Origins of Grounded Theory

8/9/2019 Origins of Grounded Theory

1/8

grounded theory

An exploration of the origin ofclassic grounded theoryJennifer Moore looks at the origin, development,

misinterpretation and misuse of grounded theory

Abstract

In grounded theory, assumptions and paradigms underpin the approach giv-

ing the researcher an understanding and ability to justify what makes some-

thing count as knowledge. However, the epistemological assumptions related

to grounded theory are not clearly explained, which appears to have led to

misinterpretation and misuse of method, particularly in nursing research.

Analysis of the literature pertaining to the development of grounded theory

and its epistemological roots shows a general consensus relating to where,

how and why the method originated. Wells (1995) suggests that it was devel-

oped in the mid-1960s by social science researchers Glaser and Strauss while

studying the interactions of hospital personnel with dying patients. They then

went on to publish it in their book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory(Glaser

and Strauss 1967). Wells also suggests that this theory has gone on to be

extended and refined by its authors and their students.

However, this oversimplified description, which is mirrored in much of the

literature, understates this innovative and radical theory the two researchers

appear to have developed as a consequence of methodological restrictionsthey experienced. Indeed, their disenchantment with logico-deductive theo-

h i ifi i hi h i h i i l i h

keywo

rds

grounded theory

symbolic interactionismepistemological underpinning

qualitative research


2/8

grounded theory

Grounded theory can help to forestall the opportunistic use of theories that

have a dubious fit and working capacity. So often in journals we read a

highly empirical study which at its conclusion has a tacked-on explanation

taken from a logically deduced theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967).

It should also help students defend themselves against verifiers who would

teach them to deny the validity of their own scientific intelligence. By mak-

ing generation a legitimate enterprise, and suggesting methods for it, we

hope to provide the ingredients of a defence against internalized profession-

al mandates dictating that sociologists research and write in the verification

rhetoric, and against the protests of colleagues who object to their freedom

in research from the rigorous rules of verification (so stifling the creative

energies required for discovering theory) (Glaser and Strauss 1967).

Although both authors were social scientists, they were working in nurse edu-

cation and, according to Lowenburg (1993), taught nurse scholars at doctorallevel. Significantly, it was during this time that nursing as a discipline was

undergoing a radical cultural shift through education and the emergence of

research activity. As Simpson (1989) comments, the earliest studies of nursing

began in the 1960s, alongside the studies of nurses, their education, organi-

sation and management. Perhaps Glaser and Strauss aligned themselves with

another discipline to enjoy greater latitude in a profession with a fledgling

research culture and tradition.

Misconceptions in grounded theory

It is suggested in the literature that the foundations of grounded theory are

embedded in symbolic interactionism (Polit and Beck 2006), which focuses

on the manner in which people make sense of social interactions and the

interpretations they attach to social symbols, such as language. However,

Glaser and Strauss did not make this explicit themselves, and it is not appar-

ent in their work. Rather, it was Hammersley (1989) who compared ground-ed theory with Blumers interactionist approach.

h i l k l d ( ) did li l h h


3/8

grounded theory

into the over-arching goal of theory development. They state that the

researcher is an active sampler of theoretically relevant data, not an ethnog-

rapher trying to get the fullest data on a group (Glaser and Strauss 1967).

Although Strauss has been credited with incorporating representation in

his modified versions of grounded theory, his focus is on representation of

concepts in their various forms hence his suggestion that researchers stay

conceptual when recording memos as they are not about people, or incidents

or events (Strauss and Corbin 1990). The example he uses to illustrate cod-

ing from data is illustrative of this lack of commitment to representation of

perspectives of people:

The pain in my hands from my arthritis is really bad in damp cold weather.

I wake up with it in the morning and it lasts throughout the day. The only

time it seems to get better is at night when I am warm and under the

covers.

Is converted to:

10/7/89 Refer to field note code #5, p.6, dated 10/1/8. Code Note: Pain

And Its Properties And Dimensions (Strauss and Corbin 1990).

This vivid account of the lived experience of a person having to cope with

and adapt to chronic pain has been reconfigured into a detached abstraction,

devoid of the person or meaning to that person.

Another misconception that exists in relation to grounded theory is that

it is often identified as a qualitative research approach. However Glaser

and Strauss (1967) were critical of qualitative research, describing it as too

impressionistic and not theoretical enough. They suggested that mono-

graphs based on qualitative data consisted of lengthy, detailed descriptions

that resulted in very small amounts of theory. They also criticised qualitative

research because of its poor showing in producing the scientifically reproduc-ible fact (Glaser and Strauss 1967).

h i d i i i d d h f h i


4/8

grounded theory

research to obtain the best of both methods for generating theory (Glaser

and Strauss 1967). Grounded theory could therefore be used by those wish-

ing to generate theory with quantitative data, as the process of generat-

ing theory is independent of the data. This did not suggest, however, that

grounded theory was intended as an overall qualitative method.

Later, Strauss attempted to move away from the positivist emphasis sub-

liminally inherent in The Generation of Grounded Theory(Glaser and Strauss,

1967) using an example from art: If the artist does not perfect a new vision

in his process of doing, he acts mechanically and repeats some old model

fixed like a blueprint in his mind (Strauss and Corbin 1990). This may be

interpreted as a criticism of Glaser, who adhered to the original principles of

grounded theory and who had previously criticised Strausss reworking of the

traditional approach (Glaser 1978). The use of phrases such as old model

and new vision certainly convey this message. In addition the word proc-

ess, although used in a different context, provides a strong association with

grounded theory, as it is one of the underlying epistemological tenets of thisapproach. Alternatively, it could be seen as a form of apology and explana-

tion by Strauss to Glaser for exactly the same reasons.

The misinterpretation of the epistemological basis of grounded theory

has contributed to the inconsistencies in understanding and application of

this approach. I believe that Glaser and Strauss never intended their origi-

nal descriptor of grounded theory to be used as a prescriptive framework.

Their main aim was to stimulate other theorists to codify and publish their

methods for generating theory. They admit that they were keeping the dis-

cussion open minded and that their intention was to stimulate rather than

freeze thinking on the topic (Glaser and Strauss 1967). This appears not to

have happened, and they were left with the legacy of trying to justify the

old model in Glasers case or rework it in Strausss.

Grounded theory as a qualitative methodology

Grounded theory was taken on board as a qualitative research approachbecause of the effect Glaser and Strauss had through proximity to neophyte

h b ( ) h h h d d d


5/8

grounded theory

gramme, and as a result the grounded theory approach became prominent

in nursing and education.

However, their desire to break free from the culture of playing theoretical

capitalists to proletariat testers (Glaser and Strauss 1967) appears to have

been a self-fulfilling prophecy. There was a ready acceptance of grounded

theory in nursing research (Lowenberg 1993) with little attempt to challenge

or modify the propositions made. Paradoxically, during this time, social scien-

tists moved in diametrically opposite directions with research. Approaches in

social science became more radical and less structured, and the accompany-

ing discourse examined the nature of social knowledge and the problematic

aspects of presentation (Lowenberg 1993).

It would appear that the reworking of grounded theory by the authors has

also contributed to the confusion and ambiguities voiced by many commen-

tators. There is even some disagreement over whether there are fundamental

differences in the epistemological basis of the approaches taken by Glaser and

Strauss (1967) and Strauss and Corbin (1990).

Developments in grounded theory

The modifications made to grounded theory by both authors have been well-

documented in the literature (McCann and Clark 2003, Heath and Cowley

2004, Lowenberg 1993), so I will not present a comprehensive analysis.

However, a brief summary of the differences will be given.

Heath and Cowley (2004) suggest that divergence mainly occurred in

the methodological aspect rather than the ontological and epistemologi-

cal aspects of the theory, proposing that this was made explicit in Strauss

and Corbins (1990) work. Here, the classic method was reformulated and

focused further on analytical techniques. Heath and Cowley (2004) also

argue that Glasers work of 1978 and 1992, while remaining faithful to the

original approach, extended grounded theory and explained in more detail

concepts such as theoretical sampling, theoretical coding and theoretical

memos.Alternatively, McCann and Clark (2003) suggests that there are marked

diff i h i l i l d i i f h h k b


6/8

grounded theory

pretative approach to research, guided by critical realist ontology and a post-

positivist paradigm. He suggests that Strauss and Corbins (1990) approach

to grounded theory draws on social constructionist ontology and the post-

structuralist paradigm. He asserts that their modification of grounded theory

moved from a flexible, laissez-faire approach that takes into account the

principles and practices of qualitative research and the informants socially

constructed realities, to an approach to data collection and analysis more

governed by rules, moving from the emergence of categories in the classical

model to the imposition of a more structured paradigm model to guide data

collection and analysis.

Conclusion

In the light of Heath and Cowleys (2004) suggestion that a researcher

should not mix the two approaches because they might violate philosophi-

cal underpinnings of both, I used Glaser and Strausss (1967) classic version

of grounded theory as a guiding methodology for my doctoral research.However, one of the main problems I encountered using this approach is that

there is a lack of guidance on how to undertake many stages of the research

process in between question generation and data analysis. However, this is

now unsurprising to me, having reviewed the underlying aims and paradigms

of its development as outlined in this paper

Jennifer Moore is a lecturer at the Faculty of Health, University of East

Anglia, Norwich, UK

This article has been subject to double-blind review


7/8

grounded theory

Glaser BG, Strauss A(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory:Strategies for Qualitative

Research. Aldine de Grutyer, Hawthorne NY.

Glaser BG(1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory.

Sociology Press, Mill Valley CA.

Glaser BG(1992) Emergence vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis.Sociology Press, Mill

Valley CA.

Hammersley M (1989) The Dilemma Of Qualitative Method: Herbert Blumer and The Chicago

Tradition. Routledge, London.

Heath H, Cowley S(2004) Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison of Glaser andStrauss. International Journal of Nursing Studies.41, 2, 141-150.

Lowenberg JS (1993) Interpretive research methodology: broadening the dialogue.Advances in

Nursing Science.16, 2, 57-69.

McCann TV, Clark E(2003) Grounded theory in nursing research: part 2 critique. Nurse

Researcher. 11, 2, 19-28.

Polit DF, Beck CT(2006) Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal and Utilization. Sixth

Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia PA.

Simpson M(1989) Foreword. In: Macleod Clark J, Hockey L (Eds) FurtherResearch for Nursing:

A New Guide for the Enquiring Nurse. Scutari Press, London.

Strauss A, Corbin J(1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and

Techniques.Sage Publications, Newbury Park CA.

Wells K(1995) The strategy of grounded theory: possibilities and problems. Social Work Research.

19, 1, 33-37.

references


8/8

Documents

Origins of Grounded Theory