Grounded Theory As an Emergent Method

CHAPTER 7

Grounded Theory as an Emergent Method

Kathy Charmaz

uring its 40-year history, grounded the- How does grounded theory fit the defini- ory has served as a major method for tion of an emergent method? In which ways Dconducting emergent qualitative re- does the grounded theory method advance search.1 What is an emergent method? I start the development of emergent methods? with a working definition of an emergent Grounded theory is predicated on an emer- method as inductive, indeterminate, and gent logic. This method starts with a system- open-ended. An emergent method begins atic, inductive approach to collecting and with the empirical world and builds an in- analyzing data to develop theoretical analy- ductive understanding of it as events unfold ses. The method also includes checking and knowledge accrues. Social scientists emergent categories that emerge from suc- who use emergent methods can study re- cessive levels of analysis through hypotheti- search problems that arise in the empirical cal and deductive reasoning. Grounded the- world and can pursue unanticipated direc- ory offers systematic analytic strategies that tions of inquiry in this world. Emergent combine explicitness and flexibility. methods are particularly well suited for Fundamental tenets of the grounded the- studying uncharted, contingent, or dynamic ory method include: (1) minimizing precon- phenomena. These methods also allow for ceived ideas about the research problem and new properties of the studied phenomenon the data, (2) using simultaneous data collec- to appear that, in turn, shape new con- tion and analysis to inform each other, (3) ditions and consequences to be studied. By remaining open to varied explanations and/ adopting emergent methods, researchers or understandings of the data, and (4) focus- can account for processes discovered in the ing data analysis to construct middle-range empirical world and direct their method- theories. Rather than viewing only the prod- ological strategies accordingly. uct of inquiry—the completed grounded the-

155 156 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF EMERGENT METHODS AND INNOVATION ory—as emergent, I argue that the method it- Charmaz, 2007b). Most researchers, how- self is emergent. Thus grounded theorists ever, adopted few, if any, of Glaser and choose or create specific methodological Strauss’s (1967) specific methodological strategies to handle puzzles and problems strategies, and those who did often altered that arise as inquiry proceeds. them beyond recognition as grounded the- The publication of Barney G. Glaser and ory. Anselm L. Strauss’s The Discovery of Grounded Grounded theory is a method of explica- Theory in 1967 marked the first systematic tion and emergence. The method takes a sys- statement about how to construct emergent tematic inductive, comparative, and interac- analyses. Prior to that time, students learned tive approach to inquiry and offers several how to do qualitative research through open-ended strategies for conducting emer- an oral tradition of mentoring, as well as gent inquiry (Charmaz, 2006; Charmaz & through immersion in fieldwork (Rock, Henwood, in press). These strategies make 1979). The limited midcentury literature on grounded theory more than only inductive, qualitative methods attended to data collec- because they encourage researchers to make tion (see, e.g., Adams & Priess, 1960; Junker, conjectures and check them and therefore 1960) and attempted to answer quantitative to engage in deductive reasoning as inquiry concerns, such as achieving validity and reli- proceeds. Grounded theory strategies make ability. Scholars had scarcely addressed how the method explicit, and their open-ended to handle the analytic phases of the research qualities foster the development of emer- process. gent conceptual analyses. Grounded theory Glaser and Strauss (1967) argued that strategies prompt early analytic thinking qualitative research: (1) proceeded from a and keep researchers interacting with their different logic than did quantitative inquiry data and nascent analyses (Charmaz, 2006). and had its own rigor, (2) should be evalu- The logic of grounded theory provides a ated by different canons than those for major contribution to emergent methods quantitative research, (3) could integrate re- because grounded theory involves creative search and theory, and (4) democratized the- problem solving and imaginative interpreta- ory construction because any astute social tion.2 Grounded theory strategies prompt scientist could engage in analytic practices the researcher to reach beyond pure induc- that generated theory. Glaser and Strauss’s tion. The method builds a series of checks arguments redirected the discussion of and refinements into qualitative inquiry qualitative inquiry from methods of data through an iterative process of successive collection to strategies for data analysis analytic and data collection phases of re- and challenged views about theory construc- search, each informed by the other and tion. rendered more theoretical. In short, the Prior to the work of Glaser and Strauss, grounded theory method emphasizes the midcentury theorizing had largely consisted process of analysis and the development of of grand theories about societal structure, theoretical categories, rather than focusing but these theories lacked empirical roots. solely on the results of inquiry. Glaser and Strauss’s arguments gained a re- ceptive audience among established and as- piring qualitative researchers and provided The Place of Emergence them with ready justifications for doing in Grounded Theory inductive qualitative studies. Subsequently, grounded theory became the most cited Any analysis of grounded theory as an emer- qualitative research method across diverse gent method must address the concept of disciplines and professions (Bryant & emergence and its place in the method. Grounded Theory as an Emergent Method 157

Emergence is a fundamental property of ating the new from the old require language grounded theory—both in its products and, and shared meanings. Essentially, then, we although perhaps unrecognized and some- understand the temporal dimensions of times contested, in its methodological stra- emergence through language. Individuals tegies (see Bryant & Charmaz, 2007c; define and depict emergence through draw- Charmaz, 2007b). The overriding stated ob- ing on shared meanings. Nonetheless, in- jective of using grounded theory is to gener- novations may occur as these individuals ate emergent theories from the data that ac- define and depict emergence and draw in- count for the data. ferences from their studies. Thus emer- Taking a step back and looking at emergence contains subjective elements, as well gence as a concept helps one to clarify its as collectively agreed-upon objective proper- divergent understandings and uses in ties. grounded theory. The concept of emergence Grounded theory starts with an inductive assumes epistemological understandings logic but moves into abductive reasoning as and a theory of time. Disputes and miscon- the researcher seeks to understand emer- ceptions about what grounded theory is and gent empirical findings. Abductive reason- should be occur at these foundational levels. ing aims to account for surprises, anomalies, Emergence is fundamentally a temporal con- or puzzles in the collected data. This type of cept; it presupposes a past, assumes the im- reasoning invokes imaginative interpreta- mediacy of the present, and implies a future. tions because the researcher imagines all In keeping with George Herbert Mead possible theoretical accounts for the ob- (1932), the present arises from the past but served data and then forms and checks hy- has new properties. These novel elements of potheses until arriving at the most plausible emergence distinguish the present from the interpretation of the observed data (see also past and make it distinctive. Emile Durkheim Charmaz, 2006; Reichertz, 2004, 2007; (1895/1982) takes the concept of emergence Rosenthal, 2004). For example, Patrick to its logical extension in his analysis of social Biernacki’s (1986) study not only employed structural change. His postulate of emergent abductive reasoning but also began because reality holds that the whole is greater than of puzzling findings that arose in an earlier and different from the sum of its parts. small study of marijuana use. Biernacki had Emergence gives rise to a new phenomenon discovered that some individuals recovered with qualitatively new properties.3 from heroin addiction without formal treat- Whether or not researchers concur with ment, something that health practitioners at Durkheim, they would agree that emergence that time believed to be impossible. What means movement, process, and change. The could account for this surprising discovery? concept of emergence takes into account Biernacki’s study reveals his search for a the- that the unexpected may occur. The past oretical explanation and the movement he shapes the present and future but does not made between detailed empirical data and make either wholly predictable. Emergent an emergent interpretation of them. methods permit pursuing what researchers Abduction allows for intuitive interpreta- could not have anticipated. Grounded theory tions of empirical observations and creative is particularly well suited to studying such ar- ideas that might account for them (Dey, eas because the method itself possesses 2004; Reichertz, 2004, 2007; Rosenthal, emergent properties. 2004). Not only are the surprising data The language with which scholars con- emergent, but the researcher’s theoretical struct the concept of emergence affects its treatment of them is also emergent. use in the social sciences. Acts of distinguish- Abductive reasoning can take the researcher ing between past and present and differenti- into unanticipated theoretical realms. 158 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF EMERGENT METHODS AND INNOVATION

Contested Meanings of Emergence creasingly more theoretical categories and in Grounded Theory connections as they engage in successive levels of data collection and analysis. Glaser and Strauss imply that these categories The original statement of grounded theory, emerge automatically through invoking as well as its current versions, emphasized comparative methods. What facilitates the emergence (see, e.g., Charmaz, 1983, 1990, emergence of theoretical categories is less 2006; Glaser, 1998, 2003, 2006; Strauss, clear. In their book, Glaser and Strauss take 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998). Yet au- a seemingly contradictory stance. They en- thors of different versions of grounded the- courage researchers to conduct their re- ory diverge in how they view and treat emer- search without preconceptions from earlier gence in practice. Thus their divergent use theory and research. Yet they assume that of the concept of emergence in grounded these researchers already possess sufficient theory has resulted in contested versions of theoretical sensitivity to discern and follow the method (Charmaz, 2000, 2006; Clarke, theoretical leads from examining their data. 2005; Glaser, 1992, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, A fine line exists between asking theoretical 1990, 1998). questions and applying extant concepts. The As Kelle (2005) underscores, what emer- subsequent tensions between asking and ap- gence means in grounded theory has be- plying will substantially affect the extent to come a focal point in divisions and debates which grounded theory remains an emer- among its proponents. Glaser’s (1992) subti- gent method or becomes a method of appli- tle, “Emergence vs. Forcing,” exemplifies cation. this division in his critique of Strauss and The different strategies with which each Corbin’s (1990) grounded theory methods originator attempted to resolve these ten- text. Other proponents’ views on emergence sions have influenced the development of are seldom as apparent or contentious as the grounded theory method, as well as how Glaser’s but nonetheless shape their ap- later researchers have seen fit to use it. proaches to grounded theory. The method Numerous researchers have applied the now has second-generation and, in some method mechanically and prescriptively by cases, third-generation spokespersons (see, treating grounded theory strategies as rigid, e.g., Bryant & Charmaz, 2007a; Charmaz, sequential rules rather than flexible, open- 1983, 1990, 2003, 2006; Chenitz & Swanson, ended guidelines. Nonetheless, each of its 1986; Clarke, 2005, 2006; Clarke & Friese, originators has unwittingly fostered me- 2007; Stern, 1994a, 1994b; Wilson & Hutch- chanical applications of the method. A re- inson, 1996). In addition, Glaser and Strauss newed emphasis on using grounded theory and Corbin (1990, 1998; Strauss, 1987) have as an emergent method can counter this influenced numerous commentators, such trend. as Boychuk-Duchscher and Morgan (2004), The role of emergence remains central in Dey (1999, 2004), Goulding (2002), Locke Glaser’s version of grounded theory. Glaser (1997, 2001), Lonkila (1995), May (1996), expands his view of emergence in his later Melia (1996), and Uruquat (2007). The works (1978, 1992, 1998, 2003) and sees it as method has spread across diverse disciplines a definitive property of grounded theory. In and professional fields, but its inextricable his version of grounded theory, emergent link to its originators continues. Thus I next categories are objective, general, and ab- clarify Glaser’s and Strauss’s early shared stract. Glaser asserts that the process of ab- but later divergent views of emergence. straction removes traces of subjectivity, Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) original state- raises the theoretical level of the analysis, ment portrays the analytic process as emer- and increases its generality and parsimony. gent in the sense that researchers develop in- In his view, using systematic comparative Grounded Theory as an Emergent Method 159 methods leads researchers to discover theo- As analysis proceeds, potential tensions retical categories. Glaser admonishes his fol- increase between invoking theoretical sensi- lowers to “trust in emergence,” as though the tivity and drawing on extant theoretical con- comparative process of working through lev- cepts. Glaser (1978, 1992, 1998) has relied els of analysis will magically generate ideas. on “theoretical codes” to guard against such He treats emergence and the development tensions. “Theoretical codes” are an ad hoc, of abstract categories as though they are de- loosely integrated formulation of varied the- void of interpretation and contends that ab- oretical families of concepts, such as Glaser’s straction is objective whereas description is well-known “Six Cs: Causes, Contexts, Con- interpretive (Glaser, 2002).4 Similarly, Glaser tingencies, Consequences, Covariances, and (2003, p. 48) argues, “All knowledge is not Conditions” (Glaser, 1978, p. 74). Other perspectival. Description is perspectival; coding families include those that invoke concepts that fit and work are variable.” major sociological concepts such as “means- Nonetheless, variables are expressed in goals,” “identity-self,” and “consensus words and therefore import interpretation. codes.” What Glaser includes in a given cod- In his early works, Glaser (1978; Glaser & ing family sometimes seems arbitrary and Strauss, 1967) aimed to use grounded the- haphazard. The coding families are not nec- ory to study emergent social or social essarily mutually exclusive, and their bound- psychological processes. In this case, aries are often indistinct. Substantive codes emergence derived from the researcher’s in a specific study may indicate a number of discovering a single overriding process in theoretical codes that cut across different the field. The subsequent grounded theory coding families. Glaser asserts that theoreti- would conceptualize that process by estab- cal codes provide the conceptual power to lishing the properties of its core categories integrate substantive codes. His purpose in or variables. Glaser has since abandoned the establishing theoretical codes is to give the search for a single basic social process. He substantive analysis new coherence at an ab- came to view this quest as misguided; it stract level. However, researchers might find forced data into one framework at the ex- these theoretical codes more helpful as pos- pense of developing emergent categories sible directions rather than as definitive inte- and immobilized researchers who saw multi- grative links. ple processes in their research settings. Sev- Strauss and Corbin’s (1990, 1998) version eral former students from the 1970s and of grounded theory relies less on emergence 1980s report having had similar reserva- than does Glaser’s version. Whereas Glaser tions—and immobilizing setbacks—in their enjoins researchers to initiate their studies early studies (Charmaz, 2006; Clarke, 2005). by focusing on what is happening in the set- Glaser continues to view grounded theory ting, that is, what the researcher defines as as a variable analysis but has modified his emerging there, Strauss and Corbin view view about which variables to seek. He now starting points with a wider lens. They point urges researchers to investigate how partici- out that, in addition to what emerges in the pants in a particular setting try to resolve study, other influences, such as personal ex- their main concern. In 1992, Glaser asserted periences, professional exigencies, and ear- that research participants would tell the lier ideas, may spark inquiry. Their introduc- grounded theorist their main concern and tion of techniques to apply to data, axial their strategy for resolution, but by 2003 he coding and the causal–conditional matrix, viewed the main concern as latent and there- made grounded theory prescriptive and sig- fore assumed and largely unstated. Despite naled critical departures from Glaser’s ver- this change of view, Glaser continues to con- sion. Strauss and Corbin define axial coding tend that researchers should focus on what as a way of specifying the dimensions of emerges in the setting. a category, relating categories to subcate- 160 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF EMERGENT METHODS AND INNOVATION gories, delineating relationships between to the study or of the conditions under them, and bringing the data back together which they conduct it, constructivists con- into a coherent whole after having fractured tend that all become part of the research them during the initial coding (Charmaz, process and product. The constructivist po- 2006, p. 186; Corbin & Strauss, 1988, sition views research as an emergent prod- p. 125). In this sense, Strauss and Corbin uct of particular times, social conditions, supply an alternative to Glaser’s reliance on and interactional situations. Constructivists theoretical codes, but it requires application argue that researchers’ perspectives will di- rather than relying on emergence. The con- rect their attention but not determine their ditional/consequential matrix is a coding research (see also Clarke, 2005, 2006). Un- device used to show the intersections of mi- like the view held by Glaser that researchers cro and macro conditions/consequences on can and should remove themselves from the actions and to clarify the connections be- influences of their disciplines and the condi- tween them. Strauss and Corbin present this tions of their research, constructivists aim to matrix as an effective means of attending to make these influences explicit.5 Here re- structural context that links structures and searchers view themselves as embedded in situations. the research process rather than as dis- The prescriptive character of Strauss and tanced observers of empirical phenomena. Corbin’s books is something of a paradox, Thus constructivists attend to the conditions for Strauss had long emphasized Mead’s and relations of research, considering them analysis of temporality and the significance part of the knowledge gained from the inves- of agency, alternative actions, and indeter- tigation. minacy in social life (Fisher & Strauss, 1979; Similarly, Clarke (2005, 2006) argues that Strauss, 1959/1969, 1993). Strauss’s view of classic grounded theory erases perspectives, social life assumed emergence through dy- positions, standpoints, and differences. Like namic processes of action (including interac- the other constructivist approaches, Clarke’s tion) and the construction and reconstruc- postmodern critique challenges the funda- tion of meaning. Perhaps sharp criticisms of mental epistemological premises that sup- Strauss and Corbin’s 1990 book as technical port objectivist views and practices. Both and prescriptive led to their considerably Clarke (2005, 2006) and Charmaz (2006) ob- more flexible view of grounded theory in the serve that the generalizing thrust of Glaser’s first edition of the Handbook of Qualitative (1978, 1992, 1998, 2002) approach separates Research (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). In addi- the conditions of research from the ab- tion, Margaret H. Kearney (2007) observes stract concepts that the researcher gener- that Strauss received enormous pressure ates. Glaser aims to gain objective concepts from graduate students to make grounded through observing many cases, which cer- theory concrete and rule-bound. tainly helps to broaden the resulting scope The most recent version of grounded the- of knowledge. Yet observing many cases ory, constructivist grounded theory (Bryant, does not necessarily answer the question of 2002; Charmaz, 2000, 2005, 2006; Clarke, how the conditions of the research—the 2005, 2006; Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006), researcher’s standpoints, interactions, and retains the original focus on emergence but choices—affect the research process and does so in relation to the conditions of the product. research and the standpoints and interac- Constructivists reveal the significance of tions of the researchers. Thus the research grounded theory as an emergent method: product includes more than what the re- The method does not stand outside the research searcher learns in the field. Whether or not process; it resides within it.6 Commentators of- researchers are conscious of what they bring ten treat grounded theory as rule-bound, es- Grounded Theory as an Emergent Method 161 pecially those influenced by Strauss and guidelines and specific strategies in research Corbin. At present Glaser also proffers practice. Hence I critique the strategies here rules, albeit a different set. Constructivists, and note crucial points at which researchers however, view the emergent nature of the advance their emergent analyses or pursue method itself as arising from researchers’ directions that undermine emergence and questions, choices, and specific strategies their claims of having produced a grounded and thus remain inseparable from their theory study. earlier and evolving perspectives. When con- Like those of many other qualitative re- structivist grounded theorists enter research searchers, grounded theorists’ initial topics sites and engage their data, their perspec- in new research arenas provide starting tives may grow and/or change and thus per- points of exploration—but not of specific re- mit the structure of inquiry, as well as its search questions.8 These questions depend content, to be emergent. Researchers who on what arises in research sites and stories. treat grounded theory as consisting of a few Two defining properties of the grounded flexible yet systematic guidelines create the theory method create the conditions for conditions to define emergent categories. emergent inquiry: (1) the systematic, active A constructivist stance on emergence con- scrutiny of data and (2) the successive devel- trasts with both Glaser’s (1978) theoretical opment and checking of categories. From codes and Strauss and Corbin’s axial coding the initial stages of research throughout the and conditional/consequential matrix at the process, grounded theorists scrutinize their level of grounded theory practice. Each of data by asking both action and analytic ques- their respective approaches encourages re- tions: “What is happening here?” and “What searchers to force their data into extant cate- (theoretical category or theory) are these gories. Adopting theoretical codes resounds data a study of?” (Glaser, 1978, p. 57). The of application, not emergence. If research- first question pushes the researcher to exam- ers use these theoretical codes to integrate ine the empirical world—in close detail. The their theories, where is the line between ap- second question links this world to theoreti- plication and emergence? One solution is to cal possibilities early on during data collec- pose theoretical questions about the nascent tion. Both questions encourage researchers analysis rather than to apply theoretical con- to follow emergent leads systematically. cepts (see Charmaz, 2006, pp. 335–340) to it. Emergent leads shape the search for emer- Thus the theoretical questions that research- gent concepts. By interrogating their data re- ers pose arise from the particular issues peatedly with these two questions, grounded grounded in the studied empirical world. theorists explicate, expedite, and enhance intuitive strategies that other qualitative researchers often invoke on a descriptive level. Emergence in Grounded These strategies include probing beneath Theory Practice the surface: comparing data, checking hunches, refining emerging ideas, and con- Grounded theory has evolved into a constel- structing abstract categories from data analy- lation of methods rather than an orthodox sis. Simultaneously, grounded theory makes unitary approach.7 My preceding discussion these strategies more efficient and analyti- highlights major differences between Glaser cally effective by indicating how and when to and Strauss’s classic statement, Glaser’s de- use them. The iterative process of going back velopment of it, Strauss and Corbin’s ver- and forth between collecting and analyzing sion, and constructivist grounded theory. data raises the emergent levels of analysis. Nonetheless, these major versions of Hence researchers’ interactions and ob- grounded theory also share certain similar servations in the field affect both their devel- 162 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF EMERGENT METHODS AND INNOVATION oping analysis and their attempts to grapple (Charmaz, 2006; Hood, 2007). Simul- with their constructed data. At each stage of taneous data collection and analysis has the research process, new ideas, questions, become common practice in qualitative re- and deeper refinements of earlier concep- search, although it marked a grand innova- tions can emerge. A few crucial grounded tion when Glaser and Strauss first advocated theory strategies expedite the analytic pro- it in 1967. They proposed that early data cess. analysis would focus researchers’ further Because grounded theory relies on emer- data collection. In turn, this focused data gence, researchers should remain open to would illuminate and inform construction what happens in their research sites and of emergent categories. settings. Narrow research problems and At present, many qualitative researchers research questions seldom work until a conduct simultaneous data gathering and grounded theorist has established intimate analysis but do not necessarily use explicit familiarity (Blumer, 1969; Lofland & comparative methods or adopt grounded Lofland, 1995) with the research topic or theory forms of coding data. The grounded site.9 This intimate familiarity with the topic theory method integrates and streamlines gives grounded theorists a window to see data collection by constructing systematic emergent processes in their data, allowing comparisons throughout inquiry of data them to pursue a specific research problem with data, data with code, code with code, that addresses these processes. code with category, and category with cate- In addition, the grounded theory goal of gory. generating theoretical analyses that fit em- Grounded theorists adopt an inductive pirical reality requires researchers to gain an approach yet move their nascent analyses intimate familiarity (Blumer, 1969; Lofland beyond induction. In contrast, many qualita- & Lofland, 1995) with this empirical world. tive studies remain solely inductive. These Researchers cannot assess how well their studies likely have a wider lens on the stud- analyses fit their data unless they have ied realities than do grounded theory stud- gained intimate familiarity with the studies, which progressively focus data collection ied phenomenon. The openness of the and analysis. The grounded theory method grounded theory method allows researchers not only calls for using comparisons to gen- to develop an analysis of a major process, erate categories but also builds in checks problem, or phenomenon in their data. that keep the researcher’s ideas grounded in Ironically, many researchers claim to adopt data. Grounded theorists go back to the set- grounded theory to study narrowly defined ting to observe specific events or to ask key preconceived problems in the field. Im- informants further, more specific questions posing either preconceived problems or nar- to shed light on their developing theoretical row interests on a study stifles emergence categories.10 and undermines effective use of grounded In my view, grounded theory strategies theory. Under these conditions, researchers are few and flexible, so researchers may treat grounded theory as a method of appli- adapt them to the exigencies of their studies. cation rather than emergence. Thus a researcher has latitude not simply to Several grounded theory strategies have choose the methods but also to create them as become part of the repertoire of the larger inquiry proceeds. Grounded theory consists field of qualitative inquiry. Paradoxically, of transparent analytic guidelines; the trans- their translation into the lexicon of general parency of the method enables researchers qualitative methods has cost them emergent to make transparent analytic choices and power and obfuscates the issue of whether constructions. The researcher can see and and to what extent researchers’ claims of create a direct relationship between data using grounded theory can be supported and abstract categories. Grounded Theory as an Emergent Method 163

Using Grounded Theory Guidelines grounded theory at every stage of analysis distinguishes grounded theory from other approaches and makes it an explicitly emer- Effective use of the grounded theory gent method. First, crucial coding practices method depends on adopting several of lay the foundation of grounded theory re- Glaser and Strauss’s (1967; Glaser, 1978; search. Second, writing progressively more Strauss, 1987) early grounded theory guide- analytic as opposed to descriptive, memos lines—with 21st-century caveats. Adopting advances grounded theory practice. Third, a comparative, interactive analytic strategies pivotal but often neglected grounded theory in coding, memo-writing, theoretical sam- strategy, theoretical sampling, distinguishes pling, sorting, and integrating the analysis is grounded theory from other methods. only part of the grounded theorist’s task. In Fourth, theoretical saturation is widely keeping with constructivist premises, re- claimed but scarcely practiced. Following searchers must also (1) entertain a range these four strategies enables researchers to of theoretical possibilities and (2) examine make their theoretical analysis the basis for their own epistemological premises and re- sorting and integrating their studies. I out- search principles and practices. Grounded line only how grounded theory strategies theory fosters openness to what is happen- support emergent analyses here, as they are ing in the empirical world. That means detailed elsewhere (Bryant & Charmaz, studying data and developing an analysis 2007b; Charmaz, 2003, 2006; Glaser, 1978; from conceptualizing these data rather than Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1994, imposing a theoretical framework on them. 1998). Qualitative researchers often receive ad- vice to choose research topics that affect their lives. Since the inception of the Coding Data method, grounded theorists have pursued substantive topics in which they held a de- Coding begins the emergent process of ana- cided stake. Strauss and Glaser each had ex- lyzing data in grounded theory. Coding con- perienced the death of a parent before they sists of at least two phases: initial coding and began to study the social organization of dy- focused coding. Initial or open coding re- ing. Elizabeth Cauhapé had experienced a quires a close reading and interrogation midlife divorce before she undertook the of the data. This phase of coding moves dissertation research that led to her book, grounded theorists’ attention from the re- Fresh Starts: Men and Women after Divorce search field to the analysis of the data, as (1983). Adele E. Clarke had long-standing they engage in simultaneous data collection interests in women’s reproductive health and analysis. Grounded theorists conduct and in organizational analysis, which she coding as they gather data. Specific forms of combined in her 1998 historical study of the grounded theory coding lead researchers to emergence of reproductive biology, Disci- focus on possible meanings of the data and plining Reproduction: Modernity, American Life to stick closely to the data while actively in- Sciences and “the Problems of Sex.” Researchers terrogating them. By asking both of Glaser’s who start where they are at may risk import- questions, they can gain greater insight ing preconceived ideas into the study; how- into their data and define what they might ever, engaging in reflexivity and invoking mean. grounded theory strategies can challenge Most qualitative researchers code for their previously taken-for-granted actions themes and topics rather than actions and and assumptions. analytic possibilities. From the very begin- What makes grounded theory distinctive? ning, coding for actions and theoretical po- The comparative and interactive nature of tential distinguishes the grounded theory 164 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF EMERGENT METHODS AND INNOVATION method and, likely, its product from other and present while describing her ex- types of qualitative research. Researchers husband’s actions. I tried to portray this conduct initial grounded theory coding by movement by coding him as an ex-husband comparing incidents or by coding word by in certain statements and a husband in oth- word, line by line, or paragraph by para- ers. graph. Coding in larger chunks works well Grounded theory coding is interactive with ethnographic data, whereas line-by-line and comparative. Line-by-line coding forces coding is an excellent heuristic device for the researcher to interact with the data. coding initial intensive interviews and cer- Even in so short an excerpt as I have pro- tain types of narrative data. Coding with ger- vided in Figure 7.1, we can make some com- unds, that is, noun forms of verbs, such as re- parisons. Note how Karen tells the story of vealing, defining, feeling,orwanting, helps to her husband’s addiction and uses it to frame define what is happening in a fragment of her story of her own struggle with addictive data or a description of an incident. Ger- pain medications. In addition, the excerpt unds enable grounded theorists to see im- suggests conceptions of normal life com- plicit processes, to make connections be- pared with and juxtaposed against continual tween codes, and to keep their analyses crises. My ideas and leads emerged while I active and emergent. Compare the excerpt grappled with the coding rather than from a of grounded theory coding with the one of reading of the entire interview. Grounded general qualitative coding in Figure 7.1. The theorists may also gain emergent leads excerpt is taken from an interview with a through identifying in vivo codes, which con- woman I call Karen Liddell, who has a debili- sist of research participants’ direct state- tating neck injury. ments. In vivo codes aid grounded theorists Note the difference between coding for in discerning participants’ meanings and in topics as contrasted with grounded theory explaining their emergent actions. coding for actions. The general qualitative After grounded theorists have established coding identifies topics about which the re- which initial codes are most frequent and/ searcher can write; the researcher may use or significant, they engage in focused or se- such topics as areas to sort and synthesize lective coding. This coding allows them to the material. The line-by-line grounded the- sort and synthesize large amounts of data, ory coding goes deeper into the phenome- thereby expediting their work. Grounded non and attempts to explicate it. This type of theorists scrutinize their focused codes to coding gives researchers more directions evaluate which ones best explain or in- to consider and already suggests emergent terpret the empirical phenomenon. These links between processes in the data. The codes then become tentative theoretical cat- codes indicate the simultaneous occurrence egories. Like their scrutiny of initial codes, of a disintegrating marriage and family and which codes grounded theorists select to de- the research participant’s disintegrating self. velop is an emergent process. They test their The codes also indicate conditions under focused codes against the data by using which each process occurs; readers gain a them to examine large batches of data. sense of what is happening in this statement When deciding which codes to raise to theo- and how it happens. The analytic level of the retical categories, they look for those codes grounded theory codes ranges from describ- that carry the weight of the analysis—what ing a fragment of data, such as “disap- Clarke11 calls “carrying capacity”—and that pearing husband,” “being exhausted,” and provide “analytic momentum” (Charmaz, “explaining distress,” to potential analytic 2006). Grounded theorists then treat categories such as “disintegrating self” and these major focused codes as tentative “disclosing a plausible identity.” Karen Lid- categories subject to further analytic treat- dell imparts a sense of moving between past ment. Initial Narrative Data to Be Coded My ex-husband had kinddouble of life a going onwould as disappear it for turns two out;at or he a three time days whichworse. became He increasingly had colitishis . colitis . . but part partwas of of a it it, hidden was [as] cocaine itcouldn’t addiction turned continue so out to—in I mycondition chronic and pain his behavior,me just so kept stressed outfunction where emotionally I and couldn’t physicallypoint. to That’s a why Iwas say at my stake survival .was . . no it support hurt thereissue. me. for . And my . there . pain Iwho always had had to to begone be strong on the because these one he’d disappearing be then things somebody and had tofort hold and down keep the everythingthis going would when happen. Andsometimes then it would takerecover him because a whatever week he to doing was would cause hisup, colitis so to I flare wasposition always of forced the to emotional befamily anchor in and in the it the wasand so again exhausting I to had me pain to medication keep then escalating to that and continue normally, on then, atwas the fully time herniated the so disk treated I for was chronic being painstill but some there questions was tomy the pain validity factor of whetheremotionally it induced was or physicallysome and question as tolot whether psychological, it that was I a you was know, perhaps, had awas painful just addiction self-medicating. and General Qualitative Coding Examples of Codes Marital tensions Ex-husband’s illness Ex-husband’s addiction Stress Lack of support Pain issue Pressures Family role Questions on source of pain Possible addiction Initial Narrative Data to Be Coded My ex-husband had kinddouble of life a going onwould as disappear it for turns two out;at or he a three time days whichworse. became He increasingly had colitishis . colitis . . but part partwas of of a it it, hidden was [as] cocaine itcouldn’t addiction turned continue so out to—in I mycondition chronic and pain his behavior,me just so kept stressed outfunction where emotionally I and couldn’t physicallypoint. to That’s a why Iwas say at my stake survival .was . . no it support hurt thereissue. me. for . And my . there . pain Iwho always had had to to begone be strong on the because these one he’d disappearing be then things somebody and had tofort hold and down keep the everythingthis going would when happen. Andsometimes then it would takerecover him because a whatever week he to doing was would cause hisup, colitis so to I flare wasposition always of forced the to emotional befamily anchor in and in the it the wasand so again exhausting I to had me pain to medication keep then escalating to that and continue normally, on then, atwas the fully time herniated the so disk treated I for was chronic being painstill but some there questions was tomy the pain validity factor of whetheremotionally it induced was or physicallysome and question as tolot whether psychological, it that was I a you was know, perhaps, had awas painful just addiction self-medicating. and Comparison of grounded theory coding and general qualitative coding. Initial narrative data from Charmaz (2004). pain her Initial Grounded Theory Coding FIGURE 7.1. Examples of Codes complicating illness psychological Living with ex-husband’s double life Disappearing husband Escalating disappearances Accounting for husband’s disappearances Defining hidden addiction Alluding to limits for self-explaining distress Being unable to function Disintegrating self Questioning survival of self/Feeling of hurt/betrayed way of life Wanting husband’s support for Carrying doubled responsibilities Expressing resentments (in tone of voice) Keeping life (family and business) together Detailing ex-husband’s lapses Timing then-husband’s recovery/ explaining his Feeling forced to be family emotional anchor Being exhausted Feeling forced to escalateSeeing pain pain meds meds as allowing a normalExplaining life extent of injury Externalizing questions about pain Revealing ambiguous cause of pain—physical and/or Questioning the possibility of addiction Raising the specter ofDisclosing self-overmedicating a plausible identity

165 166 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF EMERGENT METHODS AND INNOVATION

Memo Writing proaches to memo writing shift qualitative inquiry into an explicit analytic endeavor. Grounded theorists typically define memo This type of memo writing prompts the rewriting as the intermediate stage between searcher to move beyond description and data collection and writing a draft of a paper storytelling. If, for example, I pursued the or chapter (Charmaz, 2003, 2006; Glaser, code “disintegrating self” in Figure 7.1, I 1978, 1998). Yet memo writing is so much would define each account of a “disintegrat- more. Memo writing is about capturing ing self” according to properties I found in a ideas in process and in progress. Successive range of interviews. Then I would try to out- memos on the same category trace its devel- line the conditions in which each of these opment as the researcher gathers more categories emerge and show how they might data to illuminate the category and probes be related to other categories. I would see deeper into its analysis. Memos can be par- whether and to what extent the notion of tial, tentative, and exploratory. The acts of a disintegrating self held when the social writing and storing memos provide a frame- structure of a person’s life was also disinte- work for exploring, checking, and develop- grating. I would then explore how other ing ideas. Writing memos gives one the op- codes, such as “carrying doubled responsi- portunity to learn about the data rather than bilities” and “feeling hurt/betrayed,” might just summarizing material. Through this fit into my emerging analysis. The analytic writing, the grounded theorist’s ideas process of exploring meanings, weighing emerge as discoveries unfold. situations, and examining actions through Memo writing is a distinct contribution of memo writing raises questions that I could grounded theory, although most qualitative then try to answer through subsequent data researchers now use some form of this collection. method. Grounded theorists vary in the detail and analytic level of their memos. Essen- tially, however, memos first open the codes Theoretical Sampling to scrutiny and then later examine the categories. Several guidelines are important for Theoretical sampling keeps a study grounded. grounded theory memos: (1) title the It is a method of sampling data for the devel- memos for easy sorting and storage; (2) opment of a theoretical category. The term write memos throughout the entire research sampling here often leads to confusion and process; (3) define the code or category by misunderstandings. Many researchers can- its properties found in the data; (4) delineate not separate the notion of sampling from the conditions under which the code or cate- studying populations and their characteris- gory emerges, is maintained, and changes; tics. Hence they are able to envision sam- (5) compare the code or category with other pling only as a procedure done before the codes and categories; (6) include the data collection of data. In contrast, researchers from which the code or category is derived who subscribe to the grounded theory right in the memo; (7) outline the conse- method conduct theoretical sampling only quences of the code or category; (8) note after they have tentative categories to de- gaps in the data and conjectures about it. velop or refine. For grounded theorists, Glaser (1998) urges researchers to write emergent categories form the basis of theo- memos whenever and however they have an retical sampling. Grounded theorists can- idea. Memos give grounded theorists some- not anticipate where their theoretical in- thing to work with, to ponder later, and to quiry will take them. Their tentative explore further. categories arise through the analytic pro- Memo writing gives researchers the op- cess, and thus theoretical sampling may take portunity to stretch their thinking as they in- them into new research sites and substantive terrogate their data. Grounded theory ap- areas. Grounded Theory as an Emergent Method 167

Grounded theorists’ major task in theoret- searchers define theoretical saturation as ical sampling is to fill out the properties of having occurred when gathering more data their categories. In keeping with grounded sheds no further light on the properties of theory logic, they may seek comparative data their theoretical category. Much theoretical to tease out hidden properties of a category. sampling is devoted to the quest of attaining For example, if my data indicated that in theoretical saturation, and theoretical cate- each instance in which I found a disintegrat- gories are mandatory for this achievement. ing self, I also found a deteriorating social Yet many qualitative researchers claim to network, I might seek people who faced seri- have achieved saturation with no reference ous chronic conditions but had robust so- to theoretical concepts. cial networks. My subsequent comparisons Theoretical saturation is another grounded could then illuminate to what extent and theory strategy that found its way into the how the quality of a person’s social network general lexicon of qualitative methods. figures into his or her disintegrating self. Qualitative researchers who do not use The logic of theoretical sampling distin- grounded theory methods have stripped the guishes grounded theory from other types term of its defining theoretical dimension. of qualitative inquiry. Through considering Instead, most of these other qualitative re- all possible theoretical understandings of searchers talk of “saturation” of data, mean- their data, grounded theorists create tenta- ing that the same themes repeatedly arise in tive interpretations, then return to the field their data. Repetitive themes have very lit- and gather more data to check and refine tle to do with theoretical saturation and their categories. In this sense, grounded the- grounded theory when the repetitive data ory methods are abductive (Deely, are not in service of a theoretical category. 1990; Peirce, 1931/1958; Rosenthal, 2004). Grounded theorists themselves have also Abductive logic entails attempting to imag- diluted the strategy of theoretical saturation. ine all possible hypothetical accounts to ex- Many researchers who claim grounded the- plain surprising findings and then subject- ory allegiance assert that they have achieved ing these hypothetical accounts to test. theoretical saturation without providing evi- Abductive logic involves both imaginative dence for it (Morse, 1995). Very small initial interpretation and reasoning about experi- samples in some grounded theory studies ence, both of which grounded theorists in- compound the problem of claims of theoret- voke when they check and refine their cate- ical saturation. How can researchers know gories. At this point, grounded theorists that they have saturated a theoretical cate- entertain all conceivable theoretical expla- gory if they have not gathered sufficient data nations for the data; they then proceed to to establish the parameters of the category check these explanations empirically or to explicate its properties? through further experience—more data collection—to pursue the most plausible theoretical explanation (Charmaz, 2006). Thus a Conclusion major strength of the grounded theory method is that these budding conceptualiza- The four grounded theory strategies of cod- tions can lead researchers in the most useful, ing, memo writing, theoretical sampling, often emergent and unanticipated theoreti- and theoretical saturation form the defining cal direction to understand their data. features of the method. How and when researchers employ these strategies emerges during the course of inquiry. Like appli- Theoretical Saturation cations of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s (1969) stages of dying, followers of grounded the- Theoretical saturation means saturation of ory have reified and rigidified its strategies. the properties of a theoretical category. Re- Efforts to make grounded theory mechani- 168 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF EMERGENT METHODS AND INNOVATION cal and rule-bound erode the emergent qual- lem. A more precise distinction would call for dis- ities of the method and erase its potential for tinguishing between the method of conducting sparking new theoretical analyses. Despite research, the grounded theory method, and the efforts to make grounded theory prescrip- product of that research, the substantive or for- tive, its strategies have substantial flexibility, mal grounded theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007c; Charmaz, 2003, 2006). and researchers may adapt them to fit their 2. Here I allude to the pragmatist roots of emerging studies. grounded theory and the scientific but creative Grounded theory advances emergent reasoning of C. S. Peirce. Strauss may not have methods because it is both inductive and engaged Peirce’s concept of abduction explicitly abductive. The inductive, iterative process in his writings, but he described grounded theory of going back and forth between data collec- as an abductive method in his teaching—at least in tion and analysis makes emergent grounded the early years of the doctoral program at the theory analyses focused and incisive. The University of California, San Francisco, when I abductive process of accounting for emer- was a graduate student. gent findings raises the level of abstraction 3. The congruent views on emergence of of the analysis and extends its “theoretical Mead, an American pragmatist, and Durkheim, a reach” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 128). Theoretical French structuralist, reflect their realist assump- sampling and theoretical saturation provide tions of society preceding individuals and, likely, exposure to Henri Bergson’s ideas. William solidity for the emergent analysis and keep it James brought Bergson’s ideas to the pragma- grounded. tists, and Durkheim knew Bergson from their stu- Students and new PhDs may want the dent days at the Ecole Normale. For more on structure and seeming certainty that a proce- Bergson’s contributions, see his 1903/1961 and dural application of grounded theory may 1921/1965 works. 12 provide. Although their wishes to follow 4. I am indebted to Matthew James, a paleon- rule-bound procedures are understandable, tologist, for reminding me that natural scientists adopting and applying a procedural ap- would disagree with Glaser’s statement (personal proach to grounded theory suppresses its communication, February 23, 2007). Glaser in- emergent elements and likely stifles their verts conventional scientific reasoning here. Nat- own creativity. Learning to tolerate ambigu- ural scientists treat description as straightfor- ity permits the researcher to become recep- ward, unproblematic, and replicable. They view the abstractions of description as interpretive. tive to creating emergent categories and 5. Diana Grant (personal communication, strategies. Subsequently, the flexibility of February 23, 2007), who uses quantitative meth- constructivist grounded theory guidelines ods, points out that Glaser’s position come close can frame inquiry and further imaginative to the reified focus on researcher objectivity for engagement with data. which quantitative researchers are criticized. 6. My position here is analogous to Clarke’s (2005) depiction of situations. In both cases, we Acknowledgments aim to treat the whole phenomenon rather than focus on certain parts. I thank Diana Grant, Sharlene Hesse-Biber, Mat- 7. Glaser has recently modified his earlier in- thew James, and Melinda Milligan for their com- sistence on representing the only version of ments on an earlier version of this chapter. grounded theory and now sees alternative versions as well (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007c). 8. Note that I specify new research arenas Notes here. Grounded theorists may work in the same or related arenas on subsequent projects. If they 1. Consistent with conventional method- do, having a rich reservoir of data and experience ological parlance, I use the term grounded theory to from prior studies may considerably expedite represent the method as well as the completed moving to a specific research question, as well as grounded theory analysis of an empirical prob- to conceptual analysis. Grounded Theory as an Emergent Method 169

9. Grounded theory and naturalism (Lincoln Charmaz, K. (2000). Constructivist and objectivist & Guba, 1985; Lofland & Lofland, 1995) are con- grounded theory. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln gruent on this point. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 10. Most grounded theory studies are inter- Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory. In M. Lewis- view studies. Grounded theorists who do not Beck, A. E. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The Sage ency- have access to interview participants more than clopedia of social science research methods (pp. 440–444). once can form specific questions in the later in- London: Sage. terviews to check their theoretical categories. Charmaz, K. (2004). Premises, principles, and practices 11. Personal communication, February 28, in qualitative research: Revisiting the foundations. 2005. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 976–993. 12. I am indebted to Melinda Milligan for sug- Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: A qualitative method for advancing social jus- gesting the implications of the preceding analysis tice research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), for students (personal communication, February Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507– 23, 2007). 535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. References Charmaz, K. (2007). Reconstructing grounded theory. In L. Bickman, P. Alasuutari, & J. Brannen (Eds.), Adams, R. N., & Preiss, J. J. (Eds.). (1960). Human orga- Handbook of social research (pp. 461–478). London: nization research: Field relations and techniques Sage. (pp. 267–289). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Charmaz, K. (in press). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith Bergson, H. (1961). An introduction to metaphysics (M. L. (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to re- Andison, Trans.). New York: Philosophical Library. search methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage. (Original work published 1903) Charmaz, K., & Henwood, K. (in press). Grounded the- Bergson, H. (1965). Duration and simultaneity, with refer- ory in psychology. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers ence to Einstein’s theory. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs- (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in psychology. Merrill. (Original work published 1921) London: Sage. Biernacki, P. (1986). Pathways from heroin addiction: Re- Chenitz, W. C., & Swanson, J. M. (Eds.). (1986). From covery without treatment. Philadelphia: Temple Uni- practice to grounded theory: Qualitative research in nurs- versity Press. ing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Clarke, A. E. (1998). Disciplining reproduction: Modernity, Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. American life sciences, and “the problems of sex.” Berke- Boychuk-Duchscher, J. E., & Morgan, D. (2004). ley: University of California Press. Grounded theory: Reflections on the emerging vs. Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory forcing debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(6), after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 605–612. Clarke, A. E. (2006). Feminism, grounded theory, and Bryant, A. (2002). Re-grounding grounded theory. Jour- situational analysis. In S. Hess-Biber & D. Leckenby nal of Information Technology Theory and Application, (Eds.), Handbook of feminist research methods (pp. 345– 4(1), 25–42. 370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007a). Grounded theory in Clarke, A. E., & Friese, C. (2007). Grounded theory us- historical perspective: An epistemological account. ing situational analysis. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The handbook of (Eds.), The handbook of grounded theory (pp. 363–397). grounded theory (pp. 31–57). London: Sage. London: Sage. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007b). The handbook Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (1988). Unending work and of grounded theory. London: Sage. care: Managing chronic illness at home. San Francisco: Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007c). Introduction. In A. Jossey-Bass. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The handbook of Deely, J. N. (1990). Basics of semiotics. Bloomington: In- grounded theory (pp. 1–28). London: Sage. diana University Press. Cauhapé, E. (1983). Fresh starts: Men and women after di- Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory. San Diego, vorce. New York: Basic Books. CA: Academic Press. Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An Dey, I. (2004). Grounded theory. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, explication and interpretation. In R. M. Emerson J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative re- (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109–126). search practice (pp. 80–93). London: Sage. Boston: Little, Brown. Durkheim, E. (1895/1982). The rules of sociological Charmaz, K. (1990). Discovering chronic illness: Using method. New York: Free Press. (Original work pub- grounded theory. Social Science and Medicine, 30, lished 1895) 1161–1172. Fisher, B. M., & Strauss, A. L. (1979). George Herbert 170 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF EMERGENT METHODS AND INNOVATION

Mead and the Chicago tradition of sociology. Sym- Mead, G. H. (1932). The philosophy of the present. La Salle, bolic Interaction, 2, 9–26. IL: Open Court. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, Melia, K. M. (1996). Rediscovering Glaser. Qualitative CA: Sociology Press. Health Research, 6(3), 368–378. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The de- Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. velopment of constructivist grounded theory. In- Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and dis- ternational Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1–10. cussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? Qualitative Health Research, 5, 147–149. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3. Retrieved Octo- Peirce, C. S. (1958). Collected papers. Cambridge, MA: ber 20, 2002, from http://www.qualitative-researh.net/ Harvard University Press. (Original work published fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glaser-e-htm 1931) Glaser, B. G. (2003). Conceptualization contrasted with de- Reichertz, J. (2004). Abduction, deduction, and induc- scription. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. tion in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Glaser, B. G. (2006). Doing formal grounded theory: A pro- Kardoff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualita- posal. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. tive research (pp. 150–164). London: Sage. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of Reichertz, J. (2007). Abduction: The logic of discovery grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. of grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide (Eds.), The handbook of grounded theory (pp. 214–228). for management, business, and market researchers. Lon- London: Sage. don: Sage. Rock, P. (1979). The making of symbolic interactionism. Hood, J. (2007). Orthodoxy vs. power: The defining London: Macmillan. traits of grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Rosenthal, G. (2004). Biographical research. In C. Charmaz (Eds.), The handbook of grounded theory Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), (pp. 151–164). London: Sage. Qualitative research practice (pp. 48–64). London: Junker, B. H. (1960). Field work: An introduction to the so- Sage. cial sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Stern, P. N. (1994a). Eroding grounded theory. In J. Kearney, M. H. (2007). From the sublime to the meticu- Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research meth- lous: The continuing evolution of grounded formal ods (pp. 212–223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The hand- Stern, P. N. (1994b). The grounded theory method: Its book of grounded theory (pp. 127–150). London: Sage. uses and processes. In B. G. Glaser (Ed.), More Kelle, U. (2005). “Emergence” vs. “forcing” of empirical grounded theory: A reader (pp. 116–126). Mill Valley, data: A crucial problem of “grounded theory” recon- CA: Sociology Press. sidered. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2). Re- Strauss, A. L. (1969). Mirrors and masks. Mill Valley, CA: trieved May 30, 2005, from www.qualitative- Sociology Press. (Original work published 1959) research.net/fqs.texte/2-05/05-2-27-e.htm Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Kübler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: New York: Cambridge University Press. Macmillan. Strauss, A. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New Layder, D. (1998). Sociological practice: Linking theory and York: Aldine de Gruyter. social research. London: Sage. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative re- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. search: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Locke, K. (1997). Rewriting the discovery of grounded Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory meth- theory after 25 years? Journal of Management Inquiry, odology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lin- 5(1), 239–245. coln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273– Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management re- 285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. search. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative re- Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (1995). Analyzing social set- search: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd tings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Belmont CA: Wadsworth. Uruquat, C. (2007). The evolving nature of grounded Lonkila, M. (1995). Grounded theory as an emerging theory methods: The case of the information systems paradigm for computer-assisted qualitative data discipline. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The analysis. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative handbook of grounded theory (pp. 339–359). London: data analysis (pp. 41–51). London: Sage. Sage. May, K. (1996). Diffusion, dilution or distillation? The Wilson, H. S., & Hutchinson, S. A. (1996). Metho- case of grounded theory method. Qualitative Health dologic mistakes in grounded theory. Nursing Re- Research, 6(3), 309–311. search, 45(2), 122–124.