Grounded Theory Methodology and Grounded Theory Method: Introduction to the Special Issue

ABSTRACT

This introduction attempts to link discussions of grounded theory (GT) as a strategy (i.e., “method” in the narrower sense of technique, m) to a broader literature important for sociological theory, Methodology (M), and Methodology-in-general (Mg). There is considerable confusion about GT. What does it mean to be adequately grounded in the empirical information? Is GT a methodology, a theory, or both? The three levels of abstraction need to all be considered: (1) methods or methodology with a lowercase m, which references routinized techniques and strategies, such as constant comparison and simultaneous data collection and analysis; (2) Methodology with a capital M, which covers broader issues concerning the frame of analysis or “logic of method”; and (3) Mg, the most abstract level in which issues related to epistemology, ontology, axiology, teleology, and validity—issues often only implicit in Methodology—come into play most clearly. At the Mg level, we even enter into issues that were important during the famous struggle concerning methods (Methodenstreit) in Europe before World War I, including idiographic or “historical” versus nomothetic or “scientific” approaches—an idea associated with Wilhelm Windelband. That then touches on such philosophical ideas as the meaning of words like positivism, naturalism, phenomenology, pragmatism, existentialism and interpretivism. This article emphasizes Mg, or GT as Mg, building on earlier work. The relevance of Mg (especially GT as Mg) can be seen as important for a deeper analysis of GT as both a methodology and Methodology.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

¹ C.E., or CE, often stated as anno Domini (A.D.) from Medieval Latin. The designation A.D. standing for “in the year of the Lord” was used for both the Julian and Gregorian calendars. The Gregorian calendar is now often called the “universal calendar,” but Jewish scholars, who do not believe that Yeshua (Greek Jesus) was the mashiach, resist thinking of it as “the year of the Lord Jesus.” Followers of other religions and many scholars now use C.E. or CE. and B.C.E. or BCE. These kinds of distinctions may seem pedantic to some, but they are an illustration of the importance of interpretation and historical context. The use of BCE and CE is viewed as disrespectful of Christianity by some sects. It is also ignored by many other groups in the religion we designate with the blanket ITM of Christianity. All of the words (signs) used to designate (de-sign-ate) the world religions and the indigenous religions are essentially blanket terms that can be considered ITMs if we follow the Weberian tradition (Collins 1986).

² Weber also attempts to find a way to reconcile the importance of interpretation with causal analysis. He was not opposed to descriptive statistics. The types of inferential statistics used by social scientists today were not yet available circa 1900.

³ Leonard Schatzman is credited with first developing dimensional analysis. Bower and Schatzman contribute Chapter 5 to Morse et al. (2009). See Schatzman and Strauss (1973).