Hi. This is a question that thrills me. Is there a chance of doing Classic Grounded Theory and not just to look over "socio-psychological" patterns in reality (i.e. demographical variables, spacial contexts, emotions, events, etc.)? One example could be the way in which Glaser & Strauss (1965) researched and chose nurses conversations as an important part of the social reality, noting specifically that they remain under the "symbolic interactionist" tradition influence. In all cases, how do you think this could be emergently accomplished?
I'm not sure why you think things like "demographical variables, spacial contexts, emotions, events" aren't part of social psychology. but take a look at Glaser's "Theoretical Coding Families" to get an idea of the range of concepts that are used in Classical Grounded Theory. That list includes a number of factors that are relatively structural.
Profesor Morgan. Thank you. You are right at mentioning Glaser's yet open and different coding families lists, but my question is referred more to the open coding stage. Glaser's lists, and others one might build, are for being used during the open and selective stages, but within a particularly named stage: the theoretical coding stage, and developed just through memoing. (See Hernandez 2009). However, "finding" patterns in a "reality" is more or less a direct research practice accomplished through "open" coding in Classic Grounded Theory.
Yes, this particular methodology is really messy.
P. S.: Love your booookks!!!
http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2009/11/30/theoretical-coding-in-grounded-theory-methodology/
Some type of open coding is the first step in all versions of GT analysis, and it is typically highly descriptive. After that, you have to make sense of the 100s of codes that are typically generated in that initial process, and that is where the Theoretical Coding comes into play.
In principle, open coding is virtually the same in all versions of GT, but Glaser's Theoretical Coding families are one of the key distinguishing features in what he has labelled Classic Grounded Theory.
I wouldn't agree that GT methodology is "..really messy."; rather, particularly Classic GT---with Glaser 'still holding the baton'---can seem so; indeed, it seems rather pedantic to me; but go with the Classic version if you're 'into it'.
However, if you also check out some of the other variations of GT methodology---which are more alike than different (e.g. Dey, Charmaz, Urquart, Thornberg....) you might come to conclude that GT (including Classic) is not really messy at all.
Rather, this methodology was created, and has evolved (even Classic) for 'deeper' qualitative analysis.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology