I. Introduction
Since the first publication of Grounded Theory (in the following GT) by Anselm L. Strauss and Barney Glaser in 1967, a lot of scientists and researchers have written about, applied and reformulated this theory-building method. What is lacking in many of these works is GT’s acknowledgement as a methodology. Many researchers have applied the procedures proposed by Strauss and Glaser, but they do not seem to be aware of the epistemological implications resulting from the use of the GT method. As Strauss together with his co-author Juliet Corbin stated:
“In this book (Basics of Qualitative Research, BD/CL), we are offering more than a set of procedures. We are offering a way of thinking about and of viewing the world that can enrich the research of those who choose to use this methodology.” (Strauss/ Corbin 1998: 4)
Kathy Charmaz appears to be an exception in this canon, since she is not only thinking about the philosophy of knowledge behind GT, but also attempting to renew the epistemological groundings of GT in the field of constructivism. This leads us to the main question of this thesis: Is this possible? Can the GT method be abstracted from the epistemology standing behind it and be founded on a new one? An affirmative answer would mean that GT from the beginning was simply a method and could be used by all researchers, no matter which tradition they belong to or which theoretical approach they pursue. Or as Charmaz put it: “…researchers starting from other vantage points – feminist, Marxist, phenomenologist – can use grounded theory strategies for their empirical studies.” (Charmaz 2000: 511) The negation of the question would imply that Charmaz’s constructivist approach cannot claim the term Grounded Theory for itself.
The following paper will examine this question in greater detail in order to find a tentative answer. Starting with a short description of the development, procedures and epistemological foundations of GT , the second part will focus on Charmaz’s arguments brought forward against the variant of Strauss and her constructivist version of GT. At the end of this section, her propsals will be evaluated in terms of innovation. In a third section her arguments against Strauss & Corbin will be examined regarding their warrant and validity. Finally, the conclusion will draw together all arguments to solve the question about the exchangeability of the epistemological fundament of GT.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. What is GT and what are its epistemological groundings?
II.1. Strauss and Corbin's Systematic Design
II.2. Glaser's Emerging Design
II.3. The epistemological foundations of Strauss’s and Corbin’s Grounded Theory
III. Charmaz's constructivist Grounded Theory
III.1 Critique on Strauss & Corbin
III.2 Constructivist "Grounded Theory"
III.3 What is really new about Charmaz's approach?
III.4. How justified are Charmaz’s arguments against Strauss & Corbin?
IV. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines whether Grounded Theory (GT) can be abstracted from its original epistemological foundations and redefined through constructivism, specifically questioning the validity of Kathy Charmaz's constructivist approach in relation to the original methodology established by Strauss and Glaser.
- The epistemological roots of Grounded Theory (Pragmatism vs. Objectivism).
- Comparative analysis of Strauss & Corbin's Systematic Design and Glaser's Emerging Design.
- Critical evaluation of Charmaz's constructivist critique of traditional GT.
- Assessment of the necessity and innovation of a "constructivist" turn in GT.
- Defense of the pragmatist foundations of the Strauss & Corbin approach.
Excerpt from the Book
III.1. Critique on Strauss & Corbin
Charmaz's argument against the major proponents of GT can be summarized as follows: "Strauss and Corbin’s… stance assumes an objective external reality, aims toward unbiased data collection, proposes a set of technical procedures, and espouses verification.” (Charmaz 2000: 510) Thus, in Charmaz’s perspective, they pursue an objectivist and positivist GT.
One main focus in Charmaz’s critique is Strauss & Corbin’s failure to recognize the problematic nature of data collection. She argues that the decision to use certain data is already biased by the researcher, so that the selected data does not directly represent reality, but rather a narrative construction of the analyst (Charmaz 2000: 514). Consequently, Strauss & Corbin perceived grounded theories as simply emerging out of the data, not realizing that also the theory is a construction from a specific point of view, that of the researcher. Indeed, they admitted the possible intrusion of the researcher’s subjectivity in the theory building process, but proposed various procedures to minimize its effect. For Charmaz, constant comparison is not a tool of gaining objectivity and grasping reality, as she rejects the positivist idea of objectivity. The coding paradigm, a tool designed by Strauss & Corbin to provide a helpful scheme for coding and to diminish subjectivity, is also repudiated by Charmaz. She fears a diversion of the researcher from the data and a forcing of the theory into preconceived categories (Charmaz 2000: 524).
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: Outlines the historical context of Grounded Theory and establishes the central research question regarding the possibility of separating GT from its epistemological base.
II. What is GT and what are its epistemological groundings?: Provides an overview of the development of GT, contrasting the systematic approach of Strauss & Corbin with the flexible design advocated by Glaser.
II.1. Strauss and Corbin's Systematic Design: Details the procedural framework of open, axial, and selective coding, emphasizing their intent to provide rigor through a structured methodology.
II.2. Glaser's Emerging Design: Analyzes Glaser's refutation of the systematic design, focusing on his commitment to the constant comparative method and his critique of "forcing" data.
II.3. The epistemological foundations of Strauss’s and Corbin’s Grounded Theory: Explores the pragmatist and interactionist influences that inform Strauss & Corbin’s conceptualization of reality and objectivity.
III. Charmaz's constructivist Grounded Theory: Introduces Charmaz’s attempt to pivot GT toward interpretive social science.
III.1 Critique on Strauss & Corbin: Discusses Charmaz’s specific arguments against the supposed objectivism and positivism inherent in Strauss & Corbin’s procedural choices.
III.2 Constructivist "Grounded Theory": Describes the core tenets of Charmaz's version, focusing on the researcher's role in creating reality through interpretation.
III.3 What is really new about Charmaz's approach?: Critically evaluates the perceived innovations in Charmaz’s methodology and questions their significance compared to the original framework.
III.4. How justified are Charmaz’s arguments against Strauss & Corbin?: Rebuts Charmaz’s critiques by recontextualizing Strauss & Corbin within the pragmatist tradition, arguing that her critique rests on a misunderstanding of their stance.
IV. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, concluding that Charmaz’s constructivist version offers little significant innovation and that the original methodology is conceptually more sound.
Keywords
Grounded Theory, Strauss and Corbin, Kathy Charmaz, Constructivism, Pragmatism, Epistemology, Qualitative Research, Methodology, Coding, Constant Comparative Method, Objectivism, Interpretivism, Theory Building, Scientific Rigor, Social Reality.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this academic paper?
The paper investigates the theoretical and epistemological foundations of Grounded Theory, specifically questioning whether Kathy Charmaz’s constructivist reformulation is a justifiable development of the original methodology or if it is conceptually flawed.
What are the central themes addressed in this work?
The central themes include the historical split between Glaser and Strauss, the pragmatist roots of Grounded Theory, the debate between objectivist and constructivist methods, and the validity of verification in qualitative research.
What is the primary research question?
The main question is whether the Grounded Theory method can be abstracted from the epistemology that underlies it and successfully founded upon a new, constructivist epistemology.
Which research methodology is utilized by the authors?
The authors employ a critical literature analysis and theoretical comparison to evaluate the logical consistency and epistemological foundations of different Grounded Theory variants.
What is primarily covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section covers the systematic design of Strauss & Corbin, the opposing views of Glaser, the foundational influence of pragmatism, and a detailed critique of Charmaz’s constructivist version.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Grounded Theory, Strauss and Corbin, Constructivism, Pragmatism, Epistemology, and Qualitative Research.
Does the author argue that constructivist Grounded Theory is an improvement?
No, the authors argue that Charmaz’s constructivist approach offers little significant innovation and actually weakens the methodology by removing crucial components without providing a coherent replacement.
How do the authors define the role of pragmatism in Grounded Theory?
They argue that the pragmatist foundation is essential for Grounded Theory, as it provides a framework where reality is seen as a negotiation process, thus making the original method more consistent than Charmaz’s interpretation.
What is the final conclusion regarding Charmaz's critique of Strauss & Corbin?
The authors conclude that Charmaz’s critique is largely unjustified, as it misinterprets Strauss & Corbin's pragmatist understanding of reality as a rigid positivist or objectivist stance.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Anna-Maria Damalis (Autor:in), 2007, Does a Grounded Theory dissociated from its epistemological bases make sense?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/191796
