The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory – Part 1: Origins and History (Bryant, Charmaz) Introduction

Banner

A book in my bibliography for thesis. My research will use the Grounded Theory methodology.

Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2012). The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handbook-of-grounded-theory/book234413

Introduction

April 13, 2020

  • Founders: Glaser and Strauss (1967)
  • Theory results from grounded theory method (GTM); GTM to GT
  • Strauss died 1996, Glaser cont’d expanding GTM; there are variations of GTM
  • GTM has no fixe procedure; it’s an inspirational cookbook
  • Different authors offer their own set of properties and procedures to GTM; I have to pick and choose one that’s most fit for me
  • GTM vs Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA); Important to distinguish as I develop my GTM
  • Data > Code > Categories > Concepts > Theory (ultimate goal of GTM)
  • “imaginative leaps” are required to develop categories and concepts from data
  • “Everything is data but data is not everything”

Problems with “data” (15)

  • In GTM, the steps of data interpretation/imagination are very important
  • Analyzing data should not be seen as a mechanical process, like a robot

Induction, Deduction, Abduction (15)

  • GTM is an inductive method; individual cases are extrapolated to form a theory
  • Risk: Generalization from limited data
  • Abduction legitimizes GTM by providing “theoretical explanations for the data” (16)

Theoretical sensitivity (17)

  • “Ability [of researcher] to see what is in the data”
  • Ability for the researcher to abduct data and compare theories before choosing the one most suitable to the situation

Code, category concept (18)

  • Data > Code > Category > Concept
  • You repeat this multiple times and compare/analyze the concepts to develop the grounded theory

Verification and validation (19)

  • GTM is to draw truth and understand reality of a specific context pertaining to the various situations captured by the researcher
  • Therefore, you cannot verify through exact replication, but GTM allows audience to gain/benefit from the process of interpreting (categorizing) the data
  • The interpretive process to develop the GT is what is gained; not the validity of replication

Grounded theory vs. Symbolic Interactionism (21)

  • GT vs. SI
  • Why? vs How?
  • Data is objective vs. data is constructed (by collection method)
  • For SI, “research process becomes object of scrutiny”

How can you tell if GTM was done well? How do you know when GTM was not done well?

How do you tell good researchers apart from the bad? How can you judge a researcher based on how data was collected, assembled, discovered, etc…

How do you judge the quality of something serendipitous?

  • Diagrams (23); visual sensemaking throughout GTM is an important part of the process and communicating the progress to audience
  • GTM is about crafting and articulating the process to arrive at the GT