What do you think?
Rate this book
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Most writing on sociological method has been concerned with how accurate facts can be obtained and how theory can thereby be more rigorously tested. In The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss address the equally Important enterprise of how the discovery of theory from data--systematically obtained and analyzed in social research--can be furthered. The discovery of theory from data--grounded theory--is a major task confronting sociology, for such a theory fits empirical situations, and is understandable to sociologists and laymen alike. Most important, it provides relevant predictions, explanations, interpretations, and applications.
In Part I of the book, "Generation Theory by Comparative Analysis," the authors present a strategy whereby sociologists can facilitate the discovery of grounded theory, both substantive and formal. This strategy involves the systematic choice and study of several comparison groups. In Part II, The Flexible Use of Data," the generation of theory from qualitative, especially documentary, and quantitative data Is considered. In Part III, "Implications of Grounded Theory," Glaser and Strauss examine the credibility of grounded theory.
The Discovery of Grounded Theory is directed toward improving social scientists' capacity for generating theory that will be relevant to their research. While aimed primarily at sociologists, it will be useful to anyone Interested In studying social phenomena--political, educational, economic, industrial-- especially If their studies are based on qualitative data.
In Part I of the book, "Generation Theory by Comparative Analysis," the authors present a strategy whereby sociologists can facilitate the discovery of grounded theory, both substantive and formal. This strategy involves the systematic choice and study of several comparison groups. In Part II, The Flexible Use of Data," the generation of theory from qualitative, especially documentary, and quantitative data Is considered. In Part III, "Implications of Grounded Theory," Glaser and Strauss examine the credibility of grounded theory.
The Discovery of Grounded Theory is directed toward improving social scientists' capacity for generating theory that will be relevant to their research. While aimed primarily at sociologists, it will be useful to anyone Interested In studying social phenomena--political, educational, economic, industrial-- especially If their studies are based on qualitative data.
271 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1967
29 people are currently reading
515 people want to read
About the author
Barney G. Glaser
38 books20 followersBarney G. Glaser is an American sociologist and one of the founders of the grounded theory methodology. Glaser was born in San Francisco, California and lives in nearby Mill Valley. He received his BA degree at Stanford in 1952. He pursued academic studies at the University of Paris where he studied contemporary literature. He also studied literature at University of Freiburg for two years during off-hours from his military service.
At Columbia he was a student of Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton and received a Ph.D in 1961. The dissertation was published in the book Organizational Scientists: Their Professional Careers. Post-doc Glaser started a research collaboration with Anselm Strauss at the University of California, San Francisco. Together they wrote Awareness of Dying (1965) based on a study of dying in Californian hospitals. The book was a success. As a response to the many methodological questions on the dying study the first grounded theory (GT) methodology appeared in 1967 co-authored with Strauss: The Discovery of Grounded Theory.
In 1970 Glaser started the publishing company Sociology Press specializing in grounded theory methodologies and readers. The second grounded theory methodology was written by Glaser in 1978 (Theoretical Sensitivity). Thereafter, Glaser has published several readers of grounded theory and four more methodologies. He has traveled throughout the world giving workshops and seminars to many researchers. In 1998 Glaser received an honorary doctorate from Stockholm University.
In 1999 Glaser founded the non-profit web based organization Grounded Theory Institute. He owned Cascade Acceptance Corporation, which filed for bankruptcy in November 2009. In July 2010, the bankruptcy trustee declared that the company had been insolvent for at least two years, and the case was converted from a reorganization to a liquidation
At Columbia he was a student of Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton and received a Ph.D in 1961. The dissertation was published in the book Organizational Scientists: Their Professional Careers. Post-doc Glaser started a research collaboration with Anselm Strauss at the University of California, San Francisco. Together they wrote Awareness of Dying (1965) based on a study of dying in Californian hospitals. The book was a success. As a response to the many methodological questions on the dying study the first grounded theory (GT) methodology appeared in 1967 co-authored with Strauss: The Discovery of Grounded Theory.
In 1970 Glaser started the publishing company Sociology Press specializing in grounded theory methodologies and readers. The second grounded theory methodology was written by Glaser in 1978 (Theoretical Sensitivity). Thereafter, Glaser has published several readers of grounded theory and four more methodologies. He has traveled throughout the world giving workshops and seminars to many researchers. In 1998 Glaser received an honorary doctorate from Stockholm University.
In 1999 Glaser founded the non-profit web based organization Grounded Theory Institute. He owned Cascade Acceptance Corporation, which filed for bankruptcy in November 2009. In July 2010, the bankruptcy trustee declared that the company had been insolvent for at least two years, and the case was converted from a reorganization to a liquidation
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
December 17, 2011
I am almost ashamed to give this book a low rating, it is such a seminal text that shifted the landscape of qualitative research so strongly that it still stands today. However reading this text was a real labour. It was a bit like trying to find a diamond in a beach full of pebbles: you know that something wonderful is there somewhere but you wonder how much work it is going to take to uncover it. Glaser and Strauss suffer the same weakness as so many social scientists of their time: a love of being wordy and a complete inability to get to the point.
There are definitely some gems in here, and if you are dedicated enough to read the whole text then it really will shift your way of looking at qualitative research. however if you are new to Grounded Theory and want a quick introduction and guide then I woulm recommend the more recent work of Kathy Charmaz as it is far more accessible.
There are definitely some gems in here, and if you are dedicated enough to read the whole text then it really will shift your way of looking at qualitative research. however if you are new to Grounded Theory and want a quick introduction and guide then I woulm recommend the more recent work of Kathy Charmaz as it is far more accessible.
September 20, 2022
What I really liked was the enthusiasm of the authors and their goal to show young researchers how reserach could be done differently. A lot of later treatments of GT are more developed, have more examples, more theoretical nuance, but have a much flatter feel.
Read
April 17, 2012I have to include some of these so it will look like I am not TOTALLY forgetting to write my dissertation!
January 20, 2023
Some good stuff! It’s just buried
October 22, 2013
For what it is, it is a quick (4 hours) and easy read. The authors break grounded theory down into simple, easy to digest, and in logical sequence, informational bits.
March 14, 2016
I have now, after three months, finished reading this seminal work on qualitative methods by Glaser and Strauss. I have heard this is the book that defined rigor in qualitative research once and for all. I am not surprised at all.
The book lays out a complete system of building theories from qualitative data. Yes, it is a difficult book to read. But it is ground-breaking, even after forty years. And anyhow most academic books from 1960’s are difficult to read. The book has given me an understanding of theory building that I did not have before. What I found pleasantly surprising is the lean approach it promotes. For instance, they encourage the researcher not to blindly transcribe and code all data before starting to generate theory: Do some transcribing, some coding, and some theory building. Then focus your further data collection on important things. The constant comparative method discussed in chapter V is very much the father of the lean startup movement, with its own ”minimal viable product”! I recommend this book.
Here is a longer list of the main concepts in the book that I made for myself as a summary of points to take away:
- The focus of the book is on creating theory instead of verifying theory. The authors believed at the time of writing that too few theories were built in sociology.
- The focus is on creating theories directly from empirical data collected from the field, as opposed to armchair theory building. This is where the name ”grounded” comes from.
- The authors discuss the two approaches to creating theory, i.e. creating theory deductively by the development of a priori assumptions and prepositions, versus creating theory inductively from empirical evidence. They believe the deductive approach is contradictory to the idea of theory itself: ”Generating a theory involves a process of research” (pp. 6).
- The book aims at laying out a method that can create theories from qualitative data, a process that up until then was weak and generated lengthy accounts and ”impressionistic” theories.
- The grounded theory is a process of creating theories through comparative analysis: ”Our strategy of comparative analysis for generating theory puts a high emphasis on theory as process; that is, theory as an ever-developing entity, not a perfected product” (pp.32).
- Theories are constituted by ”conceptual categories”, ”conceptual properties” of these categories, and ”hypotheses”, or generalized relations among the categories and their properties: ”In discovering theory, one generates conceptual categories or their properties from evidence; then the evidence from which the category emerged is used to illustrate the concept” (pp.23).
- Theories are built through comparing cases that differ in aspects that are important for the conceptual categories and their properties. E.g. a case from empowering patients in a hospital might end up with the conceptual category of ”knowledge about own disease.” Another case from a municipality might verify this category and introduce new properties for it.
- Two central types of theory discussed are ”substantive theory” and ”formal theory”. Substantive theory is directly built on data from a specific case in a specific settings, and is the first step in building grounded theories. Formal theories are generalizations that can be developed by comparing cases: ”Ignoring this first task--discovering substantive theory relevant for a given substantive area--is the result, in most instances, of believing that formal theories can be applied directly to a substantive area, and will supply most or all of the necessary concepts and hypotheses. The consequence is often a forcing of data, as well as a neglect of relevant concepts and hypotheses that might emerge” (pp. 34).
- The idea of forcing ”round data” into ”square categories”, i.e. not using data directly to generate categories and properties, is central to grounded theory. You should change your theories not your data.
- Theoretical concepts need to be ”analytic” and ”sensitizing”. Analytic means they should be sufficiently generalized to designate characteristics of concrete entities, not the entities themselves. Sensitizing means to yield a meaningful picture, abetted by apt illustrations that enable one to grasp the reference in terms of one’s own experience.
- Theoretical sampling is ”the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges” (pp.45).
- Theoretical sensitivity is a crucial property of the qualitative researcher, i.e. to be able to see theory as it emerges from data, as opposed to being pre-determined about hypotheses.
- Theoretical sampling needs to focus on cases that have ”theoretical purpose and relevance”. Theoretical relevance means that the researcher will choose any cases that ”help generate, to the fullest extent, as many properties of the categories as possible, and that will help relate categories to each other and to their properties” (pp.49). The focus is not on verifying but in generating theory, which implies an ”ongoing inclusion” of cases instead of pre-determined protocols. Compare this to the development of ”research protocols” in quantitative research, and the concept of ”fishing expedition” that is actually seen as negative and damaging to the research.
- ”When beginning his generation of a substantive theory, the sociologist establishes the basic categories and their properties by minimizing differences in comparative groups. Once this basic work is accomplished, however, he should turn to maximizing differences among comparison groups, in accordance with the kind of theory he wishes to develop (substantive or formal) and with the requirements of his emergent theory” (pp. 57).
- Theoretical saturation means that ”no additional data are being found whereby the sociologist can develop properties of the category...One reaches theoretical saturation by joint collection and analysis of data” (pp.61). Theoretical sampling is used to reach theoretical saturation. Theoretical sampling is very much different than statistical sampling, which focuses on ”large enough numbers”. Random sampling is not necessary for theoretical sampling.
- ”Slices of data” are ”different views or vantage points from which to understand a category and to develop its properties” (pp.65).
- The ”depth of theoretical sampling refers to the amount of data collected on a group and on a category” (pp.69).
- Temporal aspects of theoretical sampling: ”it is impossible to engage in theoretical sampling without coding and analyzing at the same time.” (pp.71). At the beginning there is more collection than coding and analysis.
- Constant comparative method of qualitative analysis says that you do not code all data first and then analyze it. ”while coding an incident for a category, compare it with the previous incidents in the same and different groups coded in the same category” (pp.107). ”stop coding and record a memo on your ideas”, ”Thus the theory develops, as different categories and their properties tend to become integrated through constant comparisons that force the analyst to make some related theoretical sense of each comparison” (pp.109).
- ”The universe of data that the constant comparative method uses is based on the reduction of the theory and the delimitation and saturation of categories. Thus, the collected universe of data is first delimitated and then, if necessary, carefully extended by a return to data collection according to the requirements of theoretical sampling...the analyst spends his time and effort only on data relevant to his categories” (pp.112).
- Chapter VI in the book provides a comprehensive analysis of a number of publications, and discusses how well they comply with the grounded theory idea. A checklist for classifying the mode of analysis in each publication is used. called the accounting scheme:
1) Is the author’s main emphasis upon verifying or generating theory?
2) Is he more interested in substantive or formal theory?
3) What is the scope of theory used in the publication?
4) To what degree is the theory grounded?
5) How dense in conceptual detail is the theory?
6) What kind of data are used, and in what capacity, in relation to the theory?
7) To what degree is the theory integrated?
8) How much clarity does the author reveal about the type of theory he uses?
- Chapter VII discusses using various kinds of data as qualitative data. The user of documents is discussed beyond a kind of introduction to the field, but more as real data similar to an interview: ”Every book, every magazine article, represents at least one person who is equivalent to the anthropologist’s informant or the sociologist’s interviewee” (pp.163).
- Chapter VIII is about using quantitative data for theoretical elaboration. This is interesting because quantitative data is often used for verification. But according to the authors it can also be analyzed with theory generation in mind: ”Typically, discovery made through quantitative data is treated only as a byproduct of the ’main work’” (pp.185). However, the researcher can do a post-analysis of quantitative data with the goal of generating theory: ”It is easier to analyze previously collected data, for then his [researcher’s] only responsibility is to generate theory” (pp.187).
- On the credibility of grounded theory: ”A field worker knows that he knows, not only because he has been in the field and because he has carefully discovered and generated hypotheses, but also because ’in his bones’ he feels the worth of his final analysis. He has been living with partial analyses for many months, testing them each step of the way, until he has built his theory. What is more, if he has participated in the social life of his subject, then he has been living by his analyses, testing them not only by observation and interview but also by daily living” (pp.225).
There is much more in this book to write about. But I give up here.
The book lays out a complete system of building theories from qualitative data. Yes, it is a difficult book to read. But it is ground-breaking, even after forty years. And anyhow most academic books from 1960’s are difficult to read. The book has given me an understanding of theory building that I did not have before. What I found pleasantly surprising is the lean approach it promotes. For instance, they encourage the researcher not to blindly transcribe and code all data before starting to generate theory: Do some transcribing, some coding, and some theory building. Then focus your further data collection on important things. The constant comparative method discussed in chapter V is very much the father of the lean startup movement, with its own ”minimal viable product”! I recommend this book.
Here is a longer list of the main concepts in the book that I made for myself as a summary of points to take away:
- The focus of the book is on creating theory instead of verifying theory. The authors believed at the time of writing that too few theories were built in sociology.
- The focus is on creating theories directly from empirical data collected from the field, as opposed to armchair theory building. This is where the name ”grounded” comes from.
- The authors discuss the two approaches to creating theory, i.e. creating theory deductively by the development of a priori assumptions and prepositions, versus creating theory inductively from empirical evidence. They believe the deductive approach is contradictory to the idea of theory itself: ”Generating a theory involves a process of research” (pp. 6).
- The book aims at laying out a method that can create theories from qualitative data, a process that up until then was weak and generated lengthy accounts and ”impressionistic” theories.
- The grounded theory is a process of creating theories through comparative analysis: ”Our strategy of comparative analysis for generating theory puts a high emphasis on theory as process; that is, theory as an ever-developing entity, not a perfected product” (pp.32).
- Theories are constituted by ”conceptual categories”, ”conceptual properties” of these categories, and ”hypotheses”, or generalized relations among the categories and their properties: ”In discovering theory, one generates conceptual categories or their properties from evidence; then the evidence from which the category emerged is used to illustrate the concept” (pp.23).
- Theories are built through comparing cases that differ in aspects that are important for the conceptual categories and their properties. E.g. a case from empowering patients in a hospital might end up with the conceptual category of ”knowledge about own disease.” Another case from a municipality might verify this category and introduce new properties for it.
- Two central types of theory discussed are ”substantive theory” and ”formal theory”. Substantive theory is directly built on data from a specific case in a specific settings, and is the first step in building grounded theories. Formal theories are generalizations that can be developed by comparing cases: ”Ignoring this first task--discovering substantive theory relevant for a given substantive area--is the result, in most instances, of believing that formal theories can be applied directly to a substantive area, and will supply most or all of the necessary concepts and hypotheses. The consequence is often a forcing of data, as well as a neglect of relevant concepts and hypotheses that might emerge” (pp. 34).
- The idea of forcing ”round data” into ”square categories”, i.e. not using data directly to generate categories and properties, is central to grounded theory. You should change your theories not your data.
- Theoretical concepts need to be ”analytic” and ”sensitizing”. Analytic means they should be sufficiently generalized to designate characteristics of concrete entities, not the entities themselves. Sensitizing means to yield a meaningful picture, abetted by apt illustrations that enable one to grasp the reference in terms of one’s own experience.
- Theoretical sampling is ”the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges” (pp.45).
- Theoretical sensitivity is a crucial property of the qualitative researcher, i.e. to be able to see theory as it emerges from data, as opposed to being pre-determined about hypotheses.
- Theoretical sampling needs to focus on cases that have ”theoretical purpose and relevance”. Theoretical relevance means that the researcher will choose any cases that ”help generate, to the fullest extent, as many properties of the categories as possible, and that will help relate categories to each other and to their properties” (pp.49). The focus is not on verifying but in generating theory, which implies an ”ongoing inclusion” of cases instead of pre-determined protocols. Compare this to the development of ”research protocols” in quantitative research, and the concept of ”fishing expedition” that is actually seen as negative and damaging to the research.
- ”When beginning his generation of a substantive theory, the sociologist establishes the basic categories and their properties by minimizing differences in comparative groups. Once this basic work is accomplished, however, he should turn to maximizing differences among comparison groups, in accordance with the kind of theory he wishes to develop (substantive or formal) and with the requirements of his emergent theory” (pp. 57).
- Theoretical saturation means that ”no additional data are being found whereby the sociologist can develop properties of the category...One reaches theoretical saturation by joint collection and analysis of data” (pp.61). Theoretical sampling is used to reach theoretical saturation. Theoretical sampling is very much different than statistical sampling, which focuses on ”large enough numbers”. Random sampling is not necessary for theoretical sampling.
- ”Slices of data” are ”different views or vantage points from which to understand a category and to develop its properties” (pp.65).
- The ”depth of theoretical sampling refers to the amount of data collected on a group and on a category” (pp.69).
- Temporal aspects of theoretical sampling: ”it is impossible to engage in theoretical sampling without coding and analyzing at the same time.” (pp.71). At the beginning there is more collection than coding and analysis.
- Constant comparative method of qualitative analysis says that you do not code all data first and then analyze it. ”while coding an incident for a category, compare it with the previous incidents in the same and different groups coded in the same category” (pp.107). ”stop coding and record a memo on your ideas”, ”Thus the theory develops, as different categories and their properties tend to become integrated through constant comparisons that force the analyst to make some related theoretical sense of each comparison” (pp.109).
- ”The universe of data that the constant comparative method uses is based on the reduction of the theory and the delimitation and saturation of categories. Thus, the collected universe of data is first delimitated and then, if necessary, carefully extended by a return to data collection according to the requirements of theoretical sampling...the analyst spends his time and effort only on data relevant to his categories” (pp.112).
- Chapter VI in the book provides a comprehensive analysis of a number of publications, and discusses how well they comply with the grounded theory idea. A checklist for classifying the mode of analysis in each publication is used. called the accounting scheme:
1) Is the author’s main emphasis upon verifying or generating theory?
2) Is he more interested in substantive or formal theory?
3) What is the scope of theory used in the publication?
4) To what degree is the theory grounded?
5) How dense in conceptual detail is the theory?
6) What kind of data are used, and in what capacity, in relation to the theory?
7) To what degree is the theory integrated?
8) How much clarity does the author reveal about the type of theory he uses?
- Chapter VII discusses using various kinds of data as qualitative data. The user of documents is discussed beyond a kind of introduction to the field, but more as real data similar to an interview: ”Every book, every magazine article, represents at least one person who is equivalent to the anthropologist’s informant or the sociologist’s interviewee” (pp.163).
- Chapter VIII is about using quantitative data for theoretical elaboration. This is interesting because quantitative data is often used for verification. But according to the authors it can also be analyzed with theory generation in mind: ”Typically, discovery made through quantitative data is treated only as a byproduct of the ’main work’” (pp.185). However, the researcher can do a post-analysis of quantitative data with the goal of generating theory: ”It is easier to analyze previously collected data, for then his [researcher’s] only responsibility is to generate theory” (pp.187).
- On the credibility of grounded theory: ”A field worker knows that he knows, not only because he has been in the field and because he has carefully discovered and generated hypotheses, but also because ’in his bones’ he feels the worth of his final analysis. He has been living with partial analyses for many months, testing them each step of the way, until he has built his theory. What is more, if he has participated in the social life of his subject, then he has been living by his analyses, testing them not only by observation and interview but also by daily living” (pp.225).
There is much more in this book to write about. But I give up here.
April 11, 2020
ULASAN BUKU Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
BUKU ini dilahirkan dua tahun sebelum saya dilahirkan. Diterbitkan oleh Aldine Transaction secara serentak di Amerika Syarikat dan United Kingdom. Buku klasik ini sukar untuk diketepikan tanpa dibahas dan dibuat sitasi (citation) dalam dunia akademik khususnya dalam bidang metodologi penyelidikan. Terima kasih buat Routledge di atas cetakan tahun 2000 dan 2006 juga buat naskhah yang boleh dimuat turun daripada internet.
Bagi saya buat penyelidik termasuk mahasiswa yang mahu gunakan kaedah kualitatif (KUALI), buku ini wajib dibaca. Karya agung ini melakar sejarah kewujudan Teori Grounded (TG) dalam dunia penyelidikan akademik umumnya dan penyelidikan KUALI khususnya. Kaedah TG merupakan kaedah KUALI yang unik disebabkan ia mampu menjana dan membina sebuah teori hasil daripada data temubual dan dokumen misalnya.
Buku ini banyak mengandungi pengalaman dan dapatan kajian pengarang yang sebelumnya mengkaji darihal kematian di hospital yang kemudian dibukukan dengan judul Awareness of Dying pada tahun 1965. Antara tunjang penting kepada kaedah TG ini ialah kaedah ‘constant comparative’. Ia dianggap strategi. Saya melihatnya sebagai strategi sistematik dalam pembinaan teori sekali gus dapat meminimumkan bias.
Kedua-dua pengarang ini menggagaskan turutan kod-konsep-kategori sebelum teori dibangunkan. Kod merujuk kepada kata-kata kunci daripada ‘gunung data’ yang diperolehi daripada kajian lapangan. Konsep pula merujuk kepada koleksi kod yang serupa untuk dikelompokkan. Kategori pula merujuk kepada konsep-konsep yang serupa yang seterusnya menjadi asas kepada pembentukan teori.
Teori ini dipanggil ‘grounded’ disebabkan ia hanya merujuk kepada sampel dan keadaan tertentu yang telah ditetapkan sejak awal. Bagi saya, kajian KUALI bagaikan tidak sempurna tanpa TG. Untuk itu, pembinaan TG lazimnya menjadi syarat dalam penyelidikan di peringkat Ph.D. untuk sesetengah jabatan dan universiti. TG persis kemuncak dan klimaks kepada penyelidikan KUALI.
Selepas 5 dekad kaedah TG ini berkembang, sudah ribuan penyelidikan dijalankan dalam pelbagai bidang; sosiologi dan antropologi, kesihatan dan perubatan, pengurusan dan pembangunan sumber manusia, serta perniagaan dan keusahawanan. Buku ini jika dibaca dengan teliti seolah-olah ditulis oleh orang sosiologi buat orang sosiologi. Tidak mustahil, Glaser dan Strauss pada masa ia mula diterbitkan tidak menyangka yang gagasan TG diterima di seluruh dunia, malah menjadi fenomena.
Buku-buku berkaitan TG pula semakin banyak diterbitkan. Pastinya anda akan rasakan banyak kekurangan bila membaca gaya penulisan buku terbitan tahun 1967 jika dibandingkan dengan terbitan abad ke-21. Anda tak temui jadual, rajah dan infografik dalamnya. Saya percaya ramai dalam kalangan orang muda akan bagi 2 atau 3 bintang saja.
Buku-buku TG terkemudian itu termasuklah Basics of Qualitative Research ialah Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory, Procedures and Techniques (1990) yang telah diterjemah dalam pelbagai bahasa, termasuk Arab, Cina, Jepun, Rusia, Korea dan Jerman, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (2006) dan Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn yang mula diterbitkan (2005) yang masing-masing mewakili aliran TG Strauss, Charmaz dan Clarke.
BUKU ini dilahirkan dua tahun sebelum saya dilahirkan. Diterbitkan oleh Aldine Transaction secara serentak di Amerika Syarikat dan United Kingdom. Buku klasik ini sukar untuk diketepikan tanpa dibahas dan dibuat sitasi (citation) dalam dunia akademik khususnya dalam bidang metodologi penyelidikan. Terima kasih buat Routledge di atas cetakan tahun 2000 dan 2006 juga buat naskhah yang boleh dimuat turun daripada internet.
Bagi saya buat penyelidik termasuk mahasiswa yang mahu gunakan kaedah kualitatif (KUALI), buku ini wajib dibaca. Karya agung ini melakar sejarah kewujudan Teori Grounded (TG) dalam dunia penyelidikan akademik umumnya dan penyelidikan KUALI khususnya. Kaedah TG merupakan kaedah KUALI yang unik disebabkan ia mampu menjana dan membina sebuah teori hasil daripada data temubual dan dokumen misalnya.
Buku ini banyak mengandungi pengalaman dan dapatan kajian pengarang yang sebelumnya mengkaji darihal kematian di hospital yang kemudian dibukukan dengan judul Awareness of Dying pada tahun 1965. Antara tunjang penting kepada kaedah TG ini ialah kaedah ‘constant comparative’. Ia dianggap strategi. Saya melihatnya sebagai strategi sistematik dalam pembinaan teori sekali gus dapat meminimumkan bias.
Kedua-dua pengarang ini menggagaskan turutan kod-konsep-kategori sebelum teori dibangunkan. Kod merujuk kepada kata-kata kunci daripada ‘gunung data’ yang diperolehi daripada kajian lapangan. Konsep pula merujuk kepada koleksi kod yang serupa untuk dikelompokkan. Kategori pula merujuk kepada konsep-konsep yang serupa yang seterusnya menjadi asas kepada pembentukan teori.
Teori ini dipanggil ‘grounded’ disebabkan ia hanya merujuk kepada sampel dan keadaan tertentu yang telah ditetapkan sejak awal. Bagi saya, kajian KUALI bagaikan tidak sempurna tanpa TG. Untuk itu, pembinaan TG lazimnya menjadi syarat dalam penyelidikan di peringkat Ph.D. untuk sesetengah jabatan dan universiti. TG persis kemuncak dan klimaks kepada penyelidikan KUALI.
Selepas 5 dekad kaedah TG ini berkembang, sudah ribuan penyelidikan dijalankan dalam pelbagai bidang; sosiologi dan antropologi, kesihatan dan perubatan, pengurusan dan pembangunan sumber manusia, serta perniagaan dan keusahawanan. Buku ini jika dibaca dengan teliti seolah-olah ditulis oleh orang sosiologi buat orang sosiologi. Tidak mustahil, Glaser dan Strauss pada masa ia mula diterbitkan tidak menyangka yang gagasan TG diterima di seluruh dunia, malah menjadi fenomena.
Buku-buku berkaitan TG pula semakin banyak diterbitkan. Pastinya anda akan rasakan banyak kekurangan bila membaca gaya penulisan buku terbitan tahun 1967 jika dibandingkan dengan terbitan abad ke-21. Anda tak temui jadual, rajah dan infografik dalamnya. Saya percaya ramai dalam kalangan orang muda akan bagi 2 atau 3 bintang saja.
Buku-buku TG terkemudian itu termasuklah Basics of Qualitative Research ialah Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory, Procedures and Techniques (1990) yang telah diterjemah dalam pelbagai bahasa, termasuk Arab, Cina, Jepun, Rusia, Korea dan Jerman, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (2006) dan Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn yang mula diterbitkan (2005) yang masing-masing mewakili aliran TG Strauss, Charmaz dan Clarke.
November 2, 2019
Very interesting concept for doing research in the social sciences with an eye towards developing theory.
May 12, 2022
This has been an eye-opener, thank you Prof. Laksh.
Currently reading
January 4, 2008Booooooring!!! But still important.
Read
January 17, 2008Foundation of Grounded Theory and its value for Design Research
January 11, 2009
Its a classic, even though it's not always practical for the work I do.
Read
July 14, 2012the masters of grounded theory
Read
September 2, 2012Grounded theory comes from the data not the speculation of educated persons.
February 16, 2015
I'm not a huge fan of grounded theory. Maybe it's because as a scholar I'm more in the critical perspective than interpretivist or post-positivist. Or maybe it will grow on me. I'm not sure.
March 13, 2008
For my dissertation research.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews