX)

consider we

In

and

of

close and

Discovery

in discussion

the

the

the

theory.

take

discovering

of

the

and

of

Xl

quantitative

Chapter

In

of

ssith

VII

to

about

second

with

this

questions. from

theory,

moving

first

third

of

product;

procedures

qualitative

theory

whereby

and (locumentarv)

systematic

we

Chapter

up

for

generate

consider

in

its

analysis.

of

previous

emphasis

respectively).

occasional

book,

process

section—Comparative

detail

the

discuss

research,

an

the

the

Grounded

a

theorizing,

practical

open-minded,

part

part

V

both

very

to

not

on

theon 1

transition

epilogue

topic.

we

distinction

we

data—a

sociologists

II

research,

the

substantive

the

of

of

data.

of

to

or

choice

at

comparative In

insight,

substantive

good

know

on

we

offer

the

collecting

credibility

the

frank

Theory

we

these

implications

the

generation

Our

as

the

and

Chapter

which

verification,

In

discuss

book—The

summarizing

have

a

distinction

from

book—Implications

reason.

logic

our

our

and

expense

Chapter

suggestions

usually theory

to

process

polemic—always,

quantitative

chapters.

can

and

own

encourages

method

stimulate

drawn

substantive

data study

and

lying

of

studies

the

III

of

Anal

formal facilitate We

development

grounded

(Chapter

drawn

better

is,

VI

of

formal.

for

theory

the

useless Flexible

we

purpose

behind

of

heavily

we ysis—we

know

of

are

our

we

stopping

for

comparative

in

influential

data

several

theory.

discuss

rather

course,

as

the shall

between

clarify

deliberately

to

terms

from

the

position the

This

for

others’

work-in-process

theory

X).

Use

them.

we

formal

of

upon

of

drive

(in

shall

comparative

the

discovery

and

discuss

than

the

strategy

In

comparison

qualitative

our

Grounded theoretical

the

hope,

and

Lastly,

of

of

Chapters

style

qualita

genera Chapter

our

In

work

analysis

toward

(Chap

on Data—

reality.

several

present

theory.

flow

central

use

assess

freeze

using

inter

with

the own

the

of

in in

of

of

as

of 9 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY The Discovery of Grounded Theory 10 11 by training vosng sociologists to test their teachers’ work but not to imitate 0it) Verification and “Grand” Theory In the face of this prevalent attitude, we contend, however, that the masters have not provided enough theories to cover all Vcrificat r of Leo y is the kevncte of urrent sociology the areas of sociel life that sociologists have only begun to Some three lecades aO it was felt that we had plenty of explore. Further, some theories of our predecessors. because of theories hut fev C nhimations of them—a position made sun their lack of grounding in data, do not fit, or do not work, or feasible b ths greatly increased sophistication of quantito e are nor sufficiently understandable to be used and are there methods, As this shift in emphasis took hold, the discos ei o fore useless in research, theoretical advance and practical appli nyu- theories h came slighted and, at some universities, s ix cation, On the other hand, the great theorists have indeed given ally negiected. Those who still wished to generate theory hxd us models and guidelines for generating theory, so that with to brook the negative, sometimes punitive. attitude ot thc:i recent advances in data collection, conceptual systematization cohcagues or rore5SOrS. and analytic procedunes. many of us can follow in their paths: Part of the trend toward euphasixing .ifiunm wes the from social research we can generate theories for new’ areas, assun pti )n hr many sociologists that ‘“ ‘ ‘,i eat ben” frn_ as w’ell as better theories for areas where previous ones do not i x Cooley fathers (\\ eher. i)urkheirn, Simmel, \ ehicu, sork)’ Mead Park etc had generated a suffici it umber of out We contend also that it does not take a “genius” to generate standing t seories on enough areas ) sal life to last for a a useful grounded theory. It does take some codification of the long while, Although we their soc ol gicel offspring, could method of doing it, as well as recognition of its legitimacy for never equ Feir genius, we d Li s’ hc is to modify and re student training and academic careers, Our hook provides some formulat I cir theories with ear ass .found abilities in yen of both. It is well known that in science the highest rewards ficatior —aad so that was tF next job of sociology. As a sesult, have always gone to those who generate an important new manr of our teachers a ‘ris’cldepai tments of sociology into repositories of , eat-man” theories and taught these mere 10. The following are the words of a voug theoretical capitalist theories s itha chaniso’ _nc finality that students could seldom modestly asking the proletariat testers to correct his conjectured ory-: “Whereas the sbudcnts trained to master great-man empirical tests would undoubtedly prove a good proportion resist. Cnrresitlr are of the inferred predictions to be incorrect, these negative findings would theories and to tut them in small ways, but hardly to question provide a basis for refining the theory, whereas as no such refinements are the thecw a a is isole in terms of its position or manner of gen possible if a theory fails to yield operational hypotheses that he can be negated empirical es idence .“ Thus to encourage the testers he eration As a result many potentially creative students have his carefully writes theory’ so it can be readily operationalized and proven niseives to pu7zhng out small problems bequeathed ways—a wrong in several limited t temptation for those who like to prove the theorist proletariat wrong. These to tI er I ‘g theo ew men (like Parsons and Merton) testers do not realize that allowing themselves to be tempted sim ‘sly puts the refined theory and s charismatic v of the eat mer suffi thc thsorist on firmer ground, while have :ee ough tb’s ue g ase soon forgotten. they Sec Peter Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life cientlv to g nerate grand’ theories on their own. But even (New York. John Wiley and Sons, 1964), p 9. We can only say that it is [no our position that theorists these te I ‘ e 1nc I- d methods tor gen sa ig theo y n data, lie responsible for the grounding from the start, of their theories or n their methods, They have at rate base not writt r about For another attempt at theore’tje’al capitalism and request for colleagues plan e ‘ 1woletical capitalist to the mass of ‘pi iletatiat” testers to test him out, see Phonias J. Seheff, Being Publishing Mentally III (Chicago: Airline Co., 1966, especially p. 101, 11. For example, this is happening in the study of deviance. shall 13. See Mar 0. r Hans L. letterberg, Co 7 Jour, ad Vs:-ibc0ti0u in Soc inlo Clinard (Ed.). Anomie’ and Deviant Behavior Press of (New York: Free Toto’. , \ .E - Bcclniinster Press. 1963 Glcneoe, 1964). 12 THE DrSCOSERY OF GROUNDED THEORY The Discouery of Grounded Theory 13 )I2 theory çsociology is like physics in this regard historical simpler elements “ In contrast, the monograph was directed at reasons then, account for the paradox that more sociologists furthering general sociological theory and giving a very detailed do not try their hand at generating theory and publishing it, interpretation of Polish peasant society in Europe and America. thus achieving high rewcrds We ssish to help alleviate this Bluiner’s principal criticism of The Polish Peasant was di condition by encouraging able sociologists to generate more rected at what he believed was an important methodological and better theory ssith the type of comparative method dis flaw in it—one that needed to be discussed as an issue basic to cussed in our book, and, in turn, to start developing methods of sociological research rather than as pertinent merely to this par their msn for all of us to uce, ticular monograph. The authors claimed that their analyses rested largely on numerous “human ocurnent.s”: letters, agency records, life histories, court records. Blumer noted first that not Verification or Generation? all—perhaps not even the major—theoretical conceptions used by Thomas and Znaniecki were grounded on thoce documents, The following account is an example of the kind of historical Indeed, “the major outlines are foreshadowed in the previous circimtance that put the generation of grounded theory into writings of Thomas,” and even “their particular interpretations second place. and made verification the dominant orientation of Polish peasant life were not formed solely from the materials in virtually all sociological ssork: they present; sse have to assume that the familiarity with Polish During 1.938 the Social Science Research Council struck peasant life which enabled their interpretations was made in a upon the idea of subjecting to critical appraisal a series of sig wide variety of ways.” nificant contributions to social science, In sociology, Herbert But this was only a minor criticism. Blumer’s major concern Blumer as assigned the task of appraising l homas and Znani was this: “the important question is whether the materials ade ecki’s great monograph, The Polish Peasant in Poland ansi quately test the generalizations (regardless of their source) America. A year later Blumer’s critique was published by the which are being applied to the materials But “the answer Council. The volume included comments on Blumer’s analysis is very inconclusive.” Some interpretations seemed to him to 1by Thomas and by Znaniecki, as well as a reprinting of the pi’o be borne out by the materials; some did not. W’orse vet, usually ceedings of a conference that discussed the analysis (the con one could not say that “the interpretation is either true or not, ference included such participants as Murdoek, Wirth. Bain, even though it is distinctly plausible.” (pp. 74-75). Blumer Wiley and Wailer). agreed that these plausible interpretations made the materials Blumer noted that Thomas and Znaniecki had been much more significant and made “theoretical interpretation more concerned with methodological issues and had taken a stand understandable,” Yet the very puzzling issue of plausible inter against several types of knowledge then much advocated, These pretation versus genuine verification remained latter included “common sense generalization,” ‘planless empiri Therefore BIn sicr concluded, first, that the materials were cism,” “mere statements of uniformities of social behavior in not a decisive test of theoretical interpretations, although they response to social irfluences,” “statements of causal influences did more than simply illustrate them second, that a test of which hold true ‘on the average,’ or ‘in a majority of cases,’” “theory would have to come in other ways, such as in its and a type of misleading oversimplification in which “effort is internal consistency, in the character of its assumptions, in its made to resolve what must be taken as a primary relation into relation to other theories, in its consistency with what seems to he ‘human,’ or than by 12. F’or esanplc. ix of the eight Maclver Assards have gone to sociolo in other kinds of data those provided gists for generatiic ground”d theor. human documents”: and, third, that the authors’ use of human 13. Thomas and F. Znaniecki (‘w York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1918). documents would seemingly imply that their essential fimction 14 Appraisal of IIionsa’ and Ziianiecki’s ilie Polish Peasant in Europe “svoulcl be to yield to a sensitive and inquiring mind and America 1 \CW York: Social Science Research Council, 11.39). ...

718-19. better American

being he

this conceptual lations.

better

the als issue

ploying

qualitative The

the by

and and that left

dominance,

ing cal himself

analysis see

theorize emphasizing

and pened

toward enormous

theory,

critique

less exert

Stouffer,

data spectives, hunches,

better

14

was

Znaniecki’s

studies a

15.

future,

did

meaning

instance the

Blumer’s

intimate

improvement

that

it,

the

stimulating

the

studied.

fortunate

more

n

is

theory

theory,

poised

great

A

to

if

gap.

whatever

crc

not

hut

(quantitative

also whatever

With

the

result

Journal

on

most

latter

from

year

Blumer

the toss

unguided

data,

Chapin

as

and

insights,

influence b

and

useful

familiarity

Closing

always

of

framework he

on

except verification,

,

instructive.

question

and

See

in

and

influence

gap

ard

the

later, critique

hindsight,

he

the

rejoinder one of

attributed

data too

combination—an

we

problem

new

generation.

relevant

of

in

his

in

too

in

between

data)

attacked

its

had

for

an

theory-data

by

his

b

sharp

latter,

agree judgment, it,

the

Sociology

I

provide

close

could

“The

Blumer

ready

questions

azarsfeld

rather

demonstrable

of

with

understandings”

he

the any

theorizing

focused

of

examination

past,

intent,

in

measures

The

n

imagination a

with

relation

believed,

with

Problem

He

largely

to

ungrounded

it

then,

general

how

theories. we

to

the

as posture

this

say

since

sociology.

published

effectively

a

than

give

a

Blumer’s

(1940),

in

agreed

He

Polish

kind

gap

slow

can

written

thoroughly.

good

which

was

to

Blumer

less

to

observation,

suitable

Guttman

fit

to

up

he but

of formula

untouched,

against

would

inquiring

“the

did,

Operationalism

TH

and

from

of

maturing

ssonder

generate

for

data,

the

findings

the

observers

that

on

on

test

Peasant

707-19,

theories

conduct

that

of raised

not

as

an

we

DiSCOVERY

on

critique

the The

inadequacy

checking

Concept

the

of

during

mood

(pp.

depend

not

threw

the

verification

was—again—blunted

verification,

admirable

of good

of

Blumer’s

for

the adequate

his

problem

and

approached

course,

and

process.”

problem what

offering

sticking

the

mind,

emphasis

the

than

and

being

the

armchair,

grounded

may

75-76).

for

requisite

apparently

monograph’s

reflection,

of

theory

in

on

other

in

the

on

was

theoretical OF

the

quotes

the

issue

two

the

might

theory

fortunately of

Social

solution

of studied

concept

“developing

rich

article,,

(operationaiism

the

a

GROUNDED

close

of

come

for

His

then

countless weight

its

how

of

solution

period

In

need

day.

advocates

decades

that

rather

is

in

are

verificatiOn

verification experience,

But,

theory.

Psychology,”

emphases verification

of

stimulating

our

to

have

coming

to

produced short,

and

new

assuming

began

will

to

addressing

Blumer’s

close

from

for how

general

the

Yet

materi

generate

formu

because

possess.

to

of

data,”

empin as

getting

THEORY

in

when

a

be

than

hap

good

data

clos

was

per

rich

em into

the

pp. He

his

we

the

on

to

to

in

to of

in

groundbreaking

by

gang.

research facts

reproducible

search,

to

begin concepts

World

in

on

theories

graphs

small

sense,

sisted

data

data

of

from

advocates

grounded

tualization;

generation

Qualitative

qualitative

‘system”

would theoretical of

anhow

The

B’

18.

men

test

producing

‘Thus,

Meanwhile,

theory

qualitative

Historically

the

the

about

in

Discoeery

at

For

generation

framework,”

the

amounts

of

In

because

War

was

like

unconfirmed

ghetto,

a

all),

was were

‘attitude-value’

substitute

into

example

lengthy,

in

advances

addition,

nonsvstematic

in

challenge

and

of

theory

social

Stouffer

to

IT.

of

conception

data the

he

vs.

fact,

to

the

in

research

quantitative

accurate

too

the

of

“get

of

theory

data

“pattern”

quantitative beginning

was

of

Quantitative

work

provide

monograph

conjunction

linked

Grounded

to

late

see

taxi-dance

its

of

structures

“impressionistic.”

detailed

and

Zaniecki

theory,

the

monographs

verification

in a

and

still

pool’

of

was

various

theories

the

l930’s,

for

largely

more

operations.

quantitative

story

evidence

that

its

testing

conceptual

various Lazarsfeld. not

quantitative

and

(which

showing

either

in

ith

Theory

getting

hail,

and

if

sensitivity

descriptions

researchers

and

emphasizing

organized

the

with

kinds.

Data

by

straight.”

referred

sophisticated

nonrigorous

which

any. 16

with

the

in

the

studies

theory

of

qualitative

late and

based

not

terms

social

and

he

in

their

theory

hoboes,

The

change

surveys

the

He

combinations”—the

to

methods

would

The

producing

1930’s,

theoretical large, believed

research

of

to

in

in

rigorously.

preliminar),

In the

on

of

result

made

systems.

was

own

“facts.”

which

the

the

translating methods

etc. was

picking

effort

way

short,

a

qualitative

monograph.

data. in

have

started. had

conception

Chicago

and

pre-existent still

“excessive

logic

initiated

great

was

the

with relative

had

(when

the

resulted

used

in

the

Qualitative

especially demanded

was

enough

The

thinking

clash

up

for

an

and

scientifically

these

been

exploratory.

school

strides

a

Qualitative

work

theoretical

relegated.

qualitative

generators

generating

few ability they

everyday

data

the

emphasis

Znaniecki

common

simplicity

between

involving

principal

in

concep

or

implicit

mono

on

based

of

sub-

after

both

used

zeal

very

fuller

con

the

re

the

to

the 15

in

interviews qualitative assumption to

opment

what accomplished fications ress and

the terials. in

complished. ways to tributions,

path qualitative sampling,

ogists quantitative tative test

so tinue and stantive

systemization can

codify example. research

given

that

Organization

16

sociology

their

the

assemble

A

17.

forth).

The

pressure

towards rules

current

sociology,

sociology

parsimonious

to

in

the

today—to

they

smaller

and

data

to

For

point

Sometimes

th

1949

systematization strength

categories

research

were

of

would

type

clarify

of

clarify

coding,

clarifications

or

articles

One

researchers

collected,

data,

Research

conceptual

hypotheses.

(testing,

behind,

modeled

the

by

that

accurate theory.

evidence

becoming

data.”

where

observation

according

number

was

of

for

was

Robert

was

only

use

position

all

take

of

and

quantitative

data

in let’s

and

reliability

and

the

they

far

presentation

methods,

embarked

Richard this

(Homewood,

These

they

based

the

and

proving,

qualitative

analyses

codify

and

assembled

K.

evidence

over,

of

teaching,

verify

or

of

hypotheses.

broader. on

a

quantification

was

formulization,

position,

used

verification

Merton,

to

quantitative

was

the

science,

offered

were

because

codifications

sociologists

these

N.

on

advocates

precise

including

explore

guided

validity,

all

content

with

Adams

verifications

quantifying

on

tentativeness,

“since

done,

th

recorded,

and

Ill..’

op.

but

Virtually

research

methods issues

of

and

which

a

any

by

of,

such

Then,

cit.,

emerging

patterns—for

straight-line

Dorsey

and

rhetoric evidence,

(as

to

further,

and they

qualitative

of

virtue

we

of

aualysis’

presented

indicators,

assurance

of

did

tried

these

had

hypothesis

p.

Jack test

qualitative

soon

this

the

data,

concepts

are

coding

of

qualitative

receiving

390.

operations,

began—and

Press,

had techniques,

every

take

J.

of

not

hypotheses.

research

course,

demonstrating,

to

book

in

discover

developments

swept

Preiss

so

systematic

research

quantitative

The

as

put

on

talking

systematize

been

1960).

other

awsnn

course

qualitative

of

procedures

accustomed

maneuver

frequency

methods

example,

they

has such

clarified.

on

(Eds.),

construction,

much

their

over quantitative

methods

report. 17

data!

no

developed

all

been)

The facts

was

positions,

but

still

of

issues

do

of

Indeed,

Ameri

canons

matter

sociol

ability

see,

devel

Human

rnEcrnY

quali

prog

call

earlier

their

yen

with

how

con

The

The

was ma

was

and

and

dis

the

ac

by

for

to

of

as

to

the

data to

data

es mental tested

tween

and own

tati

trend

remarked their subordinated

generating use

station,

their

“we

what

eases.

rhetoric

nology, been generated

finds

work

tinued

importance,

been

techniques the

about

to

social

The

stably

which

18.

Our

primacy

obtain

The

was

Another

data

e

quantitative

checked

have

best

Discovery

theories

the

theories.

theories

that

use

that

in

too

In

verifications

as

and

people

they

systems.

clash

exploratory

or

to

position

such

position

we of

the

antagonists,

sociology

for

heated

and

generating

been the

earlier, data

what

they

concerned

generate

these

theory

only

theory,

leaned

verification!

for

of

need

position

1930’s,

between and

this

generating

as

by

to

of

theories

who

richest

were

emphasis

This

collecting

on

linked

Also,

make

“the

slightly Grounded

procedures

the

in

methods

data

of

toward other

out

discussions

in

yet

they

more

or

many

since

as

that

men

have

using

this

function,

theories

the

meant,

generated,

hypothesis

rhetoric

many

taken

theory

qualitative

how

they

for

the

qualifications

with

the

were

historically. 18

are

men.

the like

In

never

on

pointed

hook

theory

modified

logico-deductive

denite

both

perhaps

areas

taken

Theory

quantitative theorizing

purposes

or

best

reading

in

it

verification

Stouffer-Lazarsfeld

times.”

have

by

thus

E.

formulating

their

of

led

data,

from

(or

on They

of

types

was

prediction,

is

mentioned

W.

of

advocates

course, this

way

is

anyway,

because

proofs

neutralizing

to

verification.

qualitative

as toward

not

method

have

media

they

social

tentative,”

rather

Burgess

We

What

relevant)

of

qualitative

their

suggested

could

and

stand

follows:

using

We

to

about

data

explicitly

data.

or

cannot

wanted

in

that

not

reformulate

capacities

life

writings,

and

we

believe

they

the

their

clash

than

generation

application

attempted

of

still

not

in

theorists

is

the

the

its

future

social

position

described

not

The

they

versua’

their

that

qualitative

are “we

generative

there

Since

perfection

because

therefore

hypotheses.

supported evaluate

lose,

was

verification

data,

replaced.

lost

there

ideas

their

referred

amenable

that

seldom

fascinating

had

research,

they

research,”

supported

one

structures

of

that

is

to the

they

emphasis

also

As

quantitative

and

of realizing

work

is

qualitative

within

each and

no only

mediate

possibilities.

they

constantly

how

have

how

qualitative

theory—

concerns

were

we

only

data

of

did became

to

modify

quanti

told

funda

But

expla

termi

to

to

a

form

have

their

have

their

well

they

con

and

few way

fact

not

the

and

still

the

be

has

the

be

on

in

its

of 17

rhetoric

with

tion

quired

quate” area

move often

patterns because

structural

he

i cit.. found on

also ‘Research

thr

research

data, :=t ments,

to different whatever

the of

the

the quantitative

theory.

pared,

18

Sd

t t is

alitative

19. data

used

Wc

get

theoretical To

benefits

In

be

pp.

quar

kind

circumstances

researcher,

beyond

‘Ac

Thor

a

book,

since

See

obtained

and

and

best

mane

and

further

will

focus

as

‘90-193.

library

titatis

set

is

by

of

the

Chronich’.

forms

and

of

and

James

conditions,

the

that

vish useful

oct,

mutual

because

to

data

“efficient”

those

generation, the

each

with

of

data

£ used

crucial

on

which

instances,

contend

with

systems

tk

primacy

he

sampling

resear

the

this

206. Colemar

categories of

also

etn0

and

process

and

erehy

qualitative

i.

for

suggests

who

generate

used.

a

a data to

The

of

end

verification

strong

qualitative

view,

Coleman

“coinparatise

qualitative

few

I

field on

througl

elements

both

consequences,

test

way

research,

19 wish with

‘

kdolescent

in

encourage

product

of

to on

(See

of

both

the

and

discussion

for

research

analyzing

because

qualitative,

we

research

in verification

to

for

emphasis.

balance

theory

the

generating

the to

data

agrees

a

kinds

particularly

quantitative

obtain our

forms

this

“comparatise

seek

generate

of

writing

same

research

and,

difficulties

on

qualitatise

method, of

THE

Society”

for

o

book, it

sociological

nith

(see

the

sociologists

book

qualitative

researr’h

of

the

out

in

deviances, off

DISCOVERY

the

of

the a

most

subject,

Although

Primacy

material

but

and

number theory

‘working

this

u.

interests

Chapter

their

data

theory

relative

the

that

is

in

to type

nost

that

analysis,”

Chapters

e

quantitative

but

data.)

of

both

important

often

Philip

generation

within book

provide

defensive of

,ire

an

which,

theories OF of

is

he

chapters

research

is,

are

merits

theory ssith

norms,

depends

parts

of

he

the

used

verification.

empirical

III).

independent and

GROUNDED

E. information

the is

necessary—not

to

as

other

from

needs motivated

a

not

emphasis

Hamm

II

quantitative

we

of

of sociologists further

substantive

when

analysis”

most

training

as

for

processes.

of

and

are

within

aware

in

hail

is

lualitative aio

reasons.

data

only

supple

system’

theory

for srid.

THEORY

us,

situa

social

“ade

more often

VIII,

com

show

can

that

the

re

his

can

on

op

on

on

to

of

as

of

a

CO1IPARA

GENERA

PART

I

TIZi1G

TIVE

THEOR

ANALYSIS

Y

B Y

of

parative

which

parative

assigns

sociologists

“comparative

and

general

other

and

scale

parison.) parative

experimental

describe

—the

this

clear

comparative

‘,arious

ologists

ings

anthropology—has

any

1.

Comparative

distinguishing

The

large

method

In

and

social

at

methods,

generation

it

size,

the

method

Chapter

purposes.

term

analysis analysis.

the

analysis

and

has

what

thereby

regions

Furthermore,

method”

method

and

units,

large

with

outset

frequently and

analysis,

comparative

anthropologists,

kind

VI

them

to

anthropologists

be

analysis

as

to

statistical

of

particularly

of

or

to

certain

To

was

use

we

grown

its

as

used

from

of

refer

a the

carry

theory.

small,

diccuss

avoid

to

used,

fullest

strategic with

have

theory

been

world,

comparative

our

is

other

our

for

analysis—often

to

only

several

ranging

methods.

examining

a

one

own

We

in

confusion,

encompass

employed

generality

21

own

organizations,

applied.

recognizing

social

general

can

uses. 1

detail

to

But

customarily

method

suggested

specific

shall

different

comparisons

use

be

from

such

Generating

them

a

units (All

Then

analysis

method,

first

number

generated

for

Our

we

for

it

class several

for

purpose.

a

men

for

used

use

comparative

the

burdens.

reference

for

we

contrast

of

must,

use

discussion

nation,

use

their

generating

of

the

of

or

any

in

can,

shall

great

just

between

achieving

on

different

the

studies

social

specific

their

through

logic

sociology

therefore,

social

institutions,

II

size.

as

our

term

Many

define

like

restricts

Theory

power

of

roles

units

in

of

purposes

are analysis

theory

use

large-

mean

Some

units those

com

which

com

com

com

their

soci

and

and

the

to

to be

of

of a 22 THE DISCOSERY OF GISOR FORD THEORY Generating Theory 23 nations or world regions Our own recent experience has Accurate Es idence demonstrated the usefulness of this method for small organiza tional units, such as wards in hospitals or classes in a school. Q the factual level, evidence collected from other com Before 2 distinguishing our purpose in using comparative parative groups—whether nations. organizations, counties, or anaJvis from other pLrnoc-’s we should mention one unfor h.ocpital wards—is used to check out ss hether the snstial cvi— tunate use of comoarisons: to debunk, disprove, or discount the lnct’ was correct Is the fact a b.cta Thus, facts are replicated work of colleagues From his own readings a sociologist can ‘a ith comparative evidence, either internally (within a study>. almost always find if he uants to, some piece of data that dis externally (outside a study) or both, Sociologists generally proves the fact on sshich his colleague has based a theoretical igree that replications are the best means for validating facts, notion, Many sociologists do! If each debunker thought about Although this use of compa ative analysis is not of itself, the potential value of comparative analysis, instead of satisfying our goal, it is definitely subsumed under our goal. Naturally we his urge to “put down a colleague he realize that he would wish to be as sure of our evidence as possible, and will therefore ha me clv posed anothci comparatisc datum for generati -Ig heck on it as often as we can. Howerer, even if some of our another theoretical property or categor. That is all he has idence e is not entirely accurate this ‘a ill not be too trouble done Nothing is disproved or debunked, despite what those some: for in generating theory it is not the fact upon which we who are overly concerned with evidence constantly believe. stand. but the conceptual category (or a conceptual pro port Kinder colleagues. who present a sociologist with one or more Of the category) that was generated from it. A concept may be negative case hut are afraid of impairing his motivation. usually generated from one fact, which then becomes mereh’ one of a will suggest that some qualification in his theoretical assertion universe of mans possible diverse indicators for, and data on, may be advisable. Their comparative analysis aids him in round the concept. These indicators are then sought for the compara ing out his own comparative analysis and further generating his tive analysis. (See Chapters III and IV.) theory In discovering theory, one generates conceptual categories We also intend to hold a dialogue with those who “put or their properties from evidence; then the evidence from dow the comparative as strategy “not especially original.” which the category emerged is used to illustrate the concept. True, the general notion of compalative analysis was developed The evidence may not necessarily he accurate beyond a doubt by our sociological forclathcrs—Webcr, Durkhem. Mannheim— nor is it even in studies concerned only with accuracy). but and by social anthropologists. We can only trust that our read the concept is undoubtedly a relevant theoretical abstraction ers will absorb enough details of comparatis e analysis as about ren what is going on in the area studied. Furthermore, the dered in this hook to be able to spot the advances in the concept itself sviii not change. while even the most accurate strategy that should make a world of difference in its use. facts change. Concepts only have their meanings respecified at times because other theoretical and research purposes have evolved. Purposes of Comparative Analyses For example, one theoretical category related to the care of dying patients is their social loss—loss to family and occupa The distinction made earlier between relative emphasis on tion.’ This category clearly affects how nurses care for dying generating and verifyi ig can he illuminated further by consider 3. ‘Ac are applying ing the typical uses of evidence obtained through comparative here I,azarsfcld’s rule of ‘interchangeability of in dices” in a new connection Sec Paul F Lazarsfcld and Wagner studies Jiw Thielens, Acarleinic Iliad (Ncw York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1958), pp 402-407. 4. For an explication and theoretical discussion of the category of social 2 Barney C. (Pacer and Anseim L. strauss Awareness of Dying (Chi loss, see Barney G. Glaser and Anseim L. Strauss, “The Social Loss of c ag): Aldine Publehing Co , 1965 Dying Patients, American Journal of Nursing, 64 (June 1964), pp 119-22. 24 THE DISCOVERYOF GROUNDED THEORY Ger crating 7 heory patients The category of ‘social loss” can he generated from .r d pati nts find that cues tha rr gi alert thcm that Lie arc either the ohseration that VIP’s receive special care on inten thing are sague and hard to read until the last stages of their sive care units or that lower-class Negroes often are neglected dying. In a Japanese hospital ‘ae once visited. cancer patients on city hospital emergency wards. Even if the evidence changes tvpicath know they are dying ( an open awarcue’a context” . or is different in other hospitab for various other reasons), we Wln? Because the hospital ward is openly labeled “Cancer.” can he sure that social loss is a category related to nursing The patient entering the ward reads a clear cue that rnakas him care, and we can make predictions on its basis. We can predict an, are that he is dying. \Vhile in America the cue’. tend to be that patients who have high social loss will receive better care ‘aiue and fleeting, we discovered through the Japanesc example than those who have low social loss. If that prediction proves that they can be clear even at the beginning stage o a long incorrect, then we are likely to find out next what structural term of dying, Until then, we had not realized that ‘.u’ ‘. ca,1 conditions have tended to negate this relationship; for example, vary in clarity at the beginning of such a disease as cancer how the medical staff has overcome this socially induced tend We had thought that clear cues emerged only during the final ency in one tYpe of hospital. short, t sgcs for In the discovered theoretical example. when the priest arrives, or the patier t s category lives on until proven theoretically defunct for any sin is beyord endurance or massive bodily degeneration class of data, while the life of the accurate cvidcncc that indi occurs. cated the category may he short. ‘This comparative data from Japan stimulated us te find oca ions in America where clear cues are provided at the start of dying. Empirical Generalizations We found that in a veterans’ hospital and in a prison medical ward, patients from the outset were given clear cues Another standard use of comparative studies is to establish that thex had cancer, Thus we discovered that under the struc the generality of a fact. Does the incest taboo exist in all soci t iral condition of being a captive patient in a government hos eties? Arc almost all nurses women? Is basic research the most pital. one tends to die in an open awareness context, But most revered goal of scientists in all research organizations? Accuracy patients in America do not die under such circumstances. is not at stake so much as establishing the structural boundaries of a fact: where is the fact an accurate description? For some sociologists and anthropologists this purpose becomes a quest Specifying a Concept for “universals”—faets and their explanations by other facts— that apply to all men irrespective of their society or culture. Another (usually detailed and painstaking) use of compara Our goal of generating theory also subsumes this establish tive data is to specify a unit of analysis for a one-case study. ing of empirical generalizations, for the generalizations not only This is done by specifying the dimensions of the concept desig help delimit a grounded theor-’s boundaries of applicability; natin the unit. To make certain the reader understands what more important, tlie help us broaden the theory so that it is a given monograph will be about, in comparison w’ith seemingly more generally applicable and has greater explanatory and similar units, the author compares his unit for analysis with predictive power. By comparing where the facts are similar or these other units, His comparison brings out the distinctive ele different, we can generate properties of categories that increase ments or nature of the case he has studied. For instance, tlic categories’ generality and explanatory power. Cressey painstakingly’ compared taxi-dance halls with all other For example, dying of cancer in America can he character forms of dance halls before proceeding with his analysis.6 Iipset, ized as occurring in a “closed awareness context”—while the 5. Glaser hospital staff does, the patient does not know he is dying. Most and Strauss, Awareness . . , op. cit., Chapters 3 and 8. 6. Paul Cressey, The Taxi-Dance Hall (Chicago: University of Chicago doctois do not tell their patients that their illness is terminal, Press, 1932), 26 THE Dii( OVERT OF GROUNDED IHEORT Generating Theory 27 Trow and Coleman compared the distinctive political nature ties and universals to strategic s r atior f thcory under dif conditions,10 of the flU with the characteristic political structure of other ferent an I to grounded modifications of they11 unions to establish their “deviant” case study. Wirth compared A touch of generation may be includcd but the researcher’s the Chicago with the is ghetto European to establish distinctive focus on verifving, he generates theory only in the service of changes in the new 8 modifying world ghetto Coleman with the aid of his original the as a r suit f he tests, And most IBM equipment, carefully of of this work distiriauished between types high is done with existing theorie , f r example, Blauner’s schools on dimensions, three themselves checked out empirically work with Marxian theory or Iipsct’s ssork with Michel’s to assure us that they are different in rriore than 9script. theory.’ This standard, required use of comparative analysis is accom 2 Some analysts focus on serifying the new theory that pushed early in the presentation of a study of emerges in for the purpose their data Thus, ie their work, theory is generated, getting the ensuing story but its straight. This use is, of course, sub emergence is taken for granted: what is intentionally sumed under the purpose of generating theory. However, when worked for is the verification of this emergent theory. The ana the analyst’s is lvstc are purpose only the specifying of a unit of anal sis, preoccupied with “checking out” the “emergent set ot he stifles his chances for generating to a greater degree than propositions.” Their favorite technique is looking for negative with any other use eases or of comparative analysis. The distinctive setting out deliberately to accumulate positive ones to empirical elements distinguishing of gain further the units comparison are evidence for their hypotheses And while, as in kept on the level Dalton’s of data, to insure clear understanding of dif research, great trouble may be taken in actively seeking ferential definitions. comparative As a consequence, the units’ general proper groups, other analysts may use comparative groups ties in common, which might occur to the analyst as he com incidentally or even implicitly. pares, are carefully No These unattended. ambiguity of similarity, researchers in specific studies do not seem to have such as a general underlsing property focused pervading all of them, directly on how their theory emerged; as a result, they is aliou ed between the competing have not units. Comparative analysis, explored how the’ could have generated more of it then, is carefully more put out of the picture, never to “disrupt” the systematically, and with more conceptual generality and monologue again. scope. A focus on testing can thus easily block the generation of a more rounded and more dense theory (see Chapter \‘I,). Ordinarily, we are presented with u elI-tested theory fragments, VerifyingTheory which can only partially account for what is happening in the researched situation. When the analyst turns to theoretical concerns, evidence is Also, we are presented with plenty of evidence coupled invariably used as a test of his hvpotheses—and thereby of the with at least implicit assurances that there were mountains relevance of his categories: comparative data give the best test more for verificatjon,because evidence is still most important Both implicitly and explicitly, the analyst continually checks to the analyst as the means for testing how he out his theory as the data pour in. Explicit verification beyond 10. For testing his hypotheses may lead to establishing major uniformi example, Robert Blauner, Alienation and Freedom (Chicago’ Uiiisersitv of Chicago Press, 1964) 11. See Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (New 7. S. M Lipset, Martin Trow and James S. Coleman, Union Democracy lork: Frce Press of Glencoe, 1957) Chapter Ill. (\ew York. Free Prei, of Clencoc, 1956). 12. See Blauner, op “it. and Lipset et al., op. cit. 8. Louis Wirth, The Ghetto (new ed.) (Chicago: University of Chicago 13. See, for example, Melville Dalton Men Who Manage (New York: Press, 1962) John Wiley and Sons, 1959 , and Howard S. Becker Blanche Geer, Everett 9. James Coleman, 7 he Adolescent Society (New York: Hughes and Free Press of Anseim L Strauss, Boys In White (Chicago: University of Glencoe, 1961), Chicago Press, 1961),

ferent knew

pooh’ ing doxically

eration. possible

while

never point and the

theory, service sis for

t suie, descriptions, everyone cially

terification

accurate 28

given to

t

generating

egins.

10

.1

1)P”

Generating

While

When

I

gis [4

professor. existing

new

Rcuvlmti

both

find.n

data

professors

a

c

the where

his

destror

research,

when

‘[Ia one e

his

tes

comparative

Beck

iv

of

o

This

Thus,

he

theories

themselves

evidence

with

urge

ar

an’

allows

of

theory

generation.

irs nvolved subsumes verifying

theory,

he

discovers

s

1

e o a

ii it

are

is

theories,

the

ni

verification

social

but

Theory ‘(

to

0

idenc

is

I

a

generation

not alike, 0 to

fhe e

vtal

as

not (I,’eago:

it

theon’

i

s’ critiques

especially 1

r

cantankerous

is

was

only

r

can

generate

wholly

.

ph

oWS

fails and

accurate e

clearly

so

ibid

evidence

research. sod

their

analyst’s is

nen from

job if

enthusiastically we

and

and

dmnc

cemer

Otherwise

be

“

crucial

“right”

the

to

they

(o

verified

p.

to

a

mountains

becomes

suggest

rm’vrsmty

Jr

of

purposeful

quickly

tells

of

generates

or

i

30);

the

t

are

‘a

realize

assumes

reseatcher’s

any

.

is

recognized

mc

-

true

hick t

are

cstrrsg theory

evidence I

or,-

The

in

or

when confidence

Of of normal;

is

somas

made

extent

and

colleagues

generality

THE

hypotheses.

part.

than

not

‘5000

personal

a they

because

of

it This

that

killed

course,

of

imp 1 so

that

Dahon

be

was

Chic

DISCOS

one S

through

time

“hooked” his

b cerifLations

a systematic

paramount

a

to

that

his

are

ten

K

lonco-oc

and single-spaced

focus

as accurate

as igo principal

S generated

a by

s

an theory—but

amm’i

generating.

(,hid.

FRY

purpose

main

wiy I, verifying

n

u

t sure

theory experience ev,dence

possible the

the

Presn

with

or”

sociologists,

the

influential

the

This

evidenec.

comparatiVe

destroyed

on

OF

he

dutis

on

gierated

to

‘inh1O

latter

twin

main goal

tells

generation

(;ROUNDED

Sac description as

1962’•.

evidence

their

only

verifying, and

happens stifle

and

is

is

typed

c

to

of

as

is

and

in

critiques

to

tsr

quite

or.

‘ riot

are

But goal

to modify

curb

isis

vital

colleague

We

own

it.

much

requisite

develop

generate

accurate

students

because

psges’

“pooh

testing

research THEORY

in to

theosa

analy To

be1ev” likeb

when

para

espe

from

S

tend ( of

gen

task

and

dif

the the

ic

i

be

as it.

of

f

a

and

Needless

there

ensure

York:

A

the

take

inal

extremely

of

taught

thinkers

source

York:

is

by “The verify parison

with logico-deductive

fortable

that

eralk and

plus

cOnnection.

has

the

sense, on

behavior This deductive

in theories

Fuithermore,

Case

dence

to

Generating

studr

17. a

data

hypotheses

16.

the

him,’ working

ought Generating

their

Basic

be

idea the

previous

an

erudite.’°

John

his

an

us). does

nothing

to

in

As

The

works

a Study

leaves

is of situation

to

peppered

“ not

forgotten

cautious

of

that think

unconfirmed

the

few

additional

promotion one’

and

completels

feeling

basis

long

warns

to

Wiley

Books,

are

careers

sa’..

A

it

anals

hypotheses, not

both

,“

insights

he

of

Theory

to

theory,

eXampIe,

to

analysis purports

grounded will

propositions

that

certain ago.”

us

in

we

speculative other

Iciree

to

such

data,

st

one The

of

sociologists

and

seem

theory

he

19fi4),

Philip

is

that

theories

with

theory

with

be

science may,

believe

in

or

in

a

Peter

do

is

opposed

researcher

into

Sons,

one,

a

in

presented

social

is

See

verifier

in ‘a priori

quite

an

used order

to

ignored.

relation,

set

since

to

some

to

hich

to

pp

it

a

with his

Hammond indeed,

carries

contrast

social

theory’

Blau,

be Stanley

organization

Verify

is 1964).

few

that

stray

fit

pertaining

of

explain,

scientists, best

book likely

than

would

174-75.

to

for

applying

he

theory, highly

will

to assumption

may speculations;

is

about

or

“thinker”

in

our

Exchange life

because his old

forcing

from

is

force verifying

Now, test

the

ing

p.

a

of

Fl.

this

can

dubiously

to

work

an

find

obliged

emphasis

to

presented

reformulated

(Ed.

theoretical

vii.

find Or conjecture—based

provide.

declining

evidence,

Udy,

since find

applicable and

a same

book

science.

an

grounded

discovery accurate staflc

be

this

the

the

he

a it

logico_deductive to

the

I

and

himself analytic

(and

that

“great

thes’

might

worthwhile

Jr.. used

mas’ to

have

d Sociologists

the

it

connection connection

only and

risk

benefit

on

focus

Power

by

with

and,

to

move

related

was

“Cross

“Unless

Whether

often

the

a

force

been

perhaps

man”

same speculations

force

as social

straying

unless

description

a

to

fit

of

a framework

have

theories,

gives

colleagues

hypothesis

merely

at

is

speculative

in part

touch

a

‘wlmc

between

areas

as

have theory.

Cultural

testing

strongly

the

in

said

fuller

the Social worst,

on

philosophers

between because

at

to

area

to

testing

been rc’.

favor

us

from or

of

connection

hr

their

Work

the

the researcher

risk

under

theory

one

the

Ci

of

thought

Blau

since

not to

the them,

Life

a

by

test

influenced

ss

Analysis:

Joi.ces

a of

the a

used

made

his

common

playing

existed new

uncom

ho

ultimate

an

a he

theory or

theory theory. area

theory

(New

fitting

theory

states: logico theory,

there

(New

com period

study.

orig

data

of

feel

area

gen

these

was

two

and

to

to

evi

is

by

up

a

of

a

29

31

I 4: 30 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED tHEORY Generating 7 heory that ‘fits or works” in a substantiye or formal area çthough theory not only researched description.a Indeed, the market further testing, clarification, or reformulation is still necessary), ate, corpol and government fact-finding agencies can since the theory has been derived from data, not deduced from easiln outdo any sociologist in researched descriptions through shee logical assumptions. resources, if 1 they care to. V/here the sociologist can help these Since accurate evidence is not so crucial for generating agencies is by providing them with theory that will make their theory, the kind of evidence, as well as the number of cases, is research relevant And, as a brief reading of typical fact-finding also not so crucial. A single case can indicate a general con and market-research reports indicates, sociological relevance is ceptual category or property; a few more cases can confirm the sorely needed both for understanding the “dust heap” of data indication. As we note in the next chapter on theoretical sam piled up by agencies and for correcting the conventional pling. generation by coinparati e analysis requires a multitude ideology that guides this piling up of data,21 of carefully selected cases, but the pressure is not on the soci ologist to “knoss the whole field’ or to have all the facts “from a careful random sample. His job is not to provide a perfect What Theory Is Generated description of an area, hut to deelop a theory that accounts for mu h of the relevant behavior. The sociologist with theoreti This book is about the process of generating grounded theory cal generation as his major aim need not know the concrete so our nd polemic is with oth°r processes of arriving at theory, situation better than the people involved in it (an impossible particularly the logico-deductive, Grounded theory, it should task anyway). His job and his training are to do what these be mentioned, may take different forms, And although we con laymen cannot do—generate general categories and their prop sider the process of generating theory as related to its subse erties for general and specific situations and problems. These queut use and effectiveness the form in which the theory is can provide theoretical guides to the layman’s action (see Chap presented can he independent of this process by which it was ter X on practical applications). The sociologist thereby brings generated, Grounded theory can be presented either as a well- sociological theory, and so a different perspective, into the situa codified set of propositions or in a running theoretical discussion, tion of the layman. This new perspective can be very helpful using conceptual categories and their properties. to the latter. 22 Sociologists who conceive of this task as their job are not 20. We are in complete agreement with Zetterberg on this issue of whether sociology will plagued (as are those who attempt to report precise descrip advance more by cuncentrating on theory or on niethodologv. But we tion) by thoughts such as “eervbody knows it, why bother to feel that a methodology of generating it is needed for theoretical advance, See Hans L. 18; Zetterberg, On lheorzj und Verification in Sociology ( write a book” or feelings that description is not enough: a Totowa. NJ.: Ilednsinster Press, 1963). Preface. 21. A good instance is good sociologist from Chicago must do more, but what” Soci the sociological relevance of vast amounts of govenimentl statistics or, the differential medical ologists who set themselves the task of generating theory from strata care of socioeconomic in America. The common-sense meaning of these statistics the data of social self evident, hut is almost research have a job that can he done only by deeper sociological significance neither guides these ernmental surveys gov the sociologist, and that offers a significant product to laymen nor much affects agency policies. What sociologists about socioecononuc’ know life st”les arid about the organization of medical facili and colleagues alike, Research sociologists in their driving ties can easily be brought to hear upon government data. See policy paper efforts to get the facts tend to forget that, besides methodology on medical care by Anselm Strauss, written for the Studies Institute for Policy th distinctive offering of sociology to our society is sociological (Washington l).C.. July, 1965), 22. This choice is not news. since most theory is written whether grounded this way, oi logsco-cleductive. But we have noted this decision, 18. Bla schc Geer, ‘F rst Days in thc Fi Id,’ in I{ammond, op. cit, the request of on several colleagues, to fend off the critique that the only true p. 322, theory is the one written, by the numbers as an integrated set of 19. David Reisman and Watson, Project: A tions, proposi Jeanne “The Sociability The form in v,hich a theory is presented does not it make it a theory’ Chronicle of Frustration and A hi scment” n Hammond, op. cit., p 292. is a theory because it explains or predicts something. 32 THF DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY Generating Theory 33 We have choscn the disussional form for several reasons hes fall et veer F ‘m’ or s ‘orking Fypotheses f e crydav Our strategy of compalative analysis for generating theory puts life and the ‘all-inclusiv’ grand theories.23 high emphasis on theory as process, that is, theory as an Substantive and formal theories exist on distinguishable ever-developing entity not as a perfected product. (The reader levels of generality, which differ only in terms of degree There s’ll Sec furthe what e mean in CI apters HI and IV.) To be fr ‘i iny one study ach type ar shade at points into the sure as process can in as a e theory be presented publications other The analyst, ho houlJ füua Llc’stllyon one level momentary product, hut it is written sith the assumption that or other or on a specific combinat’on, because the strategies is still Theory as believe, renders it developing process, we vary for arriving at each one, For example, in our analysis of reality -I as quite well the of social interaction and its structural ing a nonscheduled status passage, the focus was on the context, ubstantive area ‘f dying not on the formal ‘rca of status pa of gives a feeling age 2 The discussional form formulating theory With the to us on a substantive area such as this, the of “ever-developing” to the theory, allows it to become quite generation of theory can be achieved by a comparative analysis rich, complex, and dense, and inaks its fit and relevance easy b ssccn or among groups within the same substantive area In to comprehend. On the other hand, to state a theory in propo this instance we compared hospital wards nhere patients sitional form, except perhaps for a few scattered core proposi haracteristically died at different rates 1 he substantive theory tions, would make it less complex. dense, and rich, and also could be generated b comparing dying as a status passage more laborious implication to read, It would also tend by ssith other substantive cases within the formal area of status to “freeze” the theory instead of giving the feeling of a need passage with other substantive cases within the formal area of for continued development. If necessary for verificational studies, status passage, whether scheduled or not, such as studenthood parts of the theoretical discussion can at any point be rephrased or engagement for marriage. The comparison would illuminate as a set of propositions. This rephrasing is simply a formal the substantive theory about dying as a status passage. exercise, though, since the concepts are already related in the However if the focus were on formal theory, then the com discussion, Also, with either a propositional or discussional parative analysis would be made among different kinds of sub grounded theory, the sociologist can then logically deduce stantis e cases which fall within the formal area, without relating further hypotheses. Indeed, deductions from grounded theory, them to any one substantive area, The focus of comparisons is as it develops. are the method by which the researcher directs now on generatirg a theory of status passage, not on generating his theoretical sampling (see Chapter III) theory about a single substantive case of status passage. Both substantive and formal theories must be grounded in data, Substantive and Formal Theory Substantive theory faithful to the empirical situation can not, we believe, be formulated merely by applying a few ideas is Cowparative analysis can be used to two basic from ‘I4 generate an established formal theory to the substantive area, To k nds of theory: substantie formal. By substantive theory, be and sure one goes out and studies an area with a particular we mean that developed for a substantive, or empirical, area of sociological perspective, and with a focus, a general question Ii sociological inquiry, such as patient care, race relations, r pro a problem in mind, But he can (and we believe should) also fessional education, delinquency, organizations. By or research study an area without any preconceived theory that dictates, formal theory. mean a we that developed for formal, or con prior to the research, “relevancies” in concepts and hypotheses. ceptual, area of sociological inquiry such as stigma, deviant behavior, formal organization, socialization, status congruency, 23. See Merton, op. cit, pp 5-10 24. Barney authority and power, reward systems, or social mobility. Both C Claser and Anselm L Strauss, “Temporal Aspects of Dying as a Non-Sch duled Status types of theory may be considered as “middle range.” That is, Passage,” A,nerican Jow’nal of Sociology, LXXI (July, 1965), pp 48-59. 34 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED FHEORY Generating Theory

Indred it is presumptuus to assume that one begins to know that is generated from logical assumptions and speculations the relevant categories and hypotheses until the “first days in about the “oughts” of social life. the held,” at least, are over, A substantive theory generated Within these 25 relations existing among social research, sub from the data must first be formulated, in order to see which of stantive theory and formal theory is a design for the cumulative diverse formal theories are, perhaps. applicable for furthering nature of knowledge and theory. The design involves a pro additional substantive formulations. gressive building up from facts, through substantive to grounded Ignoring this first task—discovering substantive theory rele fonnal theory. To generate substantive theory, we need many vant to a given substantive area—is the result, in most instances, facts for the necessary comparative analysis; ethnographic stud of believing that formal theories can be applied directly to a ies, as well as direct gathering of data, are immensely useful for ‘ubstantive area, and will supply most or all of the necessary this purpose. Ethnographic studies substantive thcories and concepts and hypotheses. rhe conseqence is often a forcing of direct data collection are all, in turn, necessary for building up data, as well as a neglect of relevant concepts and hypotheses bs comparative analysis to formal theory. This design then, that may emerge. Our approach, allowing substantive concepts locates the place of each level of work within the cumulation of and hypotheses to emerge first, on their own, enables the analyst know ledge and theory, and thereb suggests a division of labor to ascertain which, if any, existing formal theory may help him in sociological work. generate his substantive theories, lie can then be more faithful This design also suggests that many ethnographic studies and to his data, rather than forcing it to fit a theory. He can be multiple theories are needed so that various substantive and more objective and less theoretically biased. Of course, this also formal areas of inquir can continue to build up to more inclu means that he cannot merely apply Parsonian or Mertonian sise formal theories. Such a call for multiple theories is in con categories at the start, but must wait to see whether they are trast to the directly monopolistic implications of logico-deductive linked to the emergent substantive theory concerning the issue theories, whose formulators claim there is only one theory for in focus. an area, or perhaps even one sociological theory for all areas. Substantive theory in turn helps to generate new grounded The need for multiple theories on the substantive level may be formal theories and to reformulate previously established ones. obvious, but it is not so obvious on the formal level, Yet multiple lius it becomes a strategic link in the formulation and develop formal theories are also necessary, since one theory never ment of formal theory based on data. For example, in our handles all relevancies, and because by comparing many theories theory bearing on “awareness contexts” relevant to dying, two we can begin to arrive at more inclusive, parsimonious levels. important properties are cues leading to awareness and the The logico-deductix-e theorist, proceeding under the license and personal stakes involved in the various parties’ becoming aware. mandate of analytic abstraction, engages in premature parsimony Currently, in generating a formal theory of awareness contexts, when arriving at his theory. (In Chapters III, IV and V we we are developing the generalities related to stakes and cues by shall discuss in more detail the relations of research to studying such groups as spies and building subcontractors. A the gen eration of substantive and formal theory.) dying patient or a spy has a great stake in any type of aware ness context, and a subcontractor has a quantifiable or monetary Elements stake. In Chapter IV, we shall discuss more fully the generation of the Theory of grounded formal theory. Suffice it to say that we use the As we shall discuss and use them, the elements of theory word grounded here to underline the point that the formal theory that are generated by comparative analysis are, first, conceptual we are talking about must be contrasted with “grand” theory categories and their conceptual properties; and second, hypothe ses or generalized relations among the categories and their 25. Geer, op. cit. properties.

provided

collection

ties

userriding

clearh

quickly their

Dying ir sidering

gories

areas—as It

g

that a

also

are tionship

of

related’

“loss conceptual

to their of

uch sure and

both

category

as

their

36 ween

xc

takes

26.

ategory

Although

themselves

a

It

a

The

nursing

Categories

urde

that

concepts

occupation. 2

indicated

that

patient

changes conceptual

rise categories

when

pr

Patients,”

must view

attention

ratioriales”—tliat

See

and ‘perc,ptions

these

be

during

constant

much

perties,

low

helps

elaborate

that hese

to

both

Barney

and

well

coding

important

and

of

cinervation.

be

properties

facing

or

care

aspect

them,

w

two

categories

ratzcnale

in indicated

ss

Amcricue

the

more

their

hors

kept

property

property

it

the

the

leads

integrating,

vary

as hat

and

to

and

the

C.

element

which,

comparing

will

are

element

and

data

their

his One

the

nurses

early

them—tend degree

or

Glaser

perceptions

they

in of

evidence—usually

their

original

prope

in

to

him

the

not

have

death.

Jourual

mind

creation

analysis eiem”

social

property

are

arise

s,

degree

can

by

is

many

a

Lower

since indica

phases

of

uroerties.

and

cc

necessarily

to

theory

conceived,

to of

of

the

tie.

uria

conceptualizations—and

continually

the

a

the be

of

category.

that

as

maintain among

of

loss

Anseim ti-

loss’

life

generate

they

similarities

s’

many

of

of

rationales

Nursing, of

of

borrowed

a

data

of

of

level

to theory

HF

Making

of

both

explaining

high

his

“professional

apart

social

a

the conceptual

y. data

a

a

come

the

of

emerge

For nurses

DISCOVERY

L.

systematic

better

A

death

(and

alter,

category.

groups

categories

a

from

In .A

their

data,

categories

social a

64

studied

Strauss,

category

abstract category

collection.

change

from

loss. example.

short,

a

later

dying

and

property,

(june, from

nurses

not

clarify to

will

different

category

from

professional

distinction

the

All

draws loss,

OF

the

abstraction.

explain

“The

differences.

during

the

to conceptual

composure’

We

existing in

1964),

he

relationship

patient kind

GROU’DED

categories

of

stands

three

emerge

and

the

two

use

evidence

make

and

Higher

or

the

to

social

Social

data

in

the

the

have,

substantive

to

destroy

data,

of

properties

his

pp. categories

the

to

the are

turn,

this

evidence

between

by

proper

sociolo

achieve

theory,

certain

that

compo

behav

itself);

Loss

119-22.

rather

family

justify

loss THEORY

level,

death

inter

Once

Con

cate

joint

then.

itself

rela

that

will

and

and

is

be

it.

is

of

is

a

nections

abstractions

Watson, sized

aim

zation tively

ceptual

areas.

established

will

under

literally

relevance, signed

focus

long

harder

disbelief

data

‘ng tion

“square

on

in

theory

ally

ing,

quacy

most categories,

lished

selection

this,

emergent

that

Generating

27.

This

While finding

at

them.

not

By

with

at

See being

for

run then’

to few

on

as

the

Similarities

study,

Merely achieving relevant

Op.

for

position

of

as

level.

to

by

to

between

contrast,

to

he

categories”

apply

possible.

the Hie

of

the

the categories

Cit.,

indicators

borrowed

they

mawj

forcing,

major

find,

the

The

indicators

the

ignore

another

conceptualizations,

fullest

Also,

after

of

Theory

developed

contaminated

because

both

in

case

emergence

verification

pp.

selecting

tentative

categories

situation

and

purpose,

to

order

e

may

on

result

feer

much

Ice

uniformities

the

history

data

305-09. believe colleagues

emergent

when

and The

categories

the

possible

and

the the

dr

theory

is

for

fit,

categories

the

not

and

to

analytic

literature

buttressed

in is

eonvergences

dn.’ersiñj

synthesis

and of

and

diversity

richness, best

data

generating

on

under

emergent

relationship

assure

of they we

major

and

that

of

number,

conceptual

in

be

that

by

tends

this

categories

generality

checked

lower

fitted

categories

getting

theory try

and

or for

relevant,

must

concepts

properties. and

our

core

There

study

the

problem

that

effort

is

properties

in

of provides

of

An

to

to

a

laymen

by

categories

to and

more

sariations

and

emergent

forcing

generation

category theory

conceptual

theory

be

hinder

aims

the

fit

of

agreement

effective

for

the

with

a

between

and

are

we

is

solves

and

respecifled.

long

cnr’fronted

categories

highem and

more

a

not

usually

emergence

not

relevance.

data,

difficult

from

a

at

can

hypothetical

readily

category

does

the

and

the

is

meaning

of

number

as

are justifleatory

establishing

is

generation. that

the

categories,

suited

strategy

on

sure have

As

“round

of

literature

level

the the

rich;

les seldom

generation

among

put

fact

prove

not

problems

by

the

they

apparent

has

since

theory

el

has

start, 27

to

In

of

Also

two.

much

from

a

of

on

Reisman

has

to

since

conceptual

are

exactly

same

premium

been

categories

arouse

is,

short.

data”

a are

reasons

emerged. colleagues

generali

to

different

the

they

svpthe

problem.

explana

impor

but

the

can

Forcing

continu

should a

at

another

trouble

Work emerg

be

of

in

of

con

rela

con

estab

area

first,

md

our into

ade

data

new

de

be

the

are

the

fit,

the

for

on 37 38 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY Generaizrig Theory 39 taut consequences both for the sociologict and for sociology. enable one to gras the reference in terms of one’s own experi As the sociologist uses standard sociological concepts, he soon ence. To make concepts both analytic and sensitizing helps discovers that they usually become very differently defined, the reader to see and hear visidly the people in the area under dimensioned, specified. or typed. Typical boundaries of the study, especially if it is a substantive area. This perception. in standai d concept become broken Furthermore, the boundaries turn, helps the reader to grasp the theory developed for the of the established battery of sociological concepts are also area, To formulate concepts of this nature, bringing together broken, As he discovers new categories, the sociologist realizes the best of tw’o possible worlds, takes considerable study of how few kmds of behavior can be coped with by many of our one’s data and requires considerable data collection of incidents concepts, and recognizes the need to develop more concepts by bearing on a category. If, when a category is but scarcely estab straying out of traditional research areas into the multitude of us icd. the sociologist turns to collecting data for another poten substantive unknowns of social life that never have been touched ml ategory, slighting the newly established one, the latter is —to gie only a few examples, building subcontracting, auction- l’l—elyto lack development both in sensitizing and in some ccring, mortgaging, or the producing of plays by amateur theater ef its analytic aspects. A balance must be struck hetw’een the grouns. two lines of effort in accordance w’ith the theoretical saturation As one thinks about the broad spectrum of social life, one of categories (a strategy we shall discuss in Chapter III). realizes that sociologists (with the focused aid of foundations Hypotheses’. The comparison of differences and similarities have reall worked in only a small corner of it when posing among groups not only generates categories, hut also rather the larger questions of deviance, social problems, formal organ speedily generates generalized relations among them. It must izatons, education, mental health, community government, un he emphasized that these hypotheses have at first the status of dercleveloped countries, and so forth, One also realizes that a suggested, not tested, relations among categories and their prop great many more formal theories of sociology have yet to be rties, though they are verified as much as possible in the course generated about such additional areas as loneliness, brutality, o research resistance, debating, bidding systems, transportation, mail-order Whether the sociologist, as he jointly collects and analyzes distribution, corporate collusion, financial systems, diplomacy, qualitative data, starts out in a confused state of noting almost and world interdependence through business systems. One verything he Sees because it all seems significant, or whether strategy for bringing the generation of theory to greater impor F starts out with a more defined purpose, his work quickly tance is to work in non-traditional areas where there is little or leads to the generation of hypotheses. When he begins to no technical literature, Finding non-traditional areas is also a hypothesize with the explicit purpose of generating theory, the strategy for escaping the shackles of existing theory and con researcher is no longer a passive receiver of impressions but is temporary emphasis. The sociologist who does so can easily draw n naturally into actively generating and verifying his find himself not merely generating a new theory but also open h potheses through comparison of groups. Characteristically, in ing a new area for sociological inquiry—virtually initiating a this kind of joint data collection and analysis, multiple hypothe new portion of sociology. ‘Whether he studies less or more tra ses are pursued simultaneously. Some are pursued over long ditional areas, hossever, the first requirement for breaking the i eriods of time bei.ause their generation and verification are bounds of established sociology is to generate theory from data. linked with developing social events. Meanw’hile, new hypotheses The type of concept that should be generated has two, joint, a e continually sought essential features, First, the concepts should be analytic—suffi Generating hypotheses requires evidence enough only to ciently generalized to designate characteristics of concrete enti ties, not the entities themselves. They should also he sensitizing 28 On sensitizing concepts see Flerbert Blumer, “What is Wrong with Social Theory,” American Sociological Review, 19 (February 1964). —yield a “meaningful” picture, abetted by apt illustrations that to 3-lu. 40 ISlE DI5C0ERY OF GROUNDED THEORY Generating Tleory establish a suggestion—not an excessive piling up of evidence bon the fullest range of conceptual levels: anyone o uses the to establish a proof. and the consequent hindering of the gen integrated theory can start at a more general level and, focus eration of new hypotheses. In field work, however, general rela ing upon a specific area within the theory, ‘aork down to data. tions are often discovered in vivo; that is, the field worker still guided by hypotheses for limited, specific situations. For 1vliteral sees them occur This aspect of the “real life” character those who rise the theory, these less information-packed hypothe of field work deserves emphasis, for it is an important dividend ses may be as important as the more general theoretical ones; in generating theory. (We shall say more about this point when for instance, a sociologist studying the awareness of dying discussing the credibility of analyses of qualitative field data in p tients on a surgical ward, or nurses trying to apply aware Chapter IX) sess theory to family relations as observed on an emergency In the beginning one’s hypotheses may seem unrelated, but a d (although not on all wards) as categories and properties emerge develop in abstraction, and I must be emphasized that integration of the theory is become related, their accumulating interrelations form an inte be t when it emerges, like the concepts. The theory should grated central theoretical f”arne’vork the core of the emerging icver just he put together, nor sh )uld a formal-theory model 1f/icon The core becomes a theoretical guide to the further be applied to it until one is sure it will fit, and will riot force .collection and anal si of data. Field storkers have remarked the data. Possible use of a formal model of integration can he upon the rapid crystallization of that framework, as svell as the determined oni after a substantive model has sufficiently iapid emergence of categories ‘When the main emphasis is emerged. The truly emergent integrating framework, which on crifying theory, there2 is no provision for discovering novelty, encompasses the fullest possible diversity of categories and and potentially illuminating’ perspectives, that do emerge and properties, becomes an open-ended scheme, hardly subject to might change the theory, actually arc suppressed. In verification, be-ing redesigned. It is open-ended because, as new categories one feels too juickly that he has the theory and now must pi operties are generated and related, there seems alw iys to check it out.” When generation of theory is the aim, however, s place for them in the scheme, For substantive theory, the one is constantly alert to emergent perspectives that will change st is very likely to discover an integrating scheme within and help develop his theory. These perspectives can easily occur i b to, since the data and the interrelations of his theory lie yen on the final day of study or when the manuscript is re USC together i viewed in page proof. so the published word is not the final fosvever the comparative analysis of diverse kinds of sub one, but only a pause in the never-ending process of generating antive groups though aimed at generating “grounded” fosmal theory, W’hen erifieation is the main aim, publication of the ti’eor can takc the researcher far from from emergent substan study tends to give readers the impression that this is the last Integrations. Then existing formal models of process and w’ord ure and analysis become useful guides to integi ating 11w Integration. IntegratIon of the theorv—sshieh takes place at i’s-s of a formal theory—provided that integration is not the many les els of generality that emerge—does rc, ‘i on the theory. not necessitate \lodels of integration for substantis €‘ a distinction between “working” (or “ordinary”) and theoretical lu-Cl v that are c’orived from the data are hot necessanli aprite hypotheses. Our emphasis on integration takes into considera 5b1 to o’her u st-intise are, s em transfer si on be at pted s th gr ‘it autien i d ni after tiy’r is -Ovci 3 29 Our colleague, Leonard Schatzman, has called this the “momentum ° a seig n t gnat r first effect ‘i he emergence of categories and theoretical perspective gains such momsntum that a researcher must usually retire from the field after the C e a r i egr o bsta sv i or h first few days to appraise the data and establish an order for what is hap pening. He stops being drowned flood x by the of data and startsto plan his For cl rs dtr the Ste ate theme of ‘ ‘ and theoretical sampling. surss ‘s Con osu CliapF-r 13 CIa cr arid Sin is Awar iSf 30 Zcttcrbcrg,op. oft, p. 21, and paasimr, Jing.

by

two phasize a stantive culating

loss—includes

th nurses’

that are distribution this social

are cation cussed peop]e

Hypotheses Pioperties umerenc rizing

CategorY

42

stat-is

would

“Temporal

useful

Elements

experts.

Pavir

3:3.

32

lie

generated

beginning

r’es

kinds

same

“work”

passage—legitimatine.

provide loss

.

The

Claser is

of

in

attitudes

theories

too

following

is

social

of

e

beginning

referred

The

Chapter

Aspects

ill

integrative

of

heed sehe

of

wa

of

Our

of

Category’

strongly—whereby

of

and

corres

a

Theory

dyir,g

predict

theory

from

concepts

move

the

descriptions

useful

we

lose

n

services

substantive

to

Strauss,

that

and

of

hav

to

chart

I\

efici

04

these

Dying

j-atiei

data,

cud

for

‘,Q(

beginning

from

that

in

deal

and

iehavior

schemes,

mt

integrated

t

lal

“rue

patients

nurses

care.

rationales The and Calculating

away on

teristics Social

loss

Chapter

(I)

as

integrating

provides

strioti of

an

‘rrs’lati

as bid

announcing

we

is

explain—and

substantis

s—i

loss

basis

of

affected

of

integration,

ith

The

the

apparent

a

higher

Social insure

Substantive

his

to (2)

a have

loss

son-Scheduled

a

develop

ndei

re

dying the

of

tories

substantive as

the

better

of to

socia 1

a

InC

proc’ess—srhich

to

death

We

iis

lU

of

thec’rv

The

patient

Loss

social

examples

the

learned

the

on

explain

social

is

study

discussed:

that

DISCOVF,RY

dying

s

a

patient,

by

e

and

charac

eli

he

canrot

and

his

Type

loss

ould

social

em

more

loss

to formal

of

and

“real”

loss

however,

of

the

do

major

as

of

substantive

uoordrnating

Dying

value

formal

will

dying of

status

gence

of

the

not

apply

to

Status

and

social

of

say

Theory

is

OF

The

services less istics

ences

basis

apparent Calculating

value

Social

dying

theory

aloe

be

categories

strictures

orld,

Patients,”

of

impact

elements

sound

as

GBOUCDED

passage

formal

we

whether

levels

delay would

and

Passage,”

higher

people

to

explicitly

a

of

of

value

in

of

salsie

Formal

the

These

non-scheduled

cannot

patients

and

from

learned

other

a

receiving

person

character

about

the

‘sviridy”

he

pcrson

of

in

O

of

passage—

theories

the

provide

social

of

on

forrna 1

of

served

of

of

experi

or

general, IHEORY

op. social

experts

ipp 1 i

theo

people

rules

Cit.

sub

social

em

cal

and

on

dis

the

the ot

the

the

os

the

cit.

t

and

and

generation

Chapter

operation, tion

leing are

such

tendency’ should

mflt of

other

investigation three

important

Generating

ished

ie

oupled

data

Ir

discussion

slighted

analysis,

analysis,

hinders

a

chapters

operations

coded

concluding

rules

studies

blur

definite

is

III

sith

is

Theory

the

aspect

the

of

and

to

or or

we

and

as

which

generation

to

the

is

of

theory

of

idea do

underlying

tocus

ignored.

plain

ill

intertwine

data

its

discuss

be

our

description

this

notion

a of

all

focus

may

end,

fresh

imply

done

on

generating

routine—thus

book

three

are

chapter.

To

This

one

the

on

of

of

be

To

collected.

analytic

operation

continually,

together

pursue

considerable

simultaneously’.

Joint

theory

the

theory.

operation

disregarded

relations and

be

definite

sic

relations

theory

collection,

sure,

verification,

uish

this

idea

as

stifling

as

F

The

separation

or

proc

between

from

at

in

much

to

vital

that

coding;

emerges

because a

example.

between

any

generation

at

hut

nphasizc

time

coding.

ss,

the

pervades

tactic

as

that

there

investigation

requires

in

beginning

data

that

of

in

possible.

that

many

of

joint

moment

and

each

if

Chapter

further,

is

one’

the

pre-estab

of

collection

data

jolts

typically

this

analysis

that

coding

theory,

(if

opera

others

highl

of

They

and

the

the

are

not

the

V,

an all

in

43

I ii

covers

of

gories

eepts

hold

nor

mission that will

work

features

framework.

The

to

1cm

marks

eial

emerging

emerges

cisions

and

and

gcnerating

these

The

students

Theoretical

are

there

study initial

on

sociological

where

area

analyzes

ahoet

of

of

that

or

for

they

his

procedures sociologist

concepts of

local”

his

how

This

will

theory,

decisions

theoretical

the

research,

some

For

theory

such

to

the

in

likely

tbeorw

he

his

policemen

structure

find

process

medical

sampling

example.

concepts.

problem

perspectie

anticipated

to

doctors,

as

whether

may

data

to

whereby

These

them,

are

his

Of

His

how

become

collection

begin

of

course,

not and

problem—this

school

and

categories

itself,

he

act

is

nurses,

designating

concepts

substantive

in

confidence

data

based

the

and

decides

the

knows

processes

“local”

part

toward 45

order

the

he

that

of

not

collection

Theoretical

process

analyst

on

and

research

on

of

data

does

are

give

to

its

before

concepts

a

turns

the

what

a

Negroes

aides,

a

or

men

problem

general

in

develop

preconceived

are

not

situation.

more

few

him

core

formal,

jointly

of

the

vith

is

based

them

data

studying

know

handle

and

data

principal

a

controlled

likely

situations

explanatory

may

or

subject

beginning a

must

his

wards

to collects

The

into

what

only

the partial

klso,

Sampling

collection

remain

theory

collect

to

prospective

theoretical

a

emerge—

relevancy

initial

on

doctors’).

or

be

or

happens

hospital

and

he

that

frame

by

a

codes

cate-

prob

gross

foot

con

as

dis

un-

gen

next

ad

de

the

he

for it 46 TIlE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED TBEORY Theoretical Sampling 4T used in the situations releant to his problem--doctors may, for ceived theory is likel) to be readily dropped or forgotten be the problem, be called therapists—and he discovers many more cause it now seems irrelevant to the data.’ structural and processional “bear concepts than he could hae Beyond the decisions concerning initial collection of data, anticipated before his research further collection cannot be planned in advance of the emerging Thc.sociologist should also be sufficiently theoretically ,sen-si theory (as is done so carefully in research designed for verifi e ‘a h—can cc’—“pual’-e re-I f’rriulatc a theory as it cation and cleec’ription) The emerging theory points to the next emerges from the data. Once started, theoretical sensitivity is steps—the sociologist does not know them until he is guided forever in continual development. It is developed as over many by emerging gaps in his theory and by research questions sug years the sociologist thinks in theoretical terms about what he geted by previous answers. knows, and as he queries many different theories on such ques The basic question2 in theoretical sampling in either sub tions as ‘“What does the theory do? How is it conceived? What stantive or formal theory) is: what groups or subgroups does one is its general position? \Vhat kinds of models does it use?” turn to next in data collection? And for what theoretical pur Theoretic-al seiisitixitv of a sociologist has two other character pose? In short, how does the sociologist select multiple compari istics First, it involves hic personal and temperamental bent son groups? The possibilities of multiple comparisons are in Second, it involves thc- sociologist’s ability to have theoretical finite, and so groups must be chosen according to theoretical insight into his area of research combined uith an ability to ri teria, make something of his insights (see Chapter XI). In actuality, many sociologists escape this problem of select These sources of developing theoretical sensitivity con ing groups by studying only one group during a given research, tinually build tip in the sociologist an armamentarium of cate uith some slight effort at delineating subgroups, and with occa gories and sional references hypotheses on substantive and formal levels. This (usually in footnotes 1 to comparative findings theory that exists within a sociologist can be used in generat on another group, typically followed by a brief description of ing his specific theory if, after study of the data, the fit and rele differences, but not by a theoretical analysis. In other studies, vance to the data are emergent. A discovered, grounded theory, particularly survey research, comparisons are usually, and quite then, will tend to combine mostly concepts and hypotheses that arbitrarily, based on only one different substantive group (such have emerged from the data with some existing ones that are as natural scientists compared with social scientists, or scientists clearly useful, We have put most emphasis on the emergent vith engineers); or the comparisons are based on several sub concepts—those coming from the data. Still, whether the theo groups within the substantive group. And in “comparative retical elements are emergent or already exist with fit and tudies” of more than two groups, the sociologist usually tries relevance that emerges, the strategies of comparative analysis to compare as many as he can of the groups for which he can presented in this and the next two chapters apply. Potential theoretical sensitivity is lost when the sociologist 1. For an excellent discussion of this phenomenon see James Coleman, commits himself exclusively to one specific preconceived theory “Research Chronicle: The Adolescent Society,” in Philip Hammond (Ed,). Soczologist.s at Work (New York: Basic Books, (e.g.. formal organization) for then he becomes doctrinaire and 1964), pp. 198-204. 2. For example, in our study of the patient’c awareness of dying related can no longer “see around” either his pet theory or any other. t- medical staff-patient interaction, after we had saturated the various texts con in which this occisrrecl, we realized that we should collect data on He becomes insensitive, or even defensive, toward the kinds of additional situations where patient awareness is discounted So we looked questions that cast doubt on his theory; he is preoccupied with oseb for this at 1 staff-patient interaction on an emergency ward. See Bar testing, modifying and seeing everything from this one angle. ney C. Glaser and Anseim L. Strauss,Auareness of Dying (Chicago: Aldine Publishing For this person, theory will seldom truly emerge from data. Co, 1965), Chapter 7. 3. The reader may consider aggregates or single people as the In the few instances where lents equiva theory does emerge, the precon of groups, with respect to the strategies of comparative analysis. 48 THE DISCOVERY 0 GROUNDED THEORY Iheoretica Sampbrg 49 obtain data within the limits of his own time and money and r matter F desinn, ‘ poor t r d If F ar es his task to his degree of of mee these access to those groups. The resulting set groups unanticipated contingencies, readers may judge that is then justified by citing common4 factors and relevant differ his facts have been contasni iated by his personal violation ences, stating that this constitutes all the available data any o the preconceived impersonal rules. Thus he is controlled by how Further comparison are left to future researchers ii s mpersonai rule aid Fas to cortrol over th relevancy of Although these methods of choosing groups yield worth hr data, even as he sees it go rtrnv while research, they do not employ the criteria for theoretical sampling that we shall discuss in this chapter. Our criteria are those of theoretical purpose and relevance—not of structural cir Selecting Comparison Groups cumstance, Though constrained by the same structural circum” stances of research, In this sect o i we do not base research on them. Ihe we focus in tsso questions: which groups are criteria may appear flexible (too much so for validity, one dec ed, why and how? critic has said), but the reader must remember that our main purpose is to generate theory, not to establish verifications with Which Groups? the “facts,” We trust that these criteria will also appear to create a more systematic, relevant, impersonal control over data Ti e basic cr tenon g verning the s°l°ctiop ‘omparison oups for collection than do the preplanned, routinized, arbitrary criteria discovering theory is their theoretical releeance for Ii thering based on the existing structural limits of everyday group the deselopment of emerging categories. The re earcher boundaries. The latter criteria are used in studies designed to chooses any groups that will help generate to the ulIest extent, get the facts and test hypotheses. One reason for emphasizing as many properti’s of the categories as possible, s id that this difference in control is immediately apparent. The criteria viii help relate categories to each oth r and to their of properties. s theoretical sampling are designed to be applied in the on Thus, as e said in Chapter 11 group comparisons a e conceptual; going joint collection and analysis of data associated with the they sre nade by compar’ng diverse or similar idence generation of theory. Therefore, they are continually tailored to iidicating the same coreptual categories and proper bes, iot fit the data and are applied judiciously at the right point and by comparing the e idence fir ts o n ak Compara e analysis moment in the analysis. The analyst can continually adjust his kes ful’ ad r ag c the ‘afrchangeability’ indicators control of data collection to ensure the data’s relevance to nd de c op i pr eeds a broad rarge of icceptable the impersonal criteria of his emerging theory. ndicators for catogc ries and proj erties C By i cc contrast, data collected according to a preplanned rou gio Ip na4 be chos ii for i ig comparisoi onl tine are more likely to force the analyst into r in be r o deli i irrelevant direc re ‘ eel epla r d c o’ groups tions and harmful pitfalls. He may discover unanticipated rat or co ry e Ic con al o mo go e s F e a e tingencies in his respondents, in the library and in the field, xc I but is unable to adjust his collection procedures or even redesign n i y lii not pe n it we to 11 s his whole project. In accordance with conventional practice, I ph Ce ‘‘its hat oud’ (ut rI 4 ‘3 s ti dy’ Har r ond I pa the researcher is admonished to stick to his prescribed research trio s [or h develop d a e Y ‘, h S C 0 ore I pr ‘nr 4 For examples see Coleman, op. cit., and The Adolescent Society d itocj ov ed (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961) Morris Janowitz, The Military c H S lv ‘‘1 F n erpla of oc I in the Political Development I of New Nation.s (Chicago: University of Chi itS u , ii So ‘ol l.a ol VII cago Press, 1964), or Seymour Martin Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, Social .9 0 ) Mobility in Industrial Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959). 50 THE Dli OVEHY OF GROF,NDED THE SIlT Theoretical Sampling in comparative st idks macic for accurate descriptions and veri To be sure these rules of comparability are important when fication) In research carried out for discovering theory, the accurate evidence is the goal but they hinder the generation of sociologist cann( t cite the number and types of groups from theory’, in which “non comparability” of groups is irrelevant. uhich he collected data nnf ii the research is completed In an They prevent the use of a much wider range of groups for de evtrer e ca h may then find that the development of a h veloping properties of categones Such a range, necessary for major cateorv may have been based on comparisons of differ the categories’ fullest possible development, is achieved by ent sets of groups. For example. one could write a substantive comparing any groups, irrespective of differences or similarities, theory about scientists’ authority in organizations, and compare as long as the data apply to a similar category’ or property. Fur very different kinds of organizations to develop properties asso thermore, these two rules divert the analyst’s attention away dated with the diverse categories that might emerge: authority from the important sets of fundamental differences and simi orer clients, administration, research facilities, or relations with larities. which, upon analysis, become important qualifying con outside organizations and communities: the degree or type of ditions under which categories and properties vary’.These differ aliation in the organization; and so forth. Or the sociologist ences should be made a vital part of the analysis, but rules of may wish to write a formal theory about profescional authority comparability tend to make the analyst inattentive to conditions organizations; then the sets of comparison groups for each that vary findings by’ allowing him to assume constants and to category are likely to be much mon diverse than those used disqualify basic differences, thus nullifying their effort before in developing a substantive theory about scientists, since now the analysis. the field of possible comparison is far greater. It is theoretically important to note to what degree the Our logic of ongoing inclusion of groups must be differenti properties of categories are varied by diverse conditions. For ated from the logic used in comparative analyses that are example. properties of the effect of awareness contexts on the focused mainly on accurate evidence for description and veri interaction between the nurse and the dying patient within a fication, That logic, one of preplanned inclusion and exclusion, hospital can usefully be developed by making comparisons with warns the analyst away from comparing “non-comparable” the same situation in the home, in nursing homes, in ambu groups. To be included in the planned set, a group must have lances. and on the street after accidents. The similarities and “enough features in common” with the other groups. To be differences in these conditions can be used to explain the simi excluded, it must show a “fundamental difference” from the lar and diverse properties of interaction between nurse and others. These two niles represent an attempt to “hold constant” patient. strategic facts, or to disqualify groups where the facts either The principal point to keep clear is the purpose of the re cannot actually be held constant or would introduce more un search, so that rules of evidence will not hinder discovery of wanted differences. Thus in comparing variables (conceptual theory. However, these goals are usually not kept clear (a con ard factual) one hopes that, because of this set of “purified dition we are trying to correct) and so typically a sociologist groups,” spurious factors now will not influence the findings starts by applying these rules for selecting a purified set of and relationships and render them inaccurate, This effort of puri groups to achieve accurate evidence. He then becomes caught fication is made for a result impossible to achieve, since one up in the delights of generating theory, and so compares every’- never really knows what has and has not been held constant, thing comparable; but next he finds his theory development severely limited by lack of enough theoretically relevant data, 7. For exariple see Janowitz, op cit., Preface and Chapter 1; and Ed because he has used a preplanned set of groups for collecting scard A Shils, On the Comparative Study of New States’ in Clifford Geertz (Ed.), Old Societies and Ncw States (New York: Free Press of his information (see Chapter VI) In allowing freedom for Glencoe, 1963), pp 5, 9. comparing any groups, the criterion of theoretical relevance 52 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY Theoretical Sampling 53 used for each comparison in systematically generating theory or local-cosmopolitan. However. onlv a handful of survey re controls data collection without hindering it. Control by this searchers have used their skill to create multiple comparison criterion assures that ample data will be collected and that the subgroups for discovering theory. This would be a very worth data collection makes 5 sense (otherwise collection is a waste of while endeavor (see Chapter VIII on quantitative data). t r e However aoplyi ig theoretical control over choice of TI’e tactic of creating groups is equally applicable for soci comparison groups is more difficult than simply collecting data ologists who work with qualitative data, When using only inter from a preplanned set of groups, since choice requires continu views, for instance, a researcher surely can study comparison 5ou thought, analysis and search. groups composed of respondents chosen in accordance with his The sociologist must also be clear on the basic types of emergent analytic framework. And historical documents, or other groups he wishes to compare in order to control their effect on library materials, lend themselves wonderfully to the compara generality of both scope of population arid conceptual level of tue method. Their use is perhaps even more efficient, since the his theory. The simplest comparisons are, of course, made among researcher is saved much time and trouble in his search for different groups of exactly the same sul’stantive type, for in comparison groups which arc, after all, already concentrated stance, federal bookkeeping departments. These comparisons ‘n the library (see Chapter VII). As in field work, the re lead to a substantive theors that is applicable to this one type searcher who uses library material can always select additional of group. Somewhat more general substantive theory is achieved comparison groups after his analytic framework is well de by comparing different types of groups; for example, different veloped. in order to give himself additional confidence in its kinds of federal departments in one federal agency. The scope credibility. He will also-—like the field worker who sometimes of thc theory is further increased by comparing different types tumbles upon comparison groups and then makes proper use of groups within different larger groups (different departments of them—occasionally profit from happy accidents that may ir different agencies). Generality is further increased by mak occur when he is browsing along library shelves, And, again ing these latter comparisons for dificre it regions of a nation like the researcher who carefully chooses natural groups, the or, to go further, different nations. The scope of a substantive sociologist who creates groups should do so carefully according theorii can be carefulit, increased and controlled by such con to the scales of generality that he desires to achieve, scions choices of groups. The sociologist may also find it con As the sociologist shifts the degree of conceptual generality venient to think of subgroups within larger groups. and of for which he aims, from discovering substantive to discovering jute nal and external groups, as he broadens his range of corn formal theory, he must keep in mind the class of the groups p son and attcrrpts t keep tractable Fis substantise theory’s he selects. For substantive theory, he can select, as the same substantive class, groups regardless of where he finds them. He he sociologi t deve o up substa tive or formal theor can may, thus, compare the “emergency ward” to all kinds of medi also isefuIiv crc’iitc groups provided he keep cn mind that cal wards in all kinds of hospitals, both in the United States they are an artifact 01 ins resec’rch design. and so does not and abroad. But he may also conceive of the emergency ward start assuming in his anal si that thc have properties pnswcsed as a subclass of a larger class of organizations, all designed to by a natucal group. Scuse’. researchers are ad’pt at creating render immediate assistance in the event of accidents or break gr U s md s ati tieafly o iding th ii relevarce (as by Ia toi’ 8. In fact, in b’ickstage discussions about which comparative groups to seil-ig r c i na e t u.s e crc they re, ‘reate and choose in survey analysis, the answer frequently is “Where the reaksin the distribution are convenient and save cases, and among these grou n t cat a .nir fu I Iei mc s cw n cc choose the ones that give the ‘best findings,.’” Selvin, however, has devel they have bcci created, exam e teacher igh. mcdi cm. oped a systematic method of subgroup comparison in survey research that The Effects and lw on “apprehension”. or option, middle. acid lower cias: prevents the opportunistic use of “the best finding” criteria. See of Leadership (Glencoe, Iii.: Free Press, 1960). 54 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED ThEORY Theoretscal Sampling downs. For example, fire, crime, the automobile, and even plumb non-comparable comparison with the apparently comparable ing problems have all given rise to emergency organizations that ones. The non-comparable type of group comparison can greatly are on 24-hour alert. In taking this approach to choosing dissimi aid him in transcending substantive descriptions of time and lar, substantive comparative groups, the analyst must be clear place as he tries to achieve a general, formal theory.’ about his purpose. He may use groups of the more general class 1 to illuminate his substantive theory of, say, emergency wards. He Why Select Groups may wish to begin generating a formal theory of emergency or ganizations. He may desire a mixture of both: for instance, This concern with the selection of groups for comparison bringing out his substantive theory about emergency wards raises the question: Why does the researcher’s comparison of within a context of some formal categories about emergency groups make the content of the data more theoretically relevant organizations. than when he merely selects and compares data? The answer is On the other hand, when the sociologist’s purpose is to dis threefold. Comparison groups provide, as just noted, control 9cover formal theory, he will definitely select dissimilar, sub over the two scales of generality: first, conceptual level, and stantive groups from the larger class, while increasing his second, population scope. Third, comparison groups also pro theory s scope. And he will also find himself comparing groups vide simultaneous maximization or minimization of both the that seem to be non-comparable on the substantive level, but differences and the similarities of data that bear on the cate that on the formal level are conceptually comparable. Non- gories being studied, This control over similarities and differ comparable on the substantive level here implies a stronger ences ia vital for discovering categories, and for developing degree of apparent difference than does dissimilar. For example, and relating their theoretical properties, all necessary for the while fire departments and emergency wards are substantially further development of an emergent theory. By maximizing or dissimilar, their conceptual comparability is still readily appar minimizing differences among comparative groups, the sociolo ent. Since the basis of comparison between substantively non- gist can control the theoretical relevance of his data collection. comparable groups is not readily apparent, it must be explained Comparing as many’ differences and similarities in data as on a higher conceptual level. possible (as mentioned in Chapter II) tends to force the Thus one could start developing a formal theory of social analyst to generate categories, their properties and their inter isolation by comparing four apparently unconnected mono relations as he tries to understand his data (see Chapter V graphs: Blue Collar Marriage, The Taxi-Dance Hall, The also). Ghetto and The Hobo (Komarovsky, Cressey, Wirth, Ander Minimizing differences among comparison groups increases son) ,10 All deal with facets of “social isolation,” according to the possibility that the researcher will collect much similar data their authors. For another example, Goffman has compared on a given category while he spots important differences not apparently non-comparable groups when generating his formal caught in earlier data collection. Similarities in data that bear on theory of stigma. Thus, anyone who wishes to discover formal a category help verify its existenc by verifying the data be theory should be aware of the usefulness of comparisons made hind it. on high level conceptual categories among the seemingly non- The basic properties of a category also are brought out by comparable; he should actively seek this kind of comparison; similarities, and by a few important differences found when do it with flexibility; and be able to interchange the apparently minimizing group differences. It is helpful to establish these 9. Cf. Shils, op. cit., p. 17. properties before differences among groups are maximized, For 10. Respectively, Mirra Kornarovsky (New York: Random House, 1962); Paul Cressey (Chicago. University of Chicago Press, 1932); Louis Wirth 11. This statement is made in implicit opposition merely to “writing’ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962 edition); and Nels Anderson one’s theory in a general formal manner, on the basis of sheer conjecture (Chicago: Universih f Chicago Press, 1961 edition). or on the basis of one group, as is typical of journal articles. E 56 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY Theeretical Sampling example. the basic property ot calculating the social loss of hassc work is accomplished howex er. he should turn to maxi— dying patients is their age, as was discovered by observation on ivuzing differences among co nparison grnups. in aeordanec geriatric and nursery wards, It was important to establish this wit the kind of t icon>’he v ishes to develop substantis e or for property before going on to establish other properties of social al and with the requirements of his emergent theory. When loss by studying dying on other kinds of nards.’ maximizing differences among comparative groups (thereby \ linimizing differences among comparison2 groups also helps niaxin ‘zing differences in data) he possesses a more powerful establish a definite set of conditions under which a category racan for stimulating the generation of theoretical properties exists, either to a particular degree or as a tvpe_which in turn once his basic framework has emerged.’ Maximizing brings out establishes a probability for theoretical prediction. For example, the 1estv:c possibie cox erage on ranges. continua, degrees. types. “open awareness contexts” about dying—where the patient and o idor nitics, variations, Cauws conditions, consequences. proba the staff are aware that he is dying—arc expectable whenever bihti s of relationships, strategies, process, structural mechan patients are held “captive’ in a government hospital (whether ‘aris and so forth all ec ‘ssary for elaboration of the theory national, state, or county). ‘Captive” patients may be convicts, As th sociologist maximizes differences by changing the eterans, or research patients.’ scope of his research—for example, by going to different organi The other approach, maximizing differences among compari zations, regions, cities or nations—he discovers more startling son groups, ii’’reases the probability that the researcher siii differences in data. His attempts to understand how these differ collect different and varied data bearing on a category, while ences fit in are likely to have important effects on both his yet finding strategic similarities among the groups. The similari research operations and the generality of scope of his theory. ties that occur, through many diverse kinds of groups, pro These differences from other organizations, regions, or nations vides, of course, the most genesal uniformities of scope within v ill make him wonder where he could have found the same dif his theory. As the analyst tries to understand the multitude of ferences at original research sites. And how can he continue differences, he tends to develop the properties of categories his theoretically focused research along this line when he speedily and densely and, in the end, to integrate them into a turns to home base) theory that possesses different levels of conceptual generality. At the same time the scope of his theory is broadened, not thereby delimiting the theory’s scope. The sociologist does not qualified. For example, one of us once noted that in Malavan merely look for negative cases bearing on a category (as do hospitals families work in caring for dying patients. This obser others who generate theory); he searches for maximum differ vation was interesting because tip to this point we had consid ences among comparative groups in order to compare them on ered the family member, in the United States, as either being the basis of as many relevant diversities and similarities in the treated as another patient (sedated, given rest) or just ignored data as he can find, as a nuisance. Review log our American data, though, w’e dis When beginning his generation of a substantive theory the covered that the family is used in several ways for the care sociologist establishes the basic categories and their properties of dying patients. We had failed to focus on this not-so by minimizing differences in comparative groups)’ Once this ohserx 0abl occurrence, Thus, we discos ered a cross-national uniformit —not a difference—by noting abroad what we had 12. See Barney C’ Glaser and Anselrn L. Strauss, “The Social Loss of missed in America, We then proceeded to study it at our home Dying Patic r,t, .tmerican Journal of Nursing, ol 64. \o 6 (June, 1964 li 13 See Clasi r ‘mci Strauss 4warene.ss of Dying op. cit., Chapter 6. base, where we had more time for the inquiry. We had similar 14 Good sul,stantivc thcors c in result fioin tlsc studs of one group, if expeiiences when comparing hospitals in various regions of the the analyst carelulls’ sorts data into comparative subgroups For example, United States with those closer to home, in San Francisco. see Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Amanc’ the Azande Oxford, England: Clar”ndon Previ, 1937 .and our diseu’:sion cf this hock in Chapter \‘I. 15. Shils, op. czt., p. 25.

remember

must to

data,

events active

group, groups

do

Differences

select

Minimized

58

maximizing

Maximized CHART

toii,

(sew

in

Part

Groups

see

How

16,

Chart

not

Leonard

York:

not

them

See

is

sampler

1

is—or

where

with for

To

give

of

the

CONSEQUENCES

Merton’s

1

IN

an

that

Basic

Select

theoretically

the

presents

groups

Broom,

systematically

COMPARISON

or

problem

him

ethnogapher

is

the

he

of

Books

without

sociologist’s

not—likely

Groups

discussion

theoretical

next

basic

is scope uniformities gory, Lying

conditions

Maximum

Spotting

data

data, for

of

ditions

(3)

and

in

an

the

categorY.

prediction.

1959,

of

Establishing

oc

generating

leads

properties;

usefulness

theoretical

Leonard

(2)

relevant

active GRoUPS

he

a

basic

can

how

MiNIMIZING

fundamental Similar

of

trying

preplanned

calculate

Generating

similarity

for

must

to:

to

p

be

strategic

decision

of

These

relevance,

to

sampler

xxvi.

consequences

take

ro

used

(1)

S.

a

THE

greatest

data of

and

set

Data

go

to

continually

degree

theory.

Cottrell

question

con

Veri

GENERA’IING

cate

DISCOVERY

in

research

place.’ 6

of

AND

get

about

where

collection.

on

about

of

research

he

Category

the MAXIMIZING

(Eds.l,

theoretically

gories

theory.

property

Dense data Maximum vary

differences

category

(3)

(2) Spotting

choosing

sites

will

must

a

of

If

OF

fullest

which

analyze

Delimiting

THEORY

Integrating

quickly

given

ongoing minimizing

GROUNDED

in

and

developing

design. First,

take

Sociology

Diverse

of

fundamental

be

Robert

and

diversity

properties;

under

DIFFERENCES

data

categories;

groups

particular

forces:

prepared

order

the

him.

hypotheses

he

relevant

scope

events of

K

As

THEORY

on

Today must

which

of

data

Mer

cate

and

in

He

an

(1)

of

to

of

a

conceptions

comparative

these

to

the

objective

of

another

ilso

sshich, r

Di,ing

ssill to

Theoretical

comparative

son

widely

comparisons

America

course

which weeks

times

ceptual

expectedness ceptual

scheduling

And

the

17.

and

were

I dying

great

sc

observe

problem

quick,

expectancy

Dalton awareness

comatose)

tl’en lows:

manipulate

wished

general The

‘r

The

is

‘Once

happen.

above

Visits

rapid,

the looking

typically

we

her

in

research

at

in

needed but

describes

to

of

contrasting

tended

I

s

so

and

following

structure

emphasis

in

analysis

scheme—which

on

1 iscusiori

wished

can connection returned

a

turn,

country,

further

comments continuous

then

Sampling

I

the

asks

where

analysis

to

theoretically

types

neurosu

(and

of

observed

Methods

a

and

is

of

I

and

at

be

the

service

theoretical

checking

requires

wished

increased

types

to

staff

to events

directs

himself

memo

some

of

investigated

questions,

so

so

first

including how

the

look

of

various

be

rate

is

not

and

countries.

to

of

memo

industrial

of and

gial

first

looked

in

service

upon

services

of

on

using slow.

observation,

patient’s

where

different

with

to

the

next

its

a

of

Merton by at

the

Men

which

relevant

or

him

often

search an

service

the

gap

looked

x

specific

dying—as

look

conditions

included

service

medical

cry

type

had

words

the

each

from

extending

matters So

Intensive

to

active

at

Who

cross-national

That

staff

to

to

is at

organizations, next

after

of

on

greatly

look

might

at

“next

been

types

I

for

shows

identified,

an

of

good

other seek

ways. was

with

at

ctrategies.

patients

looked

Manage.”

developing

where services our

expectations

or

hospital.

is,

in

services

empirical thcoietically

the

emergency

search

a

hypotheses

not

at

well

question where

missed

of

Care a”tions

directed

the or

premature

order

advantage.”

particular

its

by

the

types

The dying

how

initial research

services,

at

might

next

patients

as

distinctive

was

it

major

choosing

first

that

in

(Ibid..

Unit.

comparisons

were

in

probability

death

for

The

leads

in to

by

materials

comparisons,

groups

theory

technique”

of

two

in

Melville

Hammond, great

at in

the

by

of

check not

service.

envisioned.

a

minimized

data

unit

about hospitals.

other

a

we

baby

a

Then

scheduled

relevant

order

for

groups

pp.

almost

developing

teiniinality

\Vc or

was

verc

initial

a

situation

be,

cancer

by

different

and

rationale,”

also

three

general

are

of

xxiii-xxiv.)

through

upon Awareness

occurs

Dalton,

have

major

unexpected

service

I

awareness,

linking

of

and

While

to

frequently

compari

to

made dying

as

wished

observed

period. 17

on.

selected:

for

fruitful

guide

or

service

So

question,

see

a

Some

here

patient

detailed

where

items

as

where

unit

cit.

and four

matter

con

were

which con

study:

as

“Pre

them

our

was

“The

and

we

in

fol

what

See

to

his

the

is

of

59

H

11

II, ii

s

o

a

should

tcglc

Degree

60

tingle

g

unexpected; where

would

patients slow, and services by serve hospital

dominantly structural observe gr regions

studied will Acian

s

and of

of

America.

theore

sards)

ry

elati he

ount

p1mm

atier

epends

tuations

Vhcr

hosp

comparison,

ups

‘ 1 uc’sfoiu

the

The

to

usual

this

ones

be

mm

‘ely

and

ts overseas

of

y, countries

‘OUl

tend

two

right

conceptual

of

tal

in

where

isi

selection

tend

s’ho

may

therefo

hospitals

which

at or

means

I

choose

which

rapid.

I

where

wards

American

the

the

heoretical

oosine

l

conditions

service

expected

are

to how

locales

hospitals,

satura

will

wards

within

to

are have

co

countries.

United

he

will

all

as

rn°rig

different

will

that

man’

e,

be

I

where

he

I

degrcr

they

observe,

of

of

man’,

we

for

would

framework

four

I

groups

To

since

hope

where

be

where differing

the

of

on.

dies

hospitals

by

conditions

high

I

maximize hail

have

States:

Sampling

hospitals

do we

Chinese

‘,vhi

to

guided,

will

low

conditions

same

predominant

staff

patients

But

ss

‘s

a

to

of

attempt

and see,

patients

begin

as not:

id

where

seen

fhmr ft

c

hase

at

have

social

onditions

observe

sanmpl1n,

n

and

degree

services;

well

namely, under

city.

ar

developed

I

one.

‘nsues

as

wards

of

the

thm some and

TH

know

in

d

consict

of

also

with, to

others

to

t 1 utjO noted

alm’.

possible,

in

services

d

tend

as

are

our

cities,

high

I

visit what DXSCOVERY

i

on

hospitals

the

should

mode

a

shall

iaximize

where

by

wards

of re

t

where

for

and,

own

maximally

asise: mmd

where

cat

to where

of

and

various

social

as

hospitals

to

are curient

the

even

circumstances

instance,

social

such

know

at

only

also

of

we 11

hospitals,

in

as

date.

relevance,

where

the

ea’ires

three

d

me

which

dying

specific different

i-io’

th dying

OF

dying

for

‘pth

m

in

hospitals

.wlue.

[four

choose

that

one

terminal

of

value

they

as terminal

GRO1’NOED

colleut Asia,

I

k

different

Malaya,

in

mixed

are

dying

that

rids

‘,vill

those

of

many where

tends

I

large

tends

is

very

contrasting

important]

is

are would

conditions

chc’ussions

ft

relatively

wards

different

the

of

t md

the

than

want

in

In

e

patient

(or

data

is

dying,

ethnic

wards

study,

to

ward.

dying

o many

groups

to

there

there

retic

same some from

THEOCY

each

type

pre

svill

ob

stra

be

be

on

or

to

in

on

categories,

not

gap ing

When

during

possible confident

analysis

to can

sible,

that

sample

gory

tanees ologist

data.) are

ing must

groups.

and

Thus rrturning

usually

group

with

collected

groups

will

annot

vhose Theoretical

hen

look

One

Even

Theoretical

As

completely

in remains

distributed

develop

no

to

sample

a

is

just

generating

state

to

saturation

he

his

analysis

study

may

we

over

multiplicits

at

must

for

additional rules

tate

for

the

reaches

of

range

is

stop (This

during

that

continually

to

theory,

from

the to

Sampling

and

data.

have

the

engaged

groups

be

each

category’s

and make

during

hut

involves

properties

at

them,

sampling

continually of Saturation

end.

a

of

of number

throughout

situation

collected

attempt

filled,

the

a

category

research

theory

occurs,

theoretical

over

evidence

said,

(See

to

data

especially

data.)

theoietical

data

certain

that single

Since

the

of

outset

while

go

in

verification

is

again,

In

Chapter

the

on

theoretical

are

the situations

of

of

he

stretch

entire

collecting

to

on

the

dealing

When

contrasts

for

data

focused

that

is

trying

judge

the

group—although

groups

the

governing

various

of

would sociologist

simultaneously

being

saturate different

in

to

saturation

analyst

saturated,

the

only

point.

his

category.

his

saturation

for

study;

category.

new

V

diversity

one

researcher

how

with

or

to

research

found

for find

within

major

on that

various

saturation. one

categories,

with

data

dew

category

will

reach these

groups

groups

The

theory,

he

a

the

trying

many

a

it

svill

He category—the

by

discussion

ription

w’hereby

categories,

that

from

usually

bard

multiplicity

As

of

is

can

each;

criterion

collection

categories

new

how

seeking

saturation

goes

joint

becomes

based

be

data

pertinent

data

he

for

is

however

groups

to

only

of

and

Saturation

to

older

sampled.

saturated,

many

categories

in

sees

while

out

discover

find

data

collection

count

the

as the

on

from

he,

which

of

count

ness

is

for

far

empirically

of

the

are

similar

of

he groups.

that

sociologist

of

saturation

researcher

sociologist

to

almost,

he

groups

therefore,

on

absorbed

the

his

all

a

judging

as

reliable

accord

groups.

a groups.

widest

usually

should

means

people up

maxi

theory

noth

other

some

given

also, cate

these

soci

pos

way

and

in

the

he

if

or 61 62 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY Theoretical Sampling 63 mizcs differences in h s groups in order to maximize the sane that we should look for (as re ‘earLhers and reader of rewarch) ties of data bearing on a category, and thereby develops as is very different, many diverse properties of the category as possible. The criteria The adequate theoretical sample is judged on the basis of for determining saturation, then, are a combination of the how widely and diversely the analyst chose his groups for satu pirical limits of the data, the integration and density of the rating categories according to the type of theory he wished fhec, d the aaIyt’s theoretica sensiti”ity. to develop The adequate ctatictic’al sample, on th other hand, Saturation can never be1 attained by studying one incident is judged on the basis of techniques of random and stratified in one group. What is gained by studying one group is at most sampling used in relation to the social structure of a group the discovery of some basic categories and a few of their prop or groups sampled. The inadequate theoretical sample is easily erties. From the study of similar groups (or subgroups within spotted. since the theory associated with it is usually thin and the first group), a few more categories and their properties are not well integrated. and has too many obvious unexplained yielded. But this is only the beginning of a theory. Then the exceptions. The inadequate statistical sample is often more diffi sociologist should try to saturate his categories by maximizing cult to spoh usually it must be pointed out by specialists in differences among groups. In the process, he generates his methodology, since other researchers tend to accept technical theory. For example, from studying one incident in one group sophistication uncritically. ‘si’ rnlghf diseoser that an important property of Pursing stu The researcher who generates theory need not combine dents’ perspectives about course work is their assessment of the sandom sampling with theoretical sampling when setting forth differential importance of certain kinds of course work to the relationships among categories and properties. These relation faculty; but this discovery tells us almost nothing. To find ships are suggested as hypotheses pertinent to direction of re out such properties as when and how an assessment is made and lationship, not tested as descriptions of both direction and shared, who is aware of given assessments, and with what conse magnitude. Conventional theorizing claims generality of scope; (luences for the students, the faculty, the school, and the pa that is, one assumes that if the relationship holds for one group tients whom the students nurse, dozens and dozens of situations under certain conditions, it will probably hold for other groups in many diverse groups must be observed and analyzed under the same conditions.19 This assumption of persistence is comparatively. I subject only to being disproven—not proven—when other soci ologists question its credibility. Only a reversal or disappearance of the relationship will be considered by sociologists as an im Theoreticaland StatisticalSampling portant discovery, not the rediscovery of the same relationship It is important to contrast theoretical sampling based on in another group; since once discovered, the relationship is as the saturation of categories with statistical (random) sampling. sumed to persist. Persistence helps to generalize scope but is rheir differences should he kept clearly in mind for both de usually considered uninteresting, since it requires no modifica signing research and judging its credibility. Theoretical sam tion of the theory. pling is done in order to discover categories and their properties, Furthermore, once discovered the relationship is assumed to and to suggest the interrelationships into a theory. Statistical persist in direction no matter how biased the previous sample sampling is done to obtain accurate evidence on distributions of data was, or the next sample is. Only if the hypothesis is dis of people among categories to be used in descriptions or veri proven do biases in the sample come under question. For gen fications. Thus, in each type of research the “adequate sample” erating theory’ these biases are treated as conditions changing the relationship, which should be woven into the analysis as 18. Fred Davis and irginia Olesen, “Problems and Issues in Collegiate Nursing Education” in Fred Davis (Ed.>. The Nursing Profession (New 19. See discussion on this in Hans L. Zetterberg, On Theory and York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966). pp. 138-75. Verication in Sociology (Totowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press, 1963), pp. 52-56. 61 TifF DISCO’SERY OF GROUNDF.O I SEORY fheretica1 So op rg such Thus, random sampling js not necessary for theoretical 15i the -r f0 bcrr’i’op. ‘u must eflflnfl(’ cause the sampling, either to discoser the’ relationship or check out its rules of aceurato cv:denee require the fulit 5 doserage to achieve existence in other groups, However, when the sociologist the snort acc’usate C000t. If the researchet wishes to cliserge wishes also to describe°2 the magnitude of relationship within a design arpartc”i group, random ramp!ing. or a highly ‘stematic 1observatson orocedure done over a specified time is necessary. Oiit\ ante’ or labenioeslv integrat his ness approach into the For example. after we discovered the positive relationship be ieseaj’c’hdesig to allow a new prepl’snned attack on tInt total tween the attention that nurses gave dying patients and the , blem. He must not deniate from this ness dcsign cither; nurses’ perceptions of a patient’s social loss, we continually c stually it leads hint back into the ‘a ne “bind, ‘ 21 found this relationship throughout our research and were quick to note conditions altering its direction, But we could never state the precise magnitude of this relationship on, sax, cancer Slice of Data waids, ,ince our sampling snas theoretical In theoreti al sompling no one kind ot data on a category Another important difference between theoretical and statis is’ ‘ technique fer data coilecti,,,r is necessarili appropriate. sampling tical is that the sociologist must learn when to stop Different kinds of data give the analyst different views or using the former. Learning skill takes this time. analysis and vantage’ points from which t understand a r’ategory and to flexibility, since making the theoretically sensitive judgment develop its propertIes; these different view’s we have called about saturaton is never precise. The researcher’s judgment slices of data. W’hile the’ sociologist max’ use one technique becomes confidently clear only toward the close of his joint of data collection primarily, theoretical sampling for saturation collection and analysis, when considerable saturation of cate of a category allows a multi-faceted investigation, in which gories in many groups to the limits of his data has occurred, there are no limits to the techniques of data collection, the way so that his theory is approaching stable integration and dense they are used, or the ts pes of data 22acquired. One reason for development of properties. this openness of inquiry is that svhen obtaining data on differ By contrast, in statistical sampling the sociologist must con cnt groups, the sociologist svorks tinder the diverse structural inue with data collection no matter how much saturation he conditions of each group: schedules, restricted areas svork tern pcrceives. his Jo case, the notion of saturation is irrelevant pos, the different perspectives of people in different positions. to the study. Even though he becomes aware of what his find and the availability of documents of different kinds, Clearly, to ings will be. and knows he is collecting the same thing over and 20. We has’,’ takei, a position in direct opposition to TJclv, who says: 21. Fnr example. 5Uiy says, “The coding operation proved to be very i “Any ecarch of any type whatsoever which seeks to make generalizations tedious ‘dr,g w’ork’ in the worst sense of the terms, I . , was nosy attempt— y. nd tie material studied ins oives problems of sampling.... [The mu to resist, rather than encourage flights of imagination. I had to accept i (“‘ar’fl”r] is implicitly identifying a larger population, of which his eases the fact that there 55 crc caps in the data about ss’hich I could do nothing” nurncr t he i ii flrcsi’ntativc sample. and contending that certain rela— op. cit., pp. 178-79 0 To as oid this binrl. many sociologists lure data 5tionshms sire rvr’d in his sample could not have occurred there by chance. collectors and coders in prr’planned research for description and erification. it is 0mph ‘set tine that one cia ‘ixold ‘implirg problems by proceeding Then, however, d’scovr’ric’. are made too latr to cifeet changcs in data in words i stead at numbers or bs avoiding tht use of statistical techniques, nilection. Scc thc tug—of—warwagc d between Riesman and Watson on this though it is uiitisrtiuiately tine that by avoiding such methods onc can bind: Riesman continualls wanted to break out and Watson wanted to often ket p u I ipli epor blr’ms from becoming explicit ‘ Udy’s gross ate Ir’untain tight control, David Rie, man and Jeanne Watson, “The Sociabil gone ii position could a odiflerl to c osapatibility with ours. x’, e believe, ity Project: Chroniek if Frustration and Achievement,” in Hammond, if he thought rather tC in. of diverse purposes of sese’ircls and the degree op cit., pp. 269-84 to v hich cad purp.’ rcquir( s a rd itionship to be dc ‘crihed in terms of its 22. For examples of niriltifaceterl insestigitions, see in Hammond, op. various properties.5 cristroce, direction, magnitude, n’it’ire. and conditions, cat.: the research chronicles of Renee Fox, c “An American Sociologist in the etc In any event, a sv lint s later he then admits that “one cannot really Land of Belgian Resesreh’; Dalton; and Seymour NI. Lipset “The Biog solse them” (problems of representativeness). Ldy, op. dC, PP. 169-170. naph of a Research l’roiect: Union Democracy,”

strained

tion obtain

guess

useful

than

secret

tise treme

democracy composition that

pp. when

survey

testing the

one

technique

understanding

diverse

he

slices

on

ferent

conditions ologist,

between collection). on

to

variety

evidence

be succced

coLlecting

66

26.

24,

25.

23.

Most

question ethical generate

Among

desired? methodological

107-119.

The

categories

is

remembered

bewildering

field

conditions

he

only

Only

its

Dalton,

but

of

Thus,

Compare

Lipset

example, the

of

personnel

ways

techniques

is

providing

compared

result

the

by

he

often,

data

problems

composition

coming

data

was

the

for

best

that

one

highly

arise: under

The

data

the

any

under

must

International

said

This

properties

such

of

op.

of

is

generated.

verifications,

various

the

kind—and

is,

best

answer to

many

than

should

discussion

of

however,

Dalton

which usually

to

an

permit

particular

from

he

cit., knowing

records

if

this

of

be

obtain? of

flexibility makes

beneficial,

that

structural

terms

motivation

the

which

differences

wished

he

can

Riesman

executive

we

course,

pp.

flexible

any

slices

is

new

method

from

group

slices

has be

meaningles.

as

See

technical,

had

category

Typographers’

with

this

obtain

its

66

when

about

wished

the

conditions

The

the so one

slice

to

about

he

in based

they

and used.

Seymour

of

However,

and

use

a

names, 26 to

differences.

in

test

ethics

would

because

that

conditions

comparative

of

research

to

tries

whether

theory

sociologist’s variety

data

answer

to

hierarchy, mode

of

the

and

bribe

67

his

Watson,

not

in

data,

group

his were

THE

a

to

keep

data on

under

he

of

of

Often

information

give

to

methods

that

category

M.

doctrinaire.

some on

theory

is

evaluate

Union,

a Dalton,

DISCOVERY

the

a

of

survey

of

could

to

understand

it

is,

for

Thereby

the in

group

Lipset

very

23

standard him

op.

collectd, 24

the

secretary

may

yields slices

as

the

the

knowing

diverse

of

researcher’s

terms

rather

manner. 25

of

generating

cit.,

objective,

best

strategy

analysis

What

course,

data who

at

op.

exciting

formed

and

which

researcher

find

union

in

be

virtually

more

pp.

of

them OF

data

his

desired,

more

cit.,

Hammond,

are

collected,

problems

of

in

actually

data

in conditions,

than

is out

GROUNDED

260-69.

the

allows

democracy

(technique

task.

theory

on

the

theory

pp.

both

better his

will

But

the

available order

of

For

to

as

information

the

the

theory

is

differences

theoretical

that

force

59-62,

collection

trying

means

provided

both

the

different

kinds

The

different

forced

happened

be

accurate

it

on

or

informa

was

an

op.

ethnic

to

which of

THEORY

would

worse

union

must

con

soci

by

does

with

him

see

dif

not

this

cit.,

ex

the

not

are

for

to

to

to

of

a

they

situation

Some may

hounding

talking

same

ent

may relevancies,

parisons

else

veloping

comparisons

of

data

comparison.” must

mformation important

or of

a

on

on tantively

nsent

operating.

the

en ber

erates

(done onc

of

be

sary

and

Theoretical

data

national

As

pain

reading,

Another

data

illness

a

the

documents

observed,

sociologist

has

be ,

tend

is

at

offer

on

social-structural

subject,

be

relevant

sociologists

from

he

everyone

properties,

for

to

dying

what

life

can

continually

in

he

is

theoretically

other

he

core

to

relativism

to

and

will

different

in

trivial

as

Possibly

Sampling

hospitals.

unbearable

the

styles

slice

is

be any

learned and

market-research

to

start

are

claim

times,

themselves;

Through

and

“the

categories.

talked

(patient,

category.

pain

able

groups

observes

on

soon

meat-packing

trusted

a

knows,

information

the

especially

of

see

researcher

they

of

and

data

to

the

facts”

that

his

people.

changing

by

He

to

of

data

about

professionals know

with

stories

information.

these relevant,

develop

same

that

most

his

to

vary

facts—no

obtain,

theory

a

if

can

should

nurse,

or

only

For

different

nurse

The

that only

the

those

very

own

talks

overheard,

the

offer

what

useful

circumstances

Furthermore,

help,

that

subject

any

of

example,

who

their that

sun’ev

as experience

industry).

researcher

will

should

the

doctor,

realize

Similarly,

comparing

it

different

or

category

who experiences,

others,

with

the

information

slice

useful

data

type

if

and

For

people patient

by

is

category

happens

receive

in

method

can

it

group

wish

studying

in

about

starting be

examining,

can

that

is

example,

interviewed

chaplain

one

yields

sensitize

the

of

comparisons.

a

be

The

accurate.

information

was

can a

and

used

the

may

in

to

situation

as

yield

considerable

their

awareness

no

down-to-earth

can

changes,

can

sociologist

quite

which

his

general

meat

considerably

verify

different

presenting

ask

“lived.” useful

make

data

matter

information

research

is

the

yield

gain

no

give

way;

or

the

differences

himself

the

himself

for

contradictory.

Since

they

matter

managemem

family

need

consumption

where

or

or

same

quick

information

knowledge,

useful

and

very

the

this

what

“anecdotal

about

Anecdotal

This

even context

describe,

positions can surveyed

and develop

indicate

an

such

“accu not

differ

where

to article

group,

useful

neces

when

whom

some

itself mem

com

slices

kind

gain

data

sub

gen

nfl

the

de

its

be

a

is 67 DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY Theoretical Sampling 69 rate evidence, Other meth ds ti hcy might use only yield done different slices of data are seen as tests of each other, biased or impressionistic data, and so can be discounted 27 not as different modes of knowing that must be explained and Ifeing this argument, they take onh one slice or mode of know integrated theoretically. The result is that, without comparative ing as giving the “facts.” Since they do not seek other modes, analysis, even men who generate theory tend to use and fall they remain untroubled For example. iii em’ noted study into the rhetoric of verification.29 They miss out on the rich of adolescents in high schools. Only the adolescents were sur disersitv of modes of knowing about their categories. And they veyed; and in a study of workers n a factory. only workers were fail to tell their readers of their other data, since they believe, observed and 25interviesxed, quite ssrongly, that it disproves their theory, when it would But when different slices of data are submitted to com base actually enriched it immensely. parative analysis, the result is not unbouncling relativism, In stead, it is a proportioned view of the evidence, since, during Depth of TheoreticalSampling comparison, biases of particular people and methods tend to reconcile themselves as thu analyst discovers the underlying The depth of theoretical sampling refurs to the amount of causes of variation This con inual correction of data by com data collected on a group and on a category. In studies of parat’ve analysis gives thu sociologist confidence in the data verification and description it is typical°3to collect as much data upon which he is basing his theory, at the same time forcing as possible on thu “whole” group Theoretical sampling, though, him to generate the properties of his categories. The continual does not require the fullest possible coverage on the whole correction of data also makes the sociologist realize clearly an group except at the very beginning of research, when the important point: when used elsewhere, theory generated from main categories are emerging—and these tend to emerge very just one kind of data never fits, or works as well, as theory 31fast. Theoretical sampling requires only collecting data on generated from diverse slices of data on the same category. categories, for the generation of properties and hypotheses. The theory based on diverse data has taken into consideration Even this kind of selective collection of data, hosvever, tends more aspects of the substantive or formal area, and therefore to result in much excess data, from which new and related can cope with more diversity in conditions and exceptions to categories emerge. For example, after a full day in the field, hypotheses. when the field svorker is tired and jammed with dozens of inch If the sociologist has two slices of data (such as field and dents to report in his field notes, he need only dictate data about survey data), but does not engage in comparative analysis, he his categories. Going through his categories also helps him to will generate his theory from one mode of collection and ignore remember data he may have forgotten during his full day. the other completely when it disproves his theory—although he With these categories firmly in mind, directing his attention, the may selectively use confirmatory pieces of the other data as field worker can focus on remembering the details of his day’s supporting evidence Thus, when no comparative analysis is obsersations with the confidence that the notes will be implicitly

27 For example, “The significance of the quantitative case study, then, 29. These same sociologists tend to be debunkers who try to dig up is (1) that it stimulates the kind of theoretical insights that can be derived something out of their own reading to disprove the theory presented by only from quantitative analysis as well as the kind that results from close their colleague. They do not understand they are merely offering a new observation of an empirical situation, and (2) that it provides more severe slice of data that under comparative analysis would enrich his theory by checks on these insights than an impressionistic study and thus somewhat providing or modifying properties and categories increases the probably validity of conclusions,” Peter Blau, “rhe Research 30. 5ee the instructive discussion on “depth” by Udy, op cit, pp. Process in the Study of the Dynamics of Bureaucracy,” in Hammond, op. 164-65. cit,p 20 31. For examples on the quick emergence of relevant categories see, 28. Coleman, op. cit., and see, for the study of workers, Donald Roy, Blanche (,eer, “First Days in the Field,” in Hammond, op. cit; and Blau, “Efficiency and the Fix: Informal Intergroup Relations in a Piecework Ma op. cit., pp 33-34. Blau discovered the significance of the “consultation” chine Shop,” American Journal of Sociology, 60 11954), pp 255-266. p, ttern with’n s sveek after starting his field research, 70 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUYOED THEORY Theoretical Sampling 71 guided by his categories. Any additional information he decides has been collected on a previous one. The sociologist should to note afterwards is “gravy” for theoretical consideration, not continue to saturate all categories until it is clear which are a required chore for the fullest coverage. Theoretical sampling, core categories. If he does not, he risks ending up with a vast thereforc can save much time in note-taking. array of loosely integrated categories, none deeply developed. It is not too difficult to compare as many as forty groups This results in a thin, unvalenced theory. Since stable integra On the basis of a defined set of categories and hypotheses tion of the tneory requires dense property development of at (not on the basis of the “whole” group). and when groups within least some core categories, it then becomes difficult to say groups are compared (e.g.. different and similar wards within which of the array are the core categories; that is, those most different types of hospitals). These groups can be studied one relevant for prediction and explanation. at a time, or a number can be studied simultaneously. They can also be studied in quick succession, to check out major hypotheses before too much theory is built around them, With Temporal Aspects of Theoretical Sampling out theoretical sampling, the field worker, or the writer of a survey questionnaire, collects as much data as he can and hopes When generating theory through joint theoretical collection, that this full coverage will “catch enough” that later will prove coding and analysis of data, the temporal aspects of the re relevant. Probably, though, it will prove too thin a basis for search arc different from those characteristic of research where a developed 32theory. Theoretical sampling reduces the mass of separate periods of work are designated for each aspect of the data that otherwise would be collected on any single group. research. In the latter case, only brief or minor efforts, if any, Indeed, without theoretical sampling for categories one could are directed toward coding and analysis while data are collected. not sample multiple groups; he would he too bogged down Research aimed at discovering theory, however, requires that all trying to Cover just one. three procedures go on simultaneously td the fullest extent The depth to which a category should be sampled is another possible; for this, as we have said, is the underlying operation matter. The general idea is that the sociologist should sample when generating theory. Indeed, it is impossible to engage in a category until confident of its saturation, but there are quali theoretical sampling without coding and analyzing at the same fications. All categories are obviously not equally relevant, and time so the depth of inquiry into each one should not be the 33same. Theoretical sampling can be done with previously collected Core theoretical categories, those with the most explanatory research data, as in secondary analysis, but this effort requires power, should be saturated as completely as possible. Efforts a large mass of data to draw on in order to develop a theory to saturate less relevant categories should not be made at the )f some density of categories and properties. The sociologist cost of resources necessary for saturating the core categories. cngages in theoretical sampling of the previously collected data, As his theory develops and becomes integrated, the sociologist sshich amounts to collecting data from collected data. Also, learns which categories require the most and least complete he is bound to think of ways to make quick, brief data-collec saturation, and which ones can be dropped. Thus, the theory tion forays into other groups, to find additional relevant com generates its own selectivity for its direction and depth of parative data. Therefore, in the end, theoretical sampling and development. data collection for discovering theory become simultaneous, In actual practice, even the saturation of core categories whether the sociologist uses collected data or collects his own can be a problem In field work especially, the tendency always data, or both. How much time and money are available is im is to begin collecting data for another category before enough portant in deciding to what degree the data to be sampled will have been collected previously by the researcher or anyone else 32 For example see Riesman and V,atson, cit., op. p 295. who compiles data. 33. See Sbus, op. cit., p. 17. 72 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY Iheor(4i(1l Sampling 73 All studies require respites from data collection for the relief pickIng up loose ends. To pace the alternating tempo of these and health of their personnel. Generating theory by joint collec three operations. the sociologist coon learns that anahsis can tion coding and analysis requires such respites for additional, be usefully accomplished at various times: immediately after obvious reasons. The sociologist must engage continually in leaving the field; during the evening between successive days some systematic. coding (u-ually just jotting c’itegories and of data collection and during two or thre d or weekl properties on the margins of his field notes or other recorded resp tes from data collection However, the sstematic formu data) and analytic memo writing (see Chapter V). He must be latio i of the core structure of his theory r ia take considerable looking for emeigent categories, reformulating them as their ti though it need not. In either event, the ociologast should properties emerge, selectively pruning his list of categories he v y flexible about timing his work, lie should not be afraid while adding to the list as the core of his theory emerges, along to take. literaih, months off his data collection, if necessary with deeloping his hypotheses and integrating his theory—in and if possible. to thmk through his emergent theory before order to guide his theoretical sampling at each step of the way returning to tlìe field. if he does not take respites for reflection and analysis, he can The continual irwermeshing of data collectLn and analysu not avoid collecting a large mass of data of dubious theoretical beai c directly on how the data collection is brought to a close, relevance, k rsearcher can iways try to collect more iota for checking Most generating of theory should be done in uninterrupted hynotheses or fo g e atirig new properties ategories a quiet, away from the field or the machine room. This is true h potheses When vriting is done in or near the field, the especially during earlier stages of the project, when more time temptatior to go back is especially strong. These final searches is needed for careful formulation. At later stages, the sociologist toi data tend to be for either specific confirmation (the re will find that analysis can proceed more easily during moments ‘earcher mo’.ing now with considerable sureness and speed or of data collection. When his categories are firmer in integration elaboration (the researcher wishing to round out his work by and development, he usually can spot what he is doing in exploring some area that was previously untouched or even . theoretical terms w’hile collecting data. At this time, he may unconsidered ) Ti;ev can be strongly tempting if personal observe in a few minutes all that he needs to know about a elations formed in the field are atisfving or if exciting new group with reference to a given theoretical point. However, cvents are developirg here. Howevrr collection of additioral actually generating theory at the moment of collecting data is da a can be a va te of time fo ategerd’ airead s-itrr ed never easy; usually it takes reflection afterward to discover what o f catEgories t of core value o the theor Sometime, one has actually found. In addition, if one has colleagues on th s t nden y to ait n ti’ fe d just ‘ ‘we something the same project, they all must have respites from data collec new si d hopper t often it not— n I he stud tion to discuss what they are doing and should do next. Such p”o]o ed ulinacessati’ , This tenderic mao lse related to tc discussion is difficult or impossible in the field because they are esearohei ‘s anxiety to ‘know t’ver,’tbing,” whsch i no necec either scattered in different places or cannot talk freely in other for theorotical wturatinij. people’s presence. 34 \, Strou I Ocr’117’100. f B. Buoii’r, D fI.’1 o.. e”3 ‘1 — The sociologist eventually learns to pace the alternating r hiot” !Jc. j’ lIla I,utlt’O’lns ‘sec, 1.,-Yu Froc’ 31111 ‘‘1(001 tempo of his collecting, coding and analyzing in order to get 193i,, (1 flJ 000 .1110 e ktr B. C’ F Flughc 3 S S i nc z each task done in o ‘3hiu,,c’ ‘ of C o Prt cc 0 2 appropriate measure, in accordance with the r stage of his research and theory development. At the beginning, S in F1gF1 is ti (1 T ill t 11(1 1 (11 1 there is more collection than coding and analysis; the balance 10 1 C -isol n I selve k ard 1’. ‘ 1 ‘10110, then gradually C month r F’too, i [ie”l em changes until near the end when the research ‘a pc. ii has -izais ‘ 0 ‘shin, involves ‘rk ““tfl i It lyE’ lllt,1, p mostly analvsis with brief collection and coding for ‘C ., 30 ,,0 11 0 It. because 74

sociologist theory

1cm, involve but project? amount

and theory

time what not substantive groups. geographical of

how In generality’ countries)

necessary can ter least retical of numbers in amount

they on researcher ever, sampling surely

The

types Because

field situations

Detailed it

a

state

the

For VII). talk

description,

in

his

many

degree

for

depend

research

is

after

which

tempo

long

of while analysis presenting it will

This

Specifying

temporal

of and project

example, of necessary

difficult

the

and beforehand

is

time

for and

occur From

who will the

large or time

th

can

affect

describing periods largely

is he

survey to

breakdowns

data may

relatively completion

on positions areas of

formal,

to

different

a proposal necessary

be sociologist

be

and will will

which necessary

intends

sometimes

(what maximize the question these

units to the

open-endedness

when

the proposals

to

come

collection, the sampled. observed

contingent

research, answer of

where take study

writing

research

achieve directions

how

that

detailed

kinds

of

(such gestation descriptions, caches the require

shifts,

easy

and

designed

quickly

of

for to

people that

of But

who

for

differences he

each many

kinds

his

describe for for he in In

how

can

of data for generate

the the as

and

rough

wishes is

respites) THE lunches of

he review

timing

on one

wishes preplanned

library

project, the

studies research groups

one,

will difficult number

material at

to

those groups continue

desired This

of often

can

of timing

collection DISCOVERY

for realizing

the

group,

some be

emerging

theoretical he estimates

groups he

to

structural for boards

study

state of

discovering

or tempo

difficulty

to interviewed

research,

devoted theory

do will are

focused

allowing

generate,

can

cannot

he to his of grants,

developing

scope

to

staff of points

generate

hours

for

situations

O

also the schedules.

that

know be

cities,

indicate and

will

project.

to estimate

research certain want

of

theory

GROUNDED

meetings)? can

years.

used

anticipate

and type

sampling.

be say

difficult raises

on conditions to

how and the

for of the the

ample study

and

beforehand,

theory, regions, answered—

be theory

or

verification studied, observation,

generating hoss

conceptual (see

the properties.

emerging

of final sociologist

for the at

takes,

kinds does

surveyed

the

give given

a (number

THEORY

theory, and

time

others

whole

to

prob routine

Chap much

range

How’ theo can

What

since time

the the

and

give the

that

and

the

to of

of

at

Theoretical are meet necessary?

tion r

his from action with during Colleagues affect (as ‘icualiiation

groups into

is sometimes viewed depth, could people

when rapport a minutes data hears current order

to since ing

tematic that terviews tions which

few periods

establishing

groups the

Finally,

time obtain

In

are

a suicides)? polio)? documents,

the

excludes before timing

of

also

all or sampling in

to proposal.

categories, field the even

best can to

respondents

or

is for

activities; there,

interviewing

time. or Sampling

people

get observes

situations slices allow

What usually it briefly

of

difficult. observed.

often require sociologist

also

half another building

hours,

studies. ho

The

at before being of this

it

waiting

Often

observation.

rapport such

all, How have

how

him of quickly,

many help

Since kinds a interviewing,

not

to

researcher

for

exploratory

the

and

consist

recognizing data this clay

shooed days

Particularly

he

arc be

occurring

to the time-consuming theoretical

had a as

To some

long necessary.

long

of

in

may

for

sociologist

house

comparative writes the of

he study

amount

without

with

sampled,

a allowed training are

researcher

judging of without establish

experiences

sample encapsulated

unscheduled

he does

may

of of spend

off

core

At

the

might

relevant.

in

them the

his

these

period,

will

open-ended

the the and

over

his

of

in obtain it weck, order

In sampling the

theory

to

temporal periods,

anticipated explanations,

may weeks of

people

or

rapport

take find

time beginning field

premises

need

sits purpose. at

later

observing

talk structual

groups

people

respondents,

time

to

in aspect

There

will. he to

or obtain

back it his

to situations

studies periods too, would

similar

with or

get

study

to stages

worthwhile

might

who times

usually

seasons,

quickly (such follow

data Theoretical contingencies.

conversations even

quickly he

fill

and for though

is He

the

timing of contingencies

of

no

his

at

subcontractors),

begin little, are or

talks

on research

out

of of of

the interfering clandestinely

data

listens may gain

months

imposed the

kind as or

the

data

to

requires to

one is.

the

data the

job

to

the for

interviewing establishing research, of

recovering

with,

be

if to occur

same

to

course of obtain

a collection

be

sampling

in research of research, group

year

while periods

any,

explore data

theory. clearer collec

and/or allowed

appear

course, getting

during a

limita inter

data

over

read that

time,

with

(as

few

to

sys

of his 75

the on

in

in

in UIE DSCO EHY OF GROUNDE iHORY Theoretical Sampling 77 respondents tell their stories. Later. ;v”en interviews and ob research is also e’cciting work but, as we have detailed, it lacks servations are directed by the emerging theory, he can ask the more extensive commitment to discovery of theory displayed i direct questions bearing on his categories. These can be an by research utilizing theoretical sampling. I swered sufficiently One final and important and fairly quickh. Thus, the time for any point: since each researcher is likely I[ One interview giows shorter as the n’mher of interviews in to encounter special conditions in his research, he will inevitably cseases because the researcher now onestions many peonle. in acid to the discussion of theoretical sampling as outlined in this different positions ar d different grout s about the same topics. chapter. We would scarcely wish to limit this type of compara Aithor gh the time taker by most interviews decreases as the t s e anal>sis to what we can say about it, from either our own ti eory develops, the sociologist still cannot st’ te how long all ‘esearch or our knowledge of others’ research. We have merely h’s interviews will take because a new category might emerge pesed up the topic The motto should be: the more studies are at any time: this emergence will call for lengthy open-ended based on theoretical sampling, the more effective should future conversations and prolonged obsers ations within some groups ieoretical sampling and comparative analyses become—pro lsc theoretical sampling aimed at fobs dig an incident or ssdecl researchc a write about their strategies and techniques. observing over a eriod of time requires sequential interviews, I with no clear notion of when the sequence will be terminated.

:;‘si Conclusion

I:’I Theoretical sampling, then, by providing constant direction to research, gives the sociologist momentum, purpose and confi dence in his enterprise He develops strong confidence in his categories since they have emerged from the data and are con stantly being selectively reformulated by 36them. The categories, therefore, will fit the data, be understood both to sociologists and to laymen who are knowledgeable in the area, and make the theory usable for theoretical advance as well as for practi cal application. The sociologist will find that theoretical sam pling, as an active, purposeful, searching way of collecting data, is exciting, invigorating and vital. This point is especially im portant w’hen one considers the boring, dull, and stultifying effects on creativity of the methods involving separate and rou tine data collection, coding and analysis which are used fre quently in descriptive and verificatory studies, Conventional field

36. Theoretical sampling would have avoided the dilemma facing Wat son and Riesman (op. cit.) in their study of sociability. Watson feared the muof he” detafled, prco”iceh ed code when starting to collect data, since Riesman lacked confidence in it and wanted to change it completely, If they had undertaken an active theoretical search for categories that worked and fit, then tile preconceived code could base been selectively reformu lated with the approval and confidence of both researchers. particular

to

ever necessary, to generated strategic formal gives become

latter

properties

some ‘t

ure application from failure, the parative parative and

using

al

is

that the

Since

As

education,

1,

relevance

in

political

may

difficult a

this an

For

not

way

colleague: development

science. we

theory.

and

specific

analysis failure,

almost

initial have link

substantive

term,

example,

only

substantive

to in

and directly

remarked still stimulated

behavior.

many

of

start

to

in

mental

The important

in

these We

provides

that others

area.

‘comparative

direction

automatically

“Thanks

find

choosing the

one the

areas

notion

from

believe

wouid

Others

references

of

A a

sent

fonnulation

theory

formal

health)

author in

area

by

grounded of

a

theory

very

a

data,

general

of

facilitate

in Chapter

life,” grounded theory

phoned

a

stimulus possible

that

f’tilure”

(work,

comparative

much

of developing

substantive

theory

provided

is

a

it

Other

at

it

79

this

and

although

grounded

implications

springboard

to

is

might

formal

for such

generating

From

arid

modes to

II,

book

give

juvenile

to

most

from

formal

research

colleagues

your

religion,

immediate

a

a

substantive

generation failure their

he

received “good”

relevant

theory.

theory

conceptual

article

a

desirable,

Formal

of

formal

Substantive

in

substantive

a taken

theory,’

ideas

references, delinquency,

integration.

and

formal

marriage,

wrote or

would

research

on material

idea,

the that

Often

about stepping Iv

categories relevance,

theory

to

comparative

of

letters

theory theory

following

and

seem

level,

apply

was

Theory but

Though

grounded

comparative social

one, for

the

on

Indeed,

usually

can

detailing

to it

of not medi

a stone

how

only

is

sub-

The

and one also

class, and

corn have cons

note

fail to

be

not

in

a Sub8tUfltitL to 80 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY From For’nal Theory 81 stantive and formal theories are formulated by different authors. A quick perusal of any sociological journal ill demonstrate Sometimes in formal theory the substantive theory is implicit, that almost all sociologists believe this is the way to write formal having been developed preiously by the author or another wory! For example, Selvin and Hagstron recently hare pub writer lished an article entitled ‘Two Dimensions of Cohesiveness in S Groups’ In this chapter we sFall orly begin the discussion of the rail but this artic does not if r thc brouncled processes by which a substantive theory is advanced to a formal rmai theory its title implies, only a grounded substantive theory one. We should emphasize that, since our experience and knowl (about college women) written up a notch, At the close of the edge arc least extensive in this area, most of our discussion will daper. some comparatirc speculation is offered about broader be concerned w’ith general rules, positions, and examples of implications; there is no comparative research or analysis to initial efforts at generating formal theory. More specific pro establish formal theory. cedures await the time when enough sociologists will have gen Such rewriting techniques applied to a substantive theory erated grounded formal theory that their procedures can be roduce only an adequate start toward formal theory, not an codihed, Although we Ia k many specific examples, we feel iëqnate formnl theory its lf Pir bahly thc rescarchers are, certain of our general position on the ways that formal theory is tr ical, responding to the substantive stimulation with should he generated. Near the end of the chapter, we shall dis ome general implications. All they have done is to raise the cuss the closely related questions: “Why go on to formal theory?” conceptual level of their work mechanically’; they have not and “What are its uses?” raised it through comparative understanding. They have done nothing to broaden the scope of their theory on the formal level y comparative lnvestigation o different substantive areas, Generating Formal Theory I G have rot escaped the tii se ar d place of their substantive oscarch though their formal riting of the theory rsay lead eaders into thinking One-AreaFormal Theory so. A classic example if this type of theory riting is Merton and Kitt’s theory of reference group behavior There are at least two “rewriting” techniques for advancing We can only wonder what such theories might have looked like a substantive to a formal theory that is grounded in only one sub f their authors had done the comparative analyses implied by stantive area, The sociologist can simply omit substantive words, heir writing, phrases or adjectives: Another instead of saying “temporal aspects of danger of the mist hug tech s iue as used on a dying as a nonscheduled status passage” he would say “temporal ingle su t i vc area i that f tie rcadcr, it terds to dis aspects of nonscheduled status ocia h passage” He can also rewrite a da fr r the brmal theory Wise he theory s vcry substantive theory up a notch: instead of writing about how met, I comes icr to see hot it cnme from the da of doctors and nurses give stg,dx, i medical attention to dying patients cc the to na! thecin r ‘s rende ‘s the’ data ithont according to the patient’s social value, he can talk of how pro sn!’stantisy theory interrenini fessional services are distributed according to the social value of .lsn, toe tormal theory annot fit or work very is cli when eiients.2 By applying these rewriting techniques to a substantive littl : tTO (uth :onc mb’tantn’e area. and usually only one theory, the sociologist of can change the focus of attention from ae the Ca ‘, hc Sr se it canr ot reall:y F develop I suffi substantive to formal concerns. He writes a to one-area formal tl into s all h ntir e c and s ial flea theory on the basis of a i h i I substantive theory; he does not gen v ‘ n t d s s ii s ti ea vi ci erate the formal theory directly from the data, r ‘Moe o C 2. See Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, “The Social Loss of 4 Bob u ‘h ‘ nI TI.eori, ‘intl S’n-iol ‘uciun’ Dying Patientc” American Jnnrnal Non York of ursir,g, Vol. 64, No, 6 (June, 1964). ‘ Pr , ,.c,., . t,o !‘J’. -O

are As

thus few

too

begin of required.

when collaborators.

of

parative

in for “Awareness

wall tiple comparatix

subsumed lating in

or 507-14. tix

for it

Press,

goneralizod other

dictions

becomes, it new.

82

will

e

is

formal

sociologists.

order Quota

.5.

6

Two

Multi-Area

we

its

When

busy

obtaining

not generating

theory,

good

put too

of

For

29

groups

1959),

C.

the

theories

to

a

be

For

more

have

formal

confined

theory

examples

Wright

(1964),

example,

Achievement,”

analysis

to

working

and sparsely

generate

theory,

the Yet

applied.

division

in

advancing

synthesizers

in

further

Contexts

e

p.

generate

which

by

analysis

discussed

Formal

of

the

abstract

actuality,

wall

the

65

more

It

explanations.

There through

that

core

Mills,

theory

p.

comparative

one

and

see

it

discussion

process.

need

to

is

task

on

from

dcx

All

676.

of

formal

and

becomes provided

together. 6

data

Theory

ts

passim.

Donald

the

substantive categories

situations

of

their

The

a

formal

are

labor eloped

that

American

level

can

in

from

who Social

not

the

our substantive

and

groups

treated

same

from

never

Sociological

‘Ihe

a

sec

theory

own

happens

Roy.

be

within

own comparathe

be

harder

works.

recent

wish

the

Thus

and

an

theory.

to

analysis

Barney

Interaction,”

These

logic

done

for

many

in

is

and

Sociological

“Work

data! relegated

enough

use

efficient

THE

as

area,

work

research

still

through

the

which

to

generating

sociology

to

the

Ihe

article,

is

theory

a

used

C.

their

by

DISCOVERY

in Imagination

While

worthy

kinds

search

generate

the

that Satisfaction

wider also

substantive

will

Claser

making

one

bricks

rexsriting

one

guide

method,

American

in

people

most

properties

to

bricks

Review,

comparative it

suggest

“awareness

to

will

of

the

discovering

sociologist

area

and

out

will

will

people

the

range

OF

a

either

substantive

and

the

powerful

to

(New trustworthy

provide

process

and

formal

Anselm

GROUNDED

the

are

of

be

have

techniques

distant formal

since

selecting

Sociological

latter

18

theory

there

how

a

Social

of modified

are

and

substantive

bricks

dying,

York:

(1953),

multitude

contexts”

built

or

L

analysis by

research

one,

substan

one

of

because

a

method

usually

are

formu

Reward

theoiy

future

Strauss,

ThEORY

a

to

areas,

guide

Grove

com

itself

mul

and pre

few

but

can

the

too

the

are

Re

pp.

be by

respective

is

is

are (‘it,

of physiasl

some

instance. tic

quic

trern

archs

also

“wise’

ens

present

\egro resented

of

interactants.

which

the preliminary

nations,

exist

Negroes cars,

our

substantive

quently.

contexts,

as

From

two,

Cr?

n

the

ison

as

Comparisons

insignia

an pp.

Quick

kly

Au

of

nailni

Glae

of

dying

vary

found

substantive

primary are

.

hustling

are,

tional

Substantive

three

pr

persons

people

are

669-679.

staff inter

they

camps

leads

And

asso during

(sk

and

by

upon

marks

as

:n?Ty

if

sex.

we

ii

for

hierarchically

and

iesc

scrutiny

ger

:‘tuation

members’

thr

we

areas.

can

analy

sit

ctar

or

whites,

uniforms

iated

Different

the

of

to

arc

The

instance,

asici

c

in

who

S

who

the orally

the

iat

more)

irjci

context,c.

the

jntcractars

ra

course

of

wish to

of

Jo

he mutual

theory

pool

‘s

automatically

sis

Formal

seconciars Here

an,

ethers

each

hypotheses.

s,

identifying interaction

sk1] know

of

development

‘a

stat

do usefisliv

.

spying

i

to

halls

Az

and

or

five

c’ert

,w,nbors

suggests

these

Different

clowning

not

the

n

differences

category

of

is

suspicion

all

(same

develop

Theory

his

the

as

of

Situations

rca

s.

how

clothing

co

may

)

awareness

stakes

comparative

as

kinds

i

seceindai’y.

compared.

Ihe

situations

igns—those

The

e

secret,

is

agility

N

signs

may

signs

bchaxioral led

a

Suppose

this

(on

of

and

or

-ev

numbc-’rc

g

of

ratios

at

for

ass

usual

a

of

positions

of

of

mteractantr

to

different

betwee

var”

st

properties

might

forn-wi

circuses,

cci of

‘

prismerc

one

and

uhre

diverse

of

of

and

the

social analyzing

‘

contexts

i

of

status

practice

c the

The

irs status.

categories

nd

bidding

a

mark,

that

(one

millions

of

so

interaction

tnat

insiders

z

be

-i

America.

ih

S

s 1 ecch theory

of

s

card

interaction)

groups

awa

substantive

o

s

level

signs

buying

done

eli ‘1

of

one

and

Sal

i.

genItalia

patient

interactants

nay

strongly

tj

c-an

uc

Some

(in

one

data

For

war

carried

Interaction”

eness

a

shark),

the

of

and

ti

the

of or

of

of

or

focuses,

h

starting

ir

be

dying

can

Negro,

our

skin

and

any white

from

n

may

passing

signs

gestrre) tI’ indicators

them

the

awareness

and

formula-

outsider.s

tcrnis

thought

involved

suggest

contexts

Chinese

he

groups

out

re

gisen

Conse

earlier

selling

color

some

othc

bier

many

sass

may

doz

r

and

with

five

are

and

for

op.

of

h

of

of

r

83

I

ii w 84 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY From Substantwe to Formal Theory 85 status especially when found in conjunction with primary nno ence to byst ir den or e cci to police arid later to a court signs—would be, for “Negro,” “kinky hair” and perhaps “south f law, Sometimes identifying signs are “rectified” falsely! The ern-style speech”; and, for sex, clothing, hair style, and gesture. ew signs are believed and accepted, even though the original rhe visibility of such signs depends on learned ability to recog indications were really true, In “mutual pretense” situations, the nize them, for instance, many people have never learned to dying patic it in some sense rectifies the notion that he is hoinci,xuah and utlier uuuld sw,t know an Amen lying By anting much alise; given the ambiguity of can Indian if they saw one most signs, other people act up to his false rectification, until Understandably, some interactants may not even recognize the signs are either so unambiguous that the game is hard to the signs of their own status; for instance, the dying person play, or until he drops the pretense and admits his real situa may be kept unaware of his own position (closed awareness tion 10 A subjective and subtle variation occurs when an inter actant’s status is rejected context). Signs can be manipulated, both crudely and subtly. and he himself begins to doubt who I For instance, they ma simply be removed from vision, as when he is, as in Nazi Germany when gentiles with faint Jewish stigmata are concealed. They can be disguised, as when kinky Imeage came to doubt their true identities because their claims hair is straightened or, as John Griffin did when passing for to be non-Jewish were denied, Negro. skin color is changed temporarily with chemicals. Signs Such comparisons of diverse groups in terms of identifying can also be suppressed. as when an interactant8 chooses not to “signs” quickly lead to both useful properties and hypotheses indicate that he is really an American spy, or when a Japanese- about this facet of a formal theory of awareness context. Just as “1 American visiting Japan speaks Japanese at a department store in the development of substantive theory, the hypotheses will be so as not to be recognized as a “rich American.” All these tactics, concerned with such matters as tactics and counter-tactics, as of course, are aimed toward minimizing potential recognition by well as with their structural conditions, their consequences, and other mteractants. so on. But it is important to understand that this kind of inquiry Counter-tactic’s consist of eliciting important “give-away” can be furthered immensely by systematic analysis, not only of signs, to avoid having to wait for signs and hoping to recognize a single category but of combinations of categories: signs and them. Some counter-tactics for recognizing persons who are stakes, for instance; or signs, stakes, ratios of insiders-outsiders. suppressing their identity depend on “passing” as a member of and numbers of group representatives present at the interaction. their group (all FBI man posing as a Comrnnnist, or on getting This kind of analysis becomes increasingly richer, because it information from others within the group. Persons of similar leads the researcher to ask “Where can I find another compari status may use conventjonal signs to further recognition; the son group that differs in one more specified respect?” When he deliberate use of these signs will vary, depending on whether finds that group, its examination leads him to further generation outsiders are present or absent, and whether they are “w’ise” and qualification of this theory. By such means, exceedingly complex sympathetic to insiders ) or not.i Usually there are places and sseli-grounded formal theory can be developed. It where the gathered insiders can forgo their efforts to disguise is precisely by such means that a substantive theory of aware or suppress iclentilsing signs. But they max’need (as with drug ness contexts can be extended upward in conceptual generality addicts counter tactics to avoid betrayal even in such secluded and outu ard in scope. In doing so, many more useful types of places. awareness contexts would be generated and related to inter It is worth emphasizing that identifying sigm sometimes actants’ behavior. need to be rectified—as uhen a customer in a store is mistaken Status passages Our second example is the initial generation for a salesman, or a man mistaken for a thief must prove his of a formal theory of status passages, prompted by our substan

8. John H. Griffin Black Like Me (New York, Signet Books, 1962). 10. See Glaser and Strauss, Awareness of Dying (Chicago: Aldine Pub 9. See Erring ColEman Stigma (New York’ Prentice Hall, 1963). lishingCompany, 1965), Footnote 4, p. 279. 86 THE DISCOVERYOF GROUNDEDTHEORY From Substantive to Formal Theory 87 tive theory on the status passage involved in dying)’ We have in hospitals can he located b all thesc structural dimensions in written about the “nonscheduled status passage” of dying; sev the following svav: the status passage is nonscheduled, nonpre eral other dimensions (properties of status passage also arose scribed. undesirable and, after a point, inevitable. The passage from our study, of is a passage is One these whether or not status sometimes regulated but sometimes not; and sometimes rela follows an institutionally prescribed sequence of transitional tivciv unambiguous but except for its end status ) sometimes statuses. For instance, many ethnographic descriptions of grow not. ing up and aging, and many descriptions of organizational The next step is to study different types of status passage careers, delineate prescribed passages. (Such may or in passages order to begin generating a formal theory. Various conihina may not be precisely scheduled.) tions of the above dimensions provide ways of typing different “Transitional status” is a concept denoting time in terms of status passages as n eli as some of the conditions under which the social structure. It is a social systems tactic for keeping a the passage is managed. Differences between two sets of these person in passage between two statuses for a period of time, He conditions will, therefore, tend to explain why two types of is put in a transitional status, or sequence of them, that deter tatus passagc s are managed differently. mines the period of time that will be in a status passage. he For example, in the United States the engagement status pas TF us the transitional status of “initiate” will, in a particular sage (between the statuses of being single and married) is case, carry with it the given amount of time it will take to usually institutionally nonscheduled like dying, though unlike make a non-member a member---a civilian is made a soldier by dying it is desirable to the parties involved, Because it is a spending a given number of weeks as a basic trainee; an ado status they have chosen, the status occupants themselves deter lescent spends a number of years ‘in training” to be an adult. mine when they are in passage, what the transitional statuses A third dimension of status passage is the degree to which will be, and for how long a 1] period they will he in each one, In II) it is regulated; that is, to what degree there are institutionalized contrast, couples involved in personally undesirable or forced operations for getting an occupant in and out of beginning, engagements, such as sometimes found in Europe and Japan, transitional, and end statuses and for keeping others informed especially among the upper class, do not control their own of the passage. Rites of passages are instances of such regulated transition. operations. It is notable in of dying patients that our studies A status passage that contrasts with both the engagement the nonscheduled status passage involved both fairly regulated and dying is the defendant status passage, which links the and fairly unregulated temporal elements. One regulated aspect statuses of citizen and prisoner. It is scheduled and undesirable. is that at certain points in the passage the doctor must announce Commitment to a state mental hospital can be regarded as an the death to a family member. But less regulated is the typical instance of the defendant passage. In contrast to dying, while problem: when (if ever) does the physician tell the patient that the legalized legitimator of the passage is a judge, the unofficial he is dving The regulated and unregulated elements of the legitimator can he, in fact, a lawyer, a general practitioner, a nonscheduled status passage together generate one structural psychiatrist, the family, or the “defendant” himself. Thus, any condition leading to differential definitions among parties to the one who would be an unofficial legitimator must develop tactics passage. to make both his claim as such ‘stick” and his definition of the Further dimensions of status passages include to what degree defendant’s sanity status accepted by the court. Comparative the passage is considered undesirable: whether or not it is analysis of the characteristic tactics in this situation with those inevitable; and how clear are the relevant transitional statuses used during engagement or dying passages can be useful for and the beginnmg and end statuses of the passage itself. Dying developing a formal theory. Also, 11. Glaserand Strauss, ‘Temporal Aspects of Dying as a Non-Scheduled useful comparisons between the recover’ and dying Status Passag,” American status Journal of Sociology (July, 1965), pp. 48-59. passage are provided by a study of the polio patients who From Substantive to 88 niE DiSCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY Formal Theory 89 reflections recover from their acute ‘ittacks of polio hut who suffer varying about various kinds of institutional settings (e.g., degrecs of muscular impairment 12 This particular kind of bureaucratic, small establishments) and situations (courtship, recovery passage is non-institutionally scheduled or prescribed demotion). undesirable and, after a point, inevitable. One difference with An examination of his paper quickly shows that, in fact. Goffman begins dying ‘s that the end ta us—ref crc the passage will lead—is by pointing to comparison group that he does not frequuitlv unclear The doctor is uncertain about the degree to later build systematically into his comparative analysis. He which the patient sill regain use of the affected muscles. As a uses these initial comparisons to set his own point of view result, the doctor as legitimator is often very chary with infor squarely before the reader (quite like Cressey in I he Taxi- mation to family and patient, both in the hospital and after Dance Hall),14 Thus, “losing a role” may occur through promo tion, discharge (even though after a time he may form a clear idea abdication or demotion, Likewise, demotion may or may not of where the patient will end up). ‘Ihis lack of clear announce involve reflection of the person’s capacities. Each of these ments about the end status stimulates the patient and family to comparisons, in fact, can be built into the emerging theory to engage in vigorous searches Ioi ues which might define just give it much more scope and depth. Even if demotion alone how much better the patient can he expected to get. is focused on, Goffman has offered useful cues for extending In Davis’s account of the polio recovery there is very little his analysis Thus, what happens when demoters and demoted information or analysis concerning the coordination of people’s both agree he has been demoted, as over against when they behavior that is obtained by defining statuses correctly. The define him as demoted but he does not? What about the reverse reason is easy to find: while our study was focused upon medi situation? What about when demoters (and bystanders) do not cal personnel in the hospital, his study—especially in later phases agree among themselves:- And when they’ are differentially ‘4 of the passage to “getting better”—focused largely upon the above or below him in status? And when there are variable family outside the hospital. The medical personnel would not dimensions of “awareness context”—whether “open,” “closed” or -s be so concerned with coordinating a passage outside their organ “suspicion”_concerning agreement or disagreement? Also, what S izational jurisdiction. about the distance that he is demoted? And when more than The above examples are taken from our research; however, one person is demoted simultaneously? Other cues for theoretical ‘4 as we noted earlier, anyone can begin generating formal theory sampling are offered in passing by Goffman. He remarks that directly from published theory. For instance, he might system criminal gangs sometimes can afford not to cool out the client, atically extend Erving Goffman’s “On Cooling the Mark Out.” but department stores necessarily must be concerned. The In this useful paper, Goffman focused on the type of status implications of that important point—including when each demotion that reflects on the incapacity of the demoted person. party can or cannot afford to cool out—are not followed through. “Cooling out” means demoting him while simultaneously’ taking We are told also, through a passing remark, that agents who measures to minimize those of his reactions that would be most cool out may themselves react (as with guilt) to their actions. destructive to the institutional setting n here the demotion But what different kinds of agents. under what conditions, occurs. Goffman’s theory of “cooling out” encompasses such react similarly or differently? Also, if we scrutinize what we are matters as when this process occurs, what typical tactics are offered in the way of tactics for cooling out or situations where used in cooling out, and what happens when the demoted per it typically occurs, then we find lists of tactics and situations son refuses to be cooled out. The theory is built on Coffman’s that are related in the analysis only rather loosely to different types of organizations or situations. Systematic comparison of Bobbs-Merrill, 12. Fred Davis, Passage Through Crisis (Ind’anapolis’ organizationseither through field research or, 1963). quite feasibly, 13. Psychkitry, 15 (1952), pp. 451-63, 14 See our commentary on this common practice in Chapter III. through

will 90

theory theory else to straetly all, away”

he comparisons what

another the will own of scendence

earlier, on

possible have can periences. making to

Glaser, motion tional

‘d

and

Davis’ (1965),

120-32. Interaction,”

firsthand This

has

grounded

ithin

Direct

Formal s

generate quickly many

what

15.

16.

theory.

occur

data.

emerge

Douglas

formal

comparisons

usually

suggests

through

suggested because Scientists

For

paper

“Stable kind secondary For Industrial since than

theory, in

Cf.

to

pp.

any

Formulation

substantive comparisons This

to research of

Industrial extension

instance, formulate

our

theory begin

research.’

American As

are of

Moore,

714-24

in

a theory, theory.

on stimulation ColEman’s,

the

other substantixe

come Carecr

comments that theoretical

(Indianapolis: formal strategy

of scrutin

further the

these

“Deviance Oigaiiizations,”

suggested

in

analyst,

to

analysis

his

are

formulated

passing “Demotion,”

one of

and sociologist’s an sociologists’

of

N.

from Management.”

but

densify

Sociological That

of

formal

Coffman’s

areas

analyses initial

Formal theory

The important

suggested

may comparisons—directed

Martin Comparative the not

on

and

scholarship.

and

and

allows

Disavowal,”

just formulations

a

sampling

of his

theory

directly but

only

Bobbs-Merrill,

begin

strategy

author

is

theory substantive illustrative

the

guidance,

focus; may

Theory Journal published

paper

by

and as THE

Social

hard

work, has directly

Revietv,

feed

mind speedy

theories.

permits

emergent

if generating strategy

comparative

American

by

max

DISCO’,ERY be

A.

Failures,”

not

in by

directly. he

has

second, is

Problems, Business,

He along

to consists

Social

into

“Awareness

one’s

Strauss,

from

tied

his

29 followed

to even were

find, from incorporation from he extension

substantive

may

the

1964);

theory. forgotten

(1964),

these

begin in

analysis;

the

Problems, fonnal

formal

much Sociological

developed

Ch’iptr

his

OF

own

The if efficient

29

what thinking generating

as of

9 begin

“Patterns

comparative

one

by unacknowledged,

GROUNDED

analysis,

lines, development

Fred

(1962),

reading,

(1956

up;

Contexts asking, we

with

However,

core pp.

reflections

theory

that more of

theory.’5

area; comparisons

10 or

immediately

and

third, research—

9

have

see Goldner,

669-79.

Coffrnan’s h generation

categories about in and

someone

Review,

of (1961),

theory— less

pp. “thrown i’p

Barney

from first closely THEORY

and formal

without fourth, Organiza

life

though

Mobility

noted what

101—10; 213-20.

tran

data

it ab.’

Social

his

“De

on of Fred

ex

of

pp. is

30 G.

Rerolution of ization,’° variables one

1961;, Social he thing appears sue this cud ‘rus-dkal borrowing and thus patory a cult substitute models missing.

From that The bforc right” but significance? dangers directly 1i-onies data do

irs

S.d

Pt

way

ideas,

ph

18.

17.

and, For This

abandons The

111

0.

-essiun

the

1,

problem

of a no

task gix

or the

procedures Substantive File

See, For

Sos’

pp.

C and

set

is

to

of-

“useless” succession”

Merton’s he Sch,

its lug one

of

example, categories sociologist

approach above.

in

This

formal

The

Since arise

ii

and

(Chirago iple ‘In

13s’rnard the when

362-75, thinking of

for

for’

dubious

the the and

\,w-

is

do his

ad

up

will

exariple

I

properties may

If

s

generating through,

tactic research

data sociologist

his

xanip

ways 0

memos neat, they out

the

when

4nn the to person-sets

\ork:

to

not,

they

categories

can really-

“anomie’

Loseoson,

and

are

slip

fit

the

us—hecausi of-ha Formal theory

takes

search

fit

or Unix about must

borrowers

of Lookng

has

kr’or,

w explain of

clear, the

to

is’hri

Davrd bear

N

a “person-set.” and the ti into essentially

w from

authors

i’I

he errn

logico know

Cl

tht

formal

for

also

categories considerable

also

a Theory

s must

the

his on for Viiev’snd

“Buss J.

Ntieh.

guidance will

cc

ti

real work? adaptations, logico-dedectix’e

on are

ran

grounded it

Cath,xitz,

his

‘4

Sr1ir around been

e

predict

functional

what data

th theory, in be theory deductive that

of

P

rhetoric an

world

i relevant v make Chicago hase of comparisons their

ory

rcraOc re!evancc

C

wary

1Z-iu Y

theory

Are the

abstract

used

is that

the

to

are

tha

Sons.

k

Bk or

Seoial

Student has of

pertinent

atte many

nay

a The

certain

formal

and

do .‘sity

discipline

same Suc

they

of

Prms,

IL

u. of

theories would useless

model sounds with

in

to data

formal a

requisites

not

so

1964).

npts

with

as

using another . Exche,ni

sound

ession,” sociologist

Change

substantive

interpret order data. Microfilms. category

fledgling

often

clearly

formal

been an of Faculty umeba

1939), Parsons’s as

can

theory’ through

“nice

help

through for

it.

to even substantive

explanation

theorists.

the

those

on

In because

“nice

demonstrated not

he in

in lack data.

formal

integrating

of

him

Chapters

and theories

ani indicated Relatkius Amitai

other

rhetoric

antici1,atorv

the

if

like aud a anvthmg

in

substantive

to faced

Inc.,

an

patterned pilot

empirical very they and suggested

the theory

“neat’

In

generate

favor Indutrle1

Power

run

V’inst

“antici

theory,

organ several

of

words,

Etzioni

1960)

short.

areas,

neat” rhet

1,

with diffi “feel

tests

as

in

any and

out

but

hut

II

rn

by

of it

of ir

is 91

a a referents,

question is

mal and easier eration 92

data neat” case

sound nates conceptual categories, turns merely

tion in reasons stantive more tive about securities

rewards emanate On knows sociologists difference

havior and covery

relevant

Another working

Most

First

20.

21.

theory to

that

of

under

areas

of

Chapter

speculations,

out,

the about

to

(New

broader Formal so

See

Upon

Cf.

grounded

an

his of

being

for

of

level.

of

of

sociologists ask

the

from

it

Again

logical.

theory;

to

Smeiser, orderly, Fred

formal well, of

and

from

a logico-deductive

between

data with

danger

mature framework,

all,

this

York:

the

will learn them

III:

logically the

and

borrowing

logical such

Theory?

In

colleagues

so

Red

generalities,

a Scientist’s

avoidance. and

data high

the

inside data

“Filling

formal help Free

researcher answer

op.

have

theory addition

the over The

very which

“postal

to

expertise

and

specialization

result

a

unquestionably

feels

cit..

is

with Press

level that

worked-out

b.

result

formulate

dilettante

data the no

Anseim and

the early

not theory; is

the Career,”

a

Chapter one

with

to

and clerk”

increasingly my are of

disciplining

is never

abstractness

abstractions,

to

years.

tendency theory:

we

Boxes.” out.

tends

the Glencoe,

are

used in

no

is

feels

the formal

the

of

L. the

grounded THE

a a

they

believe Social

11:

approach

simple

a

then done This

whe.

my Strauss,

and

set

specialized

The

growing

dictum

must

inherently

to

are

wider

to

grounded DISCOVERY

See “Some

How

tend 1963).

stay

theory

of

know to

theory? Problems

generate

conviction a effect internal forcibly

comfortable by

abetted

means directly also

he

and

categories.

there

slip

ordering

“The

true

fonnal

do

public.2’

principally

Empty

to

that

to asking

correct

love

one

purports Smelser,

in

from OF

I

avoid

on

sorting formal

field,

greater

Impact

know

This

“pro.” are

(1965),

that

feeling

satisfactions

there GROUNDED

ordered

Theoretical how by or generating

properties

theory.

of

the

tends of

the

because

several

Furthermore,

two the

The rewards

as

one’s logic

question

Collective

the

this

theory,

of

out

at a

to the

The

difficulties

following pp. is

true

he

confident

formula Rapid

mass

the substan

handle,

relative

to

by

a

theory facts.2° THEORY

further

theory

297-311.

domi

“nice, learns

Boxes,”

other

latter

great gen

they

keep

sub for

and

that

and but

the

Dis

of

is Be

theory

change of much

moved

substantive

in data

logico-deductive to

their

vant have a

ology’s

to rests

theory.

theory, league

that “Also

applicability colleague

much substantie Thus, as structures,

of seem

ic as

and working

claim

sociologists

From

substantive

the

grounded

the

The generate

itc Other

too

Another

too

formal

from

own pass

theory,

on

future

neither comprehend

and

cipposod logico-deductiye I

real

Substant,ve

real. from data,

although

future,

their

“findings.”

unbounded,

but

depersonalization had

abstract,

suppose

theories

research.

colleagues as

more

many

its

wrote

world.

theory

wished

theory They

Many

for

area

the nor formal them.

just reason

sociological

from minds say,

theory

time

two

and

hut

depersonalizatitig

formal

sociologists abstractly,

theories,

real time I substantive

to

too of

published of

for

us, see

Depersonalization

links

am

so

great

researching sociologists powers

for

to Formal This

from

nor

for

theory

and

substantive if

interest

to

have

divorced

is world.

use go for

conceptual

apropos

sufficiently

they

only

ones. theories help

avoiding

with formal

inclination

the amounts

task

no

theory

the

research, for

of

Theory

in

told

because

of

because

further

know a

focus

for those one parsimony

areas, formal

Those

data:

We

consultation

it

is, time

explanation remarkably

from

resist

theory__there

more

his

us

is

are areas

to

which

the

of

area.

offended

are

level

effect. of

a

truly sociologists

rather

want

many

that

and they

own

in and

to

colleagues this

thinking

theory

course, people

formal

they data is generation

and

widely,

confident

(period!) generalizing

generate

they

It

minimized

and

of

may

the

difficult theory

do

Formal place no

area

substantive

distrust on

before

or

is

feel

its

by

plausible

and

is

theory

not part and

important scope

have

future

almost

not

will lean

lectures,

and

grounded

terms

most

the

who

of

who

of

they

is

that

actually

prediction. of

and theory

everyday

a

to of

they

really

not

no

based specialization:

airy

the

heavily

certainly specific

and

it

of can

formal

theory

need

it.” of

apparent relate

do

too

exclusively

many

must

so substantive to

areas

theory,

always

the

separation

can sociology

assertions but

for

help minimal

is This

not a

proceed

limiting.

far

formal

trust

on

a

formal

viewed

theory

them

theory

on life

from

amass

social

rele safely and will soci

who

see

the from One

re

in

col

nor

be

in

a its

to

a

93 a may from formal

musicians

94

ways. theory,

derived area, legion. Uses

tries materials Robert

of cation chances conditions tive show contrast, qualification.

alizes

the

substantive effort

post-hoc sometimes data prepare

substantive

Chicago

Insofar

research

A

A Probabh

22. 23.

be

process,

analysis,

of

with the

some

second and

First,

collection. third a theory

to

of

Robert H. currently

Blauner

Formal

found

from

new

f

Press,

lectures. or

our

give comparative

and enterprise

the

an

Becker, explain

respect as

small

(see

the is

area development

approach

he

theory.

not theory;

about

the important approah use the except prominent

central

typically It

Blauner, marijuana

1964).

his

in

Theory

formal

may

systematically

Chapter

Outsiders

portion the uses

that

The

he

most Becker’s sociologist of

variations

materials

to

A the

in

comparative variations insofar

tends

set product.

guiding

their

Alienation

the good

is

comparative analysis

sociologist

confined research

theories

widespread

is

social

body

users,2’

theorists.

out of to

of

(New

VI).

sociologist

to

Otrtsiders;

degree

to

example

one greater

in

new apply as

does

to

study

theory,

control

of

handle THE

an

and scrutinized York:

the and

of

This

to direct

after

or

verify,

theory

analysis

theoretical

established

concern also

Such

DISCOVERY

his

careful

several

of

old

more Freedom explanations

meaning. use

analysis with

of

Free

already

checking approach he

and

the

“alienation.”

it

substantive portions,

grounded

does

theory

in

verification of

based

Press

in carefully

formal

comparti7P

data creation generates

variation

himself

a formal

a

formal

OF (Chicago:

several

this conventionally, number

given

writing, knows

He general

of

seems

on GROUNDED

it

is

tends

became

Glencoe,

at

theories,

formal

under does

collected;

to

the

theories

23

with

generates of

theory, theories

least,

substantive

and

studies

alternative

and

well,

University This to

order

theory.

deviance

of

compara

as

to

reearc1i

this

ThEORY theory

rec1uire

formal diverse 1962). qualifi

part

indus

gener

when

of block often

in

type

how-

to

as

are

on

and

but

his

In

an a

to

of

a

a

of

(Ed.),

tation Rushing’s

can formal illustrated further formal I-Iarvard,

hunches, w’th tive begins

ever,

From

instrumental his reducing power concepts. from very ment tivelv on fully

conventional pressed fessional ing His central Like

I because then tions on can, three who

24.

read

present

area

fleldnotes

Using its

two

Rushing

Designed Substantive problem professionals and

Sociologists See

is

institutionalized,

in

indeed, are again

institutionalized Thibaut, on

but other theory

separate

institutionalized

theory

strategies), with experiences social

the

this:

thesis

a

distinct Blau’s notions, by

under The

the

individuals

interested

Mertonians

roles biased strategies),

in

asking

Among

qualitative

Psychiatric

book.

for

commentators

when

the

spent versus

theory the

psychological is a

role

and

Psychiatric engage

abound.

primarily

“hen

under

that and its

readings.

in

Homans, to at how

consideration,21

loose

general levels:

himself

following

in tow

interviews,

theory

Format concepts, description,

Work

the

influence, the

a

Udy’s the

in expressive

is

the

since

to

who

a

number

initiating in

relative ard analysis,

Role

psychiatric

but disappointing university mental

a

key

analyze conceptual structures from

However,

hospital

for

theoretical

formal

(New

a He

“modern

what

too lack

Merton

particular

approach Theory

work

Pro

the very

is

graduation.

on

theory sociologists

aspects

concepts—derived,

can

review

cost

static: and

Rushing

of

fess’ion.r:

“in

Columbia),

deprivation, and

activities. hospital of

York:

psychiatric

is

abetted

this

researcher’s

there).

useful

months

specific

read

theory

disappointing

(teaching) and This clear-cut

(and process

rather hospitals,

Staff.

hypotheses

therefore

mental

the finally

for

and

process,

(the

its

framework

Basic

in

professor (by

the

discusses

Parsons—.are

examples,

exercise

characteristic cost and

Power, For

forte setting. framework

some by

descriptive. observing

Examples

than

impact is

reread

book

researches

Books, of

Strauss)

hospital”

hospitals,

reference frequent

consensus

secondarily

this

inducing,

this

ungrounded needs

as

with

is

psychiatric

graduate institutionalization.”

regard.

those

to

first about

Conflict

in

by

So

chapter

I

well analysis,

book

in

of it

(Parsonians

1964).

particular

of

illuminate

gather,

the supplementary

and

for

giving

Philip

he

the for

is

of of

that power

is A

quotes

he

formal

This

group,

preventing,

can

a about as its difficulties

description

the

often

takes

interview

sociologist for its

not

William

this

establish

by

training

and

was

hospital.

sociologist

he

descrip are

Hammond

be

mainly himself with

are theory,

is

people

substan

chap-

focus

from

“yet”

finds

(and

rela

as

use

Ada pro read how and

linked

not

im ideas,

from

well

a

his

A.

p

of

in

it

95 96 TNF DiSCOVERY OF GROUNDED Tuvonv From Substantive to Formal Theory 97 of various auxiliary development. ter the social positions, plights and strategies He has not especially caught development in recreational descriptions, his personnel in the hospital: notably, social workers, which are relatively static, or in his theorizing, psychiatric nurses. The dis which is essentially workers, clinical psychologists, and non-processual. While the book is very useful a systematic and step by step presentation for its descriptive cussion turns around materials and detailed quotes, I believe it is of hypotheses, with qualitative evidence bearing upon them. Two also useful as an object lession about a type of prevalent re quotes from the concluding ch sptcr will conscy the kinds of earch style in the use of logical formal theory. hypotheses which he presents: “the typology of power strate 2 implementing cost-inducing, structural cost-reducing, and gies rhe several uses of formal theory discussed in this quotation cost-preventing. . . We hypothesized that this maintaining arc enterprises quite different from is related to the institutionalization process: the chaiac the generation of grounded typology formal theory, tcr of the particular power strategy—its function for the actor— accomplished through systematic study of mul tiple depends upon the degree to which social relationships have been comparison groups and substantive theories. Perhaps the closest institutionalized” (page 241) relative to such formulation is the kind of essay writing descriptive material offered throughout the book is The or established many years ago by Georg Simmel, dered by the theoretical requirements of each chapter. Anyone and nurtured by such contemporaries as who has observed psychiatric hospitals closely—including state Erving Goffman and David Riesman, in which the hospitals where the winds of current doctrine happen to blow essayist—with or without systematic data before him —develops softly—will i ecognize many features either explicitly dis a series of general propositions of relatively high or his descriptions abstraction, ussed by Rushing implicitly touched upon by Such writing can be criticized as being, at best, and by his interviewees’ remarks. The book teems with illustra full of insights and, at worst, as pure speculation. (Some “in tions of the ambiguity associated with auxiliary personnel’s tasks, sights” may later be of them and the “tested” by more rigorously minded soci conflict among these personnel and between ologists.) psychiatrists, of strategies for getting work done and professional From our viewpoint, such writing is exceedingly valuable, interests accomplished. but as theory it lacks both integration of well-defined Nevertheless my response to the book is that it is not suc concepts and sufficiently credible grounding in careful compara cessful in portraying—through joined description and analysis— tive research, a hospital that is very much “in process.” I lay the blame on an The more prestigious unwillingness to abandon conventional role theory for something style of logico-deductive, systematic “grand theorizing” bolder, something more suited to, as Rushing aptly regards it, is, in the hands of its most brilliant practi tioners, the non-institutionalized hospital. Rushing’s assumption is that more than merely esthetically satisfying: it also gives these hospitals are moving toward institutionalization—which is impetus to considerable useful, precise verification of hypotheses. probably incorrect, and if so still raises questions as to the most But it provides no directive—any more than it did a century fruitful ways of studying their institutionalization. Careful as is ago when Comte Rushing’s development and Spencer were its spokesmen—to closing of social psychological theory, it suffers that from the all too customary effort to fit combined bits of logical embarrassingly noticeable gap between highly abstract theory and formal theory to a substantive area, Not much, I suspect, is the multitude of miniscule substantive studies so really added to the formal theories other than indicating how characteristic of current sociology. It should be evident that portions of them can be applied in this particular substantive 23 we put greater faith in grounded formal theory to close that area. If I am incorrect in that assertion, then at least the book gap, for it readily fails to indicate how those formal theories (bearing on power, fits “what’s going on” in everyday situations, Possibly influence, cost, reference groups, relative deprivation) were the main benefit yielded by grand theories is their use modified, qualified or extended. of abstract models (mathematical, process, system, functional, As for the relationships among professionals in the hospital: interdependences, equilibrium, etc.). The integration of formal immersed as I have been in similar hospital settings, I miss in his 25. The review was account a quality of ongoing development of relationships. He published in Social Forces (Chapel Hill: The Unisersity of North Carolina Press, 1964), portrays very well the conflict and tension among personnel and 26. The gap was already embarrassingly noticeable touches occasionally upon outcome of conflict and tension, but Herbert in 1940 when Blumer commented on it, See “The Problem of the Concept in there is conveyed hardly any sense Social Psychology” of institutional or professional American Journal of Sociology, 45 (1940), pp. 709-19. 98 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY From Substantive to Formal Theory 99 theory often requires more guidance from such explicit models organizations or governments. Most consultants are well known than substantive theory does, because of a greater level of for their research and everyday experience in a particular area, abstraction. However, as we stated in Chapter II, the integration and perhaps for a portion of their substantive theory if they of a formal theory can begin very usefully with the emerging have generated some The transferability of formal theories to ‘ntegration schcme that vas used for the sub lantive theory that diverse substantive areas is seldom done in sociological consulta ctually stimulated the formal theory’s generation tion because most formal theories are ungrounded, and there Because grounded formal theory fits and works, we see its fore not trusted by either sociologists or laymen when they face use in research and teaching as more trustworthy than logico “real life circumstances.” deductive theory, for the simple reason that the latter often Theoretical consultation is an area of sociological work that requires forcing of data into categories of dubious relevance to would be suitable for many sociologists, but cannot really be the data’s meaning. Grounded formal theory is also more trust opened up until there are many more grounded formal theories. worthy for sensitizing the researcher to the generation of new Then, for example, a general theorist, not only the well-known substantive theory and for helping him to formulate it. recearchers. could he called in for consultation about juvenile Grounded formal theory is thus also highly useful in predic delinquency because he is especially skilled at applying I tions and explanations when we are consulted about substantive grounded formal theory to substantive areas. Sociology cannot areas where we have no theory, and no time or inclination to reach this stage of development if we continue to plod on with I develop one. Explanations and predictions from logico-deduc grand logical theorizing and miniscule verifications. But this tive formal theory are used mainly where they will do no harm; stage can be reached through the generation of grounded sub that is, in the classroom, as “tacked-on” explanations of accom stantive and formal theories, Whether a substantive problem is plished research (as mentioned in Chapter I), and as hypotheses theoretical or practical, and whether extensive research is called (prediction) in the service of the perennial testing of parts of a for or not, general theorists skilled at applying grounded formal formal theory with the eternal hope that it can be modified to theories are needed as consultants for making cogent predictions fit reality. and explanations, and for helping decide the course of action Grounded formal theory is more trustworthy for consultations for research or practical action. because both laymen and sociologists can readily see how its predictions and explanations fit the realities of the situation. This is strategically important. While in research, predicting and explaining have few real risks (the researcher merely modifies the theory according to his findings), a layman does not trust a prediction of what will happen in his situation unless he can readily see how it applies Similarly, he will not accept a theo retical explanation unless he can readily see how it explains his situation, and gives him a sound basis for corrections and future predictions. Grounded formal theory, like substantive theory, earns the trust of laymen and sociologists alike. Both consultant and constiltee must have this trust in order to work together see Chapter X). As yet there is not much of this type of consultation in sociology. Seldom is such a general theorist (if you can find one’ called in for consultation by other sociologists, laymen, V

The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis *

Currently, the general approaches to the analysis of quali tative data are these: 1. If the analyst wishes to convert qualitative data into crudely quantifiable fonn So that he can provisionally test a hypothesis, he codes the data first and then analyzes it. He makes an effort to code “all relevant data [that] can he brought to bear on a point,” and then systematically assembles. assesses and analyzes these data in a fashion that will “constitute proof for a given proposition.” l 2. If the analyst wishes only to generate theoretical ideas— new- categories and their properties. hypotheses and interrelated hvpotheses—l cannot be confined to 0th practice of coding first and then analyzing the data since, in generating theory. he e1is constantly redesigning and reintegrating his theoretical notions as he reviews his 2materiaL Analysis after the coding operation * 5’e wish to thank the editors of Social Problems for permission to publish thu papr .s Chapter V. See Barney C. Glaser, Social Problems, 12 1965), pp 436-45, 1. Howard S. Beehr and Blanche Geer, “The Analysis of Qualitative Field Data’ in Richard N Adams and Jack J. Preiss (Eds.), Human Organization Research (Homewood. Ill.: Dorsey Press, Inc., 1960), pp. 279-89. See also Howard S. Becker, “Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant Observation,’ American Sociological Review, (December, 1958), pp. 652-60; and Bern’ird Berelson, Cont nt Analysis (Glencoe, Ill,: Free Iress, 1952), Chapter III and p 16. 2. Constantly redesigning the analysis is a well-known normal tendency in qualitative sesearch (no matter what the approach to analysis) which eurs throughout the whole research experience from initial data collec 101

stimulated

l’ootnote

I Paul

Functions articulated.”

in

I

something

actually

ment

and

then.

may

approach

strategy. of

PP. for

n

ous 1 v

noted

retical lion

for Theory

method

sinab 1 tic

allowed

approach, The

and

approach

constant tatis

F,nglc’wooo

.ipset

memos

data

burdensome pose,

102

ailabie

publications

hich

ould

the

3.

an

Systematizing

390-92

cosniopolitans

F through

be

prox’isioi>al

h

c

purpose

he

Our

analysis

in

‘uid

for

purpose

collected

excellent

e

a

and hind

1

>u

indicated

developed

sampling

data—

1. not

will

Becker

wish

macic

On

:‘arsf”ld

presented

hid

of

of

by

procedures.

the

of ness

comparison

other

Neil

Op.

and

Chili,

the

However,

this

Social

comparative

these

coding

it

Qualitatis univ

to

the

the

a

to

of

work

of

in

task

he one

example

detailed

the

is J•

properties

cit and

explicit

purpose

the

method

the

or

by

the

suggest

the

connection

testing.

elarits

possihic

N.J

second

Snielser

as-on

Strncture

. unnecessarily

her’,

Only

Sec to

properties

whether

sociological

to

the

Ceer,

p390.

compiled tnat

a

of

development

As

first

this

style

constant e

.

generate

direct final

Allen

account

Prentiec-lIall,

of

While

Becker

the

Analysis

when

the

imum ir

second

a

with

approach;

tendency

combines,

op.

does

a

odirig

to

(lids.

aiiah

approach.

how

not

analysis

of

presenting

result,

This

of

tendency

third

(New

mity

wstls

quotation

H.

codify

explicit

for

cit..

fr>ternih

his a

which

qualitative

theory

(>1

comparative it

and

jot

more

sis

(IISC()5 B 1 rtii

.

is,

considerable

infiuentj:ds

theory

in

itself

collecting

goes

his

the

approach P. delay

Sociology: approach

theosetical

York.

may

and

of

but

iiiethods the

of

is

1Hi

Social

adhere

Ceer,

270,

is

1961).

sx

own

quantitative

by

the

coding

by

from

to course,

theory

on.

s

ering.

avs

development

used

and

in

often

writing.

far

have

analyst

SITS

Free and

stematic

more

be

Berelson.

using

constant

an

the

see

qualitative

in

and

Research,” the

data,

Robert

Paul

of

OVERY

It

the purposeli

“This

new to completely

used

body

to

method which

also

(inspecting

interfere

second

analytic because seems

Press

Robert

procedure

of

categories,

qualitative

practice

is

The

the

of be

systematically,

Progress

explicit

inerc’lv

F

the

the

niethods

hypotheses. 3

data

OS

comparative op.

of K.

jointly

part

suppressed

than

Berelson,

qualitative

of

analysis

Lazarsfeld,

tendency

approach

position

K. an

analysis

liv

such

GROUNSIRD

\Icrton—a

basic

in

of

of

cit.,

Glencoe,

of

it

procedure

with

of

or

Merton,

as

unnecessary,

of

joint

analysis

Seymour

incorporating

inspects

to

coding

the

the

is

of

with

p.

and

our

reports

have

position

data

an

on

a

designed

the

of

cited

that

has

of

the

125;

his

anlyses

in

Decade

second,

and

analytic

second

method

coding

“Some

previ report,

1957), writes

quali

THEORY

theo

Social

locals

state

been favor

This

with

first. than

been

and

and

pur

has

first

and

are

M.

the

his in

of

of

achieving

presentation.

his to

tractable method

after ferent constant

tween hypotheses quantitative enough

approach. Chapter

suggest, theoretical

coding.

approach

be tested, fIrst

theory. ing

the

and.

m partially.

rt’d

plant

Still that

,st

constant

Bather.

The

1 n’tntitatixe

esults;

more

A

the

The

If

used

findings

analyst,

n-ness

independently

Constant

signing

cicpendeiit

because

fourth

js

prosing

wishes

the

a

methods

same

levels

typically’

integrated,

it

is

B

first rigorous

theory.

eomparatis to the

fom

researcher

X).

comparative

so

some

of operationalized

is

skills

They

concerned

sampling,

and

couched

with

I.

general

contrast, yield who

a

time

both

Comparative

analysis

designed

constant

that

Of

inspection

of

of

approach

to

or

These

developing

synthesis

is

on

Partial

fhxiLiliC

and

theoretical

generality.

corn are discover

he

more

possesses

disproving

approaches

is

provisional

that

it

provisional

consistent,

the

e

with

in

approach

using

makes

at

coded

the

sensitivities

come

se.

method.

are)

can

the

with

to

a

comparatis

method

general

the

skills

testing

the

Method

also

form

and

the

data

the

allow,

at

theory)

c

be some

to

for

that

the

these

many

onstant

later

first

saturation, his

same

only

The

different

his

analyst

and

differs

(sometimes

memo-writing

guarantee

same

testing

collected

clear

provisionally

It

to

plausible.

ideas

of

testing

tests

of

first

is

discos-cries

approach

with

ad

or

hypotheses,

is

in

abilities,

m 1 tiahtatis

required

reason

hypotheses

enough

e

Qualitative

theory,

sensitivities

level

not

by

usually

the

all

comparative

enough

data

method

approach

the

using

suggested

in

and

discipline,

levels as

this

designed

are

in

of

are

scientific

of

that

another

for close

eicatisc

they

will

qualitative when

in

discovering to

must

methcd

quantitative

e

the

concerned

not

generality,

in

this

not by

to

Analysis

tested

of

analy

along

generating

is

attempt

two

generate,

this

synthesized

of

generating

achieve

be

coded

hypotheses

using

to

by

generality. (coding

extensise

arc

approach

necessary,

designed

keep

for

(as

the

method

enterprise

wax’

readily’, is

analysts

difference

the

his

getierotioll

does

in

with

in

some

hut

analyst,

methods is

the

extensively with

the

to

theory’

data,

data—and

while

the

from

the

“analytic hence

the research.

not

a

all

explain

enough

explicit usually

second theory.

cannot

at might,

theory’

if

to

theory

of

is

work a

to

same

same

thus

(see data

sup

onk

first

few

dif

our

left

be

the

the

the

aid

be

103

to

in

of of

249-331.

extent

cles,

parisons

theory information,

Free

constant

likely parative The

are

other

saturation tain 1947.

attempt

properties

dimensions,

unlike

of

these

hypotheses

method

formulation.

(but with of

generated

of

sisting

theory

a addiction,

Analytic

proving

a

induction

104

4.

Clearly

limited

the

services

manner

the

In

the

Method

Press

either

books,

See

not

to

properties.

pp.

negative

properties

of

contrast

supplement

phenomena.

analytic

phenomena of

data

of

is

required Alfred

be

comparative

method

is

ar

of

comparing

provisionally

12-14:

numbers

induction

of

causes

made

embezzlement).

number

the should

by

the

concerned

of

applied

and

according

different

Clencoe,

including

which

about

types,

restricted

integrated,

data—not

Sociology

R.

the

purposes

universality

cases,

to

Donald

induction

so

Lindesmith,

in

by

Since

max’

by

accounting

result analytic

reformulation

each

of

combines

forth.

Following

in of

forced

contrast

processes,

general

1953),

the

both

has

method,

and

clearly

from

observations,

cases

the

he

to

R.

hypotheses

testing)

to

(New

no

ith

consideration

constant

other,

of limited,

in

been

Cressey,

the

one

As

methods

causes,

same

what

others

proof

p.

by

In

Opiate

or

induction,

generating

both

the

to

which

an

York:

defined

a

problems

the

16

for

social

unlike

line

the

kind

constantly

the

etc.

analytic

as consequence,

concerned

many

study

integrated

data

and

constant

THE

is

Other

of

these

first

precise,

a

Addiction

comparative

are

second

as

ss

well

proof

Farrar

with

differ

involved,

of

do

specific

interviews,

In

ith

hypotheses

value

passirn;

rnscovpaiy

analytic

and

in

categories,

and

to of

conditions,

and

clearly

the

People’s

and

the

methods not

both

as

induction

all

analytic

any

of

in

all

and

approach, carefully

confionting

e

comparativc

universally

ideas

constant

(Bloomington.

the

second

of with

g.,

first

breadth

theory. plausibly

suggested

and

confirm

behavior

available

available

kind

Rinehart,

the

the

induction,

approaches,

defined

clients) Os

Money

method

first

documents,

the

approach.

Florian

and

for

are

generating

properties.

crsoenen

constant

induction,

constant

consequences,

of

requires

approaches

selected

and the

Further,

comparative

of

distribution the

generating

compared. qualitative redefinition

(New

suggesting

the

(e.g..

case.

data,

1934),

causes applicable

data,

to

Znaniecki,

purpose,

Some

theory Principia,

method. 4

is

second

current

theory

ascer it

SHF,ORY

more

com

these

com

York:

arti

only

cases

The

drug

tests

con

nor

and

but

pp.

and

no

or

of

in

is

patients.

comparisons

category —each

categories

data method

analyst stages

cessive

tive

anals

ddimiting gory,

I

to

tional

findings

ter of

erating qualitative

approaches.

Gciserating

The

he

qualitatve

We the

1

VIII).

Constant

method,

Constant

sis

emerge

Yes

No

Comparing

approaches

(2)

do

constant

stage

TABLE

starts

stage

of

shall

and

theory

within

of

Each

Theory

the

remain

of

generating

analysis.

integrating

Comparatice

of

social

All

each

after

until

by

I.

analysis

that (1)

analysis

describe

Comparative

theory,

relevant

nurses’

subgroups

Usi

in

comparative

four

coding

comparing

according

incidents

provides

in

hypotheses

loss” with

Combining

analyzing Analytic

analy’zing

Coding

a

the

fit

quantitative

OF

Table

time

operation

and

methods

theory

responses

an

and

as

coding

APPROACHES

analysis

in

response Method

of

categories

each

for

possible,

existing

induction

is

(4)

dying and

I

provides

four

data

data

Method

continuous

inspection

applicable

to

locates

Provisional

test,

transformed

(2)

for

method

is

Yes

incidents

incident

writing

of

with

their

provide

(1)

is

a

(1)

test,

simultaneously

to

stages

patients research,

along

involved

then

Qualitative

continuously

terminated.

TO

category.

(4)

the

as

and

the then

a

external

purposes.

QU-LITATIVE

for

can

scheme

the

Testing

in

categories

potential

applicable

development

the rise

to

different

their

emerged

his

into

also

theory.

the

Ethnographic

method Constant

Inspection

Then

(2)

each

Analysis

of

constant

groups

data

For

of

for

the

be

nurse’s

The

these

growing

properties,

throughout

Theory

deaths

ANALYSIS

category.

alternatives

one

emerge

Although

locating

used

example,

to

into (3)

quickly

next—earlier

comparative

general

for

No

approaches

(see

to

each

appraisal compara

compares

description

as hypotheses

for

of

its

process

Chap

many

or

from

their addi

cate

suc

‘Ihe

gen

idea

this

(3)

the

the

as

105

to ‘it

‘ai!tcmem,t

cc’

ot

h i that

Iov

sa it

lion

sta

SI t

actual t

I tLP

o

Ire ke

Occupation.

the of

il6ctor.

‘usband

I

il

t

a

1

106

f

Ut

orti,.

atm

aaras-d

lii/st

i is

i, P

at

social

ile

‘i

P

This

aai

the

pc

the

I

tit’

the ed

Codir it Ct

si

-i anus

1 c’aa

ilifi’

picu’auncc’d

to

and

S d

ii’cideit

1

onstaitt

nci P1’

5.

of

cml

co

d

t

tia

1

marital,

degiec

ainte

a

other

‘caved a

u

a

‘a,

(4

constant

tie 1

IIJ.

derrr “She

a.

Cm

tI

bc

aiau

lisT

do

ikng

that te

air

stir

s

tc’gorv

iS

los tand

‘

,lmai’m

mcmory

thc P

-

c-c P

-

la,a

tinT

e

I

Iv

th

t

or

vs

doni

oji

I (

- I

‘

eategoa

f

t ijd,

c-s cd

n’ine

onparaPvc

1lUi(

pnticrst

athont

it of

)

mpitals

a

ioi

laoforc

tatus.

muari

in

it o”ctic

of

Sock

0dmc

tI

me the

c

pa

c’verv

unit

ol corn

ails or

xi

di

tIcs

a

con

comparison

14

I

its

tcrrns

a

c mm

ti

ss

t)

as

‘thr

social

s bath

i

t

‘oaamnis

lull

P

to

1- tv

lPcr

comparisc

a

c-s

laer

a

is

m,

tie hat

s

it

C

damens

dire ist

I

also

care

education

snails

a

a

1 -d

I

establish pres

a

ded

ati

prop

iith

spcn

nag

a’

hte

aatier

arthr

dab

of lea

‘ii

i-Ic

Pitcnts,

-nd social ni

Iii

Tr

iicid

lns.

h

e

gory

niethorl:

‘if s”eial

-‘

apparent

tends

d

Baimi,

ions we

tF

a

in

Ii

ned, crtic

r

i/ic

.1.

widea

therc

‘1

or was

i

it.s

c

ts,

rat

ot

it, mid ‘as

a

scat c

n.

nt

i/u

atient

add

od1p.

at’

loss

I

)

THE

“W

a

Since

in,-.Cli-c oti

-

iv

p1’

P

Tm-s

to

It

roup a

I’I

in

‘fhia

dega

so

il1

o maJor

t sam

ts

Is

‘d

hat

c 1

a also

11

er

a

ting

s DISCOVERY

the S

riOi

th

aea

that

mci

which

il

airy

ncc ssould

young.’

on

lan

Pa cc 1,1

“

ale

.p

I

cc

properties

eo

obsura

c-I

will

c

1 I Pu)

-t

in

I

how

zed others

asic’. consequences

‘ategoly

coding

some

cc

F

of

‘P

nr

c-haute

tcgor’cs a

iicideuit

dations

ositia

of -‘itS

on

sticiat ‘a

luau

e

the

,id ame

a-as vs

s

Ii

i’ a

he

social

that

d anon

OF

hich

gc

typcs

un aims

“He

hr

cards

001

o

defining

P

nc-i’

x

to

children

social

whale

civ

P

I

as

ry t cry

GROUNDED

appal

c -us

au

i

lations

n-i

somc

(0cc

his

patse asni’x’attri

Fm a

under

lP,

loss

led

a

was f

-

the

refci

with

‘n

Tf

coioparisoii

or I I

on

a In” o

•.

soon

re

e

low

family

pre’

attributes

ent

s

I

c.

c

It

t spatiola

Ii

example.

us

C

continua

are

x

a

paticots

pond

its

incid

rule

to

mc

ic

ts

and

azuig

i sorir

-

an-aR ‘-

detree

(tv,x

,r

Stran

to iids

should

s;,f

wliicF to THEORY

Ci

social

starts

fro witi

tar

seer rein—

be

‘u

p

the

th

licr

r,

his

r Pt

6

to

nt

t

r

st a

i

s, a

r

gories,

takea

to are

depending clay’, tant ideas.

theory’, hours analyst’s

necessary thoughts. wall the family’

mates he comparative time, loss while

and tion

ments have discover

as

to substantive The

sariables (grounded maintains

consultation, the the

analyst

discuss

6.

determine

‘social

If As

After

no

in

explanations, 6

Constant

analyst

actual

of

compared.

as to

be (For

Thus

been

one

his

trying

on

the

a

This

scheduled

started

like

can

and

emergence

there

emphasi7e

ategories

a

will

or

continual

two

coding

theoretic’al

one musing

theoretical

personal In

is

to

dying

her

concepts

loss”

we example.

piocesses

on

in

abstracted

processes

of

consolation,

rule

“I

situation

Coin

help

will

working method

find

to

doing

kinds:

is

reflect

page

the

the

have

course the

crying

composure

was

in

At

paratce

concentrate

or

for

is

patient

notice

routine

conflicts

and

data,

For

over

alternate

process

bring

predesignecl

relevance

studies

that

or

of

to aensitia

‘calculation”

so,

this

designed

“composure”

constructed

those

afraid

a

and

notions

is:

notions

the

on vs

over

be

he

arid

example,

category

their

from

new

contraception,

the

ill

not

Method

for

stop

theoretical

point,

that

described

a

will

may

out

mood

carry

covering

of

of

that

ity tend

(a

in

their

behaviors

research

analyst

speculative)

of

joint

ways

categories.

the

properties

delinquency, vs

on

coding

of

change.

and

to

the

the

behaa

points affect

code

itli

into

losing

he of

the

research,

a

of

his perhaps

the

to

his

child,”)

language

by

of

tap

was

coding

Qualitatice

nurse’s

one

and

emphases

by

concepts

has

to

the

should

the

be

uon 5 ideration.

second

twenty

thinking

social

mr

material,

etc.

notions

the

team,

anti

study

the

I

relieve

which

explained

or that derived

missed,

my

an

constructed

analyst,

current

I

a

amount

emerge.

stage

justice.

conclusions.

analyst

more three

As

record in

The

perception

these

and initial

explanation

of

composure

loss

take

it

of

are

pages

rule

Analysis

his

abstracted

his

of

it

is

and,

to

the

the

analyst

saturation

analysis

from

the

teammates of

I;

or

since

usually add

“becoming,” labels

should

to

also

his

as

presence.

to

theory

a

freshness

the

its

will

of

and

four

formulation

research

in

conflict

memo

next

These

himself

be

much

be

at

nurses’

thinking.

the

most

a

points

of

this

a analyst

It

tend

may’

)

in

those

coded

become

good

times, explained,

half

the

when

there

be

the

develops,

from

is

how

incident.

constant

of

method on

time

use

factors

impor

Team logical

of

in

coded

spend

stigma,

to

social

(such

situa

state

hour,

same

cate

yoar

they

idea

that

will

can

per

the

she

the

the

the

his

He

for

be

107

the

of

as I’ S S I 108 THE DXSCOVERY OF GR0U,DED THEOflY The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis 109 have run across in their own coding and data collection, and adult. since for a person of this age. education was considered crosscheck his points. They, too, begin to compare the analyst’s to be of most social worth, This example also shows that con- notions with their own ideas and knowledge of the data; this taut comparison causes thc accumulated knowledge pertaining : comparison generates additional theoretical ideas, With clearer to a property of the category to readily start to become inte ideas on the emerging theory systematically recorded, the ana rrated, that related in manr differcrit says, resulting in 1st then i a returns to the data for more coding and constant nified whole comparison. In addition, the diverse properties themselves start to become From the point of view of generating theory it is often useful 5 integrated. Thus, we soon found that the calculating and recal to write memos on, as well as code, the copy of one’s field culating of social loss by nurses was related to their develop notes. Memo writing on the field note provides an immediate ment of a social lOSS “stor” about the patient. When asked illustration for an idea. Also, since an incident can be coded bout a dying patient nurses would tell what amounted to a for several categories, this tactic forces the analyst to use an tory about him, The ingredients of this story consisted of a incident as an illustration only once, for the most important ontinual balancing out of social loss factors as the nurses among the many properties of diverse categories that it mdi earned more about the patient. Both the calculus of social loss c’atcs. He must look elsewhere in his notes for illustrations for and the social loss story were related to the nurse’s strategies his other properties and categories. This corrects the tendency for coping with the upsetting impact on her professional com to use the same illustration over and over for different properties. posure of, say, a dying patient with a high social loss (e.g., a The generation of theory requires that the analyst take I mother with tsso children), This example further shows that apart the story sithin his data. Therefore when he rearranges the category becomes integrated with other categories of analy his memos and field notes for writing up his theory, he suffi sis, the social loss of the dying patient is related to how nurses ciently “fractures” his story at the same time that he saves apt maintain professonal composure whilc attending his dying. illustrations for each idea (see Step 4). At just this point in his 7 Thus the theory develops, as different categories and their writing, breaking down and out of the story is necessary for properties tend to become integrated through constant clear integration of the theory. compari sons that force the analyst to make some related theoretical 2. Integrating categories and their properties. This process sense of each comparison. starts out in a small w’ay; memos and possible conferences are If the data are collected by theoretical sampling at the same short, But as the coding continues, the constant comparative time that they are analyzed (as ‘ae suggest should be done). units change from comparison of incident with incident to com then integration of the theory is more likely to emerge by itself. parison of incident with properties of the category that resulted By joint collection and analysis, the sociologist is tapping to the from initial comparisons of incidents. For example, in comparing fullest extent thc in vivo patterns of integration in the data incident with incident we discovered the property that nurses itself; questiors guide the collection of data to fill in gaps and constantly recalculate a patent’s social loss as the’ learn more to extend the theory—and this also is an integrative strategy. about him. From then on. each incident bearing on ‘calcula Emergence of integration schemes also occurs in analyses that tion” was compared with “accumulated knowledge on caleulat are separate from data collection, but more contrivance may be ing”—not with all other incidents involving calculation. Thus, necessary when the data run thin and no more can be collected. once ve found that age ssas the most important characteristic (Other aspects of integration ha e been discussed in Chapter in calculating soc al loss, we could discern how a patient’s age II,) affected the nurses’ recalculation of social loss as they found out 3. Delimiting the theory. As the theory develops, various more about his education, We found that education was most influential in calculations of the social loss of a middle-aged 7. See Clacer and Strauss “Asareness and the 1urse’s Composure,” in Chapkr 13 in A.,urLns.s.s of Dying (Chicago: Aidine Publishing Co.. 1965).

can cated higher

areas), fessionals for The into mainly

even tained damage, he portant—reduction.

eralizing, should example, covering he details

staff

become

discovered used erties, to

taking decided relevant dents delimiting

should

among lying

First,

Delimiting

Here

110

would

curb

Thus, Through

By

lived,

a

at

the

underlying

be

(not

by

uniformities

normal

why

the

is

of

this and

reduction

care

to

be

level

into

the

next

on

themselves,

fewer

generalized

major what

to properties,

or

an

the

that

a

now

how

with

be

theory

the

affect

forced

just

given.

point

the features

that

can be

occurs

the

analyst

elaborate

category

of

further

the

illustration

receive

better

concepts.

life.

nurses

care

our

in

and

be

could

nurses).

patient,

patients

outline

they

reduction

then

order

the

the

uniformity

be

we

solidifies,

theory

constant,

by

in socially

at

theory

fewer

of

starts

off

of

based integrating

rationales

reduction

as

distribution

could

mean

decide

to

a

the

formulate

otherwise

constant

to

two

our

all

of

of

the

dead.

a

given

service,

This

with

On

maintain

which

its

original

and

theory

to

as

patients

clarifying

interrelated

of

could levels:

on worthless;

theory

that

unendurable

in

constant

all

the

properties.

was

achieve

the

who

varying

delimits

terminology

For

his

the

the

some

of

which

comparisons

be

the

the

and elaborating

become

shows level

THE

of

analyst

be

of

degree

set

that

terminology

the

literature

example,

sense

professional

by

among

(not

how

considered

theory

analyst their

DISCOVERY

consequent

generalized the

what

comparative

two of

in

degrees

nurses

adding

theory

of

its

categories

all

the

categories

that

the

pain,

Later

just

spite

compares

formal

of

an

logic,

major

services

terminology

many

these

and

calibre

with

he

may

of social

integration

social

details

overwhelming

major

(some

dying

used, and

OF

detailed

or

of

of

we

other

would

modifications

composure

“loss

consequent

taking

requirements

theory,

a have

GROUNDED

rationales discover

waiting

reduction:

so

social

the

and—most

the

loss,

were method

values

to

smaller

or

of

the

when

modifications

of

ones)

comparisons

professional

that

rationales.”

clients;

have their

social

service

categories.

no

properties

next

strategies

would, and

out

loss.

also

of

it

of chance

talking

it

under clients

THEORY

by

set

begin

could

while

prop

brain

more

indi

task.

non-

gen

mci

text.

loss.

pro

per

dis

We

We

im

are

for

all

he

of

of

if

for

theoretical

to

the op. her

conditions

frequencies

back outweighed

spondence, the great

incidents

ease

negative referring

across

calculating

cable

only

coded

For times,

gories,

lvst focused.

of

coding, of

present

becomes

mass

His

tht.

scope

tions, 8 theory

The

code

9.

8.

cit., incidents

incident.

coding.

frequency categories

Another

social

The

example,

original

commitment

Constant

has

to

Merton.

If

of

adds

social

incident

of

in

a

he

and

pp.

is

while

the

developing

is

for

and

second

an

case

boundaries

under case),

qualitative (1)

to FIe

the

coded

that

reduced,

loss.

that

can

learns

considerably

128-34. bulk

sampling;

analyst’s

Furthermore,

a

social

compared.

her

loss,

age

85-year-old

factor,

on.

of analyzing

clearly

Comparative

list

category

applicability

can

keeping

parsimornj

where

to

also

after the

for

points

In

which

incidents,

cit.. the

age

level

for

to

count incidents

we

of

to

addition,

devote

loss,

See the

now’

generate collecting

purpose,

and

become

the

we

which

p.

calculating

case

categories

see

as

discovered

applicable

data,

one

age

to of

to

Becker for

theory,

thus

a

for

260

no

If

Merton

the

of allows

had

establish

coded

reduced

increasingly

close

a

quickly his

Method

can dying

op

of

was

establishing more

did

no,

delimiting

new

incidents

longer

of

new

the

for

still

besides

most

the

he

thcoreticathj

established variables

and

justify theory.

cit.,

since

and

the

not

correspondence

the

coded

has

him

data

aspect.

the analyst

theoretical

saves

amount

for

time

social

further

provisional

woman

that

to

of

when

Geer

important

whether

theory

pp.

made

did

appear

incident

coding

developing

frequency

Qualitative

this

time-consuming,

coding.

same

to

can

provisional

and

her

the

and

works

to

In

283-87,

time

for

we

loss,

If

cut

and

the becomes

the

of

smaller

delimits

the

become to

age

who

“wonderful

theory

turn,

yes,

saturated.

ideas.

a

nothing

then

need

proofs, to

category

data,

or

data

additional

down

new

is

However,

in a

data

factor

formulation,

As

better

and

constant

theory,

be

Analysis

as

wide

not

then

not

of

was

proofs

studying

See

his

compared.

the

the

to

method

set

the

according

the

is

then

are

committed

cross-tabulation

theory

the

more

the

the

to

coded,

careful

for

code

the

for range

a

Berelson

is

analyst

consideration.

theory

considered

After

a

of

point,

base

base

obtained

may

personality”

reduction

he the

list

also

original

if

comparison

calculating

next

number

incident

categories.

of ordering

select

we

incidents

most

and

his

counting;

and

also

of

of

theory. 9

line

counting

in

since

an

to

line

In

grows,

needs to

on

appli

came

corre

situa

count

data to

cate

data.

ana

code

feed

and

the

by

the

for (2)

the

list

(a

of

of 111

it.

is

in

it

a a

data,

his

large

mized tended toward

data

and

ments uses

library

coding

central

enough

theory. is

both it

then

after

If

he

concerning

theory.

to If

the whether

theory.

tinue

been start

sshether

pages.

emerge

a

(or

112

can

saturated; strategy

it

The

the

observed

go

time

Theoretical

Theoretical

notes,

is

saturation

has,

incident

is

additionally

from

field

since

comparison

to

for

missed

by be

back

based

of

unrecorded

to

by

to

The

universe

If

of

their If

data

first

after

code

and

the

then

or

a

this

added

collect

theoretical

the

the

the

studies, a beausc

the

time in

working few

categories.

answer

and

or

return

not

on

or,

delimitated

effort

if

place

new

will

and

coping

hundreds

theory,

for

theoretical

category

it

remembered

heard

field

saturation

saturation

of

the hundred

the

to

if

to

of try

is

to

more

it

the

category

probably

collected)

category

categories.

with

it

unnecessary

incident

theoretical

time

the

only

data

to

for

in

can

reduction

category

go

to

within

notes,

with

indicates

sampling. but

the

new

data

If

the

data.

does

next large

saturate

back

of

either

long

he

that

pages

on

the

and

memo

delimiting

did

of

can

another

pages

category

theory.

can

collection

incident

has

will

limits and

have

applies

data

memo

not

categories

analyst

studies

is

not

lists

and

the

of

data

then,

saturation

Thus,

be

help

a

of

be

to

minor.

Research becomes it

THE

become

saturate,

the

remember

new

for

of

record.

relevant

constant

little

coding,

ignored

of

go

re-code

forces

included

problem:

This

provided

and

have

to where

solve

coding,

theory DISCOVERY

of

if

has

is

generates

the

returning

possibly

back,

according

property

“no:’

the necessary,

an

However,

also

modifying

thus

incident

collected

What

theoretically

suggests

a

then

collected

the

or

resources

still

because

been

to

established

comparative

all

it

and

possible

directive

either

other

in

can

and

new

until

integrated

it The

his

emerges,

OF

analyst

useful

the

previously

a

another

does

a

is

of

the

to

be

to

memo

GROUNDED

coded,

the

alone new

categories.

analyst categories

incidents central

if

that

the

to

his

carefully

the

analyst

effect

the

the

the

delimitation

employed

universe

universe

he

it

are

for the

question

categories

own

remaining

to

saturated.

category,

category,

category,

what

becomes

and

category

do

require

directed

problem

field

into

may

method

further

field

econo

to

on

spend

should

to

THEORY

coded

needs

nos?

data,

con

that

will

ex

the

has

the

the

In

see

be

of

or

of

or

as

is

aehieement

provide

Tch

Institutions to

have

all

Properties pinpoint haps,

Buchr, writing couched

composure.”

use—then

work

ably thcory

“the

major

and

analysis,

behind likely of monstrous

incidents less

retical

and dents,

and

The

calculating

the

10. Using each

collected

When

memos

4.

likely

iques

Constant

a

thousands

money

been

accurate

further

forms

Writing

impact

coded

to

theory.

themes

On

each

Danuta

criteria

later

the

one’s

category,

illustrations’ 0

in

data

the

waste

the

and

(New

a

to

the

“pinpointing’

of

he

written

on

task sd

.

a

categories,

of

a

Comparative

data,

yield

social

data

of

Without

the

presented

analyzing

constant

analyst

theory,

form

can

Strategies

The

systematic

Ehrlich

calculating

behind

categories.

theon, 1 .

researcher (section

statement

which

are

of

York: of

to

time

a

Theory

which

when

if

an

publish

pages

complex fit

about

discussions

very

social

loss.”

that

done

Free

integrated

and

on

possesses

the

could

it

At

a

theoretical

comparative

ee

of

titles)

which

before

Method

in necessary

necessary

is

hypothesis

is

others

what

of

of

substantive

categories.

Melvin this

Press

available

I’ea,n

is

“the

social

at

Anselm

his

first

easily

loss

papers

be

theory

uotes

the

convinced

all,

stage

for

become

in

results

of

may

writing

coded

Fieldwork,”

of

patient’s

necessary going coded

product;

Shabshin,

loss

matters

can

his

on

Glencoe, accomplished

Qualitative

criteria,

our

Strauss,

for

embodying

to

or

resources

method

that

in

or

later

Thus,

memos

validate

for

theory,

become

a

the

paring

into

with

paper

books.

the

data,

the

about

gaps

that

multitude

corresponds

summarizing social

studied,

the

Psychiatric

1964),

prove

Leonard

to

process

delimiting

the

we

major

nurse’s

confidence.

Analysis

makes

provide

his

a

in

on

analyst

that

collate

down

of

it.

a

very

For

thousands

brought

series

same

since

suggested

loss

the

Chapter

to

social personnel,

One

analytic

themes

Schatzrnan, it

and

of

of

probable arbitrary

example,

be

Ideologies

an

theory,

is

professional

is

the

story,”

the

ways.

the

field

can

of

qualitative

closely

a

and,

irrelevant

loss

also

that

a

otherwise

2,

together

To

unix

memos,

content

reason

memos

memos

of

frame

return

“Logic,

of

point

could

more

were time,

theo

start

per

it

inci

and

and

erse

the

and

Rue

and

the

the

to

113 is 114 THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis 115 the data, since the constant comparisons force the analyst to taming to a conceptual area (such as stigma, deviance, lower consider much diversity in the data. By diversity we mean that class, status congruency, organizational careers, or reference each incident is compared with other incidents, or with proper groups) ,12 To be sure, as we described in Chapter IV, the level ties of a category in terms of as many similarities and differ of generality of a substantive theory can be raised to a formal ences as possible This mode of comparing is ir cortrast to theory. (Our theory of dying patients’ social loss ouId be raised coding for crude proofs; such coding only establishes whether to the level of how professional people give service to clients an incident indicates the fes properties of the category that are according to their respective social value.) This move to formal being counted. theory requires additional analysis of one’s substantive theory. Thc constant comparison of incidents in this manner tends and the analyst should, as stated in the previous chapter, in to result in the creation of a “developmental” theory)’ Although clude material from other studies with the same fonnal theo this method can also be used to generate static theories, it retical import, however diverse their substantive content) The especially facilitates the generation of theories of process. se point is that the analyst should be aware of the3level of gen quence, and change pertaining to organizations, positions, and erality’ from which he starts in relation to the level at which social interaction. But whether the theory itself is static or he wishes to end. deselopmentaL its generation. by this method and by theoretical The constant comparative methcd can yield either discus sampling, is continually in process. In comparing incidents, the sional or propositional theory-. The analyst may wish to cover analyst learns to see flis categories in terms of both their many properties of a category in his discussion or to write internal development and their changing relations to other formal propositions about a category’. The former type of presen categories. For eVample. as the nurse learns more about the tation is often sufficiently useful at the exploratory’ stage of patient, her calculations of social loss change; and these recal theory development, and can easily be translated into proposi culations change her social loss stories, her loss rationales and tions by, the reader if he requires a formal hypothesis. For her care of the patient. example, two related categories of dying are the patient’s social This is an inductise method of theory development. To make loss and the amount of attention he receives from nurses. This theoretical sense of so much diversity in his data, the analyst is can easily he restated as a proposition: patients considered a forced to develop ideas on a level of generality higher in con high social loss, as compared with those considered a low social ccptual abstraction than the qualitative material being ana loss, will tend to receive more attention from nurses, lyzed. He is breed to bring out underlying uniformities and diversitics, and to use more abstract concepts to account for 12. For an example, see Barney G. Claser, Organizational Careers (Chi publishing 1967) differences in the data, ‘To master his data, he is forced to cago’.Aldine Co., engrge ir 13. “. , the development of any one of these coherent analytic per reduction of terminology. If the analyst starts with spectives is not likely to come fromthose who restrict their interest exclu aw data, h wil nd up initially with a a ibstantive theory’ a sively to one substantive ares’ From F ving Goffman. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spilled Idertity (Englewood Cliffs,N.J.’ Prentice-Hail. th ory or thc substantive area on whicl- I c I as done rescarcli 1963), p. 147. See also Reinhard Bendix, “Concepts ard Generalizations (for example patient care or gang behavior) If he starts with in Comparative Sociological Studies,” American Sociological Review, 28 the finding drawn f orr many stu die yertaining to an abstract (1963’,, pP 332-39 sociological category hc will end up with a formal theory per I “c rail. h,’ mO- de”elopmc xta,, opposed to sta’ic’, theones havi been r ade by vilbe Moore ‘Predicting D’scontinuit es in Social Ch nge Americas ciologi at Reicw 29 (1964), p 322; Howard S &cker, Ou siders (N w Yor : Free Press of (,lencoe, 1962), pp. 22-25, and Barney G Glaser a id Anseim Strauss, Awareness Contexts and Social Inter ctior ‘ op C t