The Discovery of Grounded Theory Strategies for Qualitative Research

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 I The Discovery of Grounded Theory Most writing on sociological method has been concerned with how accurate facts can be obtained and hots theory can thereby be more rigorously tested. In this book we address our selves to the equally important enterprise of how the discovery of theory from data—systematically obtained and analyzed in social research—can be furthered. We believe that the discovery of theory from data—which we call grounded theory—is a major task confronting sociology today, for, as we shall try to show, such a them-v fits empirical situations, and is under standable to sociologists and layman ahke, Most important, it w )rks—provides us with relevant predictions, explanations, in terpretations and applications. As sociologists engaged in research soon discover, there are as yet few theories of this nature, And so we offer this book. which we conceive as a beginning venture in the development of improved methods for discovering grounded theory. Because this is only a beginning, we shall often state positions. counter- positions and examples. rather than offering clear-cut proce dures and definitions, because at many pomts we believe our slight knowledge makes any formulation premature. 4 major strategy that we shall emphasize for furthering the discovery of grounded theory is a general method of comparative analysis. Previous books on methods of social research have focused mainl on how to serifv theories. This suggests an overempha sis in current sociology on the verification of theory, and a 1 THE DISCOVEaY OF GROUNDEO THEOR1 The Discovery of Grounded Theory resultant de-emphasis on the prior step of discovering what of research for generating theory. Our basic position is that concepts and h potheses are relevant for the area that one generating grounded theoiy is a way of arriving at theory suited wishes to research. Testing theory is. of course also a basic to its supposed uses. We shall contrast this position with theory logical a priori In task confronting sc C olog W vould al grc that sn social generated by deduction from assumptions. research generating theor\ goes hand in haud with verifyIng it: ChapLer II we hall discuss what we mean by theory and hut many sociologists have been diverted from this truism in compare it with other conceptions of theory. their zeal to test either existing theories or a theory that they The interrelated jobs of theory in sociology are: (1) to have barely started to generate. enable prediction and explanation of beha ior; (2) to be useful Surely no conflict between erih ii g and generating theory in theoretical advance in sociology; (3) to he usable in prac is logically necessary during the course 31 any given research. tical applications—prediction and explanation should be able For many sociologists, however, uridouhtcdls there exists a con to give the practitioner understanding and some control of situ flict concerning primacy of purpose. reflecting the opposition ations: (4) to provide a perspective on behavior—a stance to between a desire to generate theory nd a trained need to verify br taken toward data; and ç 5) to guide and provide a style for it. Since verification has primacy on the current sociological research on particular areas of behavior. Thus theory in soci scene, the desire to generate theor often becomes secondary, ology is a strategy for handling data in research, providing if not totally lost, in specific researches, modes of conceptualization for describing and explaining. The Our book—especially when we discuss the current emphasis theory should provide clear enough categories and hypotheses on verification—will indicate many facets and forms that the so that crucial ones can be verified in present and future re resolution of this conflict takes among sociologists, but this dis search; they must be clear enough to be readily operationalized 2 The theory cussion should not be taken as indicating that we endorse the in qi.tantitative studies when these are appropriate. existence of such a conffiet. Rather, our position is that a con must also be readily understandable to sociologists of any view flict is created when sociologists do not clearly and consciously point, to students and to significant laymen. Theory that can choose which svill receive relative emphasis in given researches meet these requirements must fit the situation being researched, because of too great an adherence to verification as the chief and work when put into use. By “fit” we mean that the cate mandate for excellent research. gories must be readily (not forcibly) applicable to and indicated by the data under study; by “work” we mean that they must be meaningfully relevant to anti be able to explain the behavior Grounded Theory under study. To generate theory that fills this large order, we suggest as The basic theme in our book is the discovers’ of theory from the best approach an initial, systematic discovers’ of the theory 1 chap From the data of social research. Then one can be relatively sure data systematically obtained from social research, Every that theory will fit 3 And since the categories are ter deals with our beginning formulation of some of the processes the and work. discovered by examination of the data, laymen involved in the 1. Nlerton never reached the notion of the discovery of grounded theory in discussing the “theoretic functions of research,” The closest he came was area to which the theory applies will usually he able to under- wish “serendipity”; that ‘s. en ur,ar.ticipated, anomalous, and strategic find ing gives rise to a ness hypothesis, This Concept does not catch the idea of 2. In principic any concept can be operationalized in quanbtative ways, purposefully discovering theory through social research. It puts the discov hut the sociologist should develop his concepts to facilitate this operation ery of a cingle hypothesis on a surprise basic. Nlerton was preoccupied with ahzat ion. how verifications through research feed back into and modify theory, Thus, 3. Of course, the researcher does not approach reality as a tabula rasa. he was concerned with grounded modifying of theory, not grounded gen lIc must have a peispective that will help him see reles ant data and ab crating of theory Social Theory and Social Structure I Glenc’oe, Ill Free stract significant categories from his scrutiny of the data. We shall discuss Press, 1949), Chapter III. this issue more fully in Chapters II and XI. 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 searc her 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 4 However, systematically and sociology. then allows them to feed hack to give theo grounded theories—which take hard study 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 5 taken from a logically data. 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.

Load more