Grounded Theory

1 November 2006 at 4:01 pm Nicolai Foss 3 comments

| Nicolai Foss |

At least until recently I considered “grounded theory” to be one of my favorite Hermann Göring words (“When I hear the word ‘grounded theory’ I reach for my Browning”). I know that this is an assessment that many practicioners of a, dare we say more “positivist” research methodology share. Too often I have witnessed presentations where “grounded theory” comes across as a bad excuse for not knowing the relevant literature. Epistemologically, grounded theory sometimes stands out as a variant of naïve inductivism.I do admit that I have never read the locus classicus on grounded theory, that is, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss’ 1967 volume, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, so my opinion has so far been formed by the above kind of seminar experiences rather than by any disciplined reading.

The August issue of the Academy of Management Journal features a nice From the Editors piece by Roy Suddaby, “What Grounded Theory is Not,” that is partly designed to remove some of the common misconceptions, on the part of both enemies and (in fact, particularly) proponents.

Thus, Suddaby argues that grounded theory is “not an excuse to ignore the literature,” “not presentation of raw data,” ” not theory testing, content analysis or word counts”, and is “not an excuse for the absence of a methodology.”

Good to know. But what is it, then? Suddaby is less forthcoming here, and I suppose one needs to go back to the original source for the full story. But briefly, grounded theory is an essentially etnographic approach that builds on two key concepts, what Glaser and Strauss called “constant comparison” (involving simultaneous data collection and analysis) and “theoretical sampling” (in which decisions about which data should be collected next are being driven by the ongoing theory building). It is obvious that this runs pretty much counter to the traditional ideal of hypothesis. I have problems concerning the epistemological soundness of the approach. But I won’t reach for my Browning anymore.

Entry filed under: - Foss -, Methods/Methodology/Theory of Science, Recommended Reading.

Pomo Periscope V: Motivation Theory Under Attack David Landes on Family Firms

3 Comments Add your own

1. Gary Furash | 2 November 2006 at 8:49 am

Take a look at Cathy Uquhart’s work (she sent me the article you mention). She’s done some historical work and re-presented grounded theory. It’s still a qualitative method, but it seems pretty solid. She’s working on a book now.
2. brayden | 2 November 2006 at 10:12 am

I have always been bugged by the notion of grounded theory too, and like you, I think the Suddaby piece is a nice attempt to clarify and make the method (can you call it that?) more rigorous. If I ever teach a methods class, I’ll probably use this article. It may not tell you exactly how you should do ethnography, but it certainly tells you how you should NOT do it.
3. Bo | 6 November 2006 at 7:50 am

Eisenhardt’s 1989 AMR article on how to build theory from case studies is also noteworthy as source here. I believe this is the article where she argues that four cases should be the lower limit when developing theoretical constructs from cases. In her 1991 piece, she talks explicitly about the inherent weaknesses of case studies, as well as the potential strengths. One of her main arguments is always that – done rigorously – cases can in fact inform us about the nature of underlying constructs and hence lead to (grounded) theory building, however, far too often do we see case studies and grounded theory research conducted in a sloppy way.