The Power and Potential of Grounded Theory
This conference is the second time I have given an address at the University of Leicester. When I arrived the first time, I trudged up the street from the train station pulling a suitcase behind me. A misstep on the uneven pavement caused a fall that smashed my glasses into my eyebrow. Such wounds often bleed profusely but may not be serious. Despite my protests, two young women called an ambulance, which arrived forthwith. The two emergency technicians examined, cleaned, and bandaged the cut with strips. They said that they thought it would heal without stitches but would be glad to take me to the hospital, should I wish to go. I agreed that a hospital visit was not necessary and promised to follow their advice to apply ice packs to the wound. At this point, the technicians looked at each other, nodded, and without saying a word between them, took their seats and drove me to my hotel. They left me at the hotel door with a swollen, red eye but feeling very well cared for. I began my opening address the next morning by telling the audience that I was giving whole new meaning to arriving in the UK with the Red Eye. In the town where I live in the US, an emergency ambulance call enlisting the care of two emergency medical technicians followed by non-emergency transportation of less than a mile would be approximately $1300 US. The costs would rise if the treatment involved any of the following: more serious procedures such as defibrillation, paramedics, who are more skilled, further distance and emergency transport after initial treatment. Would your insurance pay for this medical misadventure? Maybe. It depends on definitions of ‘emergency,’ as well as diagnoses and deductibles and whose definition prevails. Claims that do not fit the standard parameters of an insurance policy may be routinely denied. The moral of this story? Preserve your national health service. Now I turn from medical misadventures to grounded theory adventures. Why use grounded theory? In which ways does this method have power and potential? To enable us to consider these questions, we need to start with a definition of grounded theory. What is it? Grounded theory is a systematic method of analysing and collecting data to develop middle-range theories. This method begins but does not end with inductive inquiry. It is a comparative, iterative, and interactive method. The emphasis in grounded theory is on analysis of data; however, early data analysis informs data collection. Most grounded theorists follow an iterative approach, many make comparisons, few construct theory. But the potential is there. I aim to offer a short introduction to grounded theory to clarify questions about the method that you may have. Much more detailed presentation of flexible grounded theory strategies can be found in my 2006 book, Constructing Grounded Theory, its forthcoming revision, and Juliet Corbin’s 2008 revision of Basics of Qualitative Research. Rather than only talking about the power and potential of grounded theory, I also want to show you a bit of grounded theory guidelines and suggest where they can lead you. Along the way, I will point out similarities and differences between major proponents of grounded theory. Grounded theory is a method for studying processes; it is also a method in process (Charmaz, 2009). This method can be adopted by researchers who hold different theoretical perspectives, focus on various levels of analysis, pursue varied objectives, and address