Grounded theory: reflections on the emergence vs. forcing debate
Grounded theory: reflections on the emergence vs. forcing debate
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03249.x
复制
发表时间：
2004-12-01
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Morgan, D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Duchscher, JEB;Morgan, D
瞄准本文的目的是比较格拉泽的理论生成模型，理论直接和严格的数据，没有解释主义，施特劳斯的概念描述性的方法，鼓励指导性的质疑，并支持一个解释性的立场。扎根理论（Grounded Theory，GT）的发现源于被称为GT之父的Barney Glaser和Anselm Strauss的合并。自1967年他们通过研究共同创造了理论发展的方法以来，这些学者在进一步发展和发展GT的语用使用方面采取了看似不同的路径。许多研究者已经将GT作为一种通用方法，将其应用于定量和定性研究方法。本文讨论了格拉泽和施特劳斯所采用的数据采集、收集、编码和分析的阶段和策略。不断的比较分析被确定为在综合编码和分析阶段的理论方法，无论研究者的哲学或研究方向的主要策略。我们还讨论了初始或开放编码，高级编码，记忆，和理论抽样，特别注意比较和对比的描述性术语和应用策略，已建议由格拉泽和施特劳斯。本文所反映的GT的方法，方法和一般意图的区别是不容易理解的。这两种方法反映了不同的基本哲学范式，因此代表了不同的方法来GT。研究人员需要明确他们使用的哲学和结果分析方法，以及这种方法对研究过程和结果的影响。
Aim. The aim of this paper is to compare Glaser's model of theory generation, where theory rises directly and rigorously out of the data, devoid of interpretivism, to Strauss's conceptually descriptive approach that encourages directive questioning and supports an interpretive stance.Background. The discovery of grounded theory (GT) was born out of a merger between Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, the proverbial 'fathers' of GT. Since the co-creation of their approach to theory development through research in 1967, these scholars have taken seemingly divergent paths in further developing and evolving the pragmatic use of GT.Discussion., Numerous researchers have used GT as a general method, applying it to both quantitative and qualitative research approaches. In this paper we discuss the stages and strategies of data sampling, collection, coding and analysing used by both Glaser and Strauss. Constant comparative analysis is identified as the primary strategy in the integrated coding and analysing stages of this theorizing method, regardless of the researcher's philosophical or research orientation. We also discuss initial or open coding, advanced coding, memoing, and theoretical sampling, with particular attention to comparing and contrasting the descriptive terms and application strategies that have been suggested by both Glaser and Strauss.Conclusion. The reported distinctions in the approach, method, and general intent of GT reflected in this paper are not easy to comprehend. The two methods reflect different basic philosophical paradigms, and therefore represent distinct approaches to GT. Researchers need to be clear about which philosophy and resulting analysis approach they are using, and the effect that approach will have on the research process and outcomes.