CHAPTER 20 Constructionism and the Grounded Theory Method • Kathy Charmaz n the introduction to this Handbook, James is grounded theory? The term refers to both A. Holstein and Jaber F. Gubrium suggest the research product and the analytic Ithat a social constructionist approach method of producing it, which I emphasize deals best with what people construct and here. The grounded theory method begins how this social construction process unfolds. with inductive strategies for collecting and They argue that the constructionist vo- analyzing qualitative data for the purpose of cabulary does not as readily address the why developing middle-range theories. Exam- questions that characterize more positivistic ining this method allows us to rethink ways inquiry.1 In their earlier methodological of bringing why questions into qualitative re- treatise, The New Language of Qualitative search. Method (Gubrium & Holstein, 1997), they A social constructionist approach to proposed that naturalistic qualitative re- grounded theory allows us to address why searchers could address why questions “by questions while preserving the complexity of considering the contingent relations be- social life. Grounded theory not only is a tween the whats and hows of social life” method for understanding research partici- (p. 200). To date, however, most qualitative pants’ social constructions but also is a research has not addressed why questions. method that researchers construct through- In contrast, the grounded theory method out inquiry. Grounded theorists adopt a few has had a long history of engaging both why strategies to focus their data gathering and questions and what and how questions. What analyzing, but what they do, how they do it, 397 398 • STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES and why they do it emerge through interact- Objectivist grounded theory (Glaser, 1978, ing in the research setting, with their data, 1992, 1998) has roots in mid-20th-century colleagues, and themselves. positivism. It explicitly aims to answer why How, when, and to what extent grounded questions. Objectivist grounded theorists theorists invoke social constructionist pre- seek explanation and prediction at a general mises depends on their epistemological level, separated and abstracted from the spe- stance and approach to research practice. cific research site and process. Unlike my From its beginnings, grounded theory has version of grounded theory, which I have offered explicit guidelines that promise flex- previously called constructivist grounded ibility and encourage innovation. Paradoxi- theory (Charmaz, 2000, 2006), 20th-century cally, these guidelines also provided suffi- constructionism treated research worlds as cient direction such that some researchers social constructions, but not research prac- have treated the method as a recipe for tices. stamping out qualitative studies. These re- The two respective emphases on under- searchers emphasize application of the standing and explanation are not entirely method—often a narrow and rigid applica- mutually exclusive. An abstract understand- tion at that. Such application limits the po- ing of particular sites and situations can al- tential of grounded theory and fosters the low social constructionists to move from lo- production of superficial studies. In con- cal worlds to a more general conceptual trast, a social constructionist approach en- level. The close attention that social con- courages innovation; researchers can de- structionist grounded theorists give their re- velop new understandings and novel search problems builds the foundations for theoretical interpretations of studied life. generic statements that they qualify accord- The value of social constructionism for ing to particular temporal, social, and situa- grounded theory studies has only begun to tional conditions. be mined. In this chapter, I show how a grounded Distinguishing between a social construc- theory informed by social constructionism tionist and an objectivist grounded theory can lead to vibrant studies with theoretical (Charmaz, 2000, 2002, 2006) provides a heu- implications that address why questions. To ristic device for understanding divisions and provide a backdrop for the discussion, I out- debates in grounded theory and indicates line the development of grounded theory ways to move the method further into social and delineate distinctions among pro- constructionism. The form of construction- ponents. By distinguishing between objec- ism I advocate includes examining (1) the tivism and constructionism in grounded relativity of the researcher’s perspectives, theory, I explicate their underlying assump- positions, practices, and research situation, tions and point out the tensions between ex- (2) the researcher’s reflexivity; and (3) depic- planation and understanding. How might tions of social constructions in the studied grounded theorists resolve these tensions? world.2 Consistent with the larger social con- How might the ways in which they construct structionist literature, I view action as a cen- their studies foster developing explanations tral focus and see it as arising within socially and understandings and thus attend to both created situations and social structures. the particular and the general? What princi- Constructionist grounded theorists attend ples might researchers adopt? To address to what and how questions. They emphasize these questions, I offer several guidelines abstract understanding of empirical phe- and look at how two grounded theorists, Su- nomena and contend that this understand- san Leigh Star (1989) and Monica Casper ing must be located in the studied specific (1998), constructed their respective analy- circumstances of the research process. ses. The Grounded Theory Method • 399 Reconstructing Contested Logics ory tools to researchers who had not studied of Grounded Theory with either Glaser or Strauss or their stu- dents.5 Many qualitative researchers relied Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss’s solely on the justificatory ammunition that (1967) original conception of grounded the- Glaser and Strauss (1967) had fired in de- ory assumed a social constructionist ap- fense of qualitative research; however, other proach to the empirical world. Like other so- researchers sought specific analytic guide- cial scientists of the time, they adopted a lines. Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) did more limited form of social constructionism not simply offer guidelines; they prescribed than what I advocate here. Glaser and procedures as a path to qualitative success. Strauss did not attend to how they affected Basics of Qualitative Research became some- the research process, produced the data, thing of a bible for novices, who often inter- represented research participants, and posi- preted the method in concrete ways that tioned their analyses.3 Their research re- muted the social constructionist elements in ports emphasized generality, not relativity, the method.6 and objectivity, not reflexivity. Meanwhile, the “qualitative revolution” Nonetheless, Glaser and Strauss laid the that Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. ix) pro- foundation for constructing sound meth- claimed had grown exponentially in and ods, as well as analyses. By adopting a few across fields. As I (Charmaz, 2000, 2006) flexible guidelines, grounded theorists have argued previously, the entire qualita- could construct their specific methodologi- tive revolution owed much to Glaser and cal strategies, as well as the content of their Strauss’s (1967) initial statement. Glaser research.4 Both method and content then and Strauss made qualitative research emerge during the research process rather defensible—even respectable—at a time than being preconceived before empirical when quantitative researchers had con- inquiry begins. trolled the framing definitions of what Until 1990, most scholars saw grounded counted as research: that is, only what these theory as a single method based on a shared methodologists could count. Glaser and logic. As both the originators and their stu- Strauss provided a strong justification for in- dents worked with the method, changes ductive qualitative inquiry that many re- emerged and debates ensued about what searchers seized to legitimize their own grounded theory entails, whose version is work; but these researchers only loosely “correct,” and which direction the method adopted the strategies, if at all. should take. How did these discussions un- Still, Glaser and Strauss (1967) inspired fold? What are their implications for a the democratization of qualitative research— grounded theory founded in social con- and of theorizing itself. No longer must a structionism? To understand these issues, I qualitative researcher have the analytic acu- take a brief look back at the emergence of men of an Erving Goffman or Anselm contested logics of the method(s). Strauss. No longer must qualitative research Glaser had supplied much of the original be a mysterious endeavor conducted by logic and form of grounded theory. Theoreti- anointed elites. Qualitative research could cal Sensitivity (1978) depicted his concept- spread beyond the confines of Chicago and indicator logic and focus on core variables. its reach. Moreover, all qualitative research- Beyond Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) original ers could aspire to theorizing and achieve statement, however, Strauss’s Qualitative their goals by following a handful of flexible Analysis for Social Scientists (1987) and guidelines. Strauss and Corbin’s Basics of Qualitative Re- Because grounded