Grounded Theory
In 1967 ‘The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research’ was first published and this introduced what has become the most influential paradigm for qualitative research in the social sciences today, the methodology of grounded theory (GT) (Cutcliffe, 2005, p.421; Patton, 2002, p.124). Despite being heralded as revolutionary in the history of qualitative traditions, it is the most frequently disputed and misunderstood of all the research methods, likely due to the methodological split between it’s co-originators, Glaser and Strauss (walker & Myrick, 2006, p.547). This paper addresses the question, ‘is grounded theory different from other qualitative research methods?’ In addition, prior to addressing this question, this paper will give a brief description of what grounded theory is and how it originated. Using a research example, it will also demonstrate why grounded theory was an appropriate choice in methodology.
In the 1960s, sophisticated quantitative research methods became dominant over qualitative styles of research with a focus on logic verification (Hallberg, 2006, p.142). Human qualitative experiences were reduced to restricted and measurable variables with researchers relying on what they assumed to be truth, neutrality and scientific logic. Qualitative methods were viewed as useful only in preliminary studies and pilot tests before the quantitative ‘real’ studies began, with qualitative research being looked down upon as unreliable and unsystematic (Hallberg, 2006, p.142). At the forefront of the timely qualitative revolution were Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss with their breakthrough systematic qualitative methodology, grounded theory (Hallberg, 2006, p.142). Glaser and Strauss argued, “qualitative research is a field of inquiry in it’s own right, not merely useful for pre-studies to ‘real’ statistically based methods of inquiry” (Hallberg, 2006, p.142). Glaser and Strauss represented two dominant traditions of sociology.
In the 1960s, sophisticated quantitative research methods became dominant over qualitative styles of research with a focus on logic verification (Hallberg, 2006, p.142). Human qualitative experiences were reduced to restricted and measurable variables with researchers relying on what they assumed to be truth, neutrality and scientific logic. Qualitative methods were viewed as useful only in preliminary studies and pilot tests before the quantitative ‘real’ studies began, with qualitative research being looked down upon as unreliable and unsystematic (Hallberg, 2006, p.142). At the forefront of the timely qualitative revolution were Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss with their breakthrough systematic qualitative methodology, grounded theory (Hallberg, 2006, p.142). Glaser and Strauss argued, “qualitative research is a field of inquiry in it’s own right, not merely useful for pre-studies to ‘real’ statistically based methods of inquiry” (Hallberg, 2006, p.142). Glaser and Strauss represented two dominant traditions of sociology.
References: Cutcliffe, JR 2005, ‘Adapt or adopt developing and transgressing the methodological boundaries of grounded theory,’ Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol.51, no.4, pp.421-428. Gelling, L 2011, ‘The complexities of using grounded theory,’ Nurse Researcher, vol.18, no.4, pp.4-5. Hallberg, LRM 2006, ‘The “core category” of grounded theory: making constant comparisons,’ International Journal of Qualitative Studies and Well-Being, vol.1, pp.141-148. Liamputtong, P 2009, Qualitative research methods, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Mills, J. Bonner, A & Francis, K 2006, ‘The development of constructivist grounded theory,’ International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol.5, no.1, pp.1-10. Patton, Q 2002, Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3rd edn, Sage Publications, London, UK. Sanger, S & Veach, PM 2008, ‘The interpersonal nature of suicide: a qualitative investigation of suicide notes,’ Archives of Suicide Research, vol.12, pp.352-365. Walker, D & Myrick, F 2006, ‘Grounded theory: an exploration of process and procedure,’ Qualitative Health Research, vol.16, no.4, pp.547-559.