508 ◊ STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY

phy, ~onversation analysis, and Foucault. In
~- Sdverman (Ed.), Qunlitative research:
71,eory, 111cthod a11d practicc (pp. 24-44).
London: Sage.
Parsons, T. (1951). 11,e socia{ systcm. New York:
Free Press.
Po lln er, M. (1987). M1mda 11 e reaso 11 • Cam-
bridge: Cambridge Universiry Press.
Pollner, M. (1991). Left of etlmomerhodology:
The ~1sc and. decline of radical reflexiviry.
, A111encan Soc1ological Rcview, 56, 370-380.
1otter, J. (1996). Re¡,resc11ti11g reality: Dis-
course, rhetoric and social constrnction. Lon-
don: Sagc.
Porrer, J. ~1997). Discourse a nal ysis as a way of
a~1alys111g narurally-occurring talk. In D .
Sdverman (Ed .), Q11alitativc rcsearch: The-
01')', 111ethod a11d practice (pp. 144 -1 60).
London: Sage.
Porrer, J., & Werhercll, M. (1987). Disco11rsc
nnd social psychology: Bcyond nttitudes nnd
behnuiom; London: Sage .
Prior, L. (1997). Foll owing in Foucaulr's foor-
srcps: Text and comcxr in qua litative re-
search. In D. Si lverman (Ed .), Qualitative
rcst!arch: Theory, metbod a11d practice (pp
63-79). London: Sage.
Rose, N. (1990). Govcmiug the so11I: The sl,ap-
mg of the prívate sel(. New York: Rourledge.
Sacks, 1:·. (1972) . An initia.l investigation of rhe
u_sab1!1ry of conversarional data for doing so-
Schurz: A. (1967). Tl,c plmromenology of the
social wor/d. Evansron, IL: Northwcstern
Universiry Prcss.
Schutz, A. (1970). 011 pl,e11011wrology a11d so-
cml relations. Chicago: Universirr of Chi-
cago Press.
Silvcrman, D. (1985). Q11alitativc mctl,odology
aud socio/ogy. Aldershor, En gland: Gower.
Silverman, D. (1993). In te,preting qualitative
~atr1: Stratcgies for ana/ysing talk, text and GROUNDED THEORY
mteractio11. London: Sagc.
Silverman, D. (Ed.). (1997) . Q11alitative re-
scarch: Tbeory, mctbod aud practice. Lon-
don: Sage.
Übjectivist and Constructivist Methods
Silvcrman, D. (1998). Harvey Sacks: Social sci-
enc~ a11d co,wcrsation a11alysis. Cambridge :
Poliry.
Smirh, D. E. (1987) . Tl,c eve,)'day rvorld as
/}roblematic. Bosron: Norrheasrern Univer-
sity Press.
Smirh, D. E. (1990). Texts, (acts, mrd (emini,,;ty.
London: Rourledge.
ten Hav e, P. (1990). IV1e rhodo log ical issu es in
co nversarion ana lys is. Hulleti11 de !vlcthodol-
ogie Sociologiq11e, 27, 13-51.
·
Weigerr, A. J . (198 1). Sociology of evc1)'day life.
New York: Longman.
Wieder, D. L. ( 1988) . Laug11age a11d social real-
ity. \'Vashingron, DC: Universiry Press of

c10logy. In D. Suclnow (Ed.), St11dies i11 social
i11teractiou (pp. 31-74). New York: Free
Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures 011 couuersatio 11
(Vols. 1-2). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, I--1. , Schcgloff, E. A., & Jeffcrso n, G.
(1974). A S1111p lcsr sysrernarics for rhc orga-
rnz::mon of turn-taking for co nve rsation.
L1111g11nge, 50, 696-735.
Scheg loff, E. A. (199n. Reflecrions on ralk and
social strucrnre. In D. Bodcn & D. Zim-
merman (Ecls.}, Ta/k and social strnctttre·
Studies i,, etlmomcthoclo/ogy and conversa~
tiou aualysis (pp. 44-70). Cambridge : Poliry.
Schrag, C. O. (1997). Tl,c sel/ a/ter postmo-
dernity. Ncw Havcn, CT: Yale Universiry
Press.
Sch~rz, A. (1962). Thc problem of social rea lit)'.
l he f-lague : Martinus Nijhoff.
Sc hurz, A. (1964). St11dics iu social theory. The
Hague: Marr11rns Nijhoff.
America.
Wirrgensrein, L. (1958). Pl,ilosop/,ical i11vcsti-
gat1011s. New York: !vlacmillan.
Woolgar, S., & Paw lu ch, D . (1985). Onrological
gerrymandenng. Social Prob/cms, 3 2 214-
227. ' refine their cleveloping rheorecical a nal yses.
Zimmerman, D. 1-l. (1970). T he practicaliries of
rule use. In J. D. Douglas (Ed.), U11dersta11d-
ing eueryday li(e: Toward a reco11structio11 o(
social k11orvlcdgc (pp. 221-238). Chicago ·
Aldine. . quiry. Essentially, grounded rheory methods
Zimmerman, D. I--1. (1988). On conversation:
T he convcrsation analyt ic perspective. In J.
A. Andcrson {Ed.), Com111u1Eicatio11 ycar-
book 11 (pp. 406-432). Newburv Park, CA:
Sage. · AUTHOR'S NOTE: I madc an carlicr statcment of my posi tion o n consrructivism in a papcr tirlcd Studyi11g Li11ed
Zimmerman, D. 1-l., & Wiedcr, D. L. (1970) .
Erhnomethodology and thc problem of or-
cler. lnJ D. Douglas (Ed.), Uudcrst ,111di11gev-
eryday b(e: Toward a rcco11structio11 o( social
k11owledgc (pp. 285-295). Chicago: Aldine.
G
roundcd chcory served at che fronr of range cheo rerical frameworks rhnt explain thc
che 11 qualicacive rcvolurion" (Denzin co ll ecred data. Throughour rhe research pro-
& Lincoln, 1994, p . ix). Barney G. cess, grou nded rheorists deve lop ana lyric imer-
Glaser and A.nselm L. Scrauss wrocc Thc Discov- preta tions of their data to focus furrher data co l-
ery of Gromzded Theory (1967) at a critica! lection , which rhey use in rurn to inform and
poinr in social science hisrory. The y defended
qua litat ivc research and countcred rhe clomi- Since Glaser and Strnuss developed grounded
nanr view that quanticarive scudies provide che cheory methods, qualirative researchers havt:
claimed rhe use of rhese merhods ro leg itimare
only forro of sysremaric social scienrific in-
rheir research.
Now grounded theory merhods h;we t.:ome
consisr of systcmatic inductive guidelines for
co llecti ng and analyzing data ro build middlc- und er ílttack from both wirhin and wirhom.
Expericuce Througb Gro,mded Tl,eory: Objectiuist a11d Collslructivist Mctl,ods, prescntcd :1t the Qualitativc Rc -
sc:uch Confcrcncc "Studying Human Livcd Expcricnce: Symbolic lmcranion and Ethnographic Resca rch '93," at
thc Univcrsiry of Waterloo, Omario, Ganada, May 19-22, 1993. 1 am gr.ucful to Robcrr Prus, who invitcd me to
prcscnt my ideas in thc co nfcrcncc papcr; to Lyn Loíl:md, who wrotc a dcrailcd rcvicw oí it; and to mcmbcrs oí my
first Sono ma Statc Univcrsiry writing group, Julia Al len, Pntrick Jnckson, and Cathcrinc Nclson, who cnco11rn¡;cd
me to pursuc thc tapie . I thank Juli:mm: Check, Norman K. Dcnzin, Udo Kcllc, Kyrin:i Kcm, and Yvonnn Linculn
far rhcir supportivc and thoughtful commenrs on c:irlier dr:1Íts of 1his chaptcr.

◊ 509
 51 O ◊ STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY
Posrmodernists and posrstrucrnralists dispute
obvious ::md subtle positivistic premises as-
sumed by grounded rheory's majar proponents
and within the logic of the method itself (see,
e.g., Denzin, 1994, 1996, 1998; Richardson,
1993; Van Maanen, 1988). What grounded the-
ory is and should be is contesred. Barney G.
Glaser and the late Anselm Strauss, with bis
more recent coauthor, Juliet Corbin, have
moved the merhod in somcwhat conflicting di-
rections (Glaser, 1992; Strauss, 1987; Srrauss &
Corbin, 1990, 1994, 1998). Nonetheless, both
their posirions remain imbued wirh positivism,
wirh its objectivist underpinnings (Guba & Lin-
eo In, 1994). Glaser's (1978, 1992) position of-
ren comes clase ro tradirional positivism, wirh
its assumptions of an objecrive, exrernal realiry,
a neutral observer who discovers data, reduc-
tionisr inquiry of manageable research prob-
lems, and objecrivisr rendering of data. Srrauss
and Corbin's (1990, 1998) stance assumes an
objective externa! realiry, airns roward unbiased
data collecrion, propases a set of rechnical pro-
cedures, and espouses verificat~on. Their posi-
tion moves inro postpositivism because rhey
also propase giving voice ro rheir respondenrs,
represenring rhem as accurarely as possible, dis-
covering :rnd acknowledging how respondenrs'
views of reality conflict wirh rheir own, and rec-
ognizing art as well as science in the analyric
product and process (see Strauss & Corbin,
1998). By taking these points further, I add an-
orher posirion to che fray and another vision
for furure qualirarive research: consrmctivisr
grounded theory. 1
Constructivist grounded theory celebrares
firsrh:md knowlcdge of empirical worlds 1 takes
a middle ground between postmodernism and
posirivism, and offers accessible methods far
taking qualitarive research inro the 21stcenrury.
Conscructivism assumes the relativism of multi-
ple social realiries, recognizcs rhe mutual cre-
ation of knowledge by the viewer and rhe
viewed, and aims roward interprerive under-
standing of subjects' meanings (Guba & Lin-
coln, 1994; Schwandt, 1994). The power of
grounded theory lies in irs tools for understand-
ing empirical worlds. \Y/e can reclaim these tools
from thcir positivist underpinnings ro forma re-
vised, more open-ended practice of grounded
theory thar stresses its emergent, constructivist
elemenrs. \Y/e can use grounded rheory methods
as flexible, heuristic strategies rather than as
formulaic procedures.
A constructivist approach to grounded the-
ory reaffirms studying people in their natural
settings and redirects qualitative research away
from positivism. !vly argumcnt is rhreefold: (a)
Grounded cheory strategies need not be rigid or
prescriptive; (b) a focus on meaning whilc us-
ing grounded theory furthers, rather than limits,
inrerprerive understanding; :rnd (e) we can
adopt grounded theory strategies withour em-
bracing the positivisr leanings of earlier propo-
nents of grounded theory. Cerrainly, a conrin-
uum can be discerned between objectivist and
constructivist grounded rheory. In addition, in-
dividual grounded rheorisrs have modified their
approaches ov<;:r time (see, e.g., Glaser, 1994;
Strauss, 1995; Srrauss & Corbin, 1990, 1994,
1998). For clariry, I juxtapose objectivist and
consrrucrivisr approaches chroughout the fol-
lowing discussion, but note shifts as proponents
have developed their posirions.
In this chapter, I provide an overview of
grounded theory merhods, discuss recenr de-
bates, and describe a consrructivist approach,
which I illustrate with examplcs from my earlier
studies. Researchers can use grounded theory
mcthods with eirher quantitative or qualitative
data, although rhese methods are typically asso-
ciated with qualitative rescarch. And research~
ers can use rhese merhods wherher they are
working from an objcctivist ar a construcrivist
perspective.
The rigor of grounded theory approaches of-
fers qualitative researchers a set of clear guide-
lines from which to build explanatory frame-
works thar specify relationships among concepts.
Grounded theory methods do nor detail data
collecrion techniqucs; they rnove each step of
the analytic process toward the development,
refinemenr, and inrerrelation of concepts. The
straregies of grounded thcory include (a) simul-
taneous collection and analysis of data, (b) a
rwo-step data coding process, (e) comparative
methods, (d) memo writing aimed ar thc con-
struction of conceptual analyses, (e) sampling ro
Grounded Theory: Obiectivist and Constructivist Methods
refine rhe researcher's emerging theorerical
ideas, and (f) inregration of the thcoretical
framework.
Glaser (1978, 1992) esrablishes the follow-
ing criteria far evaluating a grounded cheory:
fit, work, relevance, and modifiabiliry. Theo-
retical categories musr be developed from anal-
ysis of rhe collected data and must fit them;
these categories must explain rhe data they sub-
sume. Thus grounded theorisrs cannot shop
rheir disciplinary srores far preconceived con-
cepts and dress their data in them. Any existing
concept must earn its way inro rhe analysis
(Glaser, 1978). A grounded theory must work;
ir musr provide a useful conceptual rendering
and ordering of the data that explains the stud-
ied phenomena. The relevancc of a grounded
theory derives from its offering analyric expla-
narions of actual problems and basic processes
in the rcsearch setting. A grounde<l theory is
durable because ir accoums for variation; ir is
flexible because researchers c:m modify rheir
emerging ar esrablished analyses as condirions
change ar further data are gathered.
!vlany grounded theory studics reflect the
objecrivist approaches and perspectiva! pro-
cliviries of rhe founders of grounded theory
(see, e.g., Biernacki, 1986; Johnson, 1991;
Reif, 1975; Swanson & Chenitz, 1993; \Y/iener,
1975). 2 However, researchers srarting from
orher vanrage points-ferninist, Marxist, phc-
nomcnologisr- can use grounded rheory scrat-
egies for their empirical studies. These strate-
gics allow for varied fundamental assumptions,
data gathering approaches, analytic emphases,
and cheoretical levels.
Thus diverse researchers can use grouncled
rheory methods to develop constructivist srud~
ies derived from interpretive approaches.
Grounded rheorists need not subscribe to l)osi-
tivist or objectivist assumptions. Rather, rhey
may still srudy empirical worlds wirhout pre-
supposing narrow objectivist methods and
withour assuming rhe truth of their subsequent
analyses. Hence construcrivist grounded the-
ory studies of subjective experience can bridge
Blumer's (1969) call for the empírica! study of
meanings wirh current postmodernisr cri-
tiques.
◊ 5 11
◊ Grounded Theory Then and Now
The Development of
Gmtmded Theory
In rheir pioncering book, The Discovcry o/
Gro1111ded Theory (1967), Barney G . Glaser and
Anselm L. Strauss first articulare<l rheir rcscarch
strategies for rheir collaborarive studies of dy-
ing (Glaser & Srrauss, 1965, 1968). They chal-
lenged rhe hegemony of the quantitative re-
search paradigm in the social sciences. Chicago
school sociology (see, e.g., Park & Burges.s.
1925; Shaw, 1930; Thomas & Znaniecki,
1918-1920; Thrasher, 1927/1963; Zorbaugh,
1929) had long contribured a rich ethnographic
rradirion to rhe discipline. However, thc ascen-
clancy of quantitacive mechods undermined ;ind
marginalized thar rradition. Scientisric assump-
cions of objecrivity and truth furthercd rhe que st
far verification rhrough precise, srandardized in-
strumems and parsimonious quantifiable vari-
ables. Ficld research waned. lr beca me viewed as
a preliminary excrcise rhrough which research-
ers could refine quanrirative instrumenrs befare
rhe real work began, rather rhan as a viable en -
deavor in its own righc. The ascendancy of qu;rn-
tification also led to a growing division berween
rheory and empírica! research. Theorists and re-
searchers lived in different worlds and pursued
different problems. Presumably, quancirarive re-
search tesrcd exisring theorr as prcscribed by rhe
logico-deducrive model. However, nrnch of rhis
research remained arheorcrical ancl emphasized
controlling variables rathcr than rheory resring.
Glaser and Strauss's (1967) work was revolu -
tionarv becausc ir challenged (a) arbitrary divi-
sions ber~veen rhcory ancl research, (b) views of
qualirarive research as primarily a prt!cursor to
more "rigorous" quancirative methods, (e) daims
thar the quest for rigor madt! qualirarive research
illegirimate, (d) beliefs rhat qualitative methods
are impressionistic and unsysremaric, (e) sep:ira-
tion of clara collcction and analysis, and (f) as-
sumptions rhat qualitative research could pro ~
duce only descriptive case srudies rather rh;1n
rheory development (Charmaz, 1995c). With
 S l 2 ◊ STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY
rhc publication of Discovery, Glaser and Strauss
caJled far qL1alitative research ro move toward
t!1eo? clevelopmenr. 3 Thcy provided :i persua-
s1v~ 111rellectual rarionale for conducring quali-
rar1~e research that permitted and encouraged
nov_1ces ro pursue ir. And rhey gave guidelines
for ns succcssfu l complcrion.
Prior to the publicarion of Discovery, most
qualirariv e analysis had been taughr rhrough an
oral rradiri o n of men toring, when raughr ar ali.
Gl~ser and Strauss led rhe way in providing
wntten guidelines for systematic qualitarive
data analysis with explicit analyric procedures
and research strategies. Glaser applicd his rigor-
ous ~osi_rivistic merhodological rraining ¡11
quanr1ranve research from Cofumbi.J. Univer-
siry ro the dcvelopment of qualirarive analysis.
Grounded rheory merhods were found ed upen
Glaser's episremological ass umprion s, merhod-
ol~gical rerms, inductive Jogic, and system-
aric approach. Srrauss's training ar rhe Univer-
sity o/ Chicago with 1-lcrbert Blumer and Roben
Park brought Chicago school field research and
symbolic inreracrionism ro grou nded th eo ry.
H en ~e, Strauss brought rhe pragmatist philo-
soph1cal study of process, action, and mean-
ing into t!mfJirica/ inquiry rhrough grounded
rheory.
Glase_r 's 1978 book Theoretical Sensitivity
subsrant1ally advanced explication of grounded
theory methods. However, the abstraer rerms
and dens e writing Glaser employed rendered
the book inaccessible to man y readers. Srrauss's
Qualitativc Analysis {or Social Scie11tists (1987)
made grounded rheory more accessible, al-
though perhaps more rh eorerically diffo se rhan
the earlier merhods texrs would suggest.
Reformulation and Repudiatio 11
Gronnded theory gained a wider audience, a
new spokesperson, and more disciples wirh rhe
appearance of Srrauss's 1990 coaurhored book
wirh Juli et Corbin, Basics o( Qunlitative Re-
senrch: Grozmded Theo1-y Procedures and Tech-
71iques. ·! This book aims to specify and to de -
velop grounded theory methodology. lt takes
rhe reader rhrough severa! familiar analvtic
steps, illusrrares procedures wirh examples, ;nd
sri.rs a n~w re~ lrni ca l armamenrarium inro the
m1x. Bas1cs garned readers bur lost thc sense of
emerge,nce .and open-endcd char::1crer of
Srra uss s earl1er .vo l u me and m uc h of his empiri-
cal work. Th e unproved and more accessible
second edition of Basics (Strauss & Corbin
1998} reads as less prescriprive and aims ro lead
readers to a new w,1y of rhinking abour rheir re•
search and abom rhe world. Jn borh edirions
rhe aurhors pose concerns (1990, p. 7 i 1998 '
P· ~) abour val id and reliabl e data and interpre~
tat1ons and researcher bias consisre nr wirh " nor-
'.nal science" (Kuhn, 1970). Srrauss and Corbin
imparr a ~ehaviorist, rarher rhan inrerpreri vc,
cas t to rheir analysis of key h yporherical exam-
ples (see 1990, pp. 63 -65, 78-81, 88 -90, 145 _
147).s Perhaps rhe scienrific uncl erpinnings of
the 1990 book reflect both Corbin's earlier
rraining and Srrauss 's growing insisre nce rhar
gro unded theory is verificarional (A. L. Srrauss
personal communication, February ·¡ , 1993).;
\Vherher Basics advanccs groundecl rheory
merhods or propases differenr rcchnical proce-
dures depends on o ne's poinr of view.
Glaser (1978, 1992) emphasizcs emergence
of clara and rheory rhroLJgh the analysis of "bask
social processes. n Glaser's posirion (see als o
Melia, 1996) becomes clea r in his ] 992 repudia-
tlon o/ Strauss and Corbin (1990). He ad vo-
cares garhering data withour forcing eirher pre-
con~eived quesrions o r frameworks upon ir. In
Bas,cs o( Growzded Theory Analysis: Em er-
gence vs. Forcing (1992), Glaser a nswers Srr.1uss
and Co rbin's work in Basics. Over a nd over he
finds Strauss and Corb in ro be forcing dara
and ana lysis through their preconcepr ions, ana-
lyric quesrions, hyporheses, .1ncl methoclologi-
cal rechniques (sce, e.g., Glaser, 1992, pp. 33,
43, 46-47, 50-51 , 58-59, 63, 7S, 96- 100). For
Glaser, thc us e of sys remaric comp.1 ri so ns is
enou gh. "Categories emerge up o n comparison
and properries emerge upon mo re co mparison.
And rhar is all rh cre is ro ir" (Glaser, 1992,
p. 43).
In add ition ro Gl.iscr's rrenchanr critiqu e,
readers may find rhcmselves caught in a maze of
r~ch_n_iques rhar Srrauss and Corbin propose as
s 1g111f1canr merhodologica/ advanc emcnrs. Linda
Robrechr (1995} asserrs rhar rhe new proce-
Grormded Theory: Obiectivist a11d Co11stmctivist Methods
dures diverr rhe researcher from rhe daca and
resulr in poorly integrated rheorctical framc-
works. Glaser declares rhar Scrauss and Corbin
invoke contrived com parisons rarher rhan
chose th at have emerged from analyric pro-
cesses of comparing data to data, conce pt to
concept, and carcgory to category. He views
their approach as "foil conceptual descrip-
rion," not grounded rheory. Glaser argues thar
rhe purposc of groundccl theory methods is to
generare theory, nor t o verify ir. His poinr is
consisrent wirh quantir.irive research canons in
which verification depends upon random sam-
pling and srandardized proced ures. Srrauss and
Corbin do not answe r Glaser direcrly, bur, as
Kath M elia (1996) nores, they do state their
view of rhc essenrials of grounded theory in
rheir contribution ro che firsr edirion of rhis
Handbook, whilc suggesring rhar rhe method
will contim1e ro evolve (Strauss & Co rbin ,
1994). Similarly, Strauss and Corbin do not rc-
spond to Glaser's chargc that they abandoned
grounded theory in favor of foil concep tual de-
scriprion in rheir second edirion of Basics
(1998). However, they do offer an elegant
sratement of the significance of dcscription and
conceptual ordering for rheory development
(pp. 16-21).
Both Strauss and Corbin's Bnsics and Glascr 's
critique of it asserr vicws of sciencc untouched
by either epistemological debates of the
1960s (Adler, Adler, & Johnson, 1992;
Kleinman, 1993; Kuhn, 1970; Lofland, 1993;
Snow & Morrill, 1993) or posrmodern cri-
tiques (Clough, 1992; Denzin, 1991, 1992a,
199.6; Marcus & Fischcr, 1986). Both endorse
a rcalist onrology and posirivisr epistemology,
albeir wirh so rne sharp differences. Glaser reM
mains in the posirivisr camp; Srrauss and
Corbin less so. They move berween objecrivisr
and constructivisr assumptions in various
works, alrhough Basics, far which rhey are bcsr
known , stands in che objectivist terrain. For ex-
ample, in rheir efforrs to maintain objectivity,
rhey advocarc taking "ap propriace measurcs"
ro minimize rhe inrrusion of thc subjcctivity of
rhe researcher into rhe research (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998, p. 43). Both Glascr and Srrauss
and Corbin assume an externa! reality that reM
◊ S 13
search ers can cliscover and record-Glaser
rhrough cliscovcring data, coding it, and using
comparative mer hods step by step ; Strauss and
Corbin rhrough their analytic qu estions, h yporh-
eses, an d merhodolo gical a pplica ti o ns. In rheir
ea rli er writings, Glaser and Strauss (1967) imply
rhar realiry is independenr of che observcr ancl
rhc rnethods used ro produce ir. Because bor h
Gbser and Srrauss an d Corbin follow che cano ns
of objecrive reporrage , borh cngage in si lenr au -
thorship and usu:1.lly wrire abour th eir data as dis-
tanced experts (Charmaz & lviitchcll, 19 96) ,
rhereby cont riburing to an objectivist srance. 7
Furthermore, rh e didactic, prescriprive ap-
proachcs dcscribed in early sra teme nrs abour
groundcd theory coated chese merhods wi rh a
posirivisr, objecrivist casr (sec Charrnaz, 198 3;
G laser, 1992; Ste rn , 19946; Strauss, 1987;
Srrauss & Corbin, 1990, 1994).
So who's go r the real grou nded cheory?
Glasee (1998) contends thar he has rhe pure ve r-
sion of ground ed rheory. That's correcr-if one
agrees thar early formularions shou ld ser rhe
standard. 8 Differenr proponenrs assume thar
grounded th eo, y essemials 011ght to include d if-
ferenr things. Their "oughcs" shape their noti ons
of the real grounded theory. Must grounded rh c-
ory be objecrivist :md positi vist? No. Grounded
rheory offers a set of flexible srraregies, nor ri gid
prescriptions. Should grounded theorisrs adopr
symbolic inreracrionism? Nor always. Emphascs
on acrion and process and, from my con-
srructivist view, meaning and emergencc wírhin
sy mbolic inreractioni sm complement grounde d
theor)'. Symbolic inreractionism a lso offe rs a ri el,
a.rray of sensitizing concepts. Howe ve r, grouncled
the_ory srraregies ca1J be used with sensitizing
concep rs from other perspecrives. Pragmatism?
Yes, because app licabi lity and usefulness are parr
of the criteria for eva luarin g grou nded rhcory
analyses. Shoulcl we expecr grounded rheori srs
ro re main commirrccl to rh eir wrirren statc-
me11ts? Nor co mpl ercly. Publishcd works be-
come separated from thc conrexts of rheir cre-
arion. Neithcr rhcir aurhors' origi nal purposc
nor in tended audience may be apparenr. Aurh o rs
may write mec hanis tic prescriptio ns for begin-
ners to ger tbem srarred bur compase more mea-
sured pieces fo r pee rs. New dcvelopmenrs mar
 51 4 ◊ STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY
influence rh em . Bur readcrs may re ify these au -
tho rs' earlie r wrirren words. Stra uss an d
Corbin's (1994) chaprer in rh e first edirion of
this Ha11dbook has a considerably more flexible
tone rhan is fo un d in rhe firsr editio n o f Basics
(1990), both in describing methods and in posi-
rioning grounded rheory. For example, rhey
no te that fumre researchers may ust! gro unded
theory in co njun ctio n with· other approaches,
whi ch l argu e here. A simpli fied, constructivisr
vers ion of grou nd cd th cory such as outlined be-
low can supp ly effecrive rools rhar ca n be
adopred by rcsea rchers from diverse perspec-
rives. 9
◊ Grounded Theory
Strategies
Regarding Data
Gro unded theory methods specify analytic
straregies, nor data coll ection methods. These
merhocls have become assoc iared with limired
inrerview studies, as if limi ting gro und cd rh eory
methods to interviews and limiring rhe number
o/ inrerviews are both acceptab lc practices (see,
e.g., Creswell, l997). Researchers can use
groundcd th cory techniques wirh vari ed forms
of data collecri on (for hisrorical ana lyses, see
Clarke, 1998; Star, 1989). Qualitative research-
crs should gather exrensivc amounrs of rich data
wirh rhick dcscriprion (Charmaz, 1995c¡
Gee rtz, 1973). Grounded rhe orists ha\'e been
accused , with some justi ficati on, of slighting
data collection (Lofland & Lo fland , 1984).
No net hcl ess, a number of groundcd rheorisrs
have gathered th orough data, cven rhose who
have re lied primarily on inrerviews (see, c.g.,
Basza nger, 1998; Biernacki, 1986; Charma z,
1991 , 1995b). Perhaps because grou nded the-
ory methods focus on rhe deve lop ment of early
;tnalyric schemes, data g;irhering remains prob-
le mari c and dispured .
Glase r (1 992) raises slrn rp differences with
Strauss and Corbin (1990) abour forcing data
through precanceived quesri ons, ca tegories,
and hypo rhescs. Perhaps both are righr, al-
tho ugh in differenr ways. Glaser 's compararive
app roac h and emphasis on process provide cx-
celle nt straregies far making data analysis effi-
cient, productivc, and cxciring-wi t hour fo r-
mulaic rechniques . Every qualitarive researcher
should rake hecd of his wa rnin gs about forcing
data inro preconccived categories rhrough rhe
imposirion of artificial quesrions. However,
data collecring may demand that re sea rchers
ask quesrions and follo w hun ches, if not in di-
recr co nversa rion wirh respondcnts, th cn in the
observers' nares abour whar ro look far. Re-
sea rchers construct rich data by amass ing perri-
nent detai ls. Strauss and Corbin's ma ny qucs-
rions an d rechniqu es may help novices imp rove
their data gathering. Glascr (1998) assumes that
data become rransparent, rhat we researchers
will see rh e basic social proccss in rhe fie ld
throu gh our resp ondenrs' rellin g us whar is sig-
nificanr. H oweve r, what researchers see may be
neith er basic nor certain (Mirchell & C harm az,
1996). \Vhat respondents assume or do nor ap -
prehend ma y be much more importa nt th an
whar they talk ab our. An acontexrual reliance
on respo ndcnts' overr conccrns ca n lead ro nar-
row research problcms, limired data, and trivial
analyses.
lvlost grounded theorists wrirc as if their data
have an objecrivc status. Srrauss and Co rbin
(1998) write of "the reality of the data" and te ll
us, "The data do 11or lie" (p. 85) . Data a re narra-
rive consrructions (lvlai nes, 1993) . They are re-
consrructions of expe ri ence; they are nor rbe
original experience itse lf (see also Bond, 1990).
\"Qhether our resp ondents p ly us wirh data in in-
terview accounrs they recasr far our consump-
t ion or we record ethnographi c sro ri es to refl ect
expericnce as besr we can rc call and narrare,
data remain reconstructions.
As we garher rich data, we draw from mulri-
ple so urces- obser vatio ns, conversarions, for-
mal interviews, auto biographies, public rc-
co rds, organizarional reporrs, respondents'
diaries and journals, and our own tape-recorded
reflectio ns. Gro und ed rheory analyscs of such
materials begin with ou r coding, take fo rm with
Gro1mded Theory: Objectivist a11d Co11structiuist Methods ◊ 5 15
decpen pcrceprion, thcy prov ide stn rting poin rs
memos, and are fashioned into conferenc~ pa•
pers and arrides. Ycr our sraremcnr of rhc ideas far building analys is, nor ending poinrs íor evad-
scldorn e nds with publication. Rarher, we re• ing ir. We may use se nsiri zing conce prs o11fy as
visir our ideas and, perhaps, our clara and poims of dcparrure f rom which ro smdy t he da~a.
re •create rhem in new form in an evolving pro- Line-by-line coding likely leads ro our ref1n-
cess (Connelly & Clandi nin, 1990).
10 in g and specifying any borrowed e~ rant c~n·
ccpts. Much of my wo rk 0 11 the ex penence of ill-
ness has been informed by conccpts of self and
Codi11g Data
idcntiry. The woman whosc srarement ¡~ quored
in Tabl e 19.l ralkcd of having lovcd her ¡ob asan
How do we do groun ded th eo ry? Analys is
advoc atc for nursing-home resid c nrs. Th roug h
begins ca rly. \Y/e groundcd rheorists cede .ºur
coding her st:ire ment line by line. I crcared ch.e
emerging da ta as we collect ir. Through codmg,
cede "identity rrade-offs" and la re r de ve loped ir
we starr ro define and carego ri zc our data. In
inro a caregory. Line-by-line coding keeps ns
ground ed rheo ry coding, we creare cedes as we thinkin g abotlt wh ar meanings we make of ~ur
srudy our data. \Y/e do nor, or should not, .paste data, asking ou rse lves questions of ir, and p.111-
carchy co nceprs on our data. \V/e should mrer- poinring gaps and leads in ir ro fo cus on dunng
ac t with our data a nd pose qucsrion s ro rh em
subsequenr data collecrion. Note that I k~pt. rhe
whil e coding rhem. Coding helps us to gain a cedes active. These acr ion cedes give us ms1ghr
new perspective on o ur material and ro _focus inro what people are doing, whar is h appen ing in
furrher data collecrion, and may lead us m un-
the secri ng. .
fo rescen dir ec ti o ns. Unlike quantitative re• Gcnerari ng acrion cedes facil itares m;1k111g
search thar requires data to fit inro precon·
co mparisons, a major rechnique in gro und ed
ceived sta ndardized codcs, the rcsea rcher' s rheorv. The consranr co mparari ve me chad of
interprerarions of data shape his or her emer·
grou,~ded rh eo ry means (a) co~pa~ing diff~renr
gc nr codes in grou nded rheory.
pcople (such as rh cir vicws, s1ruat1011s, _actto ns,
Coding sra rrs the cha.in of rheo ry develop-
accoums, a nd experienccs), (b) compartng clara
menr. Cedes that accounr far our data cake
from rhe sa me indi viduais w ith chcmselvcs ar
form togerher as nascent rheory rhar, in rurn,
different poinrs in rime, (c) comparing incidenr
explains these data and dirccrs furth er data
wi rh incident, (el) co mparing data wi th category,
garh ering. lniti al o r open c~ding procecds
and (e) compari n g a caregory wirh orher care-
through o ur examining each \me of_d~ra ~nd
gori es (C har maz, 1933, 1995c; Glasc r, 1978,
rhen definíng acrio ns o r evenrs w1rhtn lt-
line-by•line coding (see especially Gbscr,
1992).
Gbset (1978, 1992) srresses consta nr co m-
19 78) . This coding kceps us srudying our data .
pararivc methods . Strauss ( 1987) c.ill e_d for com-
ln add itio n ro startin g ro build ideas mduc-
pariso ns in his resea rch and rcach mg-ofre n
tivelv we are deterred by line-by-line coding
hyporherical .compar isons or, whe1~ ~1 c was
fron~ \mposing ex tanr theories or our own be-
reaching, co mparisons from students l.1ves-~~
liefs on rhe data. This form of coding helps us
cverv leve\ of an alysis (see also Sra r, l 997).
to rcmain artun ed to our subj ecrs' views of rhe ir
Stra~1ss and Corbin (1 990} in troduce new proce-
realiries, rarhe r tha n assume d1ar we shar e ~he
dures: dimensi onalizing, axial coding, and r_he
samc views and worlds. Linc-b y-line cod mg
cond itional matr ix. These procedmes are i.n-
sharpcns our use of sensitizing con~cprs-rhar
rended ro makc researchers' cmerging thtones
is, rhose background ideas that mform rhe
den se r, more co mpl ex, and mor.: precise.
overall resea rch problem. Sensi rizin g co ncepts
Dimensionalizing ancl ax ial cod ing ca n be done
offe r ways of seeing, organi zi ng, and ~ndcr-
during inirial coding; creatin g a conditio nal n~a-
stand ing expe ri ence ¡ t hey are e mbeddcd 111 o_ur
trix comes larer. Scharzman ( 19 9 1) had earlier
dis ciplinary emphases and pcrspecrival procltv-
devc loped rhe concept of dimensi ona lity tO rec-
ities. Alrho ugh sensitizing conce pts may
 516 <> STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY
r.¡:z.r,...:-;-z-.::~ - - ' « ~ ~ ~ -~ -~~c.....:.::J1.•-:,:-, -.r -·~
:,
TABLE 19.1
Examp le of Line -by-Lin e Coding of an lnte r v iew Statement
Deciding ro relinquis h
Accou nting for costs
Weig hing th e balance
Relinquishin g idenri ry
Making idemity trad e-offs
a. From Charmaz (19956. p. 671).
ognize and accounr for co mpl exiry beyond one
meaning of a property or p h eno menon. Strauss
a nd Corbin (1990) build on his notion by urging
research ers ro div ide properties in to dimensions
rh ar lie a long a co ntinuum . In turn , we can de-
velop a "dimensiona l pro file" of the propercies
of a carcgory. Strauss and Corbin furthe r pro-
pase techniques for reassembling data in new
ways rhrough what they call "axial coding."
Th is rype of coding is a imed ar making connec-
rions between a caregory and its su bcategories.
These include condirions th at give rise ro rhe
caregory, its conrcxr, rhc social inceracrions
rh rough which ir is handled, and irs consc-
quences.
Selecrivc or focused cod in g uses ini ri al co des
rhar rcappear frequenrl y ro so rr large amounrs
of d ata. Thus rhi s codi ng is m ore direcred a nd ,
rypically, more conceptual rhan lin e-by- lin e
codin g (Charmaz, 1983 , 1995c; Glaser, 197 8) .
Th ese codcs acc ounr for the m osr data and care-
goriz e rhem mosr p recise ly. !vlakin g explicit d e-
cisio ns abour selecring codes gives usa check on
rhe fir berween rhe emcrging theorerical frame-
wo rk and rhc empiri ca l reality ir exp lains. Of
rhe iniríal co des show n in T.,ble 19.1, " id enriry
trade-offs" was rhe on ly one I rreared analyri-
cally in rh e published ;1rricle. \'Q"h en comparing
resp ondenrs' inrerviews, l fou nd simil ar srare-
m enrs a nd concerns a bour idcnriry.
Our ca tegories fo r synrhesizing and exp lain -
ing data a ri se fro m our focused codes. In rurn,
lnteruforv Sta temcnt"
And so I decided, this [pain, fariglle, and
stress accruing cluring her workday} isn 'r a
way ro li ve. l don'r have ro wo rk .... So ir
was wirh grea t reg rer, and nor somerhing I
planned, I rurn ed in my rcs ign,1tion. Ir
was the best thing I ever did.
our carego ri es shape o ur clevelopi ng analyti c
frameworks . Catt:gories often subsume severa!
codes. Far examp le, m y catcgo ry of "sign ificanr
evenrs" includ ed posirivc ev enrs ancl relived
negacive evenrs (C harm az, 199 1). Carcgo ri es
turn descrip tio n into conceptual ana lys is by
specifying p rope ni cs ana lyricall y, as in rhe fo l-
lowi ng cxa mpl e:
A sig niíic:1nt evc nt stands o ut in mcmory be-
cause ir has bou nd:uics, inte nsiry, and cmo-
rional force . ... Th c em orion:i l rcvcrberarions
of a si ngle evcnt ec ho rhrou gh the prcscnr a nd
futur e and thercfore, howevcr su btl y, shadc
rhollglm.
In rheir discussi o n of sc lecrive coding, Srrauss
::rnd Corbin (1990) introduce che "condirional
ma rri x," an analyric di ag ram thar maps th e range
of co ndirio ns and conseq uen ces r elare cl ro rhe
phenorn enon or caregory. The y d escribe chisma-
trix as a se ri es of circl es in wh ich rhe ourer rings
represe nt rh ose cond iri o ns most d isra nr from ac-
ti ons and inccracrions and che inn er rings rcpre-
senr chose closesr ro acc ions ;md inre raccions.
Scra uss and Corbi n propase that resea rche rs
crea re matri ces ro se nsirizc chemselves to che
range of condirions co ncei vably affecring che
phcnomena of inrcresr and ro ch e ran gc of h ypo-
rherical consequences. Such matrices can
sharpen rescarchers' exp lanations of and pre-
dicri o ns ;:ibour rhc studi ed p henomc na.
Gro,mded Theory: Objectivist a11d Co11strnctivist Mcthods
Memo Writi11g
Memo writing is t h e imermediatc srep bc-
rwec n coding and rhe first draft of che com -
plered analysis. This step helps to spatk out
rhinking an d encourages us ro look ar our d~ra
and codes in n ew ways. lt can help us ro de fm c
leads for coll ecting dara- both fo r futthcr ini-
ti al co ding and later theoretical sampling.
Through memo wrir ing, wc elaborare pro-
cesses, assumpt ions, and acrions that are sub-
sum ed und er our codes. Memo wriring le ads us
ro exp lore out co des; we expand upon the pro-
cesses rh ey id emi fy ar su ggesr. Thus o ur cod es
rake o n subsra nce as we ll as a srrucrure for so rc-
ing data.
Action codes (e.g., as illustrated above) spur
che writing of useful mem os because rhey help
us ro see in terrelated processes rathe r rha n
sraric iso larcd tapies. As we d erai l rhe proper-
ries o f our action cocles in memos, we connect
ca rego ri es and define how they fit in~o larger
processes. By discussing rhese conne~nons and
defíning processes in memos ca rl y 111 o ur r~-
searc h we reduce rhe likelihoo d rh ar we w11\
1
get los t in mounrains of data- memo wririn g
keeps us focused on o ur an alyses and involved
in o ur research.
Jv1emo w riring aids us in lin king analyric in-
terp reracion w ith empi rical re ali ry. We bri_ng
raw data righrinro our memos so th arwe ma1~-
tain th ose conn ecrio ns and examine rhem d1-
rectly. Raw cl ara fr orn d ifferent so urcc~ pro-
vide rh c grist for makin g precise compansons,
fleshin g out ideas, analyzing proper_ries of
caregories, an d secing patterns. Thc f1rs r ex-
cerpt below is rhe first secrion o f an eariy
m emo . I wrote th is memo quickly in 1983 after
comparin g data from a series of recenr in ter-
views.12
Developing a D ual Sel(
T he dual sclf in th is case is the cotttrnst berwcen
thc sick sel{ and thc mouitoritzg sel{ (acrua_ll y
physical sdf might be a bcttcr tcrm [rhan s,ck
se/{1 since so rne o f thcse pcop lc try to sce th cm-
sclves as "well " bur srill fcel rhcy mu st con-
stanrly m onitor in order to mninrain rh;:it sta-
◊ 5 ·17
tus- thcy also rathcr casi!}' sin\.: into sc lf-bl:m,c
when thc mon ico ring docsn 'r work).
With S:ira S. wc scc ddin irc cci11vcrs:aio11s
h cld bcrwce n thc p hysical :mcl monit0ring ~elf.
Through her lc,1rni11g time o r bocly ccluc:.1t1 011,
sclf-taught and sc lf-valid:ncd shc has no r o nly de ·
vclopcd a sc nsc of what her bocly "11e~d~" shc has
dcvclopcd a finely hon ed seme of t111m1g about
how ro handlc: rhosc nceds .
\Vith thc dual sel{, thc mo ni ror ing sdf cxtcr-
1wlizes the interna! mcssages fr om thc p hysica l
self and makes t hcm co ncrer c. Ir is as if c..lialoguc
and ncgotiati on with ulrim :llc va lida1ion ~f rhc
physica l scl f rakc place betwcen rhc rwo d1mcn -
sions.of thc dual sclf. Co nsequcn d y, thc co mp c-
rcnr moniroring sclf must be ab le to attend tO ~he
mcssagcs givcn by the physical sclf. Th c lcan~m¡;
time is the neccssary amoum of concemrauon,
rria l :1.nd erro r to bccomc :in cffc ctivc mo ni tor in g
sclf. .
l\ürk R. , fo r exa mp le, illustr:1tcs rhc ~111 d_of
dial ogue rh ar rn kcs place bcrwccn rhe mo ni tonng
and physic:i l sclvcs w hen he ralks about pe ~so n tO
kidncy ra lks and what ís m:edecl 10 susr:1 111 th:1.t
ncw tra nsplamed kidncy in hi s body.
The dual sc lf in mauy ways is :m alogous to che
dialogue that Mead desc ribes berwcen the I ancl
rhe me. Thc me monitors and attc nds to rhc 1
w hich is crcati ng, cxpe ri encing, feclin¡;. Thc
monitoring me define s those fceli ngs, im pu lses
and scns.1tions. Ir cv:1111 : m :s thcm ílnd clevelops .ª
li ne oí acrion so rh:it w hat is dcfined as necded 1s
raken c:1. rc o f. Thc physical scl f h cre is rhcn takcn
:is an object hcld up to vicw which can be mm-
pared w ith past physica l (or f_o r thar m:mcr, psy-
chol ogical sclvcs) , wi th pcrcc1vcd sratu scs of ~r h-
crs, w irh a dcfincd levcl of hca hh or wc ll -bem¡;,
wi th signals of porcn rial criscs ere. . .
A conscquc nce of the monitor ing sclf 1s that 1t
may be cnco nragcd by practirionc rs (aftcr :1\1,
taking rcspo nsibiliry for o ne's body. is 1hc m es -
sagc rhesc d:1rs, isn't ir?) w hcn 1t sccms ro
"work," yct ir may be co ndemncd whc n 1hc pc ~-
so n 's tactic s fo r monitoring conflict wich pracn -
tio ners' norion s of re;1 so11:1ble :1ctio n or :t rc un-
succcssfu l.
The foll~wing passage sh ows how the m emo
nppeared in che pub lished ve rsion of th e rcsea n:_h
(C hatm az, 199 1). The co111bin:1tion of :t nalync
clarity and empirical grounding makes rhe n~emo
above re markab ly congru cnt wirh rhe publ1sh ed
excerpr. Memos record resea rch ers ' srages of an-
alytic dev elop menc. Memo wririn g helps re-
searchcrs (a) ro grappl e with ideas abo ut t he
data, (b) ro se r an ana lyric cou rse, (c) tO refine

51 8 ◊ STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY
categories, (d) ro define che relarionships among
various caregories, and (e) to ga in a sense of con-
fidence and competence in rheir abiliry to ana-
lyze data .
Developing a Dialectical Sel(
Th c dialecrical sclf is thc contrast bcrween the
sick or physic:i l sclf and thc monitoring self.
Kccping illness containcd by impcding progrcs-
sion of illncss, rathcr th,rn mcrcly hiding ir, leads
to devdoping a monitoring sdf. Dcvelopíng a
·, dia lcctic:i. l sclf mcans gaining a hcighten cd
awareness of onc's body. Peop le who do so bc-
lievc rhnt thcy pcrccivc nuances of physical
changes. Br his second transplant, for examplc,
M ark Rcinertscn felr rhat he had lcarncd ro pcr-
ccivc thc first signs oí organ rejecrion.
When pcoplc no longcr vicw rhemsclvcs as
"sic k," rh c}' srill monitor their physical sclvcs to
save themselv cs from fu rthcr illncss. To illus·
trate, Sara Shaw cxp lain ed rhat shc spcnt
monrhs of "lcarning ti me" to be ab le to discovcr
what her body "needcd" and how ro handl c
rhosc nccds. Shc commcnted, "I got to know ir
[her ill bocly]; I got ro undcrsrand ir, and ir was
just me ::m<l mix cd connectivc rissue diseasc [her
diagnosis changcd], you kn ow, and I got ro re•
specr ir nnd I gorro know-to ha ve a real good
fecling for rim e clcmcnts and far what my bod}'
was doing, how my body wns fccling." Whcn I
asked her whnt she mcanr by "rime clcmems,"
shc repli cd:
Thcre' s times during the month , during the
coursc of :1 monrh , when l'm much more sus•
cc ptiblc, and I can íccl ir. I can wake up in thc
morning :ind I can fccl it .. .. So I rcall y
lcarncd wb:u I was capablc of and when I hod
to stop, whcn I hod to slow down . And I
lcarncd to likc-givc and take with that. And
I think rh at's ali programmcd in my mind
now, and 1 don't cve n h:ive to rhink about ir
now, )'Ou kn ow; I'll know.1'11 knowwhcn, no
mattcr whar's ¡;oing on, l'vc gana go sit
down . . and take ir easy, ... thar's a rcquire•
mene of that day. And so consequcnrl)'t l re•
allr don'r get sick.
In tbe dia lccrical se lf, thc monitoring scl f
cxtc rnalizcs thc intcrna l messages from ch e
physical sclf :-ind makcs thcm concrete. lt is as if
di alogue and ncgotiation with ultimare valida·
tion of thc phrsical self take place. For example ,
M:-irk Rcinertscn engaged in "pcrson to kidney"
t:-ilks to cncourage the new kidnc}' to remain
with him (sce also Mc.:Guirc and Kantor 1987). A
1compctc nt monitoring sel ( atrcnds to messages
from rh c physic:il sc lf and ovcr time, as Sara
Shaw's commenr suggest's, moni1 oring bccomes
takcn for grantcd.
In many ways, che dial ectical sclf is analo•
go us co rhc dialogue rhat Mead (1934) describes
between che "l" and rbe "me." Thc "me" moni·
tors and attends to che "l" that creares, experi•
enccs, and fecls . Th c moni ro ring "me" defines
ch e 'Ts" bchaviors, fcclings, impulses, and se n•
satio ns. lt evn.luates rhem and pl:ms action ro
mcet dcfined nceds. Herc, :m ill person takcs his
or her phrsical sclf asan object, appraiscs ir and
compares ir with past physical sc lves, wi ch per·
ccivcd hcalth sraru scs of othcrs, with idcals of
ph ysical or mental wc ll•bcing, with sis nals of
potential criscs and so forth (cf. Gadow 198 2).
The dialcctical sclf is onc of ill pcop lc's mul·
tiple sclves emerging in the fo.ce of uncertainry.
Wheth er or nor ill pcoplc give thc dial ccrical scl f
validity significantly affc cts their acrions. For
someo nc like Sara Sliaw, thc dialcc cical sclf pro•
vidcd guidclincs far organizing time, fer raking
[ 1 jobs, and far deve loping rclationships wirh orb·
ers. With jobs, shc bclicvcd titar shc had to guard
1 lookin g ar idenriry loss in orhcr sim arions, such
hcrself from rhc stress of roo many demands.
\Vith fri ends, she fclt she had ro place her necds
first. Wirh physicians, she rcsisted thcir contro l
sincc shc rrusred her know lcdgc about her con·
dirion more than rheirs.
Pracritioncrs m:l)' encoura¡;c a moniroring
sclf whcn it see ms LO "work," yer condemn ir
whcn unsucccssful, or whcn moni tor ing cacrics
conflicr with their advicc (cf. Klcinman 198 8).
Thc dcv clopm ent o í rhe dialecticnl sel f illumi·
naces thc active srancc rhat sorne people take LO·
ward rh eir illncss cs and thcir lives. In short, thc
dialecticn.l self hclps pcoplc to kccp illncss in rhe
background of rh cir li ves. {Charmaz, 19 9"1,
pp. 70-72)
N ote thc chan ge in che title of the caregory in
the publishcd version. This changc rcflects my
artempt to choose term s t h at best porrrayed rhe
empirical descripcions char the cntego ry sub-
sumed. l was trying to address che limin al rela·
cionship cerrain respondenrs described with
rheir bodies in which they ga ined a hei gh tened
awareness of cues char orher people disavow,
disregard, o r do nor discern . The rerm dialecti-
cal sel( denotes :1 more dynami c proccss than
<loes rhe term dual sel(
Although man y groundcd theorists concen-
trare on overractions and sraremencs, l also look
far subjecrs' unsrated assumptions and implicit
Gro1111ded Theor y: Objectivist a11d Constructivist Methods
meanings. 13 Then I :1sk myself how rhese as·
sumprions and meanings relate to conditions in
which a category emerges. For cxa mple, sorne
people wirh chronic illnesses ass umed chat
rh eir bodles had become alien and hoscile
bartlegrounds wherc chey warred wirh illncss.
Thcir ass umprions about having alien b o dies
and being ar war wirh illness affected if an d
how th ey adapted ro their siruarions. \1{1hen I
d eve loped ch e cacegory "surrendering to rhe
sick bod}'," l as ked whar cond irions fostered
surrendeting (Chatmaz, 1995b). 1 idenrified
rhree: {a) "relinquishing rhe qucsr far co ntrol
over one's body," (b) "giving up notions of vic•
rory over illness," and (e) "affirming, however
implicitl y, rhat on e's self is tied to che sick
body" (p. 672).
Tbeoretical Sa111pli11g
As w e grounded theorists refine mir categ o-
ries and deve lop rhem as rheoretical consrructs,
we likely find gaps in our data and hales in our
th eories. Th cn we go back to the field and col·
Ie ee delimitcd data to fil! those conceprnal gaps
and hol es- we conducr rheo re tical sampling.
Ar chi s point, we chaose to sample spccific is•
sues only; we look for precise informarion to
shed light on the cmerging rhe o ry.
Theore tical sampling represe ncs a defining
properry of grounded theory and relies o n che
comparacive mcthods wichin grounded ch eo rr.
\1(/e use cheorerical sampling to develop our
emcrging categories ancl to make rhem more
definirive and use ful. Thus rhe aim of chis sam·
pling is to refine icieas, not to increase che sizc
of che original sample. The o rerical sJ mplin g
h clps us to identify conceptual bound~ries and
pin poi ne the fit and relevance of our categories.
Alrhough we ofte n sa mple people, wc may
sample scenes 1 cvents, or documents, depend-
ing on che srudy and where the rheory leads us .
\Y/e may rerurn to rh e samc sertings or individu·
als to gain furrher informati on. 1 filled out my
inicial analysis of one caregory, " living one day
ar a rime, " by going back to respondents with
whom 1 had conducted carli er interviews. I had
already found chat people wich chroni c ill•
nesses rook li ving o ne <lay at rime as a strategy
◊ 519
to mainrnin so rne co nrrol ovcr rhcir un ccrrai n
liv es. Onl y b y going back to selected respondcnts
did I learn rhac chis scracegy n. lso had ca nse•
quences for h ow rh ey viewed rhe futur e when
they later allowed rhernsclves to think of ir. Thc
passage of tim e and rhe cvents thar had filled ir
allowed them ro give up earlier chcrished plans
and anticipared furures without being devascatccl
by loss.
The o retical sarnpling is a pi voca l parr of rh c
development of forma l theory. Here, rhe lcvel of
abstraction of the emerging chcory has exp lana·
ro ry powe r ac ross substantive a.reas bccause the
processes and conc epts wich in it are abstraer and
generic (Prus, 1987). Thus we would seck co m -
parnrivc data in substantive arc;;is throu gh rhco·
rerical s~1 mpling ro hclp us te:ise out less vis ibl e
properries of o ur conccpcs and rh e con<licio ns
and limits of rheir applicabiliry. Fo r example, [
addrcss idcnrity loss in sever.11 :.111.1l yses of rh e cx-
perience of illness. I could refine my conccpcs by
as bercavement ancl involunr:u y unemploy mcnr.
Compa.racive analys is of peop le who cxpcriencc
unanricipared idenciry gains, sut: h as uncxpecrecl
job pro mori o ns, could a lso net com:eprual re-
finements.
Th e necessity of engaging in rheo reti ca l sa m-
pling means that w e researche rs cannot produce
a sa lid grounded rheory through o ne-shot inter-
viewing in a single data co li ect ion phase. ln sread ,
rheoretical sa mplin g demand s rhar we h ave com ·
pleced rhe work of comparing data with clara ;1 11d
have developed a provisionJI set of relev anr cate-
go ries for explaining our daca. In turn , our ca te•
garles tJke us back to rhe ficld to gJ in m o re in·
sighr about when, how, :md ro w har ex re nr rhey
are pertinenr and useful.
Ti1 coreticJI sampling helps us ro ddin e rh c
properc ies of our categories; to identif}' ch e co n·
rexts in which ch e y are rel ev:mr; to spcci fy rh c
co ndirions under which they ari sc, ar e main -
tained1 and vary; and ro di scove r their conse·
quenccs. Our emph:.1sis on srudying process com·
bined wich rhco retical samp ling to delineare che
limits o f our carcgories also helps us to defin e
gaps between cJtegorics. Through using com·
parative methods, we specify rhe co ndi tio ns un·
der which they are linkccl to ac her i:acegories. Af·
 520 ~ STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY
Gro1111ded Theory: Objectivist mzd Collstrnctivist Methods ◊ S2 1
ter we decide which caregorics besr explain
management. Amanda Coffey, Bevetly Hol- data. No matter how helpful compurer pro- grounded rhcory methods gloss over mea ni ngs
whar is happening in ou r study, we treat rhcm as
brook, and Pau l Atk inson (1996) point out thar gra ms m ay preve for ma nagi ng che pares, \\~ within respondenrs' srories. 17 Conrad (l 990)
conceprs. In this sensc, these conceprs are useful
other advanragcs of computer coding include can see only their fragmenrs on the screen. and Riessman (19906) suggest tha t "fracturing
for helpi ng us to understand many incidenrs or
rhe abi liry to do mulrip le searches using more And these fragmems may seem to rakc on an the data" in grounded rheory researc h mig ht
issues in thc data (Srrauss & Corbin, 1990).
rhan one code word simulraneously and the fa.et exisrence of rheir own, as if objecrive and re• limit understanding becausc grou nded theorists
Srrauss (personal communicarion, February 1,
rhar it enables rcsearchers ro place me mos ar moved from rheir contextual origins and from aim for analysis rather than rhe porrrayal of sub·
1993) advocares rheorerica l sampling early in
points in rhe texr. Dara analysis programs are our construcrions and inrerprerarions. Because jects' expericnce in irs fu llness. From a groundcd
rhe research. I recommcnd conducring ir Iarer in
also effecrive for mapping relationships visually objecrivist grounded thcory echoes posi~ivism, theory perspecrivc, fracturing rhe data means
arder rhat re lev:mt data and analyric dircctions
onscrcen. They do not, however, rhi nk for thc computcr•assisted programs based on ir may creating codes and caregories as rhe researcher
emerge wirho ut bcing forced . Otherwise, ea rl y
ana lysr-perhaps ro chagrin of sorne studenrs promote widespread acccptance _not jus~ of the defi nes rhemes wirhin che clara. G lascr :md Strauss
theorerical sampling may bring premature clo-
sure ro rhe analysis. (see also Seidel, 1991). Nonetheless, Thomasj. software, bur of a one-dirnens1onal v1ew of (1967) propose this matcgy for seve ra!_teasons :
Richards and Lyn Richards (1994) argue that qua lirative research. (a) to help che researchc r avoid rema111111g 1111-
G rounded theory researchers take the usual
rhe code-and·retrieve merhod supports the mersed in anecdotes and srories, and subse-
crireria of "sarurarion" (i.e., new data fir inro
emergence of rheory by searching rh e data for quenrly unconsciously adopting subjccrs: per•
rhe caregories already devised) of rheir carego-
codes and assemb ling ideas. Furrhe r, Rena ra spectives; (b) to prevent rhe researcher s be·
ries for ending the rcsearch (Morse, 1995). Bur ~ Critica / Challenges to
Tesch (1991) nores rhar concepru:tl operarions com ing immobi lized and ovcrwhelmed by
whar does sarurarion mean? In pracrice, satura• Grounded Theory
fo ll ow or accompan}' mec hanical clara manage• vo luminous data; an d (e) to creare a way fo r che
rion seems elastic (see also Flick, 199S; Morse, ment.
1995). Grou nded rheory approaches are seduc• resea rchcr to organize and interpret data. H ow•
Qualirarive ana lysis software programs do ever criticísms of fracruring the data imply rhar
rive because they allow us ro gain a handlc on
not escape conrroversy. Coffey et al. (1996) an d As is evidenr from the discussion above, recenr gro~nded rheory methods lead t~ separ~ tin g thc
our material quickly. Is rhe ha ndle we gain rhe
Lonki la (1995) express concern abour qualira- debates havc resulred in reassess ments of experience from rhe experienc111g sub1ect, rhc
bese or mosr complete one? Does ir cncourage
tive prograrns based on conceprions of grounded grounded theoty. O6jectivist grounded theory meaning from the story, and the viewer from rhe
us to look deep ly enough? Thc data in works
rheory merhods and rheir uncr itica ] adoprion by has shaped views of what the mcthod is and vicwed. 18 In shorr, che criticis ms assumc that the
clairning ro be grounded theory pieces ra nge
users. They fear rhat thcse prog rams overem• w herc ir can take quali tative resea rch. Over rhe grou nded rheory mcthod (a) limits entry i1_1to
frorn a handfu J of cases ro sustai ned fie ld re-
phasize coding and promete a superficial view ycars, a pc rceprion of how leading proponents subjecrs 1 worlds, and chus reduces understa~d rn g
scarch. The latter more likely fulfills rhe critc·
of grounded rheory; rhey also note rhar mechan• have used grounded rheory has become melded of their experience; (b) currails representa non of
rion of sarurarion and, moreove r, has rhe reso•
ical operations are no substirurc for nuanced in- with che me rhods rhemselves. Subsequenrly, borh the social world and subjecrivc experience;
nance of intimare fami liarity wirh rhe studied
world. rerprcrive analysis. However, Nigel G. Fielding critics make assumprions about rhc namre of (c) rclies upan che viewer's aurhoriry as experr
and Raymond M. Lee (1998) do not find sub- the merhod and irs limi rarions (see, e.g., Con· obscrverj and (d) posits a s~t of obj ~crivist proce•
As we define o ur categories as saturared (and
sranrial empirical ev idence for such concerns in rad, 1990; Riessman, 1990a, 19906). Riess- dures 011 w h ic h thc analys1s rests. 1
some of us never do), we rewrite our me mos in
thcir sysremaric fie ld srudy of users' expericnces ma n {1990a) states t hat gro unded theory Rcscarchcrs can use grounded rhcorr merh-
expanded, more analyric form. \Ve put these
wirh compurcr•assisred qua lirative data analys is methods were insufficicnr ro respect her mter- ods to furrher their knowledge of snbjccrivc ex •
memos to work for lecrures, presemations, pa• 15
programs. I stil l have some reservations abour viewees and to porrray thei r stories. Richard· pe~ience and ro expa nd irs representation wl~i lc
pcrs, and chapters. The ana lyric work conrinues
rhese programs for four reasons: (a} Grounded son (1993) found prospects of completing a neither remaining exrernal from ir nor accepnng
as wc sorr and arder memos, for we may dis•
covcr gaps or new re larionships. rheory merhods are often poorl y unclersrood ; grounded theory ana lysis to be alienating and objecrivisr assumptions and procedurcs. A con·
(b) rhese merhods have long bee n used ro legiti- tumed to literary fotms. Richardson (1994) srructivisr grounded rhcory assumes rhar people
mate, rarher rhan ro conducr, srudies; (e) these creare and mainrain meaningful worlds rhrough
Comp11te1·-Assisted Analysis also has observed thar qualitative research re-
software packages appear more suired for pares are nor so srraightfonvard as rheir ill~- dialecrical processes of conferring meaning on
objecrivisr grounded theory rhan consrrucrivisr rhors represc nt thcm to be. Aurh ors choose cv1- their rea liries and acting wirhin rhem (Bury,
Computer•assisrcd rcchn iques offcr sorne
approaches; and (el) rhe programs may uninten- dence selecrively, clean up subjccts' sratements, 1986; M ish lcr, 1981). Thus social reality docs
shortcuts for coding, sorring, and integrating
tiona ll y fosrer an illusion rhat inrerprerive work unconsciously adopt value -l ade n metaphors, nor exist independenr of human action. Ce,·-
the data. Severa! programs, including NUD • !ST
can be reduced ro a se r of procedures. Yvonna assume omniscience, and bore readers. rain ly, my approach co nrrasts with a n_umber of
and rhe Erhnograph, are explicirly aimed ar as-
Lincoln (personal communicarion, Augusr 21, These criticisms challenge authors' repre- grounded rheory srudies, mcthodolog1cal ~r:irc:
sisting in ground ed theory ana lyses. H yper•
1998) asks her students, "\Vhy wou ld you wanr sentarions of their subjects, rhcir au rh oriry to menes, and rescarch texrs {sec, c.g., Chen1tz &
Rescarch, a program designed to rerrieve and
to engage in work that connects you ro rh c deep- interpret subjects' lives, and their writcr's Swanson, 1986; Glaser, 1992; Marrin & Turner,
group data , serves q ualitarive sociologists across
cst parr of human existe nce and then rurn ir over vo ice, criticisms cthnograp he rs have answercd 1986; Strauss & Corbi n, 1990; Turne r, 198 '1).
· a broad ra ngc of analytic appl icario ns. 1-1 Such
ro a machi nc ro 'mediare'?" Pan of inrerpretive {sce, e.g., Bese, 1995; Dawson & Prus, 1995; By adopring a construcrivist grounded theory ap•
programs can prove eno rmo usly helpful with
work is gaining a sense of rhe whole- rhe who le Kleinman, 1993; Sandets, 1995; Snow & pro:ich, che researchcr can movc grom~Ued che•
che problem of mounrains of dara- rhar is, data
interview, rhc whole srory, rhe whole body of Morrill, 1993). These criticisms imply that ory merhods furrher into rhe rea lm of inrerprc·
522 ◊ STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY
Groimded Theory: Obiectivist and Co11st r11ctivist M et /1ods ◊ 523

cal rclat ions among what we do, rhink, and feel.

ti ve socia l science consistcnt wirh a Blumerian
(1969) e mphasis on mea ning, wirhour assumin g
rhe ex isrencc o f a unidim ensional externa! real-
ity. A constructivi st groundecl theory rccognizcs
rhe inreractive nature of bo th data collection
:rnd analys is, reso lves recent criticisms of th e
merhod, and rcconciles positivisr assumprions
and postmoderni sr critiques, lv1oreover, a
construcrivisr grounded rheo ry fostcrs the de-
ve lop menr of qualirative rraditions rhrough che
srudy of cxpericnce from tbc standp oinr of
those who liv e ir.
The Place of Gro1mded Theory
i11 Q11alitatiue Resea,·c/1
Grounded rh eo ry research fits into th e
bro;:ider rraditions of fieldwork and qualicative
a na lysis. M ost grounded rhc o ry srudies rely on
derailecl qua li ta tiv e mater ia ls co llected thro ug h
fi eld , or cthnographic, research, bur rhey a re
nor e chnographi es in che se nse of total immer-
sion into specific communities. Nor do
grounded theo risrs attempt ro smdy the socia l
srructures of whole commu niri es. lnstead, we
rend ro look ar slices of social life. Like o ther
forms of qualirati ve research , grounded theor ies
can only porrray momenrs in rime. H owever,
che grounded rheo ry quesr far che srudy ofbasic
social processes fos ters che idenrificarion of
co nn ections bcrwee n events. The social world is
always in process, ::md the liv es of the research
subjects shift and change as their circum-
stances and they themselv es change. Hen ce a
grounded theori st-or, more broad ly, a qualita-
ti ve resea rchcr-constructs a picrure that draws
from, reassc mbl es, and re nclers subjects' li ves.
Th e producr is mo re li ke a painting than a pho-
tograph (Charma z, 1995a). I co me close ro
Arkinson's (1990, p. 2) dep icrion of echnogra-
phy asan "artful produce" of objectivist descri p-
tion, carefu l o rganizati o n, and interprerive
commentary. The te ndency to reify che findings
a nd thc picrure of reality may rcsulr more from
inrer prerers of che work than fro m its aurhor. 2 º
Sig nifi cantly, how cver, many rescarchers who
adopt grouncled theory srratcgics do so pre-
cisely to co nstru ct objectivist-rhat is, positiv-
isr-qualirarive studies.
Grounded rheor )' provides a sysre matic ana -
lytic approach ro C]Ualit:1rivc anal ys is of ethno-
graphi c matcrials beca use ir consists of a se t of
explicir strategies. Any reasonably well-traincd
research er ca n employ rhes e strategies and de-
ve lop an anal ys is. The srrengrhs o f grou nded
rheory merh o ds li e in (a) stra tegies rh ar g uidc
the resea rchcr ste p by srep rhrough an ana lyric
process, (b) the se lf-correcring natur e of rh e
data co ll ecti o n process, (e) rhe meth ods' in her-
enr benr roward rheory an d rhe si multaneous
mrning away from aco nrex rua l descriprion, and
(d) rhc em phas is 011 comparative mer hods. Yct,
like orher quali ta tive a pproaches, grouncled
rheory research is an e mergcnr process rarher
rhan the producr of a single research problem
logically and deducrive ly sequcncecl into a
study-or cvcn one log ica ll y and indu ctively se-
quenced. Th e inicial rcsearch ques tio ns may be
concrete and cl esc ripri vc, bur rhc researcher can
develop cleeper ana lyric question s by srud yin g
his or her data. Likc wondrous gifrs wa irin g ro
be opened, earl y gro und ed rheory rexts im ply
rhar carcgories and co nc eprs inh ere wirhin rhe
clara, awairing rhe rescarcher's discovery
(C harma z, 1990, 1995c). Norso. G laser (1978,
1992) assum es th:it we can garh e r ou r data un-
fen ered by bias o r biograp h y. lnsrcad, a
consrrucrivist il pproac h recog ni zes rhar rhe car-
ego ries, co ncepts, ,rnd rheorerical leve! of a n
an alysis emerge from rh e research cr's inrera c-
tion s within the ficld :incl quesrions abo ut rhc
data. In s ho rr, rh e narrowing of rese;uch ques-
ri o ns, rhe creation of co nce prs and caregories,
and rhe integ ratio n of rhc consrrucred rheoreri-
cal framcwork reflect w har and how th e re·
searc her t hinks and <loes abour shaping ancl col-
lecti ng rh e data.
The grou nded rh eorisr's ana lys is te ll s a stor}'
about pcople, social proccsses, and situa tio ns.
The researcher composes the srory; ir clacs no r
simpl y unfold befar e rhe eyes of an objeccive
vie wc r. This srory reflects rhe vicwe r as wc ll as
rhc viewcd. Grou ncl ed rhcory sruclies ryp ica ll y
lie betw een t raditi o no. l resca rch meth odology
and the recent posr modernisr rurn . Radi cal
empiricists shudd er ar grounded rhcori srs' con-
taminarían of rhe story becJ.usc we sha pc the
data co ll ccrio n and redirccr our anal yses ;1.s n ew
issues emerge. Now posrmode rni scs and posr-
The consrructivist appro:ich assumc s rh:u w har
srructurali sts castigare rhe srory as we ll . They
we take as real, :is o bjecr ive know lcdge and
argue rhar w e co mpase our sto ries un co n-
truth, is based upon o ur perspccriv e (Schwandt,
sciously, den y thc oedipal log ic of authorial dc-
1994). The pragmarisr und crpinnings in sym-
sire (Clough, 1992) , and dcconscrucr rhc sub-
bolic interJcti o nism emerge h1:r c. \Y/. l. Thomas
jccc. In addicion, Denzin (1 992a) srates rhat
even rhe new inrerprerive appro:iches "priv i-
lcge rhc research er ove r rh e subj ccr, method
over subject mattc r, and maintain commir-
menrs to o urmode d conceptions of va li dity,
crurh, and gene ralizabi li ry" (p . 20). These crici-
cisms apply to much gro und ed rh cory research.
Yer \\' C can use rhem to makc o ur c mpiri cal re-
search mor e re fl cx ive and o ur complered srud-
ies more conrexruall y situate d. \Y/e can claim
only to have inrerp rere d a reality, as wc und cr-
srood borh our own expericncc and our sub-
jccts' portrayals of thcirs .
A re•visioned ground ed theory mu sr take
episrcmological qu esrio ns into acco unr.
Grounded cheo ry can pro vidc a path fo r n~·
searchers w ho want to co ntinue to develop
qualirariv c rr aditio ns wirho ut adopri ng the
posirivisric rrappings of objecrivism and uni-
versa liry. H ence the furrher development of a
cons rructi vist grounded theory can bridge pasr
pos irivism and a re vised fu turc fo rm of inter·
pretive inquiry. A rev ised grounded rhe ory pre-
serves rc alism rhrough gr irry, empirical inquiry
:ind sheds posirivisric pro cliviries by becoming
increasingly intc rpretive.
ln conrradistinction ro Clo ugh's (1992) cri •
tique, erhn ographies can re fer ro a ferninist vi-
sio n to construcr narra ti ves that do not claim to
be literal rep resc nrations of the real. A fe minist
vision allows cmorions to surfocc, doub ts to bt:
expressed, and rclarion ships w ith subj ecrs to
grow. D ata collectio n beco m es less for mal,
more immed iare, and subjects' concerns take
prccedence over resea rchers' questions.
A consrructivisr grou nded theory disti n-
guishes betwccn che rea l and the true. The
construcri vist approach does nor seek truth-
single, universal, and lasdng. Srill, ir re mains
realist beca use ir addresscs human realities :rnd
J.ssumes th c exisrence of real w o rlds. H oweve r,
neither human realiri cs nor real worlds are
unidimensio nal. We acr w irhin and upon o ur
re alities and wo rlds and thus devel op clialecti-
and Do rorh y Swaine Tho mas (192S) procb.im ,
"If hum an beings defin e rhcir siruati o ns as real ,
rhey are rea l in rhe ir co nsequcnces" (p. 572) . Fol-
lowi ng t heir rh eorcm, wc musr rry to find whar
rcsearch parricipants define as real and where
rhe ir definitions of reali ty take rhcm. Th e
consrructivist app roac h also fostcrs our sclf-
consciousncss abour whar wc an ribure ro our
subjects and ho w, w hen, and why resea rchers
portray rhesc dcfiniri o ns as re:i l. Thus rhe re-
searc h produces do not co nsriruce thc realir)' of
the respondenrs' rcaliry. Rathcr, eac h is a render-
ing, one inrcrprctJ.tio n among multip lc interpre-
tatio ns, of a sharcd or individual rc:ility. Thar in-
rerpreration is objccriv ist o nl y ro rh e exre nr rh:1r
it sec ks ro co nstruct anal yses rh ar show ho w re -
spondents and rite social scientisrs w ho srudy
rh em co nsrruct those rea li t ies- without i•iewi11g
those rea litics as wzidim eusional, 1miuersal, a11d
im11111tablc. Researche rs' artention ro detail in
rhe constructivisr approach sensitizes rhcm ro
multipl e re:iliries and rhe multipl e vicwpoinrs
w irhin them ; ir does not repre sc nr a qucsr ro cap·
ture a single realiry.
Thus we can recast rhe obd urate character of
social li fe char Blumcr (1969) rolks ab ou r. In do-
ing so, we cha ngc our co ncepr ion o f ir from a real
world rn be discov ered , trackcd , ,111d carcgorized
ro a world made real in rhc mind s and through
rhe words and actions of irs memb ers. Thus rhe
grounded rheorisr co nsrrucrs an image o f a rea l-
iry, nor t/Jc realiry-th ar is, o bjccrivc, t rue, and
exrern:il. ·
◊ Objectivist Versus Constructivist
Grounded Th eory
A co nstructivist gro und ed rheory recog nizes rhar
rhc vicwer crcates rhe data and ens uing an:il ysis
through intcracti o n wirh rhc vit: wed. Data do
not providc a window on rea li ry. Rather, rhe

524 ◊ STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY
"discovered" realiry arises from rhe interactive
process and its temporal, cultural, and struc-
rural contexts. Researcher and subjects frame
that intcraction and canfor meaning upan ir.
The viewer rhen is part of what is viewed rarher
than separare from ir. What a viewer sees shapes
what he or she will define, measure, and ana-
lyze. Because objectivist (i.e., rhe majority of)
grou nd ed rheorisrs depart from chis posirion,
this crucial difference reflects rhe positivist
leanings in thcir studies.21
Causaliry is suggestive, incomplete, and in-
determinare in a consrrucrivist grounded rhe-
ory. Therefore, a grounded rheory remains open
Ca refinemcnt. Ir looks at how "variables" are
grounded-given meaning and played out in
subjects' lives (Dawson & Prus, 1995; Prus,
1996). Their meílnings and actions take priority
over researchers' an3Jyric intercsrs and merhod-
ological rechnology. A construcrivist grounded
theory seeks ro define co nditi onal srarements
thar interpret how subjects construct their reali-
tics. Noncrhe less, these conditional sratemcnts
do not approach some leve! of generalizab le
rruth. Rather, they consriture a ser of hypothescs
and concepts thar other researchers can trans-
port to simi lar research problems and to other
substantive fields. As such, they answ er Prus's
(1987) cal! for rhe developmenr and srudy o/ ge-
neric concepts. Thus rhe grounded theorist's hy-
porheses and concepts offer both explanarion
and understanding and fulfill rhc pragmarisrcri-
terion of usefulness.
In contrast, objectivisr grounded rheorists
adhere more dosel y ro positivistic canons of rra-
dirional sciencc (see Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser
& Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990,
1994; Wilson & Hurchinson, 1991)." They as -
sume rhat following a sysrematic ser of methods
leads them to discover realiry and to consrruct a
provisionally true, resrable, and ulrimately veri-
fiable "rhcory" of ir (Srrauss, 1995; Srrauss &
Corbin, 1990, 1994). 23 This theory provides
not o nl y undersranding but prcdicrion. Three
cxtensions of rhis position follow: (a) Sysrem-
aric application of groundecl rheory srraregies
answers rhe posirivist call far reliability and va-
li diry, because specifying procedures permits
reproduc ihili ry; 24 {b) hyporhesls rescing in
Gmunded Tl1eory: Obiectivist and Constructivist Metl,ods ◊ 525
ever, researchcrs frame their quesrions i_n ways
Given che posirivisr bent in object'.v'.st
groundecl theory leads to confirmation ar that cloak raw experiencc and mure feelings. In
grounded rheory, whcre might a conscr_ucnv1sc
disconfirmarion of rhe emerging cheoryi and {e) srudies thac cap sufferin g, we may unwiccingl y
approach cake us? How mighr ic rec_onci l_e_boch
grounded rheor y merhods all ow far rhe exer- give off cues that we do not welcomc resp~n-
positivist lean ings and poscmodern1sc crmques
rion of conrrols, and cherefore make changing denrs' going too dcep. Furchermore, º'.1~-shoc_ 111-
in grounded rheory? A conscrucrivisc ground~d
the sru d ied reality possible. terviewing lends icself to a parri::il, s:1111c1zcd v,ew
rheory lies berween postmodernist (Denz.111,
Objeccivisr groundcd rheory acceprs th e of experience, c\eaned up far pub li c discoursc .
1991; Kriegcr, 1991; Marcus & Fischer, 1986;
posicivisric assumprion o f an exrernal world The very srructurc of an incerview may precl~de
rhar can be described , analyzed, ex plained, and
-r, ler 1986) and posrpositivi sr approaches to
privare rhoughts ~md fee lin gs from eme~g.11~g.
q~ali,tarive res ea rch (Rennie, Phi llips, & Quar-
predicred: truth, bue with a small l. That is, Such a scrucrure rcinforces whaccver proc\1vmes
objectivist grounded rheory is modifiable as
taro, 1988; Turner, 1981). Researchers no
a respondenr ha s ro tell on ly che public version '¡
\onger provide a solitary voice ren~ enng che
condirions change. Ir assumes that different ob-
servers will disco ver this world and describe it
dialogue only from cheir srandp~1nrs. ~on-
of rhe st0f)'. Researchers' suscaincd invo lvcment
wirh re scarch parricip::ints lessens chese prob-
!
srructiviscs aim to include muluple v01_ces,
in similar ways. Thar's correcr- co the extent
char subjecrs have comparable experiences (e.g.,
views and visions in rheir rendering of \1ved ~=- Thc conccpcual leve! of coding, wrmng
..
expe/ience. How does one accomp lish chis?
people with diffecenr chronic illnesses may ex- memos, and developing categories likely differ
perience uncercaincy, intrusive regimens, medi- in objeccivist and conscrnccivist grounde~ l'he-
cal dominance) a nd vicwers bring similar ques- ory. For example, Srrauss and Corbin (1990,
tions, perspeccives, merhods, and, subst!quently, ◊ Constructing 1998) stick clase to rh eir depiction of oven d~ca.
conceprs ro analyze rhose experiences. Objec- Constructivism l aim ro undcrsrand che assumptions underlymg
ci visr grounded rheor isrs ofren share assump- che daca by piecing rh em rogether. For example,
tions with rheir research participants-particu- " living one day ar a rime" is a caken-for-granted
larly che professional parricipanrs. Perhaps ex planarion of how one man ages rroub l~s. E~'-
more li kely, rhey assume rhar respondents \Xlhat helps researchers develop a conscruc- eryo nc knows what li ving onc day ata tm~e. is.
share their meanings. Far exa mple, Strauss and rivist grounded cheor}'? How mighr rhey shape But what does ir assumc? I\I people report livmg
Corbin's (1990) discussion of independence che data colleccion and analysis phascs? one day ;ir a time ar having goo<l days and bacl
and dependence assumes that these cerms Gaining depth and undcrscanding in their days as self-evident faces. Nor unril_ ch~ y are
ho ld the same mcanings fa r parienrs as far re- work means chac they can fulfill Blumer's asked what rhese tenns mean exper1ent1ally-
searchers.
(1969) call for "intimate familiarity" with re- :hac is, how they affecr cheir relacing to time,
Guidelines such as rhose offcred by Srrauss spondenrs ancl rheir worlds {see also Lofl~nd what feelings rhesc experiences e\icir, :rnd so
and Corbin (1990) srrucrure objectivisr groun ~ & Lofland, 1984, 1995). In shorr, consuucnng on-do rhey start ca define a form and co nrent
ded rheorists' work. These guidelines are didac- consrructivism means seeking meanin gs- for "livin g one da y ac a rime" ar "good" and
ric and presc ri prive ra thc r rhan emergenc and both responde nts' meanin gs and researchers'
"bad" days.
inreracrive. Clinton Sanders (1995) refers ro meanings. Objeccivisc grounded rheory stu~i_es may of-
grounded rheory procedures as "more rigorous To seek respondents' mcanings, we musr go fer rich description and mak e condmonal sracc-
furcher rhan surface meanings ar presumed
chan chou instructions about how informarion menrs, bue thcy may rema.in outsidc of rhe expe-
meanings. \Y/e muse look for views and values as rience. Furchermore, objecrivisr grounded thcory
should be pressed inro " mold" (p. 92). Strauss
and Corbin caregorizc steps in rhc process well as far acrs and faces. \Y./e need to look far mechods fosrer exrernaliry by invoking proce-
with scienrific terms such as axial codi11g and beliefs and ideolo gics as wcll as siruacions and dures thac increasc complexity ar the expense of
scruccures. By scudying tacic meanings, ~ve clar-
conditional matrix (Strauss 1 198 7; Strauss & experience. Axial coding ca n \cad ro_ awkward
ify, rather than challenge, rcspondenrs' views
Corbin, 1990, 1993 ). As grounded rheory scienrisric cerms and clumsy categones. Terms
25
merhods becomc more articulared, carego- abour realiry. and categories cake cenrt!r scage and disrance
A conscruccivisr approach neccssiraces a re-
rii.ed, and elaborared, rhc}' secm ca cake on alife readers from che experience, rarher than conce_n-
of their own. Guidelines turn into procedurcs larionship wich r·e spondents in which che: can rrate rheir ,,rcencion upan ic. ProcessuJ l d1a-
and are reified inro immucable rul es, unlike cast rheir stories in cheir rerms. lt mean~ hsren- grams and conceptual maps can resu lt in an
Glaser and Srrauss's (1967) original flexible ing to cheir scories wich openness to fe_eh~1g and overlv complex archicecrure rhac obsc ure s expe-
experience. In my srudies of chro111c illness,
srracegies. By raking grounded cheory mcchods rienc~. Any form of grounded theory can ge ner-
several people mentioned thar rhey saw ~e a_s
as prescriprive scienrific rules, proponcnrs fur- a te jargon. Objeccivist grounded t~1e~ry espe-
so meo ne to whom chey could cxpress che1r pn-
rher rhe positivisr casr to objecrivisc gro unded ciall y risks cloaking analytic power 111 ¡argon.
v:.ire rhoughcs and feelings. Sometimes, how-
rheo ry.
 526 ~ STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY
Making our categories consistenr with srud-
ied life helps to kecp thar life in che foreground.
Active codes and subsequentcategories preserve
images of experience. For examplc, in rny dis-
cussion of immersion in illness, my categories
were "Recasting Life, " "Facing Dependency,"
"Pulling In," "Slipping lnto Illness Routines,"
and "Wearhering a Serious Episode." 26
Coding and caregorizing processes sharpen
the rcsearcher's abiliry to ask questions about
rhe data. Diffcrcnt qucstions can flow from
objectivisr and consrrncrivist srarting points.
These quesrions can be concrete, as described by
Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998), or more ab-
straer. Concrete questions are revealed in their
discussion of two caregories-pain experience
and pain relief: "Who gives pain relief ro people
with arthritis?" "What gives relief?" "How is
the pain expe rienced and handled?" "How
11
much relief is necded?" \Vhen does rhe pain
occur and when does she institute relief?" "\Vhy
is pain relief important?" (1990, pp. 78-79).
Here the categories take on an objective, extcr-
nal characrer-objective because these ques-
tions assume answcrs that reílect "facts"i objec-
tive because rhe answcrs assume rhat tite
researchcr discovers what being in pain "really
is ali abo ut"¡ objecrive because the ropic of pain
now takes on an externa! character rhar can be
identified, addressed, and managed.
In contrasr, I starr by viewing rhe topic of
pain subjectivcly as a fceling, an experience that
may take a variety of forms. Then I ask rhese
questions: \Vitar makes pain, pain? (That is,
what is essential to rhe phenomenon as defincd
by those who experience ir?) \Xlhat defining
properties or characteristics do ill people attrib-
ure to ir? When do rhey do so? These questions
lead into a question I share with Strauss and
Corbin (1990, 1998): How does rhe person ex-
perience this pain, and what, if anything, does
he or she do abom ir? Ivly questions aim to gct ar
meaning, not ar trurh. As a resu lt, a consrruc-
tivi st groundcd theory ma y remain ata more in-
tuitive, impressionistic level than an objectivist
approach.
.My version of grounded thcory fosters rhe
researcher's viewing rhe data afresh, again and
again, as he or she develops new ide.is. Re-
scarchers can code and recode data numerous
rimes (sce also Glaser & Srrauss, 1967). Posing
new questions ro the data resulrs in new analyric
poinrs. I go back and forth bcrween data and thc
drafts of chaprers or papees many rimes. I takc
explicir findings in cerrain interviews and see if
they remain implicir in other imerviews. Then I
go back to respondents and ask specific ques-
tions around the new category. For example,
when I rcrurned ro a young woman with colitis
to as k how rhe slow, monotonous time of conva-
lescc ncc might scem in mem ory, she undersrood
my linc of questioning immediately and cut in
wirhour skipping a beac: "It seem s líke a wink"
(Charmaz, 1991 , p. 92).
Every qualirative researcher makes multiple
analyric decisions. Forcmosr among rhese is
how much complexity to introduce. How much
is necessa ry ro convey rhe story with depth and
clarity? How much seems like hairsplitting that
will irritare ar confuse thc readcr? At what point
does collapsing categories resulr in conceptual
muddiness and oversimplification? To achievc
rhe right leve! of complexiry, we musr know the
potcntial audience and sense the appropriate
style and leve( ar which ro write for ir.
◊ Rendering Thrnugh Writing
The analysis of qualirative clara does not cease
when the grounded th eoris t h as dcveloped a
rheoretical framcwork; ir procceds into the
writing (Mirchell & Charmaz, 1996). A groun-
ded theorist's proclivities toward objecrivism ar
consrructivism also come through in hi s ar her
writing about rhe research. The image of a scien~
tific laboratory comes to mind with objecrivist
groundcd theory, reflectcd in carefully orga-
nized and stated written reporrs ofco ncepts, ev~
idcnce, and procedures. Constructivist groun-
d ed rheory spawns an image of a writer ar a dcsk
who tries ro balance rhe oretical interpreration
wirh an evocative aesrheric. To illusrrate how
analysis proceeds into wriring consrructivisr
grounded theory, I provide severa! writing strat-
egies and examples from carlie r work.
Grou11ded Theo ,·)': Objectivist and Constnictivist Methods
As Laure l Richardson (1990) declares, wrir-
ing n~ arters. Consisrent with the postmodcn~ist
ru;n, l artempt to evoke experienria~ feelmg
through how I render ir in wtiting. Th1s r:11ea'.1 s
raking the reader into a srory and impar~mg irs
mood through linguisric sryle and narrat1v~ ~x-
posirion. This strategy removes. rhe wrmng
from rypical scienrlfic formar w1thout tran s-
íorming rhe final produce into fiction, d_ra~na,
or poerry. I frame key definitions and d1srmc-
rions in words rhat reproduce the tempo and
mood of rhe experience:
Existi11g from day to day occurs whcn a ~ers~n
plummcts imo cominuccl criscs rhat np lifc
apa rt. (Charmaz, 1991, p. 185)
Othcrs wait ro map a íuture. And wait. They
monitor rhcir bodies and rheir livcs. They lo ok
íor signs to indicare what stcps to takc . ncx r.
They mapa Íuturc or move to the next pomt o n
thc map only whcn rhcy íccl :1ssurecl that the
worst oí their illncss is ovcr. Thcse pco ple rnap
a futur c or movc to rhc ncxr point whcn thc_y
íccl distant cnough from illncss to rclcase thc1r
cmotions from it. (p. 191)
Analogies and metaphors can explicare racit
meanings a nd feelings subsumed within a cate-
gory (see also Charmaz & Mirchell, 1996;
Richardson, 199 4) :
Such mcn and women fecl coerced into living
one <lay at a time . They force ir up a n t~c_m-
sclves, almost with clenchcd rccth. H crc, liv1~g
onc day ata time rcsembles learningan unfo~u!-
1 1 iar, disagrccablc lcsson in gr:1mmar sc_hool ; '.t IS
an unwclcomc prcrequisire to staymg ahvc.
(Charma1., 1991, p. 179)
Drifring time, in comrast {to dragging rimel,
sp rcads o ut. Likc a fan, ?rifri_ng rim: un_fo~ds
and cxpands during .i. scnous 1mmcrs1o n m ill -
ncss. (p. 91)
Simple language and srraighrfor~vard id eas
make rheory readable. Theory remams embed-
ded in the narrative, in its many stories. The
rheory becomes more acccssible but less identi-
fiabl e as theorv. Severa! srra tegi es fostet mak-
ing thc w ririn ~ accessib le . Catching expericn-
◊ 52 7
ria! rhythm and riming allows thc rescarchcr to
reproduce it wirhin rhe wriring:
From embarr:issmcnt to morrific.i.tion. Fro111 dis-
co mfort to pain. Endless unccrtaint)'· Wh:u fol-
lows? Rcgimcnration. (Charmaz, 199 1, P· 13'1)
1
l Oays slip by. The sa me day kecps slipping by. Du·
r:1tions oí time lcngrhen since ícw evcnts b~en k np
thc day, wcck, a r month._lllncss_ sccms i.:c onc
Ion¡; uninterruptcd durnnon oí umc. (p. SS)
Qucstions help rie main idens togcther or re-
direct rhe re ader. Sometimes I adopr rhe ro le of a
chr o nically ill person and ask quesrions as she
would .
Is it c:inccr? Co uld it be angina? P;1.ngs of un~cr-
taimy spring up when currcnt, frcqu~ntly und1a~-
~,- 1 nosecl, symproms could mc:111 a scnous chromc
-' illn ess. (Charmaz, 199 !, p. 32)
lmmediacy draws rhe reader inro the Sto!'):• A
story occurring in rhe prescnt as if now u1'.fold111g
draws rhe reader in. I sacrificed immed 1acy far
accuracy by wri ting abour re spo ndenrs in rl~e
pasr because the evenrs dcscribcd r_ook p_b ce '~
rhe pasr. 17 \X'here aurhors place the1r_srories a~d
how they frame rhem can bringexper1ence to l1fe
or wholly obscure ir.
A mix of concrete deraii wirh analytic carego-
ries co nn ects the fam iliar wirh thc unfamiliar ar
ev en esoteric. Thus I kept material in Good Days,
Bad Days (Charmaz, 1991) rhar had been cov-
cred befare, suc h as rhe chapter on li vi ng wit h
chronic illness. 1 took rhe reade r rhrough messy
l10u ses, jumbled schedules, prcssures to si mpli fy
life, fragile pacing, and enormous efforrs ro ~unc-
tion to the rclicf when remission occu rs. Th1 s dc-
rail gav~ readers imagery on which t~ buil~ whe n
1 moved into a more elusive analys1s of rime. .
\Vrirers use a lin ear logic to organizc their
analyses and make experience und erst;111da~1 l~.
Yet experience is nor neccssaril y linear, ~ar is ir
always readily drawn wi th clear boundancs. F~r
example, cxperiencing illness, much less al_l its
spiraling consequcnces, does nor fit nea tl y lll tO
one general process. The grounded _rheo ry
rnethod emphasizes the :malysis of a bas1c pro-
cess the researcher discovers in the data. Al-

528 ◊ STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY
though I ponde red over organizing rhe book
around onc process 1 I could not identify an
overarch ing theme. Experiencing illness con-
sists of man y processes, nota singl e process that
subsumes others. Further, illness cbbs and
flows . Chronically ill people define periods of
relarive "healrh" as well as spells of sickness.
Thus l citase ro collapse time and experience to
cover illness.
\Vritten images portray rhe tone rhe writer
ra kes roward the tapie and reflecr rhe wrirer's
relationships wirh his or her respondents. I aim
for curiosiry without condesccnsion, openness
wirhou t voye urism , and participarion wirhour
dominarion. tvlai ntaining balance is difficult,
becausc I rry to portray respondenrs' worlds an d
views. T hroughour the research and writing of
Good Days, Bad Days, 1 tried to go beyond rc-
spo ndents ' public prescntarion of self in illness .
Otherwise, the knotty problems, rhe fear and
pain, che moral dilemmas and ambivalenr deci•
sions do nor come rhrough.
\Vriters makes moral choices about portray-
ing respondenrs, dcsigning how ro tell rhcir sro-
ries, and delineating ways to interprct thcm.
These choices also lead to che re scarcher's as•
suming a ro le as che writer (Krieger, 1991). In
my book, I remain in rhe background as a srory-
teller whose ta les have beli evable characters,
notas an omniscient social scientisr. Jvly tone,
style, and imagery reduce omniscience. H ow-
ever, becausc I stayed with che conceptual cate-
gories and builr che srories around rhem, my
work remains consistcnt with grounded theory
and much social scienrific writing.
Revising a manuscripr can result in changes
in sryle, possibly even of genre. Carefully crafrcd
grounded rh cory catego ri es work wcll as sign-
posts in profcssional journa ls. A book ediror
may delete oll rhe subheadings in one quick
rcad. As signposrs go, che narrarive sryle
changcs. A more srraightforward scie nri fic sryle
recedes as a more literary sryle evolves. Of
cou rse, how one sees that sryle and wherher one
defines itas scicnrific or literary depcnd s upan
wherc o ne stands. The postmodernisr may see
rhis stylc as objecrivisr, realist, and scienrific; the
posirivist may see ir as disconcertingly literary. 1
agrcc wirh Arkinson (1990) rhar imprcssionisr
tales are often embedd ed in realist accou nrs. l
try ro pull readers in so rhey mighr sense and sir-
uare rhe fccling of rhc speaker in rhc story. Hcre,
what Van Maanen ("l 988) calls imprcssionist
ta les so und s exactly whar C lough (1992) ca lls
11
emorional realism." Perhaps, however, por-
traying moods, feel ings, and views evokes an
aestheric ver isimilirude of rhem.
◊ Summary and Conclusion
Given tite analysis abovc, w har conclusions ca n
we draw about ground ed theory studies? \Vhat
might be rhe future of gro unded theory? Firsr,
gro unded rheory merhods evolve in diffcrenr
ways dcpending u pon thc perspecrives an d pro-
clivities of their adherents. I aim ro move re•
searc hers roward an cxp licitl y consrructivisr ap-
proach. lf we exa mine our episremological
premises, we can acknowle dge rhc limirs of our
srudics and rhe ways we shap e rhem. In rhis way,
adopting and refining grounded theory merh-
ods furrhers rhc srudy of empirical worlds.
Second, we can reduce or resolve tensions
berween postmodernism and construcrivisr
gro unded theory whe n we use the former to il-
luminare and ex tend the Jarrer. In short,
posrmodernism can i,,form realisr srndy of ex-
perience rather rhan simply serve as justificarion
far abandoning ir. The posrrnodcrnisr rurn has
forced renewed awa reness of our re la tio nship s
with and rcprcsenration of subjects thar will
long influence qualitative research, possibly
longer titan the rerm postmodenzism itself holds
sway. Similarl y, the imporrancc of siruating
qualirarive researc h in historical and cultural
conrexr is underscorcd. \Ve grounded rheorisrs
ca n profit fro m the currenr trend toward lin-
guisric and rhctorical ana lysis by becoming
more reflexive about how wc frame an d wrire
o ur studies. This rrend supporrs co nstructivist
approaches in grouncl ed theory bccause ir ex-
plicitly trears aurhors' works as const ru crions
insread of as objectified producrs.
Third, che furure of grounded rheory lics
with both objcctiv isr and construcrivist visions.
Gro11nded Theory: Obiectivist and Constrnctivist Metl,ods
Scientifi c insrirutions and convenrion~ are un·
tikel y to undergo rapid cha n~c . Grannng agen:
cies and tenure review com1111rrecs m~y. lon g fa
r ob"¡ectivist work over consrrucnv1sr craft.
vo . d os-
The qualitarive revolur1on has apene up p
sibilities and potentials, bur gatekcepers are
likcl to rcward scholars whosc work comes
Y to their own . Thus, we can expec erosee
closest
growmg . num b ers o f large srudies with small.
qualirarive components and more team ptoJ·
ects in mulriple sircs. Docs rh is mean rhat
constructivist grounded rheory will_ wither a_nd
l No The rrend coward lnterpret1ve
wane. · . d rhe
srudy, che quest far undersr~ndmg, an .
challcnge to rhe imagination unpel us ro t~ke
our inquiry into rhe world. Through sha~mg
rhe worlds of our subjecrs, we co me to con¡urc
an lmage of rheir consrructions and of our own.
El Notes
1. For my comparisons of objecrivisr ~nd
constructivist grounded rheory, see the secr10~1
below headed "Objecrivist Versus Construcn-
visr Grounded Theory." . ..
2. Far examplc, in bis defm.m;e srudy. o.
namral recovery from hcroin add1ct1on, Parr~ck
Bicrnacki (1986) conrrolled his rcferral chams
far obrain ing interviews for sam~lmg, theoren·
verificational considerar1ons (pp. 21¿-
ca 1, an d d Bº ck1's
J 19) Sorne colleagues have ploce terna
~,ork in the eme rging posrmodern erhnogr~ph~.
However, in our conversations befare_ he die~, ,r
was clcar rhat he saw his wo.rk ;;is ~cahst qu_ahta-
rive research in which rhe mvesngator rn~s t~
achieve accurate reporring of a world. ~e ot l
eed rhat my use of grounded theory IS mo~e
ªf,re nomcnological and consrructivisr rhan h1 s
~wn . Anscl m Srrauss made rhe sa m~ assessment
of my work relarivc to his (Strauss s) _as well.
3. Lindesmith (1947) and Cressey (1953)
borh attempted earlier ro codify analyt1c n~e~h-
ods for qualirarive research through ana ly~1c in-
duction. Thelr work has been preserved m :he
criminology and deviance li_terat~res ~ut i;;is
faded in general methodolog1cal d1scuss1ons. d
4. Juli et Corbin has a srrong backgroun
anda docrorate in nursing science. She ha_s lo.ng
been :i leader in the establishment ~f q_ualitatl:c
mcthods in nursing; since che publicanon of B -
◊ 5 29
sics, she has attained prominence in rhc social sci-
ences and orher professions as w~ll.
S. To illuscrare, when discuss1~g conceptual-
. . d ta "s rhe firsr step in ana lys1s, Srrauss and
1zmg a a . 1 1. .
Corbin (1990) provide rhc followmg 1ypot 1et1-
cal example from a restaurant: "~hile wamng .far
. ou norice a lady m red. She .1p-
your d mner, Y . • ¡ b
ears ro be just standing rhere m rhe k1rc 1en, ur
P
your com mon se . nsc tells you
. rhat :1 restaurant
_
wouldn't poya lady in red ¡ust to stand rhere, es
ecially in a busy kirchen. Your ~ur1os1ty ~ ~
P_ d yo ,i decide ro do an inducnve an:t lys1s
pique , so 1 · b·
ro s
ee if you can determine jusr wh:ir 1er JO is.
. 1 groundecl
(Once a grounded theonsr, a ways •3
rheorisr). . d
"You notice rhar she is inrently lo~kmg aroun
rhe kirchen area, a work sitc, foc us111g h:rc :~nd
rhen there, raking a mental note of_ whar is g~mg
o n Yott ask yourself, w/Jat is she domg here~ 111c11
yo;, labcl il watching. \Xfarching what? Kttchcn
wo rk" (pp. 63-64). .
This cxample conrinues in the same ve 111. lt ~e-
lies on careful observation of the overr beha~tor
rivc obse rver's viewpoint. lt does nor rake m:~
of rhe wam,111 in che restaurant, from rh~ ob¡ec-
counr what thar rcaliry is like from rhe pdctsp~c-
ac-
rive of thc restaurant worker. ~o r o r 1~
caregories devclop from comparat1ve srudy o
f other restaurants.
6. Anselm Srrauss cririqued rhc dr_aft of my
rounded rheory in wh1ch I rhen
199 5 paper on g ·r . 1
claimed rhat groundcd rhcory is nor ven icanona
(Charmaz , 1995c). He said that I was wron~.
7 Far examp le w hen wriring abour mu-
.
rua 1 prerense, " Glas;r
• ancl Scrauss (1965) srare:.
"This particular awarencss conrext ca nn or cx1st,
of course, unless both the parient and staff ª-~e
aware thar he is dying. Thercfore ali rhe ~rrucrut ,1!
~onditions which conrriburc to the cx1~rence ~f
o en awareness (and which are.absenr 111 clost:d
a~d suspicion awareness) contnbut~ _also to rhe
exisrence of mutual prcrense. In ~,d~ m on, ar leas~
one interactant must indicare a desire to pretend
thaÍ: rhe patient is nor d~ing and rl~e ot~!e r m~st
a recto rhe pretense, act111g accordmgly . {p. 6 ).
c"orbin and Strauss (1987) s iso ª'!.ºP'a _d1srance~
voice in the fol\owing passage: The impa~t o
body failure and co nsequcnr pcrfon_nance failur~
can be measured by rhe impact tha~ ir has on eac 1
di me nsion of rh e BBC (biograplucal. body con-
ce tions). Since cach dimensim~ {b.1ogra~ h1cal
ri!e, body, self co nceprions) cx1sts tn 3 nghtly
bound relarionship wirh rhe other, rhe canse-

530 ◊ STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY
quences of body fai lurc with regard to o ne as -
peer are furrher felt wirh the orher two. Ir is the
comblned impact of the chree aspects of che BBC
rhar profoundly affccts biographical continuity
and meaning" (p. 260) . Severa! of Corbin and
Srrauss's works on chronic illness, such as Un-
endi11g \Vork a11d Care (1988), read as if much
less disranccd rhan orherworks. l\vo factors may
contribute to che differen ce : Strauss's experi-
ence wirh chronic illness and Corbin 's direct in-
volvemenr in data gathering.
8. Stern (1 994a) agrees. She sees recent de-
velopments in grounded theory rnethods as
eroding che mechad and che powcr of che subse-
quent analyses.
9. For a more developed discussion of
how ro do consrrucrivist grounded rheory, see
Charmaz (1995c).
1O. Grounded theorisrs work up and out
from data. Not every qualitative researchcr does.
Rena Lederman (1990) observes that sorne an-
rhropologiscs ,.woid using their field notes when
developing thei r finishcd work. Shc wrices of
h ow anthropological field notes fulfill different
funct ions far the researcher wh il e he or she is
away in rhe ficld and lacer, when che researcher is
home. Ethnographers write as both close ro and
disrant from cheir respondents while in che field,
bur their loyalcies shift ro the profcssional com-
munity when rhey reach home. Then the same
field notes chat provided a concrete grasp of real-
Ít}' in rhc field imparta sense of doubt. Lederman
argues rhar concepcions of field notes as fixed
and srable data crumble ar rhis point. lnscead,
field notes can assume mulciple mcanings and are
open ro reinterpretation and contradiccion.
11. Strauss's remarkably faci lc mind cou ld
not stop making comparisons. He taught stu-
dents ro compare unlikely cacegories of peoplc,
actions, serrings, and organizations to tease out
the properties of a category (see also Star, 1997).
12. The original memo was considerably
longe r and concained snippers of data through-
out. The more clistanced tone of che 1983 memo
reflects my earlier social ization in wr icing and in
groundcd cheory. Ir also rcflects ccnsions be-
rween rhe relativism I adopced during my first
year of graduare school and thc objecrivism in
my grounded rheory training (see Charmaz,
1983). By 1990, when Good Days, Bad Days
wenc ro press, ch is material re ads as less dis-
canccd and more consrructivisc although it is es-
sentially che same as the 1983 memo. In the in -
rer im, I carne closer to integraring my realisc in-
rencion ro smdy empirical problems with the rel-
ativism inherent in constructivism (see Charmaz,
1990). In addirion, I worked on making abstraer
ideas accessible.
13. I use che cerm sub¡ects not beca use l view
them as subordinare, or subjected to inquiry, but
because rhe rerm rescnrc/J pnrticipa11ts is so cum-
bersome.
14. For guidelincs in choosing a data analy-
sis software program, see \Veitzman and Mi les
(1995).
15. However, recenr listse rv discussions of
qualicative compurer analys is indicare thar sorne
users still view thc programs as roo mechanical.
For example, Akse l Hn Tjorca (JVtedSoc Liscserv,
November 17, 1998) found NUD • 1ST ro be use-
ful in sorting d ata initially bur feared that hierar-
chical categorics embedded in the progr am
mighc work againsc ch e relaciona l narure of thc
data.
16. To gain a sense of rh e whole 0 11 which we
are working, we ma y need ro havc enrire docu-
menrs, if not the comp lete data ser, befare us.
Yvonna Lincoln (personal communicarion, Au-
gusr 21, 1998) tells me that she works wich ali
her data spread out on a large rabie. That way,
she can gain a se nse of the whole and, sim ulta-
neously, plan how to assemble the parrs.
17. There are tcns ions bccween tbe con-
srruccivisr assumprions of va ried and problem•
atic mcaning and objecrivisr assumprions of che
world as real, obdurate, externa!, and predict-
able. A construccivisc grounded cheory acknowl-
edges realicies of enduring worlds and tries ro
show how rhey are socia ll y creared chrough ac-
tion1 inrcncion, and roucine.
18. Far a decailcd report o n how diverse
scholars have responded ro such concerns, see
the 1992 debate in the]o11nza/ o(Co11te111porar)'
Ethnography about rea lity and inrerprera rion in
\Villiam Foote \Vhyrc's Street Comer Sociely
(Adler et al. , 1992). Maria ne Boelen (1992) chal-
lcnges rhe veracity of Whyte's stucly and, by do-
ing so, chall enges reifications mad c of ir (but not
che notion of reifying echnography icsclf). The
responses ro her challenge, however, range from
accepting objectivisr premises ro quesrioning
rhem (scc Denzin, 1992b; Orlandella, 1992;
Richardson, 1992; Vidich, 1992; Whyte, 1992).
Vidich (1992) poinrs out rhat Boelen ;issumcs
only onc possibl e view of realiry and char \'v'hyte
missed it. Denzin ( 1992b) ami Ri chardson
Gro1mded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods
(1992), howe ver, quc stion che objcccivisc pre-
mises that both Whyte and Boelen share.
19. To my know ledgc, rhose who ra1 se th~sc
criticisms have not resolved chern through u~mg
grounded cheory. Their . r_ecomrnendanon~
range from abandoning em~1r1cal study to mov
ing coward narracive analys1s. To th~ ex~enc chat
narrative analysis focuscs on or drifts meo e~:-
phasizing che typc and strucrure of rhe n~rranvc
r ather rhan respondencs' meanings, I fa1I rosee
ir as a better alrernarive rhan ?rounded rheoq:
studies. Nor do l see reco rdmg respon~ents
sratemencs in one- lin c sranzas ~s off~nng a
berrer framc for meaning than 1nrerv1ew e:<-
cerpts. .
20. An aurhor may cal\ attenrion toan issue,
frame a manuscript on ir, but assu_n~e chat ~h e
one issu e constirutes che encire empm~al reahcy.
Far example, befare rny analyses of illn css fo-
cused squarely on che self, l arguec~ chat loss of
self is a fundamental form of suffcnng. Readers
reified my argument and concludcd cha~ I erro-
neously saw loss of sclf as che only expencnce of
illness (see Robinso n, 1990).
21. G laser and Strauss (1967; Glaser, 1992;
Scrauss, 1987) have long sraced thac rhe c~re is-
sues beco me apparent in rhe rescarch scmn~, ~s
if any trai ned observer will discover t!1 en1. S1m_1-
larly, chey wrice as if neither srandp~mt nor sta-
tus affeccs what observers see and fu~~- .
22. For a good outline of posmv1st pre-
mises, see Denzin (1989).
73 Strauss and Corbin (1994) call for
:n·ded rheory advocares to abandon the
~~:sr far rruth. However, ~~ey. also m.ake a
scrong case for aiming for venf1~at1on, wh1ch as-
sumes a quest for rruth. In che1_r 1994 ~hapcer,.
they also affirm rwo peines I r~1sed ea~her, that
the researcher's analysis is an mteracnve prod-
uct of che views of che research.er and ~he data,
and rhar che early works ;ue wntten ~s ¡f rhe re-
searcher discovers an externa! arder 111 che data
(see Charmaz, 19 83 , 1990).
24. Strauss and Corbin (1998) srate thar. ex-
acc replication is not possible, bur suff1c1ent
reproducibiliry is. They propase that ?ther re-
searchers with similar rhco rerica l prc1111ses~ ~ata
gachering procedures, ~nd research _co ndmons
develop similar theoret1cal explanat1ons.
25 . By making our early drafts availabl e
chos e subjecrs who wish to read them, wc make_
ir possible far ch em ro challenge and correct ou1
views.
◊ 5 31
26. Ir is importanr to di sti nguish when rhe ac-
tor has agency and when he or she is acred upon .
A hazard of any inducrive mcrhod su~h as th e
consrructivist approach is overe111ph:1s1s on cht:
'individual. The construcrivisr approach ~eads to a
sryle that emphasizes rhe active, refle~nv c ac_t~r.
Yet larger social forces also act upan th1s acrm. ~o
che researchcr needs to learn how rhes~ social
forces affect che actor and whac, if anyrh111g, rh e
actor chinks, feels, and <loes abour them.
27. See, in contrasr, Catherinc Ricssman
(1990a) far prcse ncing srorics in rhc prcsen t.
o Re(erences
Adler, P. A., Adler, P., & Johnson , J. M. (1992).
New questions about o ld issues. joumal o(
Co11temportll')' Etlmography, 21, 3· 1?· . .
Atkinson, P. A. (1990) . Thc etlmograp/uc ,,,,ag1-
11ation: Textual constructions o{ rea l1ty. Lon-
don: Routlcdge. . .
Baszanger, l. (l 998). [11ve11ti11g. ~ain 11ied1~·111e:
Fro111 t/Je laboratory to the c/111rc. New Bi un s·
wick, NJ: Rurgers Uni ve rsity Press. . I
Bcst, J. (1995) . Losr in th e ozon_e ª.gam:. T _1~
osrmodernist fad and inrernct1on1sr fo1?l~s.
fn N . K. Denzin (Ed.), Studies i11 sy111bo/,c 111 -
tcraction: A rcsearch a11111wl (Vol. t 7, PP·
125-134). Grecnwich, CT: JAI. .
Biernacki, P. L. (1986). Pathways (rom hcro111 ad-
diction: Rccovcry without trei1t111e11 t. Ph1la-
delphia: Temple Univers iry. Pc~ss. . . .
Blumer, H. (1969). 5),mbol1c wteractio2~t;~~-
Perspectiue m1d methad. Englewood ,
Nj: Pre ntice Hall. .· .
Boelen, \V. A.M. (1992). Streel comer soc.1ct.y.
Cornervill e revisiced. joumal o( Co nteJJifJO·
rat)' Etlmogra¡,1,y, 21, 11-5 l. . .
d G C (1990). Fieldnotes: Research 111 past
Bon , · · · k (Ed) Fie/d11otes:
s~
accurrences. In R. 1111e · 1 ..,
Th e maki1tgs o( m1tlnopology (pp. 270 -289 l-
Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni vcrsi ry Pr ~ss ..
B M. R . (1986). Social consrructton1sm ~nd
urrte devclopmenc of medica! soc iology. Soc1ol-
ogy o( Health a11d I/111 ess, 8, 13 7 -169.
w Charmaz, K. (1983). The gro~111ded the.ory
mcrhod: An ex plication and 1ntcrprerac1?11.
In R. M. Emerso n (Ed.), Co11tc111porary (,cid
research (pp. 109-126) . Bosro n: Ltttle, Brown.
 532 ◊ STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY
Channaz, K. (1990). Di scovcring chronic ill-
ncss: Us 1~ ~ grounded theory. Social Science
,md Med1w1c, 30, 11 61-1172.
Charmaz, K. (1991). Good days, bad days: The
sc!f m cln·omc rllness and time. New Bruns-
w1ck , NJ: Rutgers Universiry Press.
Charmaz, K. 0995a). Between positivism and
posrmodern1s111: lmpli cations for method
In N K D . s.
. . . _- enzm (Ed.}, Studies in symbolic
mtcmct101t: A research mmual (Vol. 17
PP· 43-72). Greenwich, CT: JAI. ' Dawson, L. L., & Prus, R. C. (1995). Post-
Charmaz'. K. (1995b). Body, id ~nti ty, and sel/:
Adaprmg ro impairmenr. Sociological Qum·-
tcrly, 36, 657-680.
Charm az, K. (1995c). Grou nded rheory. lnj. A.
Sm1rh, R. Harn:, & L. Van La.ngenhove
(Eds.), Rethi11ki11g methods i11 psychology
(pp. 27-49). London: Sage.
Charmaz, K.,_ & /vlitche ll , R. G. (1996). The
myth of sile nt authors hi p: Se(f sub t
a d . I , s anee,
• n sry 1~ m er rnograp hic writing . Symbolic
l11teract1011, 19, 285-302.
CIien1tz,
· G. Flahcrty (Eds.), illvestigati11g s11bjcctivity:
W'.. C., & Swa nson, J. M. (Eds.).
(198~)- ~,om pract,ce _to grormded theory:
Qual,ta lwc research III n11rsi11g. Read'
MA: Addison-Wesley. mg,
Clarke, A. E. (1998). Discipli11i11g ,-eprod11ctio11:
Moden11ly, Amcrica11 life sciences, and the
prob.lems ofscx. Berkeley: Universiry of Cali-
fo rnia Press.
Clou_gh, P. T. ( 1992). Tl,e e11d(s) of etlmography:
~1om rcnl,sm to social cri1;cis111. Newbury
I ark, CA: Sagc.
Coffc~,, _A., Ho lb rook, B., & Atki nson P.
( I._96). Qualitative dara anal ysis: Tech~ol:
og1es and represcnrations. Sociolog;ca/ Re-
searcl, O11li11e, 1(1). Available Internet: hrrp·//
www.socrcson line.org.uk/socresonline/ 1/Ú4
.htm l
Co nnell y, F. M. , & Clandinin, D. J. (1 990).
Srones of expcnence and narrative inquiry
Ed11catio11al Rcscarcher, 19(5), 2- 14. . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Conrad, . P. . (1990). Qualitative research on
chro111c ,llncss: A commenrary on method
and conc_c~tua l clevelopmcnr. Social Science
and Mcd,cmc, 30, 1257-1263.
Corb,_n, J., & Srrauss, _A. L. (1987). Accompani-
mcnrs. of chro111c illness: Changcs in bodv
self, b1ography, and biographica l rime. In j'
A. Rorh & P. Con rad (Eds.), Rcsearc/1 i11 th~
soc10logy of hcalth care: 11,e experieucc and
managcment of chronic ;//11ess {Vo l 6
249-282). Greenwich , CT: JAI. · ' pp.
Corbin, J., & Srrauss, A. L. (1988) . U11e11di11
U)º'k and carc: ~fa11agi11g chronic illness a~
home. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cressey, D. R. (1953). Othcr people's lll011e . A
study m t/Je social psychology of embe:;,/c-
ment. Glencoe, JL : Free Press.
Cre_swell, J. W. _(1997). Qualitativc i11q11i')• a11d
,~search des1g11: Cl1oosiltg amo11g (ivc tradi-
t1011s. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sagc.
mo?e~rnsm and linguistic realirv versus syrn-
~ol1 c mte~~cri~nism and_ob.dur~tc realiry. In
. ~- Denz111 (Ed.), Studres m symbolic inter-
act~on: A researcl, mmual (Vol. 17, pp
10)-124). Gree nwich, CT: JAI.
Den~in'. N. K. (1989). luterpretiZJe i11terac-
t10111sm. Newbury Park, CA : Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (1991). lmages of postmodem so-
c,ety. Newbury Park, CA : Sagc.
Denzin, N. K. (1992a). Thc many faces of emo-
t1onal1ty: Rea_d ing Perso11a. In C. Ellis & M.
Researcl, o11 lwcd cxperience (pp. 1 7-30)
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (19926). Whose Co rnerville is it
anyway? foun1al of Co utemporary Etlm -
rapl,y, 21, 120-132. og
Denzi n, N . K. (1994). The art and polirics of in-
terpreranon. ln N. K. Dcnzin & Y. S. Lincoln
~Eds.), Ha 11 dbook of q11alitative rcscarcl, (pp.
)00-515). Thousa nd Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzm, N. K. (1996). Proph eric pragmarism
and rbe ~osrmodern : A commenton M=iines.
Sy111bol,c /11 teractio11, 19, 341-35 6
Denzin, N . . K.' (1998). Revicw of Pr~gmatism
aud fen~zmsm: Rewcaving the social fabric .
Symbol,c lntcractio11, 21, 221-223.
Denzin, N. K., & Linco ln, Y. S. (1994). Preface.
In N . K. Denzm & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.)
Handbook ofqualitative resea rch (pp. ix- xii) '.
Fielding, N. G., & Lee, R.M. (1 998). Co111p11ter
mzalysrs mzd qualitative researcl,. Londo .
Sage. n.
Flick, U. (1998). An i11troduction to qualitative
researcb : Theory, 111ethod and applicatio11s.
London: Sage.
Gato;•• S. (l 982 ). Body _a nd sel/: A dialecric. In
,.· ,cst~nbaum_{Ecl.), fhc lmmm,ity o( the ill.
Knoxv11le: Urnvcrsiry of Tennessee Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The i11tcrprctatio11 of wl-
tures: Sclected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Grormded Theory: Obiectivist a11d Co11strr1ctivist Met/,ods ◊ 53 3
Lofland, J., & Lofland , L. H. (1995). A11alyú11¡;
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Tl,corctical se11sitivity.
social sctti11gs (3rd ecl.). Bclmont, CA: Wads-
Mili Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
worrh.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics o( gro1111ded thcory
Lofland, L. H. (1993). Fighring rhc goocl fisht-
a11alysis: Emerge11ce vs. forci11g. Mili Valley,
again. Coutemporary Sociolog)', 1 2y 1- 3.
CA: Sociology Press.
Lonkila, M. (1995). Grouncled rheorv as an
Glaser, B. G. (Ed.) . (1994). More gro1111ded tbc-
ory: A reader. Mili Valle y, CA: Sociology emerging p:uadig111 far compnter:assisred
qualirative data analysis. In U. Kd le (Ecl.),
Prcss.
Computer-aided qu,1/itativc dala muzfysis:
Glaser, B. G. (1998 , February 19). [Contribu-
Tl,eor)', 111etbods ami ¡1racticc (pp. 41-51 ).
tion t0 workshop]. In B. G. Glaser & 1\ Stern
(Leaders), Advmzced grouuded theory, London: Sage.
Ma ines, D. R. (1993). Narrarive's mo menr and
workshop II. \X'orkshop conducted ar rhe
sociology's phcnomena : Toward a narrarivc
Qualirarive Hea lrh Research Conferencc,
socio logy. Sociological Q11artcrl)', 34, 17-38.
Vancouver.
· Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). A1varc- Ma rcus, G. E., & Fischer, M. M. J. (1986). A11-
thropologyas c1t ftural critfrJue: A11 experi111 c11-
11css o( dyi11g. Chicago: Aldine.
tal 1110111c11t i11 the /111111011 scie11ces. Chicago:
Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Tl, e dis-
covery o( gro 1mded theory : Strategics for University of Chicago Press.
Martín, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grou nded
qualitative researcl, . Chicago : Aldine.
rheoq1 and orga.nizar ional research. ]011rnal
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968). Time for
o( Applied Behavioral Scie11ce, 22, 141-15 7.
dyi11g. Ch icago : Aldine.
Cuba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Com- McG ui re, M. B., & Kantor, D. J. (1987). Belief
systems and ill ncss expcriencc . In J. A. Rorh
peting paradigms in qualitarive research. ln
· & P. Conrad (Eds.)i Rescarch i11 the sociology
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Ha11d-
o{ healt./1 care: The experfrnce and 11w11r1gc-
book of q11alitativc researc/1 (pp. 105-1 l 7).
went o( chro11ic illu css (Vol. 6, pp . 241-24S).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grecnw ich, CT: JAI.
Johnson, J. L. (1991). Lcarning ro live again:
Mead, G. H. (1934) . Mi11d, sel{. ,11ffl society:
Thc process of adjustmenr. In J. JvL Morse
From tl1c stm:dpoint. of a social /,c/ ](lviorist (C.
& J. L. Johnson (Eds.), Tbe il/11css experi-
W. Mo rris, Ed.). Chicago: Universiry of Chi-
encc: Di111c11sio11s of sll{(cri11g (pp. I 3-88).
Newbury Park, CA: Sagc. cago Press.
Kleinman, A. (1988). Tbe il/11ess 11arrativcs: Me lia, K. M. (1996). Rediscovering Glaser.
Suf(eri11g, healing and thc lnmzmz co11ditio11. Qrta litativc Hcalt/J Research, 6. 368-37S.
New York: Basic Books. Mishler, E. G. (1981). The social consrructio n of
Kleinman, S. (1993). The textual turn. Co11- illness. In E. G. Mishler, L. R. Amara
tc111porary Sociology, 22, 11-13 . Si ngham, S. T. Hauser, R. Liem, S. D. Osher-
son, & N. Wax ler (Eds.), Social co11texts o(
Krieger, S. ('I 991 ). Social scirncc a11d tbe sel/:
health, il/11css a11d patic11I carc (pp. 141-1 68).
Personal essays on mz arl form. New Bruns-
New York: Cambridge University Prcss.
wick, NJ: Rurgers Uni vcrsicy Prcss.
Kuhn, T. S. ( 1970) . The stmctllrc of scientific Mitchel l, R. G., Jr., & Charmaz, K. (1996).
Telling tales, wr iting srories: Postmodcmist
revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago : Un ivers ity
visions and realist imagcs in crh nogr~tphic
of Chicago Press.
writing. Joumaf o( Contelllpomry Etlmogra-
Lederman, R. (1990). Pretexts for ethnogra-
pl,y, 25, 144-166.
phy: O n read ing fieldnotes. In R. Sanjek
(Ed.), Field11otes: The 111aki11gs o( a11tbro¡10 /- Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of satu ra-
ogy (pp. 71-9 1). lth aca, NY: Cornell Univer- rion. Qualitative [-Jealth Rescarc/1, 5, '147-
sity Press. l 49.
Lindesmith, A. R. (1947). Opiatc addictio11. Orlande lla, A. R. (1992). Boelen may know Hol-
land, Boelen ma y know Bar-tini, bur Boden
Bloomington, IN : Principia.
"docsn't know didd lc abour rhe Norrh End !"
Lofland,J. , & Lofland, L. H. (1984).A11alyzi11g
]011r11al of Co11tc111¡,orary Etlmograpl,y, 21,
social setti11gs (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
69-79.
Wadswort h.
.....
534 ◊ STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY
Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. \Y/. (1925). The city.
Chicago: Universiry of Chicago Press.
Prus, R. C. (1987). Gcneric social processes:
Maximizing conceptual developmenr in erh-
nographic rese;1rch. Journal of Contempo-
rary Etlmograpl,y, 16, 250-293.
Prus, R. C. (1996). Symbolic i11teractio11 a11d
etlmogra/Jhic research: lutersubiectivity and
the stztdy of lnmza11 lived experience. Albany:
Sta te University of New York Press.
Reif, L. (1975) . Ulcerarive colitis: Strategics for
managing lifc. In A. L. Strauss (Ed.), C/,ro11ic
i/111ess a11d tl,c quality o( /i(e (pp. 81-89). St.
Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby.
Rcnnie, D. L., Phillips,J. R., & Quartaro, G. K.
(1988). Grounded thcoty: A prornising ap-
proach to conceprualization in psychology?
Ca11adia11 Psycholog)', 29, 139-150.
Richard,, T. J., & Richards, L. (1994). Using
computers in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Ha11dbook o(
qua/itativc researc/, (pp. 445-462). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sagc.
Richardson, L. (1990). \'ilriting strategies:
Reaching diverse audiences. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Richardson, L. (1992). Trash on the comer:
Ethics and rechnography. Journal of Co11-
te111porary Et.lmography, 21, 103-119.
Richardson, L. (1993). lnterrupting discucsive
spaces: Consequences far the sociological
self. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Studies in sym-
bolic i11teractio11: A research a111111a/ (Vol. 14,
pp. 77-84). Grcenwich, CT: JAI.
Richardson, L. (1994) . Writing: A method of in-
quiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook o( qualitatiue research (pp. 516-
529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Riessman, C. K. (1990a). Divorce talk: \\'lome11
and me1J make sense of personal relation-
ships. New Bmnswick, NJ: Rutgers Univer-
sity Press.
Riessrnan, C. K. (1990b). Strategic us es of nar-
rati ve in rhe presentation of self and illness:
A research no te. Social Science mzd Medicine,
30, 1195-1200.
Robinson, I. (1990). Personal narratives, social
careers and medica! courses: Analysing lifc
rrajcctories in autobiographie s of people
with multiplc sclerosis. Social Scie11ce a11d
Medicine, 30, 1173-1186.
Robrecht, L. C. (1995). Grounded rhcory:
Evo lving mcrhods. Qualitativc I-lealth Re-
search, 5, 169-177.
Sanders, C. R. (1995). Stranger than fiction: ln-
sights and pitfalls in p ost-mod e rn ethnogra-
phy. In N . K. Denzin (Ed.), Studics in
symbolic i11teractio11: A research amrnal (Vol.
17, pp. 89-104). Greenwich, CT: JA!.
Schatzrnan, L. (1991). Dimensional analysis:
Notes on an alternative approach ro the
grounding of theory in qualitativ e rcsearch.
In D. R. Maines (Ed.), Social 01ga11izatio11
and social proccsses: Essays in honor of
A11se/111 Stra11ss (pp. 303-314) . NewYork: Al-
dine de Cruyter.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Consrructivist,
interpretivisr approaches ro human inquiry.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook o( q11alitative rescarch (pp. 118-
137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seidel, J. (1991). Merhod and madness in rhe
application of compurer technology to quali-
tative data analysis. In N. G. Fielding & R.
M. Lee (Eds.), Using computcrs iu qualitative
research (pp. 107-116). London: Sage.
Shaw, C. (1930). The iack-rollcr: A de/i11q11e11t
boy's own story. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Snow, D., & Morrill, C. (1993). Reflections
upan anthropology's crisis of faith. Contem-
porar)' Sociology, 22, 8-1 'J.
Star, S. L. (1989). Regions o( the 111i11d: Brai11 re-
search and the quest far scientific certainty.
Stanford, CA: Sranford Universiry Press.
Srar, S. L. (1997). Anorher remcmbrance:
Anselm Strauss: An appreciarion. ln N. K.
D e nzin (Ed.), Studies in symbolic i11terac-
tio11, A research a111111al (Vol. 21, pp. 39-48).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Stcrn, P. N. (1994a). Eroding grou nded theory.
In J. M. Jv1orse (Ed.), Crir.ical issues i11 quali-
tative rcsearc/J methods (pp. 2 12-2 23).
Thousa nd Oaks, CA: Sagc.
Srern, P. N. (1994b). Thc groundcd theory
method : Its uses and processes. In B. G.
Glaser (Ed.), More gro1111dcd theory, A readcr
(pp. 116-126). Mili Valley, CA: Sociology
Press.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitatiuc a11al)'sis far
social scie11tists. New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Gro1111ded Theory: Objectivist a11d Co11str11ctivist Methods ◊ 53 5
Turner, B. A. (1981). Somc practica! aspects _of
Srrauss, A. L. (1995). Notes on the narurc and qualitativ e data anal ysis: Onc way ~f org:u1_1z.-
development of general thcones. Q1wl1ta~ ing che cognitive processes :issoc1ated w1_rh
tive /11q11iry, 1, 7-18 . . ( che gener:uion of grollnded theory. Q11,1hty
5': Corbin J. (1990). Bas,cs o
Strauss, A· L., e ' d ¡. ro ami Q11a11tily, 15, 225-247.
l'tatiue research: Grormde t 1eory P - 1' !er, S. A. (1986). Post- modern erhno g{ap hy,
~~J,:res and teclmiques. Newbury Park, CA: y From document of the occult ro occulr ~ocu-
menr. In J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus _(Eds.) ,
Sage.A L & Corbin J. (1994). Grounded \Vriti11g cultttrc: Thc poctics miel /JO l1t1cs ~(
¡ N K
Strauss, • ·• ' •
theory rnethodology: An overv1ew. 11 k r etlmogmphy (pp. ]22-140). Berkel<y: U111-
Dcnzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Ha11dboo o versity of California Prcss. .
qualitative research (pp. 273 · 285 )- Thou- Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales o( the .f,eld: 011
sa nd Oaks, CA: Sage. . ( writi11g ethnograµh y. Chicago: Un1vcrs1ry of
& Corbin J. (1998). BaSI CS o
Srrauss, A• L -, ' . d Chicago Press. .
qwilitative research: Teclmzques a11 . pr~ccd. y-¿· 1 A. J. (1992). Boston's Norrh End: An
dures far develophig grotmded theo,y (_n ~~1~~rican epic .jounzal o(Con te111 {1Qra l')' Et/J-
1
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage . R
Swanson, J. M. , & Chenitz, C. \Y/. (1993). c- nography, 21, 80-102.
. . v•lucd self· The process of adapta- Weinman, E. A., & Miles, M. B. (['J95). Co111;
gammg a " · , Q ¡-. pu ter programs forqualitative data mwlyszs: .\
tion to livin g with genital hc;pes. tW z
so~ware s01trcebook. Thou sand Oaks, CA:
tative Health Research, 3, 270--97. .
Tcsch, R. (1991 ). Software for quahtat1ve re- Sage. . ,.
Wh 'te, W. F. (1992). ln defcnse of Strc_cl cor11c1
searchers: Analysis needs and program ca-
locicty. jourual of C011te111porary Etlmogm-
pacitics. In N. G. Fielding & R_- M. Lee
(Eds.), Usi11g co111p11ters i11 q11al1tatwe ,e- phy, 21, 52-68. .
\Viener, C. (1975). The bur<len of rhel.in~:itoid
, ¡ ( 16-37). London: Sagc.
scarci PP· D 5 (!928) Thc arthritis. ln A. L. Strnuss (Ed.), Chro111c zll11c_ss
Thornas, W. l., & Thornas, . . .d A
child in A1i1erica. New York: Alfre . a11d t/, e q11ality o( li(e (pp. 7 1- 80). Sr. Lm\lS,
MO: C. V. Mosby. . .
Knopf. . . 8 19 70)
Thornas, W. l., & Zna111eck1, F. (191 -, .· - . Wilson, H. S., & Hurchinson, S. A. (1991): ~-,-
The Polish peasaut in Europe a11dAmc1 ica (5 an ubtion of qualirnciv c m~t:hods: H e1ck~~
vo ls) Boston: Richard G. Badger. ge;ian hermeneuci cs ;md ground~cl ..,r~1t'O t )·
1. . F M (1963). Th e ga11g: A study o( Q11alitative Hcalt/1 Rcsearch, /, 263-- 16.
Th ras 1er, · · CI • . Univer-
1 313 ga11gs i11 Chicago. 11cago . H (1929). T/,e Cold Coas/ "'"' ¡/,e
Zorbaug 11, · . p ,
siry of Chicago Press. (Original work pub- s/um. Chicago: Univcrsity of C 111G1go n:ss.
lished 1927)