Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Grounded theory
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Criticisms== {{See also|Grounded theory#The use of preexisting theory}} Grounded theory has been criticized based on the scientific idea of what a theory is. Thomas and James,<ref name="tj">Thomas, G. and James, D. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: some questions about theory, ground and discovery, [[British Educational Research Association|British Educational Research Journal]], 32, 6, 767β795.</ref> for example, distinguish the ideas of generalization, overgeneralization, and theory, noting that some scientific theories explain a broad range of phenomena succinctly, which grounded theory does not. Thomas and James observed that "The problems come when too much is claimed for [for a theory], simply because it is empirical; problems come in distinguishing generalization from over-generalization, narrative from induction." They also write that grounded theory advocates sometimes claim to find causal implications when in truth they only find an association. There has been criticism of grounded theory on the grounds that it opens the door to letting too much researcher subjectivity enter.<ref name="tj"/><ref name = "Schonfeld and Mazzola"/> The authors just cited suggest that it is impossible to free oneself of preconceptions in the collection and analysis of data in the way that Glaser and Strauss assert is necessary. Popper also undermines grounded theory's idea that hypotheses arise from data unaffected by prior expectations.<ref>Popper, K. (1963). Science: Conjectures and refutations. In K. R. Popper (Ed.), ''Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge''. New York: Basic Books.</ref> Popper wrote that "objects can be classified and can become similar or dissimilar, only in this way--by being related to needs and interests." Observation is always selective, based on past research and the investigators' goals and motives, and that preconceptionless research is impossible. Critics also note that grounded theory fails to mitigate participant reactivity and has the potential for an investigator steeped in grounded theory to over-identify with one or more study participants.<ref name = "Schonfeld and Mazzola">Schonfeld, I.S., & Mazzola, J.J. (2013). Strengths and limitations of qualitative approaches to research in occupational health psychology. In R. Sinclair, M. Wang, & L. Tetrick (Eds.), ''Research methods in occupational health psychology: State of the art in measurement, design, and data analysis'' (pp. 268-289). New York: Routledge.</ref> Although they suggest that one element of grounded theory worth keeping is the constant comparative method, Thomas and James point to the formulaic nature of grounded theory methods and the lack of congruence of those methods with open and creative interpretation, which ought to be the hallmark of qualitative inquiry.<ref name="tj" /> The grounded theory approach can be criticized as being too empiricist, i.e., that it relies too heavily on the empirical data. Grounded theory considers fieldwork data as the source of theory. Thus the theories that emerge from a new fieldwork are set against the theories that preceded the fieldwork.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579710166730 |title=Parker, L.D. and Roffey, B.H. (1997) Methodological themes: Back to the drawing board: Revisiting grounded theory and the everyday accountant's and manager's reality. ''Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10'', 212-247|doi=10.1108/09513579710166730 }}</ref> Strauss's version of grounded theory has been criticized in several other ways:<ref>Grbich, C. (2007). ''Qualitative data analysis and introduction''. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.</ref> * Grounded theory researchers sometimes have a quasi-objective focus, emphasizing hypotheses, variables, reliability, and replicability. This multi-faceted focus leads to contradictory findings. * It is inappropriate to ignore the existing theories by not paying attention to the literature. * Grounded theory offers a complex methodology and confusing terminology rather than providing a practical orientation to research and data analysis. Also see Tolhurst.<ref>Tolhurst, E. (2012). [http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1860/3432 Grounded Theory Method: Sociology's quest for exclusive items of inquiry], ''Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13'', 3, Art.26.</ref> * Some grounded theory researchers have produced poorly explained theories; concept generation rather than the generation of formal theory may be a more practical goal for grounded theory researchers. Grounded theory was developed during an era when [[qualitative methods]] were often considered unscientific. But as the academic rigor of qualitative research became known, this type of research approach achieved wide acceptance. In American academia, qualitative research is often equated with grounded theory methods. Such equating of most qualitative methods with grounded theory has sometimes been criticized by qualitative researchers{{Who|date=March 2011}} who take different approaches to methodology (for example, in traditional [[ethnography]], [[narratology]], and [[storytelling]]). One alternative to grounded theory is [[engaged theory]]. Engaged theory equally emphasizes the conducting of on-the-ground empirical research but linking that research to analytical processes of empirical generalization. Unlike grounded theory, engaged theory derives from the tradition of [[critical theory]]. Engaged theory locates analytical processes within a larger theoretical framework that specifies different levels of abstraction, allowing investigators to make claims about the wider world.<ref>See P. James, ''Globalism, Nationalism, Tribalism: Bringing theory Back In'', Sage Publications, London, 2006; and P. James, Y. Nadarajah, K. Haive, and V. Stead, ''Sustainable Communities, Sustainable Development: Other Paths for Papua New Guinea'', Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 2012</ref> Braun and Clarke<ref>Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. ''Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3'', 77β101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.</ref> regard [[thematic analysis]] as having fewer theoretical assumptions than grounded theory, and can be used within several theoretical frameworks. They write that in comparison to grounded theory, thematic analysis is freer because it is not linked to any preexisting framework for making sense of qualitative data. Braun and Clarke, however, concede that there is a degree of similarity between grounded theory and thematic analysis but prefer thematic analysis.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)