On Grounded Theory – with some malice
| Published date | 01 February 2005 |
| Date | 01 February 2005 |
| Pages | 114-129 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510578041 |
| Author | Lars Seldén |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
On Grounded Theory –
with some malice
Lars Selde
´n
Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University College of Bora
˚s
and Go
¨teborg University, Bora
˚s, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose – To review critically the applicability of Grounded Theory.
Design/methodology/approach – Two perspectives are used: that of the author’s personal
experience and that of the internal pros and cons of Grounded Theory.
Findings – Grounded Theory is called into question regarding problems with pre-understanding,
with everyday knowledge, with disconnection of context, and with coding procedure.
Practical implications – It is important to think twice before using Grounded Theory in spite of its
promising features at the outset.
Originality/value – Empirically and theoretically founded critique of Grounded Theory
Keywords Philosophy, Information science, Libraries, Informationresearch, Research methods
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Grounded Theory (GT) may be described as a theory on research methods developed in
order to generate substantive theory on a scholarly basis. Its originators, Glaser and
Strauss, studied death and dying empirically in the 1960s and published their ideas on
GT in The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Their intentions
were to find means of generating theory and to curb the verification activity going on
in scholarly work. It has since been used in the social sciences especially within
nursing and healthcare. The aim of this article is to explore the applicability of GT in
library and information science (LIS) partly from the point of view of my own
experience and partly from the perspective of its internal pros and cons[1]. As there is a
controversy concerning the significance of GT between the originators, that issue is
also considered. This is motivated by the view that the original authors should be the
persons best trained to discover weak points in the basic construction of the theory.
Interest in GT within the social sciences seems to be on the rise in Sweden, at least
with regard to its inclusion in the methodological literature (see Alvesson and
Sko
¨ldberg, 1994; Gustavsson, 1998; Sta
˚lhammar, 1999; Hartman, 2001; Danermark
et al., 2001; Guva
˚and Hylander, 2003)[2]. Recent searches in Social SciSearch indicate a
continued influence on the LIS field internationally. The appeal of GT is not hard to
understand, as there are some good points at the outset. The possibility of generating
theory out of one’s empirical data should be attractive to any prospective researcher.
Exploration as a method is thus made a more than acceptable academic activity.
Alternatives to hypothesis making and its ensuing statistical verification may be found
enticing, above all at the start of a scholarly project. The well-vindicated grounds for
qualitative methods work in the same direction.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
JDOC
61,1
114
Accepted 5 October 2004
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 61 No. 1, 2005
pp. 114-129
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/00220410510578041
It is argued here that the use of GT may be called in question particularly on the
ground of its internal deficiencies as detected during actual application. They include:
.positions taken regarding preconceptions – pre -understanding;
.problems around the kind of knowledge produced – everyday or scholar ly; and
.two problems related to coding: fanaticism in procedure and the disconnection of
context.
Traditions
Glaser and Strauss (1967, p. vii) describe themselves and their academic background as
an explanation to the formation of GT. Glaser (1992, p. 7) emphatically states the
influence of the Sociology Department of Columbia University (see Figure 1). The
influence of symbolic interactionism is easy to recognize even for an outsider and the
personal relation Blumer-Strauss is known (Star, 1997)[3].
The time of presentation, 1967, is interesting. As early as 1961 the Frankfu rt School
– critical theory – had started the battle against positivism. Pierre Bourdieu is butone
scholar that wrote about the crisis of the Lazarsfeld-Parsons-Merton (positivist)
orthodoxy in the 1960s (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992, p. 151). In spite of strong
traditions, Glaser and Strauss launched some powerful objections towards their
respective heritages. In descriptions of symbolic interactionism GT often appears as a
mere variation. Two conclusions may be drawn from this:
(1) symbolic interactionism is a predominant ingredient in GT; and
(2) GT may have added to the life expectancy of symbolic interactionism.
Characteristics of GT
This section is intended to be a brief introduction to GT without yet bringing in any
malice. The reader who wants to explore GT in detail should consult another source,
the best one probably being the 1967 original text.
There are two central themes in GT: the generation of theory and avoiding the trap
of verification. In its wake follow principles of induction, the priority of qualitative
Figure 1.
On Grounded
Theory – with
some malice
115
To continue reading
Request your trial