Using grounded theory now means more than openness to learning about the participants’ lives.
Increasingly, grounded theorists assume that the method is a way of thinking about, constructing, and interacting with data throughout the research process (Morse et al., forthcoming). In grounded theory studies, the researcher’s analytic focus emerges during the research process, rather than being determined before empirical inquiry begins. The defining purpose of this method is to construct a theory that offers an abstract understanding of one or more core concerns in the studied world. Grounded theory is a systematic method of conducting research that shapes collecting data and provides explicit strategies for analyzing them.
Students and researchers new to the method can use our concluding guidelines as a checklist to assess the quality of their constructivist grounded theory research.Īmerican sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss’s ( Citation1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research not only proposed a new method of analysis, but also led the charge of defending the quality of qualitative research. Our major foci include: (1) introducing the logic of grounded theory, with emphasis on how researchers can use it to construct theory, (2) detailing criteria for quality in the major forms of grounded theory advocated by Glaser and Strauss and augmented by Glaser, Strauss and Corbin and refined by Corbin, and Charmaz and (3) providing an analysis of how constructivist grounded theorists Thornberg, Halldin, Bolmsjö and Petersson attended to the interviewing process, coding, and developing their theoretical concept of double victimizing. The originators of grounded theory, sociologists Glaser and Strauss, sought to defend the quality of qualitative research and argued that grounded theory increased its quality by providing a method of theory construction. This article introduces grounded theory and places this method in its historical context when 1960s quantitative researchers wielded harsh criticisms of qualitative research.
0 kommentar(er)
