Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Merton; particularly in theoretical coding, which Merton learned from Talcott Parsons
and others (Glaser, 1998). Additionally, Glaser received training in explication of text
at the University of Paris (Glaser, 1998).
The combination of the distinct backgrounds of Strauss and Glaser, while working to-
gether during the early 1960s, produced the constant comparative method later known
as grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The founders of grounded theory contin-
ued to develop the method over the years independently of each other. Their separated
paths led to what now is known as the 'Straussian' and 'Glaserian' versions of the
grounded theory method (Stern, 1994).
Regardless of which specific grounded theory approach guides a particular study, there
are important canons to follow for a study claiming the use of grounded theory. Dey
(1999), based in Creswell (1998), produced a useful list of grounded theory tenets to in-
troduce some of the basic beliefs behind grounded theory. Reflecting on these tenets,
Urquhart (2001) emphasised two key beliefs of grounded theory: (a) the researcher has
to set aside theoretical ideas; and, (b) the concepts are developed through constant
comparison.
These two beliefs are fundamental building blocks of grounded theory. The first belief
tells us that avoiding preconceptions is paramount in doing grounded theory. This point,
which seems clear to the grounded theorist, usually puzzles the casual observer. How
can a person put aside what she or he knows? The point made in the grounded theory
literature is not that a clean slate is necessary or even desirable; the critical point here
is that the research does not start with a theory to prove or disprove. With the Grounded
Theory Method (GTM), when the researcher holds some deep-rooted beliefs, these can
be captured as text and then analysed with other text as just another incident in the
data (Glaser, 1978; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The subsequent data analysis, through the
constant comparison of incidents, will then falsify, confirm, or extend the applicability
of the theory to the substantive area under study.
Furthermore, regardless of the particular approach one might adopt, without the concept
of constant comparison grounded theory cannot be developed. Since its first publication
in 1965, the constant comparative method has been a key concept in the development
and understanding of grounded theory (Glaser, 2001) 3 . According to Glaser and Strauss
(1967, pp.113-14), the constant comparative method facilitates the generation of complex
'theories of process, sequence, and change pertaining to organisations, positions, and
social interaction [that] correspond closely to the data since the constant comparison
forces the analyst to consider much diversity in the data.' This diversity is achieved by
comparison between incidents and properties of a category, trying to observe as many
underlying uniformities and diversities as possible.
The constant comparative method can be used to produce either conceptualisations or
rich descriptive accounts. The conceptualisation versus description debate is at the heart
of the difference between the Glaserian and Straussian approaches to grounded theory,
which is discussed next.
The Glaserian and Straussian approaches
Methods evolve over time and often even their main exponents differ in their interpret-
ation of the best way to evolve. This is indeed the case with grounded theory. The
publication of 'Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques'
3
For a philosophical discussion on the constant comparative method see Glaser and Strauss (2001; 1967); for a procedural de-
scription see Glaser (1978; 1998).
Search WWH ::




Custom Search