RALPH LAROSSA Georgia State University Grounded Theory Methods and Qualitative Family Research There is an irony—perhaps a paradox—here: 2005a; Boss, Doherty, LaRossa, Schumm, & that a methodology that is based on ‘‘interpreta- Steinmetz, 1993; Burr, Hill, Nye, & Reiss, tion’’ should itself prove so hard to interpret. 1979a, 1979b), family studies has become a field (Dey, 1999, p. 23) where methodologically based theorizing mat- Among the different qualitative approaches that ters. Cognizant of this fact, family scholars place may be relied upon in family theorizing, a premium on research techniques that facilitate grounded theory methods (GTM), developed by the development of new ideas. Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, are the In quantitative studies, multivariate statistical most popular. Despite their centrality to family techniques are essential to the theorizing pro- studies and to other fields, however, GTM can cess. In qualitative studies, any number of be opaque and confusing. Believing that simpli- approaches may be used to generate theory, but fying GTM would allow them to be used to family scholars tend to rely on a multivariate greater effect, I rely on 5 principles to interpret nonstatistical (or quasistatistical) set of proce- 3 major phases in GTM coding: open, axial, dures, known as grounded theory methods and selective. The history of GTM establishes (GTM). GTM were originally devised to facili- a foundation for the interpretation, whereas tate theory construction, and their proponents recognition of the dialectic between induction routinely assert that a GTM approach promotes and deduction underscores the importance of theorizing in ways that alternative methods do incorporating constructivism in GTM thinking. not (see Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser & Strauss, My goal is to propose a methodologically con- 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990a, densed but still comprehensive interpretation of 1998). GTM, an interpretation that researchers hope- Besides being drawn to GTM’s theory- fully will find easy to understand and employ. generating potential, family scholars may be attracted to GTM’s compatibility with quantita- tive research. Unlike some other qualitative Beginning in the early 1970s with the creation of approaches, which are expressly descriptive in the National Council on Family Relations’ The- their intent (e.g., phenomenological analysis), ory Construction and Research Methodology GTM are purposefully explanatory (Baker, Workshop, and continuing through a series of Wuest, & Stern, 1992). With government grant- volumes on family theories and methods (Bengt- ing agencies viewing quantitative and qualitative son, Acock, Allen, Dilworth-Anderson, & Klein, methods as ‘‘mutually supportive’’ (National Institutes of Health, 2001; see also Ragin, Nagel, & White, 2004), investigators may feel that Department of Sociology, Georgia State University, Univer- referring to GTM procedures in their proposals sity Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303 ([email protected]). will increase their chances of getting funded. Key Words: content analysis, grounded theoretical analysis, Yet another reason that family scholars may qualitative methods, theory construction. be disposed to use GTM is that a number of Journal of Marriage and Family 67 (November 2005): 837–857 837 838 Journal of Marriage and Family qualitative software programs (e.g., ATLAS, the indicators upon which GTM-derived theo- ETHNOGRAPH, and NUD*IST)were designed— ries are formed. The connection between the or are at least believed to have been designed words on a page and the theories in one’s mind, or reconfigured—with GTM in mind (Seale, however, is more reciprocal than is sometimes 2005). realized. (c) Coding and explanation are built Given the many books and articles devoted to upon a series of empirical and conceptual outlining the procedures, one might presume that comparisons. The construction of variables (cat- a basic grasp of GTM is within easy reach. Such egories in the GTM lexicon) depends on classi- is not the case, however. Apart from the fact that fying concepts and infusing dimensionality GTM guidelines can be opaque and confusing, into the theorizing process. (d) From a grounded there is also a war of sorts being fought among theoretical perspective, theories are sets of inter- different GTM interpreters. Debates abound over related propositions, whereas propositions state whose version of GTM is genuine, and the ver- how variables are related. Scholars are free to bal sparring occasionally has gotten nasty. subscribe to other definitions of theory, but this Studying GTM can be exhilarating, but it also is the definition that undergirds most GTM can be extremely challenging, with an inordinate manuals. (e) There is value in choosing one amount of time devoted to trying to figure out variable from among the many variables that what different GTM procedures mean. Some of a grounded theoretical analysis may generate my students have confessed that they found and making that variable central when engaged doing grounded theory more tiring than inspir- in theoretical writing. It will serve as the back- ing, and a few have abandoned the approach bone of a researcher’s ‘‘story.’’ This central altogether, after deciding that the procedures variable, according to GTM guidelines, will be were needlessly cumbersome. one that developed in the course of the analysis GTM are not the only way to do qualitative and is well grounded in the textual materials research, but they are a valuable set of proce- being studied. But it also is a variable that dures for thinking theoretically about textual can and should be chosen for artistic as well materials (i.e., intensive-interview transcripts, as procedural reasons. There is an aesthetic observational fieldnotes, historical documents, quality to GTM, as there is in all research, that and the like). I thus find it troubling that, despite cannot be denied. If anything, it should be all the attention in recent years to publicizing celebrated. the methods, they have become, if anything, The specific procedures of GTM, as I view less user friendly. The result is that GTM are them, flow from these five principles. Exactly not being employed to their full advantage. how is outlined below. Important to this discus- Given how much family studies has relied on sion is the acknowledgment that there are multi- qualitative research to generate important theo- ple ways to do grounded theory. Hence, I make retical insights (Gilgun, 1999; LaRossa & Wolf, no claim to presenting ‘‘the true version’’ of 1985), family researchers can ill afford to ignore GTM. I offer only an interpretation. Also, I cau- a situation that threatens their ability to do theo- tion that what follows is not a self-contained retical work. manual on GTM. Researchers who want to Is there a solution? Perhaps. After teaching use the methods should familiarize themselves qualitative methods for a number of years, I with the major GTM how-to books and articles have come to think that, if it were possible to and the chief critiques, most of which are reduce GTM to a set of essentials, people would included in the list of references. Finally, I use them to greater effect. This article springs emphasize that GTM are a compendium of pro- from that belief. My goal is to propose a meth- cedures spanning research design, coding, sam- odologically condensed but still comprehensive pling, and writing and that not every one of interpretation of GTM, an interpretation that re- these procedures is covered here. Rather, my searchers hopefully will find easy to understand primary focus is on three topics. The first is the and employ. history of GTM and the interpersonal conflicts The interpretation that I present rests on five that have arisen since the methods were principles. These are (a) Language is central to devised. The second is the coding procedures in social life. Thus, the microanalysis of written GTM and what they entail. The third is the texts, the heart of a grounded theoretical analy- question of whether GTM are as inductive as sis, is a worthwhile enterprise. (b) Words are some interpreters have made them out to be. Grounded Theory Methods 839 HISTORY AND CONTROVERSY were not dogmatic in their approach. Indeed, just the opposite was true: ‘‘Our strategies do GTM were first developed in the 1960s by not insist that the analyst engage in a degree of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss and are explicitness and overdrawn explanation in an rooted in the Chicago school of symbolic inter- effort to coerce the theory’s acceptance by actionism, which achieved prominence in the ‘drugging the reader’s imagination and beating 1920s and 1930s, and the Columbia school of him [or her] into intellectual submission.’’’ multivariate analysis, as it was practiced in the Glaser and Strauss also said that they expected post–World War II era. (Other influences may be others would be motivated to propose their own noted, but these are the two that were identified procedures: ‘‘Our principal aim is to stimulate from the beginning and arguably continue to be other theorists to codify and publish their own the most important today.) Strauss received his methods for generating theory. We trust that PhD from the University of Chicago in 1945 they will join us in telling those who have not and generally is credited with incorporating yet attempted to generate theory that it is not a symbolic interactionist perspective. Glaser a residual chore in this age of verification’’ received his PhD from Columbia University in (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 8). 1961 and often is recognized as the one who Hence, GTM, as initially formulated, were pushed the importance of multivariate analysis. designed to be pluralistic. And pluralistic the Although their backgrounds may have been methods certainly have become, though not different, their collaboration grew out of their along the lines that Glaser and Strauss might similar discomfort with the supremacy of theory have predicted. Each went on to produce his testing in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.