Is it that a theory is not grounded in data if there was already a hypothesis for the study?
I think the answer to your question depends on how you use the term 'grounded'. It can be argued that any theory which is derived or tested empirically is 'grounded' in the data in one way or another. However, 'grounded theory', in the sense used by Glaser and Strauss, would be defined more strictly: in this case, all your constructs should -in principle- be derived from the data alone (rather than the literature or your intuitions). The extent to which it is possible to shut off pre-existing knowledge is, of course, a contested point. To return to your question, it seems hard to argue that a study which builds on a pre-existing hypothesis is 'data grounded' in the latter (stricter) sense, unless you can show that this hypothesis somehow suggested itself from the data.
I agree with Henk Smid, "The evolvement of a theory (and clearly stated data, observations or measurements) is difficult to close neatly (if ever)." And conversely I also believe unless data are theory laden and carefully generated through observation or experiments designed to this effect, a theory cannot be verified if all the data and information are available. It takes some of objectivity from science and makes science a reductionist worldview.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education
- Academic Writing